As we've seen in the show, ponies have weapons. They have been shown with spears, cuties marks of bows, crossbows, etc.
And also, it has been shown that ponies also have 1800's-esque technology, such as trains, steam powered things and even some 1900's tech, such as microphones.
So what do you think, do ponies only have medieval weapons such as spears and bows, or do they have guns and howitzers?
>pony will never fire an anthrax shell into your house while you sleep
>>27802868
the bigger question is, do they really need it? I mean, who could possibly attack them? and since the show is about friendship, I doubt anything would invade them
>>27802906
Those fucking ziggers, of course
>>27802868
the problem with the ponies having weapons is that in the fights we have seen, none of them have died.
what the fuck is the point of having someone that could kill another person - pony - whatever - if no one fucking dies?
>tfw you will never fight side by side with Sunny burning and sacking cities, churches and castles with her
Makes me wonder how hand-to-hand combat works with hooves
>>27802906
Changelings son, remember them
>>27802934
remember that the official target of the show are little girls anon
>>27802941
Since Rainbow Dash can do Karate, and we've seen hooffights during the Changeling invasion. Also, Rarity's first instinct while in danger is to either buck the enemy or pull up hooves ready for a fist fight.
>>27802963
who the fuck cares?
you give a pony a spear or some other weapon and that is meant to KILL. NOT wound. Otherwise what's the damned point?
ponies don't need advanced weapons since they have magic
>>27802868
>writers caring about the show's lore
>>27803038
>Rarity's first instinct while in danger is to either buck the enemy or pull up hooves ready for a fist fight
If only we had an episode about how Rarity is secretely a martial art's master...
>>27803209
I could also imagine Rarity as a blacksmith: crafting elegant blades and spears, while perhaps using diamonds due to their strength.
>>27803496
I could imagine having such rough sex with Rarity that she would have to have her vagina surgically removed.
>>27803072
Deterrence.
>>27803072
>weapon and that is meant to KILL. NOT wound
>what is baton
>>27803713
Do you look at a spear and say "Oh yeah that's a non-lethal weapon,"?
>>27803072
The same reason only 1 character ever died in G.I.Joe. Even though there was a crapton of shooting.
>>27803727
I would if its end would be made of lithium.
>>27803743
Well then why the hell would the guards be carrying spears with heads that can't pierce shit?
>>27802925
>Around a Zigger
>Pull the Trigger
>>27803777
>something-something electricity conductor
Also it may be tradition.
There is this tank thing.
>>27803112
I doubt a common unicorn can stop a bullet.
>>27802868
Keep in mind that guns and howitzers are not particularly recent technologies; siege cannon have been in use for at least 5-600 years and even howitzers were fielded by the end of the 1600s and came into common use by the 1700s. So yes, I expect the ponies can and do field some kind of guns as weapons. There's no reason why they couldn't.
What I don't think the ponies field are standardized guns. Standardization of weapons is a relatively recent introduction, and when you look at pony production it's all done by individuals with talents and cutie marks - not organizations or industries that can produce numerous weapons capable of firing a given size of shot or shell. They probably field a small number of custom-produced guns, each of which have to be supplied with ammunition on request from an appropriately talented forge-pony. Powder, too, would likely flow from a small number of talented chemists/alchemists rather than industrial mills.
Additionally, keep in mind there are a number of factors that might make early artillery significantly less useful in combat: Pegasi can generate storms on demand, making keeping powder dry in the midst of battle a nightmare. Earth ponies can kick boulders significant distances (admittedly this one's an outlier, but that such outliers even do exist is telling) potentially replacing early artillery's fortification-cracking role. Unicorn shields could potentially deflect lighter shots, making the role of light field artillery questionable.
In short, yes ponies probably have guns. They probably don't regularly field forces widely armed with guns, though.
>You will never command a battalion of tanks piloted by ponies as you exterminate those filthy ziggers
>>27802868
You know why ponies don't use gunpowder?
Sparks are the first thing a unicorn learns to make. When your enemy can literally detonate your munitions with his mind, I get the feeling guns as weapons didn't do well in Equestria. Especially given the capacity for your troops to generate high-energy attacks without it, from unicorn kinetics through pegasus thunderbolts. Ponies are capable of creating cryokinetic weaponry, given the cloud-freezing ice arrows in the Equestrian games.
>>27803918
Depends on what the shield they produce is made out of. Forming a pure magical energy shield is what we have seen in the show and is only effective at blocking other magic energy. But forming a magic shield via condensing air molecules into a solid plane would allow a unicorn to deflect physical blows and projectiles.
/rape
>>27804503
Not sure it would work that well. If the enemy can detonate munitions at a great distance with his mind, that means he can probably detonate a few blood vessels in your brain.
So using your logic, one unicorn pony could kill thousands if not more with a mere thought. Severing a few blood vessels in the brain is pretty easy.
I don't think magic is that simple. Guns are (comparing to magic in the show), better at incapacitating an enemy than magic. Especially when considering how it takes a specialized unicorn (arguably more powerful and practiced in magic) than most to be useful in combat.
>>27802868
He looks like a ponification of a golden saint from saint seiya
>>27804588
>>27804588
I can tell you haven't been studying your magic Anon.
The reason one unicorn can blow up multiple munitions that use black powder is because the magic is very easy. It's only one spark needed to light the black powder and one spark is outrageously easy to make for almost any unicorn. Even Sweetiebelle could do that.
Bursting blood vessels is a bit harder and much more complex and requires more magical energy. It's hard af to directly manipulate biology. Only elite unicorns like Sunny and Starlight could do that. To be able to do that to thousands at the same time would add a multiplier to the amount of magic needed. Not even Celestia is that powerful.
