So, I'm confused about guns in the mid to late 1800's. So, we have powder and shot guns and rifles, and everybody is using them. Then, cartridges pop in in the 50's and... powder and shot firearms keep being produced? For decades!? What the hell happened? Was the industry resisting change?
I mean, i understand the military going "holy shit, we don't want to replace our 50 million muskets! Shit's expensive!", but what about everyone else? Did powder and shot firearms become inexpensive in the wake of new technology, so you had every cheapass with one? I mean, why would any company produce a brand new model cap and ball revolver when they could as easily produce a new cartridge loaded revolver? Was there a huge demand for them?
>>47621803
Not sure if /his/ or /k/...
>>47621831
It's for my mid 1800's game. I don't think either of those boards will be able to answer the follow up gaming questions. Like, would there be a mechanical advantage to players using cap and ball weapons? would they even be cheaper?
It seems to me like powder and ball firearms in this era might end up being trash loot for PCs...
>>47621803
They didn't have mass production back then, you know. Each rifle was hand made. It took about 2 days on average for a rifle to get made. ball and powder was also easily replaceable - you had to either buy really expensive cartridges, or make them yourself, and that was not easy stuff to do.
It took an industrial Revelation for that shit to be made cheap.
>>47621803
Initial cartridges were kind of shit. They were made of steel, which didn't seal properly, and hard to make. They were unreliable in some cases. They were more expensive. People would overpack the cartridges and blow their guns up. Armies had been training with shot and powder for 200+ years.
I'm not sure how much of a factor it was in the powder to cartridge debate, but I know one of the prevailing issues military commanders had with semiautomatic or even magazine-fed weapons early on in development of those was that their soldiers would panic and blaze away all their ammo rather than having to stop and fiddle with ammunition every shot.
>>47621803
Fairly complicated answer.
Lot of reasons and it mostly comes down to a number of things-
>Industrial complex capable of producing large amounts of consistent munitions which are both reliable and cost effective, if its not reliable and cost effective then-
>Military purchasing doesn't want anything to do with it until its cheap and reliable
As a sideline, bespoke stuff does fairly well in the civilian sector, so there was a market for things like cartridges which the well to do can play around with and try out, get the designs down pat and that led to a massive variety of things. Pinfire, rimfire, needlefire etc some of which like the needlefire where used by the Prussians and French for a while. The other thing to note with the designs and mechanism of a cartridge is that they tend to be kind of sucky with blackpowder and will foul quicker the more rounds you throw through them and then comes the reliability issue again. But there's still Farmer Bob who just needs his shit to be cheap and work- doesn't need to work great, but if its not costing him a lot of money then its not worth changing.
A whole other thing which could be argued which limited things was companies like Winchester and Colt who ended a lot of fairly enterprising, competitive and innovating companies by beating them to death with sacks of cash
A slightly more commonly held belief but not necessarily 100% true is the transition of tactics and adoption of new processes by the military officers of the world, being willing to change their ways. I don't think its entirely true as the military complex is quite willing to take up stuff that is new, but it has to work every time.
Lastly, as an industrial complex comes into longer term production it gets cheaper, more refined and accessible to people. The more people who can access it, can refine the process, but that initial breaking new earth in engineering terms isn't something which happens overnight, sometimes it takes years
>>47621803
Funny thing. There have been some old muskets recovered from the mid-late 17th century that used cartridges.
Shit was expensive and didn't work as well as powder and shot. Simple economics.
>>47621803
>What the hell happened? Was the industry resisting change?
It's not just industry, you can't look at it in strictly modern terms.
If you look further back in history, basically every military innovation has existed alongside earlier equipment, some times for hundreds of years.
Today, if someone comes up with something new and amazing, everyone will know about it in short order and if it's affordable, efforts will be made to incorporate it asap.
But historically... You could still find crossbows and halberds in town arsenals long after gunpowder weapons became the name of the game. Eastern Europe stuck to Mail armour long after plate became common and affordable further west. Knights coexisted with (shitty) Cannon.
People sticking to their powder and balls for decades after the invention of cartridges, even without going into the initial problems of early cartridges, is just business as usual.
What would have been weird and exceptional is if everyone adopted cartridges immediately.
Can the industry supply everyone immediately?
Can everyone afford it?
Does everyone want it?
Those are the questions you need to ask, and the answer is usually
No
No
No
>>47621803
Technology does not come at a constant rate. The cutting edge and the best tool for the job are often not the same thing.
Tons of things come ahead of their time, or behind schedule.
The 1700s had fucking semi automatic rifles that didn't require any cleaning, but they were so expensive to make very few armies used them.
>>47622448
*woops, meant repeating rifles, not semi-automatic
>>47621910
That was an issue all the way up to the Vietnam war.
So what about early firearms? When did handgonnes and arquebuses and that shit show up?
Cavalry was still king when these things showed up right?
>why would any company produce a brand new model cap and ball revolver when they could as easily produce a new cartridge loaded revolver?
They could not. Patents protected Colt's access to the revolver, period, for a number of years (1836-1856)-- and then Smith and Wesson owned the patent on cartridge revolvers until 1869. So, really, even if they wanted to the field wasn't open until 1870 when we see, predictably, a proliferation of these designs.
For your purposes, you have some research to do. Both of these patents lead to lots of innovators trying to create alternative solutions, and your players may encounter all of the following:
Under Colt's patent years: Volcanic repeating pistols, "turret revolver" designs, and Harmonica and Pepperbox firearms remained popular.
Under the Smith and Wesson years:look up teat-fire, cup-fire and lipfire cartridges. Lots of companies would also end up just paying royalties to S&W and producing licensed cartridge guns.
Now, as importantly: I think what you are really asking is why would people continue to use cap and ball Colts over cartridge S&Ws? And why is it that even the US army went for the Colt 1860 -- a percussion cap revolver -- over the Smith & Wesson cartridge guns?
And the answer is power. At the time -- and we're looking at a fairly narrow window, from 1856 to 1870 -- no one had figured out how to produce cartridges that would work with larger rounds (at least at scale). That S&W model 1 was a low pressure .22 short. By the end of the civil war they had made it up to a .32. You're in the mid 1870s by the time a .38 and then .44 is out -- in short, until cartridge firearms finally closed the gap in power with black powder pistols. At that point customers and militaries convert en-masse, and with S&Ws patent expiring the field explodes.
>>47622499
The thing is that when firearms showed up, the change was so gradual that you need to get really specific, geographically, when you ask questions like that.
And Cavalry (knights and the like) stopped being king a lot earlier than they wanted to admit themselves. Like, the entire Habsburg house got hacked to pieces by burly swiss peasants with halberds and longspears and the idea that knights might be obsolete still didn't sink in for a long time.
>>47622499
Knights and full plate armor were around at the same time guns and gunpowder were, and in fact the overlap between the two was a pretty damn long period of time. While plate armor was pretty effective at stopping bullets it wasn't effective at stopping nobles from realizing they could just replace their knights with a shitload of dudes with guns for a fraction of the cost.
>>47621803
Literally patent law. Colt and a few other companies fought over some BS patents involving dubious claims that prevented the widespread introduction of cartridge weapons for decades.
Cultural/economic issues also arise, many nations refused to issue multi shot guns because ammo was too expensive. T
Also things take time to introduce, bolt action rifles are still widespread even though they were technologically obsolete a century ago.
>>47622499
>Cavalry was still king when these things showed up right?
Yep, and cavalry was still highly relevant for a long time after - not least because they adopted firearms as well, some firing on the move, some being mounted infantry
The very first firearms in the west are seen about 1400 or so, and by 1500 were in pretty regular use, with the first major victory that depended on firearms about that time.
The paper cartridge was introduced in 1586.
Now, that's handguns. Rifles are another issue, but actually convert over largely earlier: by 1865 it is clear the way the wind is blowing: if you're set after then you're not going to find a lot of new muzzle loaders being produced.
Without having a date I cannot do much here, but, a few general points:
1. Percussion Caps were still relatively new, showing up in 1820. They were highly reliable, cheap, and ubiquitous. Nipple sizes (the thing you stick the caps on) were regular enough that you didn't have to worry about supply much. They also were reliable as hell: cartridges had to be _good_ before they were better than percussion caps.
2. The US operates through the civil war with percussion rifled muskets as its line weapon, because they did the job, put out a good rate of fire, and were cheap -- 1/3 or less the cost of a repeater at the time. And that's not even considering the cost of ammunition. Aforementioned points by other posters about military leaders not wanting soldiers to fire needlessly are also on point.
3. Breach-loading paper cartridges precede metal cartridges. Pic related. The "Needle Gun" was adopted by the Prussian military in the early 1840s, as a breach-loading weapon with paper cartridges that included their own primer. The "needle" refers to a firing pin. Ultimately, the design of the bolt (the closing chamber) was new, and didn't contain the pressure of the blast well -- resulting in reduced pressure and lower range and power.
4. While the needle gun had real problems, it spurred other breach-loading developments. By the late 1850s, if your players were private citizens, they would have a selection of cartridge-loading firearms to choose from.
>>47622544
You can't just say that cavalry were king when firearms showed up without being specific, because as a sweeping statement it's not that simple, and outright false in a lot of conflicts and regions. Firearms were around in the 14th century, but not a huge factor for a long time yet, and cavalry suffered a LOT way before guns became a big issue.
