Putin Hints Russia Will Clip Israel’s Wings Over Syrian Skies

[happyslug]

34. Sometimes "Obsolete" Technology comes back

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 01:22 PM - Edit history (3)

In Iraq and Afghanistan, US Troops used 1950 era Recoilless Rifles and 1960 era M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon) Rockets for they found them to be better then their high tech successors in a fight with an enemy with NO modern Armor. The main reason was the weapons were LIGHTER then the weapons that succeeded them AND more adaptable, for example the 106mm Recoilless rifle adopted in the 1950s could take on any tank, knock a hole in a wall AND fire anti-personal rounds, its successor the TOW missile was superior in knocking out tanks, but inferior in all of the any things the 106 mm Recoilless rifle could do (and the rounds for the recoilless rifle were MUCH cheaper, plus the TOW can NOT be used in severe cold, as in Alaska thus US Troops in Alaska always used the 106mm rifle during winter training).

When Napoleon entered Eastern Europe, he notices the Poles and Russians were still using lances, a weapon Western Europeans had abandoned in favor or Pistols 150 years before. Napoleon notice the Eastern Europeans used them as Second Line Cavalry, for with the Lance the trooper had a "long range" weapon in addition to his saber, but was NOT shooting bullets in the back of the cavalrymen in front of him. Lances survived till WWII, through boot to boot cavalry charges were obsolete due to increase infantry fire power by the 1850s. The Lance was liked for it could be used immediately if you ran into the enemy, If you had time to dismount Cavalry after about 1850 dismounted and fought as infantry (Contrary to how Cavalry is shown in the movies of the West, US Cavalry rarely fought on horseback, the horse was just a means to get to the battlefield)

Side note: Western European cavalry dropped the lance in the late 1600s at the same time the Infantry dropped the Pike. For the infantry, the switch from the pike to the bayonet was NOT that much of a change, the Bayonet Musket was shorter and heavier then a Pike, but could fire bullets. Tactical use of the Pike and the Bayonet was about the same. AS to the Lance, it was "replaced" by the pistol, but the pistol was a one shot weapon that could NOT be loaded during the charge. In any Melee, the Saber was preferred but every so often you needed something longer then a saber. By the late 1600s firearms were seen as the latest thing in combat and anything else was obsolete, even if the other weapons still were effective. It became the style to use firearms, thus every other weapon, except swords, were viewed as out of style and obsolete.

Thus the Lance was viewed as obsolete even through it was being successfully used in Europe and elsewhere and thus became "Obsolete" more to the demands of style then actual combat ineffectiveness till Napoleon brought the Lance back in the 1800s (The Lance then stayed an arm of the Cavalry till WWII, more due to style then effectiveness. After the introduction of the percussion cap and then repeating firearms, horse mounted cavalry charges were viewed as suicidal, thus the Lance was obsolete again by 1860 but used till 1942).

Second Side note: In the Great Cavalry fight between Custer and JEB Stuart during the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, both sides fought as infantry. In the MOVIES it is often shown as a horse mounted cavalry charge, but in real life it was fought on foot, the horse were used to transport the trooper to the battlefield.

Thus the Lance survived as a Cavalry weapon till horse mounted units were finally abandoned in the 1950s (more do to massive introduction of trucks to move troops around then anything else, through 10 Helicopters were used to replaced the last 100 Mules in the US Army in 1957). Lances were used in WWII by the French in Syria. The last big use of the Lance was WWI by horse mounted messengers, they were under orders to avoid a fight, but to get the message through, thus run if possible, if come upon enemy troops if close so the Lance, if far, go a different way.

Third Side note: During the Afghan war of the 1980s, the US ended up air lifting mules to Pakistan so that the Afghan Guerrillas could be supplied through the various passes of the mountains of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Given Soviet Air Superiority in that conflict, the use of planes and helicopters were out of the question, but mules could go through those passes thus the US shipped in hundred of mules to carry stinger AA missiles to the guerrillas to help offset the Soviet Air Superiority.