>>27804721
>It's only one spark needed to light the black powder and one spark is outrageously easy to make for almost any unicorn. Even Sweetiebelle could do that.
Wrong.
If horses had cased munitions, they'd have to first penetrate the individual brass shell to light the powder in the round. Since brass cased munitions are hard to ignite from the outside, horse would have to light each individual round of ammo. Tens of thousands to millions of rounds, pin-point accuracy, through the brass case.
>directly manipulate biology
Nah. Just teleport a tiny rock inside a pony's head. Teleport a tiny portion of pony brain a foot to the left. Ponies can hold sheets of paper with magic, they can also rip pieces of paper with magic. All the unicorn has to do is pinch in the pony brain and rip a little. Even Sweetie Belle can rip a sheet of paper with her magic.
>>27804721
But can unicorns perform magic to what they cannot see like inside the small casings of rounds. I can see them able to detonate powder bags used for howitzers and such but they would have to get past the security.
>>27804721
Also, what >>27804770 said, it will take a lot of pinpoint use of magic just to explode all the rounds (100 to 210 for the average rifleman depending on caliber)
What is canon in the show is that magic requires concentration and mental focus. With several bullets flying over their heads magic ability will be severely suppressed.
>>27804770
They would not have to penetrate anything. It's magic and they can form the spark anywhere that has a bit of oxygen. They just cause the spark within the bullet.
To be able to manipulate within a body is hard because all living things have a magic barrier that draws power from their soul, the source of magic. This is why only advanced unicorns can manipulate within a body. They need to be able to break down that natural magic barrier to get into the body.
>>27804775
Yes unicorns can perform magic in places they cannot see. Sight has no affect on magic other than aiming on projectile magic.
>>27804819
If they are flying overhead, you use a shield. That's common knowledge. You would only ignite the bullets if they are not loaded yet. But best way to go would be to teleport the rounds somewhere else before they are loaded.
>>27804829
So unicorns can't cast protection spells on ammo so the enemy unicorn has to penetrate that "natural barrier" (keep in mind no such thing canonically exists)?
Great logic there faggot.
>>27804845
I doubt a shield can stop over 2000 pounds of metal, not to mention several of them.
We're mostly talking about the average unicorn. If there are magic users that are able to use the magic like you described several times then surely their magical presence could be detected and they could respond with other powerful magic users.
>>27804850
It would be smart if unicorns put enchantments on the bullets to put protect their ammo. They can do that.
The natural barrier only matters when trying to cast magic within a body. Physical objects aren't affected by the barrier.
I don't really understand what you're saying. I think there was a mistake interpretation somewhere.
>>27804899
>The natural barrier only matters when trying to cast magic within a body
no
such
barrier
canonically
exists
>>27802906
I'm sure with the amount of mythical creatures they have in the Everfree they'd need them. Having weapons probably deters their neighbors from attacking too if the 4 crazy powerful princesses don't do that well enough.
>>27804890
Yeah, it would be hard to deflect a 2k pound shell with a magic shield. I'd teleport away at that point and try something else. Id probably use a tilted magic shield that redirects the direction of the shell maybe. That's still alot of force though.
In a war, they wouldn't be having average unicorns. Only those whose cutie mark is magic like in pic.
>>27804915
Dude, half the shit we are talking about isn't fucking canon.
>>27804947
Especially when it's going faster than sound. It'll be almost impossible to see coming, you can't hear obviously.
Accurate fire from a distance would likely get a lot of unicorns, they can't keep up a shield forever in every direction.
>>27804954
There's working off canon and extrapolating from it, then there's just straight up making shit out of thin air. Your "magic body shield" thing is the latter, and is a particularly asinine form of the latter. You aren't even a unicorn so you can't make shit pop out of thin air either.
>>27804947
I meant to say foot pounds or 2700 joules per bullet.
There would have to be alot of unicorns to defeat even a regiment full of soldiers.
Even with Twilight Sparkle herself being a god princess can only hold back a platoons worth of ponies for as long as a story.
I think teleportation is not as common. The only ponies seen doing them who a were not alicorns were Twilight Sparkle, Sunset Shimmer, Starlight Glimmer, and Trixie.
>>27804977
Fine, throwing out the body barrier crap (I did kinda pull that out of my ass) im sure the armor would be enchanted keep brain tearing fron happening.
>>27803713
A weapon for beating that could totally kill you. More people die from blunt objects than guns every year senpai.
It's just most people armed with batons, cops and security, don't (generally) beat people till they die or hit them in the head.
>>27803743
>Burns on contact with water
Welp...
>>27804034
I don't know, the reasons guns where invented was because they where needed. Do ponies NEED a gun?
>inb4 NEED
Ponies are peaceful ass niggers. They wouldn't need weapons or a large army.
Look at the changeling invasion of Canterlot, i'm not talking about the queen and shining armor, but the entire guard force of the seat of the capital was overrun in minutes. And they had warning before hand.
Guards where simply rekt without further notice. This suggests a lack of military training on an individual level.
Also, most fights in the show happen between god tier enemies vs got tier allies. The common soldier is entirely useless as the show shows.
I bet the entire military is now just a ceremonial thing, it's just there to wear gold armor and prevent petty crimes. Not like the Brit royal guards who are actually soldiers of rank doing a duty. They're more like honor guards made up of volunteers cos it looks good or maybe civic duty for a year.
>>27805032
There we go.
So both sides have enchanted armor. You could probably enchant projectiles to counter armor enchantment or be more effective.
>>27805029
Depending on the means of teleportation, it also means death for the pony teleporting. Even if the teleportation was successful.