The English slapped the French around by relying on archers and fighting dismounted several times during the 14th century, and the Habsburgs trying to muscle in on the swiss cantons ended in disaster, repeatedly for them when knights came up against longspears and early halberds even before them, in the early 14th century. In the 15th century you have the hussite wars where innovative tactics and reliance on polearms and ranged weapons defeated cavalry repeatedly, even when guns were still a minority weapon.
If you want dominant cavalry you need to look further back, look at specific conflicts, or fast forward all the way to the 16th century and the winged hussars when they were the only ones who had figured out how to murderfuck firearm infantry with cavalry charges long after everyone else started to focus less and less on cavalry.
>>47622499
Cavalry continued to be king for quite a long time and the most superheavy of shock cavalry didn't come around till long after the firearm earned it's place on the field.
>>47622616
Yeah, "king" is almost always a misnomer, and cavalry in particular can often be over-recognised through the prestige and wealth often associated with it.
>>47622499
The earliest signs of cannons in Europe are form 1326, when we get one illustration (pic) and one written account mentioning them. So 1320's.
As far as I can tell hand-held gun showed up somewhere before the mid century, maybe in the forties. In the latter parts of the century saltpetre farms start popping up, ending reliance on imports form Indian mines.
A simple serpentine lever to hold the match is probably form the end of the 14th century, ca 1400 we can find it with a spring to hold it back. The basic touch-hole remains common until the end of the 15th century.
Simple dry-mix "serpentine" gunpowder is replaced by "knollen" wet-mixed somewhere in the early 15th century or so.
Breech-loaded cannons using removable chamber-pieces (keep a few pre-loaded spares around, hint hint) may have turned up as early as the start of the 15th century, hand-held variants where around by the middle.
The Hussite wars, 1421-1434, are in many ways when firearms really show their usefulness for the first time.
"Proper" stocks, instead of a staff for example, are IIRC a late 15th century thing, and about there we see the proper matchlock appear as well. Taken together, somewhere close to the turn of the century, we get the arquebus.
Rifled barrels late 15th century, wheellock firearms are first mentioned in 1507, the pepperbox was around by 1530 if not earlier, revolvers (usually long guns, very rarely pistols) before the end of the 16th century. Snaphance lock somewhere mid-late 16th century IIRC, turning into the flintlock proper towards the end of the century(?).
The musket first turns up as a very large cousin to the arquebus in the 16th century, perhaps having started out as a wall gun brought into open battle. It then shrinks a bit and takes over as the main infantry gun from the arquebus, and then keeps shrinking until by the mid century or so it's in many ways the arquebus come again in function.
As for cavalry, it was not really the uncontested champion any more in the 14th century and onwards, as solid infantry blocks started to be able to resist them. The infantry was usually severely lacking on the offence however, so unless your enemy was one that'd reliably attack you'd really want a combined arms approach. The knight as a heavily armoured lancer remains effective until a bit into the 16th century, when the pistol starts replacing the lance, and the knight becomes a pistoleer. The heavily armoured shock cavalry then sticks around until the mid 17th century or so, at which point it starts getting phased out. By the year 1700 it'll probably be pretty hard to find someone with more than a helmet and a breastplate (and even that much is perhaps mostly a French thing), though that configuration will in some places persist until WW1.
>>47621803
Simple answer to pointless argument starter - basic economy, sex-bomb. Rifles were around at that point for roughtly two centuries. So were cartridges. But shit was simply expensive to produce, unreliable and simply impossible to mass-produce.
Cue jump in manufacture techniques all over different industries (2nd industrial revolution, ho!), making bolt-action, magazine-fed, cartridge-shooting rifles simply cheap enough to bother with using them with every single grunt. Even if you remove magazines from the equation, you still need a shitload of things to take into account. French added something as basic as rubber ring to their Chassepot rifle and suddenly it had effective range of way over 1 km, something roughtly a decade later was considered simply impossible, even with a rifle.
>>47622755
Damn it, earlier, not later
>>47621803
Why doesnt everyone make electric cars?
Why dont you have one?
>>47622834
Also, bear in mind that this was cutting edge technology. Lots of cartridge designs were offered that then quickly disappeared as their manufacturers tanked or switched to a new design.
Cartridge markings had no real standards either and just because ammo fits doesn't mean that it is effective or safe in that gun.
This definitely did not encourage adoption and resupply of ammunition should be a very real problem for your campaign, especially if you're following the usual troupes and most weapons & ammo are found rather than purchased.
In contrast, black powder is fairly consistent and a closely fitting projectile of similar proportions is fine to use.
>>47621803
>nd... powder and shot firearms keep being produced? For decades!? What the hell happened? Was the industry resisting change?
Blackpowder spoils. Cartridges didn't become a real game changer until guncotton and smokeless powder had become viewable as propellants because you'd basically either put the same ammout of work into getting your ammo ready and replacing it as you did without cartridges or you'd have to deal with spoilt ones from commercial batches all the fucking time.
The military also resisted giving their soldiers the guns they prefered, which generally were magazine-fed ones that could quickly be readied for the next shot. They were still arguments being made about single-shot rifles being the superior choice for military applications up to WW1.
>>47622514
>Like, the entire Habsburg house got hacked to pieces by burly swiss peasants with halberds and longspears
You greatly underestimate the fecundity of the House of Habsburg and overestimate the impact of the Battle at Morgarten.
>>47622013
>companies like Winchester and Colt who ended a lot of fairly enterprising, competitive and innovating companies by beating them to death with sacks of cash
Not to mention patents. Colt had a patent on the concept of boring a hole through a revolver cylinder. I mean, that's just drilling a hole. Those fuckers somehow managed to spin drilling a hole into being an original idea that deserved legal protection. Which is fucking ridiculous. This practice alone ensured a number of really weird guns and cartirdges were made, because suddenly only Colt could make normal revolvers.
But if you did end up patenting something that could directly compete with them, they did indeed end up buying up your tiny shop, just to put you out of business.
>>47622914
>Colt had a patent on the concept of boring a hole through a revolver cylinder.
Sure there wasn't anything more to that patent? Or was 19th century US patent law even worse than the current stuff? Because I don't see the nearly-bankrupt Colt of the Paterson days doing very well against prior art claims otherwise.
>>47622514
Morgarten was the beginning of the rise.
Cavalry beat those fucking peasants at Marignano
>>47621803
Bruh they had breechloading, rifled guns by 1420 and wheellock pistols by 1550 ish. Yet armies stuck to smoothbore muzzle loading matchlocks until 1650-1700. Economies of scale man.
>>47622981
>rifling in 1420
Not on anything smaller than a culverin, which was a carriage-mounted cannon.
It's not just cost, you can't make reliable breechloaders without a number of metallurgy processes. The breechloader that people keep insisting would have totally revolutionized 18th century warfare was an easily fouled mess and no amount of "muh accurate reproduction" has managed to get over that problem inherent to blackpowder.
Until poudre B and cordite there is no way to make a reliable fast firing gun that will work for more than a couple shots anyway.
Wheellocks being canned, however, was entirely a cost issue, they were more reliable than flintlocks, lacked the snapping action that could fuck up your aim (which could lead to entire volleys going overhead of the opposing troops), but they were expensive af.
Which still didn't stop the swedish army from trying to convince the estates-general of Sweden to fund a new type of wheellock in the 18th century.
>>47623008
Not necessarily, the term culverin was used earlier as a handgun. Basically pre 1550 terminology is a chaotic shitfest.
That said the earliest mention of rifling I heard of was for a handgun shooting competition around 1420 and I am pretty sure those were in fact personal firearms.
>>47622953
US patent law by fucking default was ridiculous and keep being so. Technically you could patent ANYTHING in early 19th century, including things that were around for centuries at that point. All it took was drawing a patent schematics, apply documentation and bam! You are done, here is your patent sir, enjoy fucking up just about everyone.
Then probably die out of disentery, with the patent held by your heir completely uninterested in the whole thing, but nobody else can do this shit for free anymore and need to pay absurd fees.
Patents are literally one of the worst inventions that are out there. But then again, I'm from post-commie nation, so I have no sentiment toward "private intellectual property", as such concept didn't exist for me till I was attending uni and we had entire subject dedicated to drill copyrights into us. After all, why would anyone want to keep KNOWLEDGE as private property?
>>47622953
This appears to be the patent, as filed by Rollin White: https://www.google.com/patents/US12648
>>47623065
>After all, why would anyone want to keep KNOWLEDGE as private property?
I'm so commie I might BE the Red under the Bed but I can get it. They want the opportunity for someone who invested time, effort and money to get benefits from it rather than having a big business go 'Well, thanks for all the work. Our factories will start pumping it out with no gain for you'
The issue is that it's too easy to abuse what IS a good idea of a base system.
>>47623113
Anon, you are missing the point - it's the big business who will use it to fuck up your small-ass workshop, not the other way around.
The issue is how patents by default are simply stupid, especially if they don't simply work on basic principle "Ok, you've got here 5 years of when this is your property, then fuck you, everyone benefits".
>>47623142
He was emphasising that Big Businesses fucking Workshops would likely happen even more without patents, as instead of having to buy you out they could just straight up copy
>>47622697
Missed one, the transition form knollen powder to controlled grain corning seems to be an early to mid 16th century thing, following improvements in saltpetre making that made it less prone to sucking up moisture.