The bringing back of "obsolete" weapons is NOT reserved to western nations. THe Comanches are believed to have done the same thing. With the adoption of the horse, the Comanches became the powerhouse in the Southern Plains. As times went on, the Comanches started to wear heavier and heaver leather armor. This lead to the Comanches to drop using the bow, for the leather armor became so thick arrows could no longer penetrate the leather. Like the Knights of the Middle Ages, a Comanche warrior ended up going into combat with five horses. One to ride to the battlefield, one to ride in the actual battle, one to carry his leather armor, one for his "Page" to help him put his armor on, and one for his and the "pages" other gear (Which included additional Armor for the HORSE, for a rider with a dead horse was useless). The Weight of the rider and armor was to much for a horse to carry for any time period thus, the "War Horse" was NOT ridden to the battlefield, the Warrior rode a different horse, often a mare (and in this he duplicated what the Knights of Europe did in the Middle Ages, in the days of heavy armor).

Among the Comanches this Heavy Armored knight was the norm till the French in the mid 1700s started to trade muskets to the Tribes along the Mississippi and Red Rivers. The Muskets were powerful enough to penetrate the leather armor of the Comanches making the Leather armor knights easy targets. In response the Comanches drop the heavy armor, went for lighter and faster horses and returned to the bow, for its superior fire power over the muskets of the 1700s. Thus about 100 years after the Comanches abandoned the bow as obsolete, it came back as the premium weapon of the Comanches, and would remain so (along with the Lance), till the percussion cap was adopted in the US in 1842 (and even then the bow was competitive till the adoption of the repeating rifle in the 1880s).

Now, speaking of the bow, Britain did arm some of its Troops for D-Day with the Bow as a silent killing weapon. How much of this was war time propaganda and how much was true I can not say. I have NOT read any reports of the use of bow and arrows in the Normandy Campaign. On the other hand the Montagnards of the South Vietnam Highlands did use Cross bows during the Vietnam war. That we have documentation of. At the same time the comment was the Montagnards preferred the Weapons the Americans gave them to the cross bows in actual combat.

Just a comment because a weapon is obsolete today, does not mean it will be obsolete tomorrow. Like the bow, it may come back for what made it obsolete, itself became obsolete. It may come back for, like the case of the lance, it was "Obsolete" due to style (Firearms were all the rage in the 1600s, by the early 1800s everyone had them and thus old hat by 1800, permitting the advantages of the lance to over come the style of using a firearm).

Fourth Side Note: Please note some nations declared certain weapons obsolete (mostly bows and arrows) do to the fact bows are a weapon one must practice with on a regular basis, at least weekly but daily would be better AND the ruling elite no longer trusted their peasants.

Unlike, swords, Pikes, Lances, Shields, and other weapons, which can be kept in an armory under the control of the lord warlord, Bows to be effective have to be left with the peasants who are trained in their use. When the local warlords fear their local peasants, Archery is generally banned or otherwise discouraged (You see this in England in the 1500s for the old Archery fields tended to be on the land of the monks. When Henry VIII confiscated those lands, the peasants had no where to practice, given the same peasants supported the Monks, Henry VIII and later his sons and daughters all refused to replace the archery ranges and did all they could to discourage archery, while still hiring every archer they could till 1596, when Elizabeth I replaced her last Archers with more reliable musket men. Even then Archery survived in England till at least 1640 when a Battalion of Archers showed up for the first battle in the English Civil War, then sent home, most were Catholic and the Civil War was a War between Protestants and neither side trusted the Catholics. Cromwell did not BAN Archery, but he did nothing to encourage it, again the archers tend to be from the more Catholic Areas of England. You see the same thing in Shogun Japan, once the Shogun was in power archery was banned except for his supporters. i.e peasants could NOT train in archery but the Samurai could. In most of Europe archery was either banned or discouraged for the same reason, no one trusted the peasants. Thus by declaring Archery obsolete they could disarm their peasants. You see this even in Russia where Archery was effectively taught to Tarters till the late 1800s when repeating firearms finally made Archery obsolete in most combat situations.