If the means of teleportation are displacement or distortion of the space around a pony, that's fine. But if the pony turns into magic or energy and sends that across space, that actually means the pony that went into the teleportation has died, and a new, identical pony popping out has been created.
So twilight has been dead, and has died a LOT during the show. Theoretically, that is, if they explain the teleportation mechanism of course.
>>27805037
The probable reason why we don't the military doing anything is for budget and animation limits. There could be battles going off screen but not shown.
>>27805037
>Burns on contact with water
Lithium and sodium tipped bullets when?
>>27805065
>So both sides have enchanted armor. You could probably enchant projectiles to counter armor enchantment or be more effective.
At that point it would be which side could do the strongest magic. Reminds me of the cold war.
>>27805029
They would only be bringing in unicorn s powerful enough to teleport. Brining in average unicorns would be like North Korea in a nuclear war, they could try but won't accomplish anything.
Did we ever see Trixie teleport without the alicorn amulet? That's why she needed Starlight to do the manticore trick.
>>27805156
>At that point it would be which side could do the strongest magic. Reminds me of the cold war.
Not sure it would be worth it beyond a certain point. Too much energy and time spent wouldn't be worth the cost when you can have more ponies with more guns for a little cheaper be almost as good.
>>27805156
From what I can gather, teleporting isn't a common trick by any means, remember when Twilight struggled to levitate several animals, as Celestias prize student?
>>27805181
Those reasons are why the Atom bomb was such a boondoggle until each side could obtain enough ICBMs to make them relevant.
>>27802868
My theory is, they do have weapons such as cannons, and even tanks. The only problem is, they aren't widespread for two reasons.
1. They're not needed in warfare (yet)
2. Equestria cannot mass produce them because it would require a shit ton of resources that wouldn't even be worth putting the effort into mining.
>>27805214
That doesn't apply to infantry and small arms. That only applies if opposing sides are trying to get an upper hand with a war-winning weapon of mass destruction.
>>27805032
Occam's razor.
What is more likely:
All armor is magically enchanted to prevent biological assault, the likes of which are never even suggested in the show.
Or, magic has limitations for ponies, and you need significant skill to cast spells.
Consider how most unicorns just carry shit, and the things they're carrying are close by to them. It's not like a unicorn can just pick stuff up from miles away.
Just like that, a pony can make a spark sure, but it has to be nearby and at a range that if you tried to get close to enemy ammo depots you may as well just use a match.
>>27805029
>2700 joules per bullet
That's really not that much energy from a projectile. A .50 African Eliminator can get close to that much energy
>>27805069
>There could be battles going off screen but not shown.
And it's never mentioned, and we don't see any results, and we never even have a shred of a suggestion. Grand autismo.
>>27805156
>That's why she needed Starlight to do the manticore trick.
This just further establishes that teleportation is much harder even for a unicorn specializing in magicalthough it is only the school of illusion.
Basing an army on highly specialized soldiers is not practical which is a reason why knights fell out of favor when nations figured out that it is easier to train common soldiers.
>>27805195
Yeah, that's why you would only bring in magically superior ponies like Sunny, Starlight, Shining Armor, and Discord. I'm sure there are other ponies with lots of magic power too though.
>>27805228
I was applying your reasoning to the A-bomb.
>>27805294
Losing them would be a great blow to the war effort.
This follows the IJN battle strategy, limited capital ships of varying and dubious quality, it didn't end well.
>>27805290
Knights fell out of favor for political reasons, those 'trained' masses were still inferior to knights.
>>27805339
Then a more applicable example would be Germany in WW2. They favored better training and technology only to be beaten by mass produced weapons and soldiers.
>>27805138
>not cesium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNdijknRxfU
I think it's tres expensive though.
>>27805214
Not really, everyone wanted atom bombs. And once one was made, it was realized how easy it was to make.
The expensive part of the atom bomb was the Uranium.
Also A bomb kept commies out of west Germany, and Japland. So they where well worth the effort. They also have kept a big war from happening ever again.
>>27805294
Sunny, Starlight and Twilight are very special ponies. Unless you can pump out enough to reasonably field, they're not useful in full war, because basing an entire army on one type of pony is a shit idea.
Also at the end of the day, they bleed. How many bolts, shells, whatever can they keep off of them?
Shining armors talent is making shields, and he eventually was exhausted. A shield is great for keeping people out, but it also keeps you in. You can't fire back, and bigger you cant rearm and refuel. You also can't send people to do recon without putting holes in the field. So over time you have amassed enemy at the gate, you're starving and blind.
>>27805315
This, so much this.
>>27805339
>Knights fell out of favor for political reasons, those 'trained' masses were still inferior to knights.
I hope you don't seriously believe this. One pike man may be shit vs a knight, but 10 pike men would kill the knight and his horse. And the effect scales up much better than with knights. Look at king Richards final charge. A knights charge destroyed by a line of pike men.
>>27805315
They would probably keep them way in the back or have them in the war room and use their brilliance for planning.
Are we all forgetting though that the elements are the end all for any dispute?
They would win any war.
>>27805388
>Not really
Yes, however the bomb isn't the be all end all weapon, it won't stop a determined foe and it has limited use, it's niche lies in tactical and psychological abilities. The ICBM only capitalized on these.
>A knights charge destroyed by a line of pike men.
I'm not going to defend poor tactical use of a unit.
I could see them having Sunny and Starlight as a special assassination squad. Not on the front lines fighting but used in the way we use navy seals.
>>27805398
>They would probably keep them way in the back or have them in the war room and use their brilliance for planning.
Keeping them in the back is a waste of resources as the unit is not being used to its full capabilities, and there's no guarantee they'll be capable commanders.