>>47623008
>>47623046
One major issue with rifling is that the bullet has to engage the rifling, ie it needs to fill out the grooves, which means it's too big for the lands. With a breech loader shooting ball ammo, that means it's going to take a bit of time violence to get the bloody thing down the barrel. With military firearms often shooting under-bore ammo as it as to speed up reloading and reduce fouling sensitivity (the abhorrent accuracy that resulted being less of an issue with gunpowder smoke obscuring things), the thought of going for something significantly slower and mroe fouling sensitive than a smoothbore with properly fitted balls, well...
Thus rifling remained rare until the minie ball, the ass of which expanded when fired to engage the rifling.
Shooting competitions would be where rifling had a chance before such, with time generally being plentiful and accuracy being the entire point.
>>47623065
So somehow even worse.
>>47623078
Seems the hole in this case has to be at the rear, to specifically allow reloading form the rear. So at least slightly more specific, but yes, damn.
Also, the text recognition software really did a number on that one.
>>47623185
Exactly. Without patents there is nothing protecting the newcomer to the industry and his new idea. The established Big Business can instantly go 'Well, that's a nice idea but we have the industrial capacity and marketing to take advantage of it. It's our idea now'.
I can see the idea of patents, they exist to make sure that the inventor of something can see some actual profit from it rather than it being instantly co-opted by someone else.
The system itself, however, is kinda fucked.
>>47623185
>>47623217
>2016
>People seriously believe patents are protecting anyone else than Big Business
And let me guess - everyone should pull themselves by their boothstraps?
>>47622499
The earliest recorded pistol duels were actually done on horse back
>>47623287
...I was saying what the concept is supposed to be about, not how it works in practice.
How do you believe that patents are supposed to work with new inventions?
>>47622499
>Let me start the same argument as always on /tg/, 27th time this week
>>47622953
>Or was 19th century US patent law even worse than the current stuff?
We're talking about the country that only aknowledged that people who aren't citizens of the US can potentially hold IP rights at the tail end of the 1980s.
>>47623309
...wait, what?
>>47623307
I believe patents should cease to exist, just like that. The only thing they do is protecting someone's ass, usually someone who is already sitting on golden chair with cushy pillow.
What? No grants for research? No company security? That's bullshit. People invested into R&D without patents just as much. It's a corporate business that keeps defending its own ass so they can make cash without actually doing anything at all and god forbid upgrading the existing things, because that means the patent is no longer valid and they are no longer having monopoly.
I really love it with Chinese and their utter contempt toward copyrights, not just because being nominally commies, but on purely cultural level. Because they are fucking everyone big time with their knock-offs and openly saying "well then, sue us"
>>47623317
Different anon, but you can thank Disney for fucking up everyone. They've lobbied during Reagan administration so much shit to protect "their" property and every other corporation benefit by proxy, since American law is based on precedense, so allow one and everyone is allowed to pull the same thing.
So yeah, Clappistani as always protecting freedom and fair chances of the already entitled.
>>47623287
>by their boothstraps
In looking up boot straps (they're just fabric hooks really), apparently the saying "to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps" was already in use during the 19th century... as an example of an impossible task, with the idiom dating to at least 1834.
Amusing that now people would use it seriously.
And the conversation was about theory, not actuality
>>47622487
didnt these three shot burst fire functions got developed becouse of this?
>>47623359
From what I recall yes.
>>47623358
Anon, this is the entire point of this saying - how impossible it is, and yet how Americans keep sprouting it as some revelation.
Also, if you didn't notice, we are not living in theoretical wordl, but actual one. We just can't assume things working in theory, because they fucking need to work in reality
>>47623217
The market would balance itself out in the scenario of a naive idiot telling everyone how his invention works, and a much larger business being able to capitalize on his invention and push out products that are cheaper for consumers than that guy just trying to do it on his own.
Of course without a patent system telling trade secrets would become an incredibly cutthroat problem that could wipe out new businesses.
The patent system should just be a flat 15-20 years backed by increased efforts to make it easier for people without much money to defend their patents. After the 15-20 years is up the patent falls under a period of semi ownership until death + 20 years. The semi ownership license is that businesses must cite the author or company's name they are using the patents for in some form to inform other businesses whose patents they are using.
This would be the same way for copyright law, only the citation license would be intended to make sure consumers know the product isn't official rather than just other businesses.
>>47622499
>Cavalry was still king when these things showed up right?
cavalry was still a highly valued part of the army up until after the great war
after seeing action prior to the front stabilising(like pic related) the British cavalry were largly kept in reserve by French and later Haig so they could quickly exploit any breaks in the line
>>47623387
>After the 15-20 years is up the patent falls under a period of semi ownership until death + 20 years.
What for?
No, really, what for? We already have bullshit like that in place and all it does it "b-but we have the rights for this!"
Fucking copyrights are rotten and exactly because such clausule corporations are openly lobbying to extent the "+80 years after death/" into "forever and ever".
FUCK this shit.
>>47623065
I can understand that attitude, that knowledge should be spread and be allowed to benefit humanity, but I can also see the flip side of the problem.
Innovation is spurred on by greed. As you know very well, capitalism works because we're exploiting the greed of the common man, rather than asking of him his virtue. Innovation and invention is no exception. A man creates, he reaps the riches, society benefits from a new invention. That's why the patent system (sometimes) works.
>>47623456
>cavalry was still a highly valued part of the army up until after the great war
No anon.
You are confusing "being used" with "being highly valued". Cavalry was pretty much obsolete with mass introduction of breech-loading rifles and one can argue it was obsolete even sooner, at the end of Napoleonic period. It was idiots who still considered it valid up until WW1, which taught everyone a final lesson they are using obsolete tactics that don't work against modern weapons.
>>47623458
The point of the semi ownership is that you can't do anything to stop somebody from using your patent, but they must state that they used your patent in their product.
It would be such an easy thing for companies to do that there would rarely be any need for a court case.
>>47623467
>Greed is the only driving force that exists
Anon, are you American? And if not, why are you perpetuating American bullshit?
There is curiosity. There is simple need for something better. There is general progress in related fields. There is pride, if you seriously need to keep it on basic human instincts. There is desire to do things with as little work as possible. There is the desire to reach higher efficiency, not because monetary profit, but lowering the toll of given task. Oh, and let's don't forget that some people simply are good and are doing things for benefit of human race out of kindness.
And so on and forth. Greed is what perpetuates the company that MIGHT hire you to do something for them, not a open-them-all key.
>>47623496
>but they must state that they used your patent in their product.
Again, WHAT FOR. Explain this to me, because something is apparently skipping me here. Why would you need to cite it?
>>47623478
>cavalry is used by all armies worldwide even in WWI
>obsolete
Don't be such a contrarian.
>>47623372
I can't tell, do people (Americans, I've never actually heard it said in person) say it only to mean "an impossible attempt to produce success out of nothing"?
Or do they sometimes mean it as "people should genuinely attempt to succeed purely on their own merits"
The theory comment was in answer to "you seriously believe patents are..." comment/insult, which was kind of unfounded, given that the anon and I were stressing one of the reasons patents were made to be a thing.
Neither of us said they were very good at it, or that we believed that they were.
>>47623511
Because it would work in a very similar way to the copyright reform to simplify the laws, and also patent inventors would get extremely butthurt if only copyright creators got the semi ownership license.
>>47623535
>Neither of us said they were very good at it
God no, they are a terrible system. There is, however, reasons why you'd want something to protect small companies from having ideas stolen by bigger companies.
>>47622914
About the only small 'relief' was that the patents where comparatively short term, but even 10-15yr was quite a pain in the arse for anyone looking to develop equipment.
>>47623478
Cavalry was next to useless on the western front and against the Russians which was a static clown circus, they just got them off their horses and into the trenches for the most part when they got slim on numbers.
Other fronts however, (like the Battle of Beersheba) in the deserts and anywhere else mobility could be used they gave the enemy a lot of grief.
Horse drawn artillery though floated around for quite some time after 'cavalry' was effectively dead and buried into the WW2 period but don't really remember it being used post WW2 off the top of my head.
>>47623551
Yeah, it's like "this thing exists to do a job - the job is nigh impossible, and the thing is bad at the job anyway, but it's marginally better than not having the thing at all", though the amount it helps bigger companies is a pretty big downside.
Well, sort of, big companies have good points too, but their situations allow them to benefit from patents more than most.
>>47623513
>Top brass using absolutely outdated tactics
>WW1 proving that in every single front and instance
>HURR BUT THEY WERE USING IT SO SURELY IT COULDN'T BE BAD DURR
Seriously anon? Seriously?
The moment machine guns were bought by Brits in 1880s, pretty much ALL military development till that point became obsolete. Add to that indirect artillery fire of Germans and suddenly you end up with absolutely obsolete army and tactics, with weapons capable of obliterating entire regiments like it was nothing.
And you will clinge to cavalry just because it was used. French were using fucking curraisiers at the wake of the war. Fucking cavalry with fucking armoured breastplates. You are going to tell me it wasn't obsolete, just because it was in use?
How fucking retarded you are from 1 to Nebraska?
>>47623550
Let me get this straight - we should implement cancerous law that was proven long ago to be counter productive to fuck up patents even more?
>>47623629
>WW1 proving that in every single front and instance
The whole eastern front, Anon.
The whole eastern front.
The whole half of the war that didn't feature any Anglos at all.
