WW1 Weapons
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
I think World War 1 is the most interesting war. Probably the most terrifyingly awesome as well.
>Trench Warfare
>Biplanes with Machinegunners on the back zipping over the battlefield
>No man's land
>Bolt action wood & steel
>Huge empires fighting to the death
>Insane battles across desert jungle and forest
>Chemical and biological weapons used without mercy
>Limited technologies made it far more terrifying for all sides
Who agrees? Disagrees?
Yeah, shit was badass.
>>30078613
I have a question.
I've just read of the Austrian offensive in Italy (1917-18), and Italian counter-attack that rebuked the Austrians.
Austrians invaded with roughly 60 divisions. Italians had some 54-57 divisions.
Roughly 800,000 men per side.
Austrians manage to line up some 6,000 cannons and shoot shells weighing up to 720 Kg.
Now, from this site:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-states-of-america
I am aware the US have roughly 1,300 pieces of towed artillery.
Maybe wars nowadays are more surgical and less pieces are needed to obtain the same effect. Artillery gunfire is more precise, rate of fire is higher, mobility is enhanced. You can do more with less, and US doctrine is getting surgical by the our (i.e. less pitched battles and more tacticool shit).
Consequently, I understand the Austrians might have fielded more towed artillery than the US in 2016.
But the idea still impresses me.
I mean, consider 6,000 cannons / howitzer. 1918 technology, but still... In Italy the 1918 front line (in the plains) was 120 km at most. In pic related there are roughly 20-30 km between each of the first 4 blue arrows (counting from East to West).
Imagine, I daresay, 6,000 pieces of artillery trying to glass a 40-60 km front line all at the same time.
>>30080709
>Got carried away and forgot the question
Question is: is the 6,000 figure even thinkable?
And I'm asking not just in terms of deployment, but also in terms of economic capability of a country (Austria+Hungary).
What were they thinking when they decided to produce all that shit?
>>30080714
That number was the culmination of years of retarded doctrine from generals who thought more of something was always better. Also they had:
>no reliable tactical bombers
>no CAS
>no helicopter gunships
>no reliable AFV fire support
>no infantry grenade launchers
When the enemy consists of thousands of riflemen and cannons in fortified positions, your own massed troops & artillery is still the best way to crack that.
>>30080788
>When the enemy consists of thousands of riflemen and cannons in fortified positions, your own massed troops & artillery is still the best way to crack that.
You're right.
>Naval support was unavailable in that area.
>The only kind of long distance support / indirect fire is field artillery
>No tanks, no air support
So basically what we spend now on technology such as airplanes and drones they did spend it on artillery because it was the cutting edge thing they could reach out for.
>>30078613
I just think its fascinating to see photographs of lancer cavalry troops riding past tanks, as planes fly overhead. Its this crazy mash of 19th century meets 20th century tech thing.
That and the fucking Zeppelins.
Also we got some really good early Hollywood flying films out of it. Wings is still one of my favorite war movies. Incredible flying stunt work, with real ww1 vet pilots doing the flying.
>>30080984
>I just think its fascinating to see photographs of lancer cavalry troops riding past tanks, as planes fly overhead. Its this crazy mash of 19th century meets 20th century tech thing.
Technology layers things one on top of the other. It doesn't wipe out old things:
>Nowadays riot police uses tactics and gear similar to Roman shield walls
>People revolt with sticks and stones
>Bows and arrows are still widely used in some parts of the world
>In the future, people will marvel at how things such as rifles could be used side by side with drones
Dude on the left of the picture is sitting next to a trench periscope and his rifle his fitted with the Mauser Gewehr 98 25 round Trench Magazine.
>>30081126
That's true. Everything is built upon previous works. Even the computer you're on was constructed in a factory with a previous generation of tools. That factory was built using even older tools, and so on. Go back far enough there's probably some homo erectus smacking some flint into the first hand axe. But whatever.
If something totally obsolete is used then it seems weird.
>riot phalanxes are still useful against a mob
>bricks will crack a skull the same then as now.
>bows are still the quietest way to kill a deer
>horse cavalry against MGs is poignant
>horse cavalry against AFVs is dumb
>horse cavalry in the shadow of a nuke test is fucking 40k tier
>>30081362
>>horse cavalry in the shadow of a nuke test is fucking 40k tier
Didn't China actually do that once?
>>30081370
I was referring to that. It's on YouTube.
Also, anyone else getting all French capchas?
>>30081370
>>30081362
hey, horses are still a viable rough terrain low supply transport option. Plus horses can make more horses.
>>30081416
And they're self-fueling in some environments.
And they don't make engine sounds.
making your family proud and being able to tell your grandkids war stories must of been a neat experience but videos like this make me happy I live in the most peaceful time in human history
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Pd527GN48
>>30078613
Are there any good books on WW1?
>>30081761
Sheesh, this video pops up in every WWI thread.
>>30081797
Storm of Steel.
It's the diary of a German soldier. I'm halfway though it. Pretty neat.
>>30081164
Is that a flaregun in the belt of the guy on the right?
>>30081416
Well, that's true. The shoeing, training and vet bills are still cheaper than an IFV.
They just can't take a hit or travel as far as an IFV, unfortunately. Modern cav rather emphasize this.
>ywn use a Thompson for its intended purpose