>>27805423
>it won't stop a determined foe
The Japs were pretty determined.
>>27805423
I haven't read much into knights use but from what I have read they were to just jump into a shield line to break it open and allow an opening for ground troops.
Could be bullshit but that's what I remember.
>>27805468
>The Japs were pretty determined.
Not at the time of the bombs deployment.
As for the proper use of knight they're best used as heavy cavalry and shock troops, against infantry they're neigh unstoppable, better armed trained and armored than the standard foot soldier, as time went on they only got better to the point where past techniques (see the longbow) were ineffective, with the gun not having a significant effect on a knights capabilities. However no weapon or soldier is invincible, charging on a pike wall is suicide for any mounted regiment, prolonged march on longbow men is just as deadly and a knight could be out manouvered by foot soldiers with pole weaponry, even so there was no definite way to kill a knight as strategies, weapons and war changed through the ages, what ended the knight was noblemen who didn't want to fight anymore.
>>27805476
Commandos is a good idea, but again, if you lose an opperative of that stature it will be a big loss.
>>27805423
>Yes, however the bomb isn't the be all end all weapon
No, but lots of bombs are.
ICBMs made it easier and faster to hit important targets. however early nukes where intended to be dropped willy nilly everywhere.
Also if ICBMs are launched, you're losing significant infrastructure, most nations wouldn't last for long after their industry and military or capital has been nuked.
>I'm not going to defend poor tactical use of a unit.
Knights may be elite units, but there's plenty of things you can do to destroy them. Especially once guns where widespread, and bullets could go through armor much better than anything else. Need a few hours of training to use, and double as a spear once you're out of ammo. and the bigger thing, knights are expensive and you can train up more other soldiers for the same price.
Almost never has a military won based on elite units.
>>27805428
>>27805476
Why bother when a paid enemy could easily poison key targets and sabotage just as well. And not be clearly noticeable as OH YOU'RE TWILIGHT SPARKLE!
Easier to find a traitor, and they're more disposable.
>>27805561
>Commandos is a good idea, but again, if you lose an opperative of that stature it will be a big loss.
That's just a risk you have to take in war. Look at all the Navy seals we've lost.
>>27805588
>Why bother when a paid enemy could easily poison key targets and sabotage just as well. And not be clearly noticeable as OH YOU'RE TWILIGHT SPARKLE!
Yeah, because that's very common in modern day warfare. A small strike team of superior magic users would be outrageously useful in warfare. That's how we kill Osama is with a small, highly trained team of navy seals.
>>27805588
>No, but lots of bombs are.
Which is why Dresden scares me more than Hiroshima.
So we are in agreement that ICBMs are best used as tactical weapons?
So then the real question is can you make enough bombs to get through my defenses and hit all important pieces of infrastructure.
>Especially once guns where widespread
Bullet-proof is not a new term.
And a rifle is an ok spear, but certainly can't pierce plate.
>>27805594
SEALs can be trained, magical savants cannot.
>>27805561
>Not at the time of the bombs deployment.
Are you good? The japs where training civilians to fight a land battle. They simply did not accept defeat, even though the soviets where destroying them in China and AMERICA had basically won.
>>27805561
You've only accounted for different units that knights can face. Even if your armor could keep penetration from happening a ball would knock the wind out of you, and don't forget there's many people with guns.
Also shitty conditions like mud would mean horses would get stuck. There where also other traps like caltrops, pit traps, and so on.
Knights where a dead end, they simply didn't have anywhere else to grow. While guns, traps, canons, and better tactics rendered them obsolete.
It's not just 'nobles didn't want to fight' if they where useful soldiers there would have been training programs for knights.
>>27805649
>That's how we kill Osama is with a small, highly trained team of navy seals.
And the support of the Pakistani government. Now put a total war scenario and it doesn't work.
>>27805677
Well then FUCKING FINE ANON! WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE THEM DO SINCE YOU KEEP SHOOTIN DOWN ALL MY IDEAS.
>>27805725
Guys, I can't handle this much stupidity rn. Someone else handle his guy please.
>>27805677
>So we are in agreement that ICBMs are best used as tactical weapons?
No, they're best used as strategic weapons. Destroy an enemies infrastructure and his troops on the front run dry.
Oh you don't know the diffrence between strategic bombing and tactical bombing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_bombing
>So then the real question is can you make enough bombs to get through my defenses and hit all important pieces of infrastructure.
That depends on a lot of factors. But in the fight between the weapon and the armor, the weapon has always won.
>Bullet-proof is not a new term.
>And a rifle is an ok spear, but certainly can't pierce plate.
You don't need to pierce. The amount of energy a brown bess put out was 1727 lb*ft. That's enough energy to knock you around. Now also consider how many people can be armed with a gun, vs how many trained knights can be in the field. And don't forget the big guns.
>>27805725
>The japs where training civilians to fight a land battle.
Theoretically, in practice these civilians wouldn't have posed much of a threat, a little pressure and the emperor would be rushing to sign a surrendur himself, the real problem is a Soviet US push would lead to a Berlin situation, which the US didn't want, so instead of using the nukes as tactical weapons for infrastructure they pulled a Dresden mark II:radioactive boogaloo and just incinerated a few cities to make a point to the soviets.
I am certainly accounting for the different units knights would face, I wonder who will win? The line of well equipped, well trained and experienced nobles, or the crazy paesents with experimental weaponry of dubious quality and little training? I'd say they fire a volley to minimal effect and are cut down as they try to reload, add a foot soldier screen and the knights will have virtually no casualties.
Add shitty conditions to the gunmen and you have an expensive club, and no bayonet so he might as well drop it in favor of a sword.