>>47623561
Chinese used cavalry at trainings with nuke explosions.
>>47623639
Nigga all it is is stating whose work you're building off of. This has been the way it works in both the open source software world and the free culture world. How fucking dense are you.
>>47623651
As a Russian I couldn't laugh harder on your bullshit.
At least the anon who pulled Arabia had some claims to make. Meanwhile, you are just shitposting. Cavalry was outdated. The only instances where it wasn't were when both sides were absolutely backward shitholes with no infrastructure and mid-19th century equipment.
>>47623629
Like this anon >>47623561 pointed out the western front was not the entirety of the war. Cavalry was used, it had an effect on the battlefield, it was not completely obsolete. Deal with it.
>>47623629
Not him but...
Why would cuirasses be obsolete? They were expected to stand up to sword blows and lances and I believe they still performed fine at that.
>>47623668
But anon, please explain me - why should you stating who's work are you using? What practical reason is behind this, aside of wanking at each other "look, they are citing us"? Applied science is not a fucking literature analysis, you dense motherfucker. Nobody cares who's research you are using, because it's fucking applied science - all that matters are results, same and consistient.
>>47623359
>>47623368
Also it turns out that the function is useless, it doesn't actually help hit anything. Aimed single shots hit more often.
If you ever want to really piss off a gun control advocate explain to them that if your typical mass shooter had access to fully automatic weapons that less people would have died due to wasted shots so logically 'common sense regulation' should outlaw semi autos and ONLY allow fully automatic weapons.
>>47623651
>>47623710
>The only instances where it wasn't were when both sides were absolutely backward shitholes with no infrastructure and mid-19th century equipment.
>>47623478
they were still valid during ww1 or at least during the war of movement
british cavalry were equally capable of fighting dismounted as they were at mounted warfare(they practiced shooting from horseback as well traditional lance and sword drill) and had machine gun units trained to deploy and redeploy quickly.
if you think having highly mobile, highly trained mounted infantry and equally mobile horse drawn light field guns isn't a valuable field asset then I suggest you kys familam
>>47623703
...so Australia? Where semi-auto guns are illegal because they are the more commonly used in murder ones? Heck, Pistols are basically the most restricted weapon there because they are concealable, not rifles.
>>47623718
So my picture fits like perfectly?
PS, ANGLOS INVOLVED
>>47623724
Statistically if you want to reduce gun deaths you get rid of handguns. Rifles are very infrequently used besides a few high profile cases.
Legally owned fully automatic weapons are a non factor in crime in civilized nations, since the US started regulating them there has been exactly one violent crime committed with a legally owned full auto and that was by a Cop who had bought it because he was on a SWAT team.
>>47623779
Yeah, in Aus a semi-auto pistol is basically only seen in the hands of Police for that exact reason. You'll find shotguns all over the place and a non-zero amount of hunting rifles.
>>47623499
>Greed is the only driving force that exists
That wasn't the implication.
But it's hard to deny that capitalism yokes greed to its benefit, and that places like the USA are successful, even in the realm of innovation and technological progress. Sure, the other drives for progress and discovery are there, and they often do come up, but there is a painful shortage of virtuous individuals in the world.
Do you leave your doors unlocked at night? Do you leave your money open for all to see? If you do, I'd like to live where you live. But in most places, we hope for the best out of people, but we plan around their worst instincts coming through. Capitalism is fundamentally pessimistic in that it runs an economy based upon greed, but it works elegantly and effectively in that respect.
If you're a proponent of communism, know that I don't see communism as a failure in idea so much as a failure on the part of humanity. Capitalism is an essentially pessimistic and nasty idea in many respects, but on the whole, it works.
>>47623720
There were times where they were valid afterwards, for example the Germans in WW2 used mounted infantry to fight partisans in Yugoslavia, and the Mongolians still use cavalry in their border forces (look up how their horses are trained, crazy)
Their use is incredibly niche, but horses are still a quick all terrain vehicle that doesn't need gas, and that's still valuable to some folks
>>47623699
A massive chunk of what you would consider applied science, products that use some form of software, has license files floating around in the codebases used to direct the machines that build the things you want. MIT, BSD, ZLIB, LGPL, etc, these are all found everywhere, and every single one of them is a very simple citation. A good portion of the market is already doing it through clunky means, why not simplify things and let them apply to patents as a whole?
As a business you get free research by reading the patent filing and implememtation and all you have to do is just put a tiny bit of effort into letting people know which inventor you're using the work of.
That's an easy win for businesses.
As an inventor you can use a list of companies using your patents as a pitch to investors/other companies to fund your continued inventions.
That makes it a win for inventors as well.
>>47623827
Got a link to that mongolian cav training?
>>47622318
>Today, if someone comes up with something new and amazing, everyone will know about it in short order and if it's affordable, efforts will be made to incorporate it asap.
We've had caseless ammo since the '70s, and it's still not in service anywhere.
>>47623797
>Do you leave your doors unlocked at night? Do you leave your money open for all to see? If you do, I'd like to live where you live.
I do. Of course where i live there are 3 residents in a 70 square mile area and i do keep a loaded gun over my bed just in case.
>>47623847
Yes, but caseless isn't amazing. The heat problems were fixed, but the gas-jet cutting is inherent, like the problems with erosion.
>>47623499
Greed is a communist bullshit. Capitalists proposed that people could keep what they make and trade freely with other people; Marx proposed mass confiscation of property, both freshly invented and inherited, at gunpoint.
>>47621803
This video should answer your question (44:51 - 48:21):
https://youtu.be/6dV1ckynGEc?t=44m51s
TL:DR version:
1) Cutting edge technology on the civilian market is rarely hardened/developed to the point of being "hardened" to military use, working out the kinks in a design takes time, even decades &
2) replacing the standard firearm of your military is expensive, and military's usually aren't willing to go to the expense unless what they're getting is at least as durable as what they already have AND offers some significant advantage
I think a lot of folks here have a problem drawing a line between something being efficient and something being useful.
Cavalry and horses were useful, I mean the blitzkrieg ran on them. but they certainly weren't the best solution when everybody and their mums had guns that killed the fuck outta horses easily.
Hilariously enough, according to pre-WW1 tests, bicycles would probably have been the superior means of transportation on all fronts where horses where used.
>>47624017
>Cavalry and horses were useful, I mean the blitzkrieg ran on them. but they certainly weren't the best solution when everybody and their mums had guns that killed the fuck outta horses easily.
what better solutions were there for rapid movement of infantry and field guns during the great war?
>>47624017
>bicycles would probably have been the superior means of transportation on all fronts where horses where used.
They were. Bicycles don't need feeding or care. They are light and can be carried over obstacles. They can be used to carry gear. The only thing they can't do better than horses is pull heavy loads.
The Japs used bicycles to great effect in their conquest of Malaysia. To give you an idea of how brutally efficient the Japs were: They figured out that they could make field bridges lighter by just not taking the posts that held up said bridges. They just ordered some dudes to serve as posts, holding up the bridges.
>>47624225
> for rapid movement of infantry
You do realize that infantry was initially moved by railways, right?
>>47624238
The Japanese also starved their soldiers on the move. They planned on their soldiers being expendable rather than replacable.
>>47623797
>Do you leave your doors unlocked at night?
Yes, because I own nothing worth the trouble of stealing.
>Do you leave your money open for all to see?
What money?
>>47624284
>entire disgussion is about tactical movement on the battlefield
>start meming about the logistics of moving troops to the battlefield
>>47624017
Bicycles to tend to have problems in rougher terrain if you run out of road..
>>47623699
But anon, you answered your own question: results, same and consistent. If you cite who you're working off of, the next bloke can come along and reproduce what you did without having to spend any time going "what the fuck is going on here?"
>>47624350
>disgussion
*discussion
but this more is vatnik/chicom levels of shitposting rather than an actual discussion
>>47623651
Baron Sternberg did really terribly as a WWI commander. It's largely why he was sent away from the front lines to sit around oppressing the peasants in central Asia for the rest of the war.
If I recall, the Chinese army he defeated during his post-revolution Mongolian conquest only had five or six machine guns and no modern artillery. They were even more poorly equipped than the Turks that T.E. Lawrence rekt.
>>47623847
We've had caseless ammo since the middle ages. If caseless ammo actually solved a meaingful problem, it would be in use; it turns out that it doesn't and that for the price of going caseless, you need every soldier to have an Eng D just to field strip their gun.
>>47624017
Well the german advance into france had a mix of horses and bicyclists in most of the artillery units - iirc the entire (ultimately, unused) nazi chemical weapon artillery division was bicycle mounted, because they were supposed to use small mortars to support weimarch troops in small engagements.
>>47622616
People forget the Battle of Nagashino in 1575 where the cavalry of the Takeda was obliterated by the Oda's rifles.
>>47622616
>The english slapped the french around
3 battles ffs. By the third one longbows had reached the point where they could literally not pierce plate anymore
>>47624883
People don't forget, none of these battles marked a decline in cavalry. Even the claim that the winged hussars represented the ultimate in 16th century cavalry is bullshit, pistoleers almost always won against lancers unless they were dumb enough to do a caracole, and could outright beat pike walls with the right amount of armor.
The turks and french actually won battles involving cavalry charging at pike walls.
>>47624912
Third? Poitiers in the second one isn't it?
>>47625020
Yeah; Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers.