It took hundreds of years for an army to try a pike and shot formation and many military experts expected it to fail for not having enough pikes, and even then, knights were falling out of favor because better armor was available to footmen and nobles didn't want to risk their neck, but do to low quality standards (remember these guys aren't nobles, they have a budget) armor fell out of favor and was eventually ridiculed as a cowards measure, we are just turning away from this mindset today, even in WWI generals didn't want troops to have helmets because they didn't think it would matter.
In summation, idiots can ruin any good idea because of superstition.
>>27805727
Honestly I don't know, I just came here to talk war and argue.
>>27805803
The only guaranteed target is infrastructure, troops aren't worth the bomb and it will likely have no significant effect.
>the weapon has always won
I beg to differ.
>That's enough force to knock you around.
Trust me, they can take it, these guys are being battered with all sorts of implements, a low velocity (comparatively) slug will give them some bruseing, maybe brake a few ribs, but they'll get back up, and that line will still be loading.
Also tactics come into mind, an infantry skirmish followed by a charge will thoroughly destroy that line.
As for cannons, well we circle back to the age old struggle of infantry and artillery, they'll likely pose a small threat as a determined charge with large dispersal will get the most amount of knights in range, although I'd prefer to flank them.
Keep in mind the incredible shortcomings of artillery available at the time.
>>27805294
I doubt there are more than a handful of super magical ponies. Otherwise Twilight and company wouldn't have to fix everything all the time.
>>27805339
Knights got wrecked by solid Swiss pike formations.
>>27806046
Not going to defend poor tactical choices.
Would you take a tank getting torn apart by an AT trap as proof that tanks are obsolete?
>>27805677
Guns did get more powerful as time went on. Though I gotta say that whole late medieval and early renaissance stuff where its guns/pikes/cav is really interesting.
>>27806107
You could still argue that armor could be viable at varying levels for infantry or shock troopers, but there'll be some back problems, thank god for alloys and ceramics.
>>27805677
Also that picture is from the siege of Malta, which was mid 16th century. And the invasion of an island by sea.
Neither knight nor gun shone there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Malta
>>27805900
>tactical weapons for infrastructure
Holy shit learn the diffrence:
Strategic bombing
Tactical bombing.
>Theoretically, in practice these civilians wouldn't have posed much of a threat
You mean so little of a threat that US hasn't made new purple heart medals and is using the supply from WW2. The estimate was 1 million allied casualties. Japan wouldn't surrender easy and the reason is because US was only offering unconditional surrender. And they didn't surrender after the first, that's why 2 where used, and they still didn't surrender, and then the US threatened a third and Soviets joined the war. So they surrendered.
>I wonder who will win? The line of well equipped, well trained and experienced nobles, or the crazy paesents with experimental weaponry of dubious quality and little training?
Because that's a realistic scenario, and not at all retarded.
Look, why do you think every side had pike men, archers, etc? Because knights are simply not that good. They're a very niche soldier.
By 1650, flintlocks where going through plate armor. Making armor thicker made it heavier and more expensive. Not only that, a knight trained from early age, a rifle man could be trained in a few days.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how good your individual soldiers are, what matters is the army. I know you don't wanna defend 'shitty tactical use' but that's all war is. You're like a weheraboo going all 'BUT TIGER CANNOT BE KILL' it doesn't matter, for 1 tiger there where 5 Sherman.
This is the advantage of pikes, and guns. Doesn't matter if your one knight is best soldier, for the time and cost of 1 him, you could have 10 pike men or 5 gun men. this is why guns won in 1700s, not because every noble in Europe decided they didn't want to fight anymore
>>27806136
You guys aren't really talking pony anymore.
>>27806077
So, I was always under the impression knights went away because of a battlefield of professional pike and shot formations. I know even prior to the thirty years war there were dudes in the HRE that had the title of knight, but didn't do tons of combat in good old plate. You're saying that knights left simply for political reasons and not tactical/combat reasons? What would those be? I'm not the other anon saying knights are bad, I'm genuinely curious.
>>27805900
>and the emperor would be rushing to sign a surrendur himself
Yeah, when the emperor did that the Ministers of war tried to have him ousted in a coup because they were so determined to genocide their race.
if it was just a land invasion they probably WOULD have legitimately imprisoned the emperor so he couldn't surrender so sure of their insane suicide strategy were they.
>>27806174
>Also that picture is from the siege of Malta
While I can't say it isn't, I won't say it is.
Easy there autist, it's semantics.
That's only a million casualties, and the purple heart goes to anyone 'wounded by a weapon of war by the enemy' so even if a housewife slashes your buddy, there's your purple heart.
On an unrelated note I heard from a guy who served in nam that John Kerry got his purple heart by fragging a civilian rice boat, the rice peppered his ass.
>Because that's a realistic scenario, and not at all retarded.
Were rifles not new weapons?
Where those who wielded them not so poorly trained they began the belief that muskets couldn't hit a barn?
Correct, their niche is heavy cavalry and shock infantry, no army won with a single type of soldier.
By 1650 knights were largely extinct, those plate armors were purchased by soldiers, who likely didn't have pockets deep enough to bring them to proper quality.
You are ignoring quality, I don't care if there are five shermans, my tiger will win, I have a problem when there are nine shermans, but I would be a poor commander if I engaged these shermans without more tigers and infantry support.
It doesn't matter if there were pikemen and infantry because after skirmishers and bowmen were done with these individuals the killing blow would be a charge right into there flank, and your pikeman will die trying to turn and your gunman will die trying to reload.
>>27805949
>Trust me,
No i'm not going to trust you. I'm going to trust history.
Knights where simply not good enough to last through the evolution of the gun. Flintlock could go through all but the thickest armor.
You could have more guns for the same price as knights.
Knights where very niche soldiers.
This is why all of Europe abandoned knights and instead chose to pursue heavier cannons and better guns. Not because Nobles didn't want to fight, those became cavalry.
I'm not going to argue with your jerk off scenarios, they're unrealistic and fruitless to read. Just know that 480 m/s is the average speed of 1600s matchlocks.
>Keep in mind the incredible shortcomings of artillery available at the time.
At what time? Cannons and knights existed on the battle field at multiple times. And each time the cannon got better, and the knight did not. The final knight battle was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Klisz%C3%B3w polish hussars vs swedes. Knights lost.
>>27806177
Eh, /mlp/ is basically /k/ with pone.
>>27806178
Yes, you see by the time of pike and shot formations europe had gone through a revision, while plate armor could take the shots the problem was there was noone willing to fill them, by this time the knightly orders were demilitarised and the nobles wanted to be philosophers and artists and statesmen, it was a different time, these men saw themselves in court and not on the battlefield, while technology had increased the proliferation of high quality plate this allowed some heavy infantry to rise for a time, however these individuals paid out of pocket and received works of varying quality, this was repeated in the civil war (soldiers were also ridiculed for wearing armor.
>>27806216
Which further proves my point, although I'm fairly certain those generals just wanted a better deal with the russians.
>>27806299
Alright, if you're going to trust history trust that the knightly orders were forced to disband because they were too powerful.
Trust that no noble would purchase a set until the manufacturer could proof it against fire arms (thus bullet proof).
Heavy cavalry and shock infantry is not very niche, we call those tanks and marines now.
Europe left the idea of knights for various reasons, mostly because they were picking quality or quantity.
Just know that there have been armors to stop such a weapon and have done so.
Polish hussars are not knights, they are heavy cavalry.
Also the shortcomings like no explosive shot, no reliable way to aim, poor manouverability, and a by no means easy system to adjust the aim.
>>27802868
I could see guns being used by ponies, but they would most likely be used as long range quasi-artillery weapons, with the ponies setting up and using them to snipe enemy formations, since guns should be easier to use than Bows and arrows for non-unicorns, and Most unicorn lasers shown so far have looked to be used in fairly short range use.
>>27802868
Celestia
She doesn't want her little ponies to feel like there is any danger in the world, so she takes care of any external threat that isn't caused by a supervillain.
Another reason could be advances in tech are so slow to come at the start that magic is more immediately appealing. With just a little magic you can do a lot, however you need a ton of work at the start of tech advancement before you get close to what magic can do.
I think that the power of magic and tech work like this, with magic its power increases quickly as you gain the first knowledge about it, but as you gain more and more the rate of power gain peters out. With technology though power gain is exponential you start barely gaining any, but as you learn more and more the rate at which you gain power increases faster and faster.
>>27806293
>While I can't say it isn't, I won't say it is.
It is, that picture is from the palace armory in Malta.
>Easy there autist, it's semantics.
It's not semantics idiot. It is a significant diffrence. I shouldn't be arguing with you, you know nothing.
>Were rifles not new weapons?
Nope. Invented in 10th century, cannons around the same time. They became wide spread around 15-17 century and onwards, when steel and mechanical working made the cheap to make in large numbers.
>Where those who wielded them not so poorly trained they began the belief that muskets couldn't hit a barn?
Nope. They where trained to volley fire and reload quickly, marksmanship wasn't worth much. Not until rifling became a thing.
>Correct, their niche is heavy cavalry and shock infantry
And their niche was replaced by gun armed and lightly armored cavalry. Not because politics, but because cavalry did better. More mobile, cheaper, etc.
>By 1650 knights were largely extinct
Yes. and the reason they became obsolete was because gunmen and pikemen are cheaper to make, and guns could go through armor.
>You are ignoring quality, I don't care if there are five shermans, my tiger will win
Just a heads up, no the tiger would be gone soon enough.
But for the armor quality, not really. Knight armor less than 3mm of steel didn't have a chance against matchlocks. 3mm was the thickest part of plate armor. And once the flint lock was around a .85 cal flintlock simply went through even the thickest armor at several hundred yards.
>It doesn't matter if there were pikemen and infantry because after skirmishers and bowmen were done with these individuals the killing blow would be a charge right into there flank, and your pikeman will die trying to turn and your gunman will die trying to reload.
Again, i'm not gonna bother with this retarded scenario, but know the average fire rate was 2 shots a minute. And they where going through 3mm at 50-100 yards.
>>27806442
>It is, that picture is from the palace armory in Malta.
I wouldn't know, haven't been there.
>It's not semantics idiot.
Noted.
>Nope. Invented in 10th century
Actually rifles weren't invented until much later on. But asides from that.
>They became wide spread around 15-17 century
There you go, as you see the concept of a gunpowder weapon was around for a while, but it needed some time to be viable, but of course it wasn't viable until long after the age of knights. And when they were on the field they were hardly a threat.
>Nope.
Yup, you see there's this thing called logistics, and because of this soldiers couldn't practice with ammo, so they just practiced formations.
But as a result their marksmanship was poor.
>And their niche was replaced by gun armed and lightly armored cavalry.
Such an army will quickly be defeated by heavy infantry and artillery, maybe some cavalry to force a route.
>Just a heads up, no the tiger would be gone soon enough.
Says the tommy cooker.
>But for the armor quality, not really.
Yes really, they made armor that could protect against a ball, this is a known fact and there were knights that survived several rounds, the gunmen however could not survive a thrust and slash.