All they really showed is that dug in ranged infantry is really hard to dislodge, no matter how many charges your cavalry can handle (Poitiers involved fifteen of them so it's not like they were getting hurt that much).
>>47625101
Well they did ride armored horses at Poitiers according to primary sources so it's quite logical.
>>47623797
>that I don't see communism as a failure in idea so much as a failure on the part of humanity.
There's also the economic fact that a single individual or organizational central planner is incapable of determining and allocating resources efficiently to different inputs due to being unable to properly measure cost and determine all the factors and sacrifices involved in allocating limited time and resources to different societal needs. To do so you either need a relatively open and lax Market economy free from overt central meddling , which defeats the purpose of communism, or to have everything ve controlled by a super capable and completely amoral/unfeeling/unattached super computer, which just turns things into 1984 levels of distopia that will inevitably fall apart due to the human element either failing or revolting
>>47623499
>Implying curiosity isn't a subset of greed
Knowledge is a commodity just like any other.
>>47622523
>plate armor was pretty effective at stopping bullets
Source? I severely doubt that. You give plate armor too much credit and explosively projected chunks of metal too little, methinks. I'm pretty sure the knights of old were eventually phased out by the advent of the firearm.
>>47621803
Also keep in mind that the Military establishment in the Western World resisted widespread implementation of cartridge rifles for a variety of reasons until the 1870's,
This is why the Union army in the American Civil War was still using muzzle-loaders when Winchester repeating rifles were available in large quantities.
>>47625296
Well considering we don't even see full plate till after the introduction of firearms...
>>47625296
Full plate was made after firearms, and "bullet-proof" was a standard by which many suits were made, as they were tested to ensure they could stop at least a few shots. It was the annoying cost of production and the increase in firearm tech that caused them to be phased out, mostly so people could just wear the breastplate and other essential bits instead
>>47625296
Quite the opposite. The kind of plate armor that Hollywood has associated with the middle ages didn't even exist until the 1400s.
Early guns fired large soft lead bullets at relatively low velocity. A steel plate could stop them easily. The decline in knights had more to do with changes in European social structure than the failure of plate to be effective against guns.
It wasn't until the 1700s that guns became powerful enough that armor no longer offered reliable protection.
>>47625416
That dent doesn't mean anywhere near as much as 4chan wants to believe.
>>47623677
Anon, cavalry was obsolete on very simple principle - it was useful ONLY useful if the enemy lacked modern equipment. If they did - cavalry was fucked.
>>47623684
>Why would cuirasses be obsolete
>They were expected to stand up to sword blows and lances
Because the war was fought with massed rifle fire, machine guns, indirect artillery, land mines and the biggest bane of cavalry - barbed wire. All of those are perfectly capable of making cavalry simply useless, especially charge cavalry like cuirassiers and not semi-modern one, used just for recon and dismounting for fight.
>>47623797
>Do you leave your doors unlocked at night?
Yes, because I'm living in civilised country
>Do you leave your money open for all to see?
My national law DEMANDS from all citizens to have transparet accounting, which everyone can access at any moment.
And please stop thise "in most places". Not everyone is living in America or some other third-world shithole.
>>47623797
>>47625227
>Communism failed with early 20th century technology and understanding, applied in backward countries
>Ergo, it renders entire doctrine impossible to work
CyberSyn is laughing at you and they've barely used fucking telex for it. But then again, Americans sponsoured a fucking coup just to keep Chile docile and under some right-wing lunatic.
>>47625296
Of interest...
Chapter nine and, to a lesser degree, seven: http://www.mediafire.com/download/2lw9w2stunb6zyt/The_Knight_and_the_Blast_Furnace.pdf
And: http://www.mediafire.com/download/in0nzztoytz/For_show_or_safety.pdf
Do you know how long it took the ordnance board and war office to agree on anything? Apart from a gun should generally have a barrel and a trigger, that's about the limit of what they could agree on.
Also, soldiers didn't like changing their reliable firearms much, and the expense of cartridge rifles.
>>47625296
Gunpowder circa 1350
Matchlock circa 1450
Knights in full plate armor till around 1550
Heavier 3/4rd cuirassier armor with bulletproof chest plate and helmet till around 1648
>>47621880
The Industrial Revolution begain at the beginning of the 1800s, and guns had been mass-produced using industrial machining tools for decades by the time metal cartridges were invented.
Now, there was probably some turnaround time in getting the industrial infrastructure established to produce cartridge guns affordably, but I don't know how long that took.
>>47623535
Originally the phrase about boot straps meant to do something impossible. Over time, it morphed in the common consciousness to being parroted as a phrase meaning that you just needed to work your ass off to make your dreams come true.
Mind you, it tends to get parroted by folks who already had it fairly well off to begin with, and actual cases of boot strapping your way to the top are as rare as they are for a reason.
Honestly, English as a language, is full of these sayings that changed over time into their near opposites. "The Lady doth protest too much" and "Blood is thicker than water" are two examples.
>>47625227
I don't think you'd seriously want to compare a planned economy and an open economy on the basis of the waste they produce, Anon.
At least not unless you want to make the latter look seriously terrible.
>>47625296
You give early firearms too much credit.
>>47625597
>waste they produce,
I never said that. I was talking about the capability to actually be able to provide for societal needs in an efficient manner in a worlds where resources and means are limited, and the ethical dilemmas entailed in the individual go must make that choice
Also, planned communist economy was a failure that was so bad that the USSR was forced to abandon is if their stuff and beg people to privatize resources to make the available, all the while demonizing the 2% that made life for the nation possible
>Inb4 muh post scarcity super science!
Post scarcity is a myth perpetuated by idiots who do not understand that time is a limiting resource as well, and at our current rate of consumption nearly no amount of technology will make resources any less scarce without destroying the planet in the process, or at least waitingfor/forcing humanity to experience a large enough die off event
>>47625716
>Instantly jumping to unrelated subject to cover the fact the actual part that matters is bullshit
Nice shitposting, mate
Also, Westerners should seriously finally educate themselves why Soviet-style economy couldn't stand.
How the fuck economy can stand, if it's pretty much heavy industry build by Stalin for "incoming war", draining all the resources for three decades and then it was simply impossible to catch up, you dense motherfucker?
But surely that proofs capitalism and private initiative is superior, right? Because one idiot militarised his country to the point of starving own people.
>>47622511
A* post
>>47625789
And germany was completely destroyed but became an economic powerhouse some decades later thanks to...
>>47625789
And then Mao did the same thing.
>>47625820
German industrious skill which slavs lack.
>>47625101
I get the feeling a lot of the longbow's reputation comes down to English propaganda. They were always good at propaganda.
The Flemish managed to soundly beat a French knightly army with soundly deployed pike formations. So it all comes down to the fact that you can beat a force that's superior on paper with smart battlefield control, training, and the knowledge that the enemy will rely on their charging power.
>>47625905
>german industrious skill
I didn't realize "America throwing massive amounts of cash at you" counted as a skill
>>47625789
>Because one idiot
You mean every idiot who ever tried communism.
Also, the other mean problem with Soviet style communism is that you demonized and prevented entrepreneurial innovation and forced anyone who showed any promise into research gulags rather than allowing innovation to occur naturally, while also inhibiting competitive thought which, as any one who has any knowledge of scientific accreditation and peer review can tell you, is integral for advancement and innovation to occur
All of which were symptomatic of a system where all economic, executive, and societal authority was concentrated into a central oligarchy which is incapable of assessing such factors on a national scale and is naturally inclined towards total corruption on the highest echelon due to their over expansive reach and power.
Further, even then such a system is also bound to fail and fall behind when exposed to any form of international market and society, and can only theoretically work when put in a situation of completely enclosed autarky, which is essentially impossible in this day and age with the only real example being the corrupted shortest known as North Korea. It's like Ostrum Externality Marketing, it only works in a small and exposed society that can be efficiently self regulated by the constituents only, the moment outside involvement outside the direct constituency occurs, it all goes to shit.
Nice shitposting though, you crafted it very well.
>>47625905
Why was east germany behind west germany?
>>47625839
But Dan Xiapeng undone.
>>47625946
Because they were occupied by red scum.
>>47625946
Because it was a tiny country with insignificant resource base, unable to participate in open trade AND treated by Soviets as "show state", as the West-most, so half of commie block was working to make it look less horrible.
Also, classic Soviet industrialisation, so huge emphasis on heavy industry and neglecting everything else, because it's easier to rule over underfed poor masses.
And people still make and assumption the system was inefficient by design and not by desire.
>>47625789
>Because one idiot militarised his country to the point of starving own people.
No, you'll find that it's the collection of dictatorial idiots who all attempted to implement the same ideology, and all turned their countries into unlivable hell-holes, the best of which are only slightly better because they waved communism goodbye and basically became capitalist again.
Fun fact: Cambodia is the most ethnically homogenous country in the world, because the commies murdered all ethnic minorities during their rule.
So yeah, when capitalism ends up doing what communism promises to do, I think it's fair to say capitalism is better.
>>47626026
>Soviet-sponsored commie states were applying Soviet economic ideas
Gee, I really wonder why!
And if you are seriously calling Crimson Khmers "commies", I've got a clue for you - you're an American, Coral.
>>47625994
>Because it was a tiny country with insignificant resource base
West-germany isn't huge in comparison and also doesn't have much resources. Then there are rich places like Hong Kong, Switzerland, Luxemburg, wich are tiny in comparison.