>Again, i'm not gonna bother with this retarded scenario
It's called a battlefield, commanders tend to use things such as strategies and tactics for maximum efficiency.
Also I am aware of fire rates, you don't seem to be aware of the concept of bullet proofing.
>>27806374
>Alright, if you're going to trust history trust that the knightly orders were forced to disband because they were too powerful.
This is the dumbest thing you've ever suggested. I'm impressed.
>Trust that no noble would purchase a set until the manufacturer could proof it against fire arms (thus bullet proof).
Nice assertion, provide evidence for this.
>Heavy cavalry and shock infantry is not very niche, we call those tanks and marines now.
not at all. Tanks aren't solely shock units. Tanks are useful attacking fortifications, taking care of emplacements, destroying other tanks, general artillery and defence. And there is no one tanks, SPGs are for fortifications, emplacements and artillery, light tanks are anti infantry, heavy tanks fought other tanks and medium tanks where for a bit of both. Evolution of medium tank created the MBT, which can do all the things, of different tanks.
Marines are in the US anyway, jack of all trades. They're not shock troops. They can be, but that's not their main job. In fact at one point they where an invasion group, not shock really.
>Europe left the idea of knights for various reasons, mostly because they were picking quality or quantity.
No, they where picking what won wars.
>Just know that there have been armors to stop such a weapon and have done so.
No shit, but the price, weight made them too impractical, and they soon became shit as guns got better.
>Also the shortcomings like no explosive shot, no reliable way to aim, poor manouverability, and a by no means easy system to adjust the aim.
Lol no, explosive shells existed in mid 1500s, even earlier but not as widespread. You hardly needed to aim, and not only that you had batteries of the stuff.
>>27806374
>Polish hussars are not knights, they are heavy cavalry.
They where armored cavalry consisting solely of noblemen. You can argue common tactic use and so on, but they where armed and armored as the knights.
>>27806531
>Actually rifles weren't invented until much later on. But asides from that.
Unless you mean rifles as in guns that where rifled, aka rifles by actual definition. Guns where around in china. Granted they where useless.
>but it needed some time to be viable
No shit.
>but of course it wasn't viable until long after the age of knights
THIS is where you're wrong. The gun came and the knights went. Guns caused the death of knights. Infact, the .85 cal matchlock died because knights where gone and no need for a .85 cal gun. Guns got lighter after knights where gone, because they didn't have to compete anymore.
>Yup, you see there's this thing called logistics, and because of this soldiers couldn't practice with ammo, so they just practiced formations.
Jesus, you know you can easily google things, and not look like an idiot.
Soldiers not only learned to fire their gun, but also loading, maintenance, and molding balls. They had on average weeks of training.
>Such an army will quickly be defeated by heavy infantry and artillery, maybe some cavalry to force a route.
You really are simple you know that? It's called evolution, slowly but surly knights lost some armor, then more armor, then changed weapons and soon you're left with carbine armed cavalry.
>Yes really, they made armor that could protect against a ball
Sure there was, just like there's armor thick enough to protect you from a .50 bmg right now. Here's the key part, it is TOO HEAVY AND TOO EXPENSIVE to field.
>It's called a battlefield, commanders tend to use things such as strategies and tactics for maximum efficiency.
And that is the reason knights died. They weren't efficient.
>MUH BULLET PROOFING
Too heavy, too expensive.
Word of advice, never trust /k/ on matters pre-1900s, they ALWAYS fuck it up. And look, this thread is living proof.
First off "knight" is a social level and it's pretty fucking retarded to use this term loosely since armored cavalry existed in so many different variations. And armored cuirassiers never fell out, they were still in use until Napoleon and beyond. Their role changed and they became less prominent with the evolution of firearms and pike/line formations but they still stayed prominent and certainly effective. Even without armor, cavalry is effective.
Second, anyone who says "masses" or "untrained" is a fucking idiot. Swiss pikemen, tercios, and all formations were trained. Rabble simply didn't exist. Not in the medieval period, not in the Renaissance, and certainly not in early modern. The swiss and landschneckt keils were famous for being death-defying and trained, the swiss would charge just about anything and were incredibly deadly in rough terrain. But they weren't unbeatable and they didn't directly lead to the lessened use of cavalry. In fact, it probably increased because the best way to beat a keil is to surround and flank it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marignano
>>27806540
>This is the dumbest thing you've ever suggested.
Do you not remember the knight templars?
>Nice assertion
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm
>Tanks aren't solely shock units
Obviously, they're cavalry.
>general artillery
Depends on what you call artillery.
>Marines are in the US anyway, jack of all trades. They're not shock troops.
They most certainly are, when ever there is an invasion who is the first to assault? The marines are the tip of the spear, shock troops to establish a foot hold for the army to further consolidate.
>No, they where picking what won wars.
You'd be surprised what wins wars, so long as you pick a side and commit.
>but the price, weight made them too impractical
To a degree, the cuirass platform could easily have caught on, but again with price, however that does not make abandoning them altogether a wise choice.
>Lol no, explosive shells existed in mid 1500s
You should work for DICE, 'a semi-auto rifle pattern existed in 1918, it's conceivable soldiers could have fought with them'!
>>27806635
>They where armored cavalry
Knights were also shock infantry, 2/3s doesn't get you the definition.
>aka rifles by actual definition
So long as we're arguing semantic.
>The gun came and the knights went
I'm sure it looked that way while sir Rheinult was battering the poor sod that shot him.
>They had on average weeks of training.
I'd hope as much, but five minutes range time doesn't compare to an hour.
>carbine armed cavalry.
Yes, but those aren't knights. To the Polish call their tank brigades winged hussars?
>it is TOO HEAVY AND TOO EXPENSIVE to field.
How do you figure? If they can walk I'd say they're mobile enough and deploy them in urban areas in vital areas.
>They weren't efficient.
So they say, not the first time an army made a poor decision.
>Too heavy, too expensive.
Suck it up and raid the enemy.
You know what else is 'too heavy'? The english long bow.
>>27806668
Not from /k/ but I sort of first used knights as an example because it was something on top of my head comparing units taking years to train with that one anon's theory of a few highly specialized unicorns.
>>27806336
>noone willing to fill them
The fuck are you on about? Gendarmes, reiters, hussars, cuirassiers, lancers? The thirty years war saw plenty of it. Napoleon still had cuirasseirs. Napoleon III still did as well. They still existed in WW1
>>27806442
>marksmanship wasn't worth much
Skirmishers were used very effectively in the Dutch wars for independence. Same story in Spain during napoleon
>Yes
No, heavy cavarly still fucking existed and still wore armor
>gunmen and pikemen are cheaper to make
True, but that's not the main reason. The main reason is more organized formations (tercio) meant cavalry had to take a lesser role, ie not charge directly. They were still fucking used.
>guns could go through armor
Not always and not reliably. Hence why pikes were still needed. And why bayonets and formations were still needed. Cavalry was never "obsolete" and didn't go extinct until the Franco-Prussian war when lines also fell out of use.
> less than 3mm of steel didn't have a chance against matchlocks
Armor is specially hardened and made to deflect. And cavalry wouldn't do a head on charge, they would either run you down or flank. Their armor is still essential for the ensuing melee
>>27806531
> it needed some time to be viable
It was literally viable since the start. The French were using cannons in the Hundred Years War when they first started to really employ them. That's the middle of the Medieval period, alongside literal knights. The war of roses also saw heavy cannon usage and to a great effect
>they were hardly a threat
Cannon could decide battles in minutes
>so they just practiced formations
Literally retarded. They needed to know how to aim. Drilling was quite essential.
>Such an army will quickly be defeated by heavy infantry and artillery
Armies are varied and diverse. Light cavalry were incredibly crucial and decisive in battle. Just look up the Polish light lancers of Napoleons day.
>>27806797
>The fuck are you on about?
I was referring to nobles.
>It was literally viable since the start.
I was referring to infantry firearms as a main weapon.
>Cannon could decide battle in minutes
Musket cannot.
Also that situation would only happen in a siege.
>Literally retarded.
You have a limited amount of powder and shot.
Live practice sounds like a great idea!
>Armies are varied and diverse.
I am aware, however the bane of light cavalry is heavy infantry.
>>27806635
> The gun came and the knights went
Oh really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirassier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_(historical)
>the .85 cal matchlock died because knights where gone and no need for a .85 cal gun
The matchlock died because the flintlock was cheaper, safer, and more reliable/more consistent. Caliber change was due to ballistics, speed of loading, and cost to cast.
>They weren't efficient.
They were niche, true, but still effective and well worth the cost in battle. Hence why people still wore cuirasses and gendarmes/reiters still existed in the Thirty Years War and beyond.
>Too heavy, too expensive.
Armor only got lighter. Steel was hardened and tempered, then shaped to deflect/glance blows and bullets. Go google Napoleonic cuirasses and then look at 1400s medieval plate.
>>27806750
All cavalry takes time to train. Hell, everyone takes time to train. It was really only Napoleon and the French Revolutionary wars which saw mass conscription due to the fact that everyone wanted to kill France.
>>27806832
>I was referring to nobles
Fair enough, but for clarity, heavy cavalry has never solely been populated by nobility. Nobility was almost always cavalry but not the other way around. Mercenaries and hired cavalry were common, eg the milanese who were famous for being hired by the French in the 100yrs war and/or condottieri
>infantry firearms as a main weapon
Fair enough, but handgonnes were still effective. Arquebuses were pretty much totally effective since the start, especially in formation
>Musket cannot.
Yea pretty much.
>that situation would only happen in a siege
True, but only because sieges were more common and cannon were more important. But if you're fielding cannon, it can destroy the enemy.
>You have a limited amount of powder and shot
Where the hell do you think people train? They go to forts, which are resupplied. And you have a baggage train.
>heavy infantry
Didn't exist past firearm era
>>27806897
So we're largely in agreement.
>They go to forts, which are resupplied.
Meaning the will receive a shipment with a certain amount of powder and shot, they will then expend an amount of this shot to practice while the rest is held in reserve, however we also have to factor in the shelf life of powder, so it comes down to how much do you want to practice and how much do you want ready for war?
>Didn't exist past firearm era
One could argue that soldiers trained with and possessing ordnance such as anti armor missiles, anti air missiles or anti infantry weapons such as a recoilell cannon or a heavy machine gun could be considered heavy infantry.
>>27806952
Yes, pretty much.
>shelf life of powder
Not that much of an issue, Europe is pretty small
> how much do you want ready for war
Europe is pretty small, but it's definitely worth it to expend some to have properly trained and drilled soldiers. Battlefields are loud, disorienting, and chaotic so a soldier needs to be drilled and ready.
>anti armor missiles, anti air missiles or anti infantry weapons such as a recoilell cannon or a heavy machine gun could be considered heavy infantry
Maybe, but they don't really counter light cavalry. By Napoleons time, the best method of countering cavalry was a large amount of spaced squares, volley fire, and bayonets
>>27806974
>they don't really counter light cavalry
How do we define light cavalry?
Armored cars? Infantry fighting vehicles?
>>27807021
Literal light cavalry, at least in my book
>>27807087
I see.