>unable to participate in open trade
Thanks communism.
>>47626026
>Cambodia is the most ethnically homogenous country in the world
My fucking sides... Jesus fucking Christ...
Cambodia isn't even the most homogenous country in South East Asia, you moron. Killing intelligence and people wearing glasses is not the same as killing minorities
>>47626026
>the commies
Vietnam dislodged the khmer rouge, the US backed them.
>>47626057
They are as red as Bolsheviks terrorists.
>>47626057
>NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
The eternal refuge of the commie. Nothing is ever communist if it failed, and it all failed, so nothing is ever communist, so we should totally try communism, guys!
The Khmer Rouge was was an attempt to introduce communism. It was supported by communists worldwide, including in the West. It was communism. And like all other communist states, it committed genocide on an industrial scale.
I'd be much more receptive to your wishes if you faggots had the capability of admitting your mistakes. But communism is a true cult, in always hammering on what everyone else is doing wrong, but enshrining its own ideology as infallible. It's always someone else's fault with you cunts.
You were worse than the fascists. Let that sink in for a moment.
>>47626082
All these places are centers of surprise capitalism.
>>47623797
Capitalism is based on greed yes, but it makes it possible, for a person to become rich and have acess to luxury and comfort without resorting to raping and pillaging, instead by providing something that others desire.
>>47626082
>Seriously making a comparison between West and East Germany resource base
Anon, are you for real? Even if we remove such tiny and insignificant element like Marshall Plan, you still need to remember that pretty much ENTIRE German industry was located in the West at the start of the Cold War. Not counting mines in Saxony, there was NOTHING. Especially since Soviets removed everything that was removable and transported it to the Motherland right after "liberating" all those places. The parts that did have industry and were on the East? They became Polish clay. East Germany ended up with nothing and Stalin didn't care as long as he was alive, since he was gearing for the war with West, so he needed loot first and foremost.
>>47626086
If you're implying that there was no genocide in Cambodia, you're either a retard or a horrible human being.
>>47626105
>Nothing is ever communist
Anon, Khmer Rogue seriously weren't communists. Soviets were commies. Vietnam is commie. China is semi-commie. Cuba is/was commie. Venezuela is commie. Chile had a commie episode.
But calling Cambodia and North Korea "commie" is simply retarded. Even if you are American.
>>47626147
>pretty much ENTIRE German industry was located in the West at the start of the Cold War
Thanks capitalism.
>>47626176
>My reading comprehension is non-existing
We've noticed that already, anon.
My point is how indiscriminating the genocide was, you stupid fuck, aiming at EVERYONE. It didn't made Cambodia more Cambodian. It made Cambodia lost 1/3 of its population, from all possible groups, minorities and what not.
Want genocide aimed at certain minority or ethnic group? How about Tutsi and Hutu? And even they didn't manage to pull this, you moron, while intentionally trying to wipe one specific group.
>>47626178
>no true Scotsman
I mean, if you'd actually give an argument, fine. But you're just literally calling people retarded. Then again, I don't think I've ever seen a commie give a solid argument about why their hellholes aren't real communism.
>/k/ thread
>Bunch of fedora-tipping faggots arguing about communism
>>47626105
>REEEEEEEE KAMERA Rouge
You mean the one the CIA supported because it was a key enemy to the other much more socialist regimes? Ok.
Feel free to also look up who ended up removing them from power. Spoiler, it was communist Vietnam.
>>47626223
>Still pushing "no true Scotsman" argument
>To something that doesn't even pretent to be "Scottish" in the first place
And you wonder why people call you retarded?
>>47626236
>using fedora for anything but r/atheism MRAs
>>47626204
Christ, the triggering...
The point was the communism is universally genocidal. The point about ethnicity was just a way to illustrate that. Do try to keep up, you colossal idiot.
>>47626251
>commies pretending commie regime wasn't commie
>somehow not a no true scotsman argument
I knew commies were idiots, but this is pathetic.
>>47626105
>The Khmer Rouge was was an attempt to introduce communi
>Khmer Rogue
>Communism
You can't be serious. Khmer Rogue was first and foremost an attempt to carve their part from French Indochina as separate country, with strong nationalism. Commie? Well duh, it would be really strange if they would get backing from Americans, so who was left in the bipolar political scene? Oh, right, Soviets.
I guess that makes India a commie state too. After all, they took Soviet money. And Egypt, right with entire Middle East. And half of Africa.
Seriously anon, your understanding of Cold War politics is laughable
>>47625465
Nope; cavalry was effective in many areas where people were equipped with modern equipment.
>>47626026
There isn't really a case where an active member of the COMITERN was made worse by being a member. Really all the is this this argument is that they could have been made better, faster, despite the fact that capitalist nations only really take off after similar levels of infrastructure improvement are reached that communist ones benefit from too.
The republic of China set the trend of Chinese cheap industrial goods, and the PRC followed it just as effectively when it decided to do so.
>>47626284
>Khmer Rogue
>Commie
Pick one. Because next thing you are going to do will be calling North Korea communist.
I know it's hard for Americans to grasp, but not being leisse-faire capitalist doesn't make you instantly a commie, you dense motherfucker.
Especially when the party involved doesn't EVER evoke being communist itself.
>>47626300
... such as?
List them, there were apparently many places like that, so it shouldn't be a problem for you.
>>47625510
>CyberSyn
That kind of system could at best make the bureaucrats job much easier, but still can't completely solve the problems of a planned economy, like that it doesn't promote nor reward innovation and entrepreneurship, it is also a nightmarish tool for social control that makes 1984 sound like a comfortable place.
Also why didn't they try that shit in Venezuela before it went to hell?
>>47626026
>Cambodia is the most ethnically homogenous country in the world
After Iceland. And almost entire Central Europe. And sizable chunk of Middle East.
>>47626236
this thread is proof that genocide doesn't have to be a bad thing
>>47626331
>make the bureaucrats job much easier
Which is essential for central planning, you tool.
>can't completely solve the problems of a planned economy
The basic problem of central planning is that central must be informed about everything. When CIA sponsored massive strikes in Chile, you know what they did? Used barely working prototype of CyberSyn to simply keep the country going for more than a fucking YEAR on nothing more than contrant monitoring of production and transportation.
>1984
Yes, becuase modern capitalism production and transportation control is totally not based on the exact same principles, just on fucking global market scale and not simply national one.
>Also why didn't they try that shit in Venezuela before it went to hell?
And why would they even try? Because I'm not even sure from where did you take this concept that Venezuela should be even interested in this
>>47626331
Because Venezuela was ruled by populistic faggot using oil as first, second and last support of the national economy, while Chile had bunch of well-educated guys running the place and being quite competent.
Cue American-backed military coup, because communism is evil, even if they were just a classic socialist democracy, the same type as most European nations were back then. Funny how Americans didn't invade Europe to stop the spread of evil communism among their own allies.
>>47626300
Even the Turks didn't use their cavalry as cavalry past the first few months of the war outside of the more backwards Arabian peninsula.
>>47626315
>>47626289
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Kampuchea
idk if you spelling rouge wrong is the tell there or not, or just reflective of the average political science degree
>>47623359
The problem during the Vietnam War with the M16 was that it had been designed to use one special clean burning ammo. Before the war started the military switched from the clean burning ammo to a dirty burning ammo. Now, the problem with the M16 is that it works on a direct impingement system. Which means that the hot gasses and fouling go directly in the action (simplified) and will eventually jam the bolt. Normally, this wouldn't happen if you clean your gun after using it. But soldiers were taught that the rifle doesn't need maintenance, and they weren't even equipped with cleaning kits. Also, on modern AR's you have a forward assist to close the bolt should it remain open. But the first M16 versions that were sent to Vietnam didn't have this feature. If the gun jammed, it would stay jammed.
The three-round burst feature has nothing to do with reliability, but with saving ammo. Full-auto fire is in most cases absolutely useless and wasteful as only the first few rounds will hit. Therefore a three-round burst feature is perfect as it allows for accurate multiple hits.
>>47626416
Also because Venezuela has literally always been a basketcase, the only reason we give a shit is because they stopped being our basketcase.
>>47626331
>Cybernetic management is evil and makes 1984 look good by comparison
Then I guess entire modern capitalistic economy is evil incarnate, as those ideas are the reason you can have a true global economy, you stupid cunt.
Post like you remind me that famous anecdote about Marine Sergeant. He was asked is space technology is needed, so he laughed and said "Of course not! All I need to fight my enemies is pair of boots, my rifle and GPS! Space is just waste of money"
>>47626439
>Here is my proof
>Wikipedia
>>47626289
Fun fact: After the USA pulled out of Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia, the Chinese backed KR went to war against Russia backed Vietnam. Now comes the interesting part. The USA and its NATO allies supplied the KR with western weapons to fight the Vietnamese. For example German Armbrust anti-tank weapons were used by the KR.
True communism never existed, period.
Before getting into communism proper a nation must go through a socialist phase, where all economic power and decision making are passed to the hands of the people through the mediation of an strong centralized state that can stand up against the powerful capitalist oligarchies, it is not the fault of communisn that these nations are always desestabilized by other capitalist nation before they could do that or sometimes because of infiltration by evil bourgueuse elements inside the state, all the bad stuff that happened in any of these nations can be traced back to capitalists meddling in their affair and can't be used in any way to discredit socialism and comunism as ideologies.
To reach communism we simply need to convince evereyone everywhere at the same time that is the best way to do things, and guarantee that no bad people gets into any powerful position inside the party government, this is just commom sense.
>>47626501
Fun-fact: Chinese pulled all of that to show everyone in East Asia how meaningless "alliance" with Soviet is and show those countries who's t he real boss.
Also, the entire fucking clusterfuck of former Indochina came from a simple reason that all those countries wanted to keep Indochina together, but with their particular part of it as dominant. It didn't work out, for obvious reasons and ended up with bunch of wars between commie nations.
Because Americans are stupid and confuse "being left-wing" with "being allied with other left-wing contries".
>>47626488
you refuted me right proper there bro
now no one will know that communist is literally in their name
>>47626533
>>47621803
I just got into this thread, how did this happen?
>>47626571
Since you're literate enough to check wikipedia, please do note that DK's seat at the UN was preserved at the request of the Reagan administration even years after they'd lost control of both Phnom Penh and most of the countryside.
>>47626501
Maybe that's because entire region was a power-play between USA, Soviets and China? Cambodia was Maoist, hence the retarded actions and genocide of Khmer Rogue in style of Cultural Revolution. Vietnam was Soviet-backed and Southern Vietnam was US-backed to secure trade and sphere of influence in the region. Vietnams (both of them), Laos and Cambodia, as parts of former French Indochina, dreamed each about full control over the area and were already in opposing camps.
The moment much more strategically important Indonesia was "secured" by right-wing Sukarno regime, Americans lost the last reason to bother with Vietnam, packed their toys and left.
It all went to hell within months from that, especially since Vietnamese army was doing nothing more than fighting for past 20 years.
Then Chinese decided to keep status quo and their sphere of influence over Cambodia, while also proding how powerful are alliances with Soviets (as they officially backed Vietnam). Hence Chinese army invading Vietnam when Vietnam was busy invading Cambodia and...
... pulling out, even if easily winning, because the real goal was to show how Soviets won't even move a finger to help their allies so far away from own borders and won't risk a war or even proxy war.
>>47626289
This means that any ideology, much like religion, is only a tool used to unify and motivate people towards goals that serves the interest of some powerful group somewhere.
>>47626091
>the US backed them.
I thought they just didn't do anything?
>>47626661
No shit anon.
How many years it took you to figure out this insightful truth?
>>47622499
Speaking of Rollin White and bored-through cylinders, has anyone heard of the 1823 patent by a William Elliott Lee for a revolver and if they have, could they tell me whether its cylinders are bored-through or not? I've tried asking around on reddit and int but no one seems willing to give a thorough answer, so I was wondering what you guys would make of it.
You can find the patent in the link below. Just go to 'Recherché Avencee' and look for Lee in the 'Deposant/Mandataire' bar. His patent is the one at the top.
http://bases-brevets19e.inpi.fr/index.asp?page=rechercheAvancee
>>47626688
Not many, just pointing that out because it seems that some of our comrades still have trouble getting that.
>>47626603
Bored kids couldn't take their shit to the relevant board.
That's how it happened.
>>47626646
please explain to me how this makes democratic kampuchea not communist after the era of containment has largely drawn to an unsuccessful close, given that as >>47626651 points out, your notion that communism was monolithic is falling to shreds. Reagan counterbalancing sino-communism with soviet communism doesn't take away that sino-communism <- is communism
>GUIZE IF ITS COMMUNIST YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT REGARDLESS OF ITS ACTUAL AFFILIATION
>BUT NO AMOUNT OF BAD THINGS CAPITALISM HAS DONE SHOWS BADLY ON THE IDEOLOGY
K fags. I get that the people who refuse to accept PolPot used 'communism' to push non industrialized agriculturalist ideals are annoying, but at the end of the day you need to accept that "communist" actually suggests a short list of things to make it applicable.
What doesn't really fall into the rest of the Soviet/COMINTERN pattern about Khmer Rogue is just about everything.
They hated engineers, schools, and teachers. They hated industrialized economies and they hated just about everything that communism is pretty obviously governed by.
He didn't even apply fucking state atheism properly, there was a bunch of weird spritual bullshit in the Kmer Rouge.
tl;dr Yeah, it was "communist" in the same way the Nazis were "socialist." Just happens both cases people closer to actual communist/socialist principles removed them from power.
>>47626827
What are some examples of communist policies kampuchea had in place?
>>47626603
See >>47623467 said Greed was the driving force for a lot of innovation (such as the development and adoption of cartridges), then >>47623797 bemoaned that the more pessimistic greed-based capitalism was the more successful ideology than one that's based on sharing
>>47626861
"In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from all foreign influences, closing schools, hospitals, and factories, abolishing banking, finance, and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labour was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into 'Old People' through agricultural labour."
not maoist at all. or was maoism also not communism, because the only true scot- communism is your colleges' marxism club
>>47626830
polpots ideology was more super extreme maoism than soviet ml. Mao put a lot of focus on the peasantry as a revolutionary class and on the importance of boosting agriculture.
>>47626970
>closing factories
>closing schools
>closing hospitals
>agrarian economy
>communist
You're not as smart as you think you are
The thing about communism is that it's not a monolithic ideology. There are near endless variants of it with pretty big splits between leninism vs trotskyism, soviet ml vs maoism, revisionism vs orthodox, etc.
>>47627011
There's a difference between breaking from the line and literally reading like a list of "things that are the complete opposite of anything Marx ever wrote"
>>47626970
> closing schools
>and factories
And the fact that he was doing all of this in order to emulate an ideology based on the proletariat collectively owning their labor and utilizing the surplus of industrialization didn't tip you off?
Wow, I guess I can call Stalinism Capitalism now and you'd have to create a new layer of cognitive dissonance to keep up.
>>47627024
Communism isn't always "things marx wrote"
Pol pot is following a standard line of "maoism taken to its furthest extreme" with the focus on peasantry.
Hell, there's ambiguity around if marx called for a planned economy. He was actually very vague in what he prescribed as solutions to his analysis of the problems of capitalism. I mean, leninisms rejection of internationalism in favor of "socialism in one country" is a pretty big break with marx already.
>>47627001
>the state has control over every aspect of the private sector, yet this is not communistic
>collective farms, or communes, are not communistic
>>47627034
trots and left-libertarians already call stalinism "state capitalism" since the relation of the proletariat to the means of production is unchanged in stalinism and stalinism can be pretty well explained by taking capitalism and replacing every instance of bourgeoisie with the words "the state"
>>47627086
>Everything that involves government control is communist
This just in, tsarist russia was already socialist according to anon.
>>47627034
>communism is marxism
>marxism is possible
m8 really, stop going to state schools
>>47626984
Except Maoism didn't really say FUCK INDUSTRIALIZATION AND LITERACY did it?
In fact, Maoism called for industrialization on perhaps an even larger scale. Mao didn't have a proletariat to work with, he had peasants. So the plan was to collectivize farms and then introduce steel work and so on to the people.
It obviously didnt work, but it was a fuck ton more than what Polpot had to offer.
>>47626326
1918-1920, 1 Horse Army as main mention. South front was decided by cavalry battle at Komarowo.
In 1939 Polish cav performed rather well in it's role as mobile infantry. Outside of that I don't know any major cavalry engagement post WW I
inb4 lance charge at tanks, it did not happen.
>>47627140
The industrialization was something that went on later in maos rule when it became really necessary.
Pol pot inherited the focus on destroying the old culture, moving people around, the whole year zero thing as necessary to have a blank slate for creating communism. The literates and educated weren't hated for being educated, it was because they were western influenced and would never be able to be molded into a new communist man.
As far as combat doctrine, pol pot aped maos military strategies. Both had a focus on taking control of the countryside so as to starve out the cities and forcing people out once they took over the city so it wouldn't offer resistance as his army moved on to take over the surroundings of another city and lay siege to it.
>>47627086
>Absolutism is communist
>>47627346
>absolutist monarchs and autocrats had complete control over every aspect of the private sector
why the fuck do you think this
even fascism did not try to completely control the markets
>>47627141
>Polish cav performed rather well in it's role as mobile infantry
As a Pole, I'm not sure if laugh or cry. Do you at least comprehend it was cavarly in name only? It was literally light recon unit, using horses rather than trucks. Fighting style? Dismount and fight LIKE A FUCKING INFANTRY. The horses were literally a mean of transportation, because Poland couldn't afford having motorised units. Calling them cavalry is like claiming Americans make cavalry revelant, because they've called their chopper-based infantry "air cavalry".
In short - cavalry as shock troops ceast to exist after Franco-Prussian War. It was just a fucking infantry, but mounted during movement.
>>47627392
Neither did communists, you dumb nigger. Not even in fucking Soviet Union. But keep perpetuating your uneducated bullshit
>>47627392
>implying this man didn't try
>>47623065
>After all, why would anyone want to keep KNOWLEDGE as private property?
Because we've got to have MONEY.
>>47627649
Yes anon, there are millions to be made on a half-baked synthesis process that nobody else can research and you yourself can't go any step further, but hey, you've got a patent and no-one else can progress because of your dim-witted idea you will be able to make money out of almost theoretical level of knowledge.
>>47627392
Anon, have you ever heard about mercantilism? Phisiocracy then?
>>47626289
>it would be really strange if they would get backing from Americans
but they did
>>47627435
not for lack of trying.
>>47627421
What part of "mobile infantry" is hard to understand?
And what you described is one of dragoon's fighting style. Use horses mobility to gain tactical advantage, dismount and fight on foot.
Not all cavalry formations were lancers.
>The horses were literally a mean of transportation
Not at all, polish cavalryman was equipped with melee weapon and trained to use it in combat and cavalry used charge tactics in September campaign.
Infamous Krojanty, Krasnybród, Wólka Węglowa, w Lasach Królewskich after quick search.
Yes, old school charge and glory was not preferred tactics but it did happen and it have not ended in slaughter.
>>47627716
>no-one else can progress
That's the idea, it boils down to "IF I CAN'T HAVE IT, NO ONE CAN!" at the end of the day.
>>47627435
I'm sure the mountains of evidence thusfar brough up have done a lot of convincing. Namely, like the time that communism made an effort not to exercise central control over
>>47627737
You get that those are both approaches to economy, right? And communism is a system of governing? Yes, mercantilism involved a state element that tried to ensure a positive balance of trade. To suggest, though, that it was an effort at complete control. Or even that either involved a permanent state of strongarming everything in a market. You can see precursors to both capitalism and socialism in them, but they come nowhere near the level that every single communist country has at one point tried before shifting gears down into a socialism or falling in on itself.
>>47627495
I won't deny you saw efforts to consolidate power and control in the head of state, yeah. Even so, that push never got quite too far before places like Prussia came to understand how to strike a balance between a strong state and a robust private sector.
>>47626651
You must admit though it was a very funny invasion.
>>47621803
Earliest cartridges used either steel cups (which didn't provide a gas seal at all) or copper (which would expand too much and get stuck).
There were a shitload of proprietary cartridge and firearm designs out there with next to no standardization, and all of them were pretty underpowered.
By the time a military took the time to invest and equip its entire military with what was in 1850 the "most advanced" thing out there, it was 1870 and there was something even better.
>>47628123
So... who actually won?
>>47629137
The Chinese were there to make a point and a point they made. The Vietnamese got humiliated and fucked but didn't concede any territory so eghh...
>>47628059
I'm fond of W.A.C. Benett's formula: "Socialism if necessary; not necessarily socialism. Capitalism if necessary; not necessarily capitalism."
I find libertarian capitalists constantly underestimate the coercive power of capital, and the ways a market can fail and people along the communist/socialist axis fail to understand the real dangers and costs associated with the government controlling market activity too closely. I'm sure I have my own blind spots, but that's what I see in these debates.
That said, I tend to think that where there's a natural monopoly or a trust or oligopoly has formed; the state should intervene and either nationalize, regulate, or force breakups, depending on the nature of the sector and it's necessity for public well being.
On the flip side; any enterprise being run by the state must be run at arms length, Ideally via a state owned corporation with professional management. The temptation for state owned enterprises to become political tools is huge, and never ends well, and the state should only intervene when there's a need or objective that the market will not meet, or we've entered a market failure.
>>47629430
Stop posting reasonable statements, this is 4chan.
>>47628001
>Cavalry
>Mobile infantry
Pick one
>>47628035
... still not giving you money, so it's pointless
>>47628001
>2016
>Poles charged on tanks with sabres and lances bullshit emerges once again
Fucking KILL YOURSELF. Preferably with cavalry charge.
Both lances and sabres were reduced to parade weapons in initial phase of Polish-Soviet War, so in fucking '19. Cavalrymen DID train with lance, but it was part of basic riding training, not actual battle tactic.
And by September '39, cavalry was the most modern part of Polish armed forces, having full access to heavy gear, carried by their horses (hence it was so easy to outfit those troops, as they didn't need specialised tractors or trucks)
In short - die, scum.
>>47629213
That humiliation cost a lot, since they've not only ended up butt-fucked by Chinese, but also dropped diplo relations with Soviets, so they've didn't receive any financial aid from them.
>>47625296
Knights were more phased out by social changes than anything else. Young men wanted to go into business or somesuch rather than take up an increasingly archaic duty. The middle class started to rise into prominence, and feudalism began to break down in some parts of Europe that had made knights necessary for keeping order in the first place.
>>47622013
>>47621803
Patents started to really fuck with things too, I think at least for revolvers. At some point, companies just said "Okay, you can't do it this way anymore, because that's our thing", and designs got really off the wall to avoid it.
>>47631860
Good ol' teatfire, lipfire and all sorts of fun ways to get around Rollin White's patent
>>47630255
Dear anon, don't try a straw man argument.
Pls be gay, and don't reproduce.
Charge on tanks was only very good anti-polsih propaganda, it never happened and I have never claimed otherwise.
But to claim that cavalry never used charge as a tactic? It is untrue.
Cavalry rules of combat did not forbid charge, horsemen had melee weapons so CO could give such order IF he decided that this was best course of action.
Pic related. Monument erected in Kaluszyn in honor of rotmistrz Andrzej Żyliński, for winning cavalry charge at 11-12 IX 1939
>>47632592
Forgot to add:
All easily accessible sources are result of communist Russian-Jewish-German propaganda and untrue. And my only goal is utterly and complete destruction of proud Polish nation.
Shalom.
>>47630156
I'll take both, its called a dragoon.
>>47623478
>hurr durr da generalz used cavalries in WW1 coz dey was dum
But that simply isn't true, anon. I bet you also believe that whole "Ho ho pollacks r dumb for using cavalry against tanks" thing too?
>>47630255
>by September '39, cavalry was the most modern part of Polish armed forces
that's kind of sad
>>47625296
For a very long time time, firearms couldn't penetrate plate - but penetration didn't matter so much, because the large, often poorly cast ammunition used would shatter on impact, transferring all the kinetic energy of the bullet to the target. Against plate, that means being hit with a bullet was more like being hit with a mace than a stabby thing.
The main reasons for the decline in plate armour are economical and social. You can get a lot of guys with half decent training and give them all guns for much less than the cost of one suit of good quality well fitted armour, Not only that, but in western Europe nations were becoming more centralised, with the crown taking full responsibility for the raising and upkeep of armies.
>>47623535
The way in which I've encountered it, is that people generally use it to mean that you should succeed on your own merits by working hard. It plays into the same "American dream" BS that we Americans have been force-fed.
In reality, very few people are that talented and driven, and even the ones that are, generally don't have an enviable life.
>>47625416
Not to mention that it costs a huge amount to equip an army with custom fitted plate. It costs considerably less to arm them with guns.
>>47622318
Dont forget that the Polish used cavalry in WW2.
More or less. Cartridges weren't really a validated technology yet in the US especially. Think about it, they had been using muzzle loaded firearms for literally centuries. The US civil war showed Americans how effective self contained cartridges could be. In Europe they largely came to the same conclusion through dozens of smaller wars. But even just after the US civil war cartridge guns took over almost completely. For rifles, shotguns, and handguns. They used largely single shot breech loaders for long arms and revolvers for pistols. They advanced pretty fast considering they invented most of the common bolt and action parts during the mid 19th century. just 50-60 years after the US civil war, the Crimean war, and the Indian mutiny WW1 kicked off with effective machine guns and magazine fed repeating rifles. More changed then than the last 50 years of infantry weapons.
>>47626603
/tg/ happened.
>>47625937
All the longbow did was give the archers a way to reliable injure French knights over long distance, essentially allowing them to hold a dug in position because by the time the enemy got close theyd have been bleeding them since they were within eyeshot.
Yes they are overstated through propaganda but a formation of Longbowmen really was a terrifying thing to face, especialy if you were in a sizable force that got tied down due to terrain or formations.
>>47634918
To be fair, reading up on interwar polish politics and diplomacy is a pretty convincing argument for "the poles weren't that smart." They basically managed to alienate every non-Axis neighbor they had in the span of about a decade with Pilsudski's Greater Poland obsession.
>>47634918
Well I AM a Pole and I don't have to believe anything, because Polish cavalry was the best equipped part of the whole Polish army. And you know what?
It fought as fucking infantry. The "cavalry" part was only toward movement, where they used those horses for much faster redeployment in roadless areas, aka most of interwar Poland.
Cavalry as cavalry, shock troops and shit, was by that time outdated for 50 years. The fact French were still trying to use it in such manner in '17 should ring you a bell how fucking detatched from reality their top brass was, but then again, French didn't realise sending regiment after regiment of people on a machine gun nest won't win anything somewhere in late '16, so...
>>47634943
Well, it was armed with modern artillery (no need for tractors), most modern heavy machine guns (nobody had to carry it on his back, but use horse), most modern anti-air guns (again, no need for tractors) and so on and forth. So the fact it was cavalry actively worked as benefit than hindrance.
The only thing it lacked was some armour or even armoured cars, but that applies to entire Polish army back then.
>>47641980
To be fair the poles were doing pretty well for only having about 1/3 of their total reserves mobilized because the British and French urged them not to mobilize and said they would come help if the Germans invaded.They didn't.
A powder and shot gun can be loaded with commodity gunpowder from any store, and lead balls made with a mould.
A cartridge gun can be loaded with one kind of cartridge manufactured in a factory somewhere.
>>47642074
>it lacked was some armour or even armoured cars
This also applied to pretty much every non-"major" player in the War. Most countries had simply not invested and industrialized in that direction to even imagine deploying shit like that.
>>47629430
I do not agree completely, but this still is pretty good.
