Do better guns improve fighting effectiveness?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Get your first audiobook and two Audible originals free when you try Audible for 30 days visit www.audible.co... or text 'Lindybeige' to 500 500.
Bigger guns make better soldiers, right? Maybe not.
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
Picture credits:
MG42 image Archangel12 [CC BY 2.0 (creativecommon...)]
5,56 and 7.62 ammunition picture Cannibalicious! at English Wikipedia [Public domain]
Quaf .50 cal gun, 1968 | by Archives Branch, USMC History Division
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.ban...
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAsp...
/ user "Lindybeige"
I guess if soldiers these days also lined up 20 yards away from you, the assault rifle would go up in effectiveness quite a bit.
Those lines are what the 50 cal is for
That's the point, you wouldn't let them get to 20 yards
The problem with this video is if instead of talking about modern assault rifles vs muskets u use modern sniper rifles, it completely changes the argument
A similar thing happened in the russo-japanese war I believe and in the beginning of ww1
The reason modern rifles are less effective is because the enemy also has modern rifles.
Next week lindy explains why standing in rows in bright colors is better than camouflage and taking cover.
That's why Canada bought new camo six months into Afghanistan: they found the bright forest green too OP!
@@wilfdarr Contrary to popular belief, Afghanistan is not just orange-brown sand and actually has rivers, grass and trees.
@@yaldabaoth2 True, but that's not typically where the Taliban holed up.
@Yaldabaoth and poppy fields
It was at the time in order to distinguish friendly forces and not get run down by cavalry.
I'd like to make a correction: In most western militaries, the general reaction to seeing a group of enemies who haven't seen you yet is not to immediately switch your rifle to burst or full auto and light them the fuck up. It's to report the clothing their wearing/weapons they're carrying, the direction they're in relative to your element, and the distance they are away to your squad leader or team leader, who will then either pass it up to the platoon leader and platoon sergeant or decide themselves what the squad or fireteam will do, which is usually to get into a better position before engaging.
True, it makes almost no sense to shoot first and ask questions later in modern combat. The only time I can see an exception to that is for highly trained special forces who have alot of autonomy (even then alot of those guys are each officers or NCOs so they each have more experience and authority then the average GI platoon leader and can be trusted to make their own decisions if they have to) or in extraordinary situations like a hypothetical total war (like WW2) or if you were trapped behind enemy lines with limited or no contact with command, and even in all those situations they'd still rather pass the info on first and shoot later *if they can* and would only "shoot first and ask questions later" if that would be difficult or dangerous to do so.
lindy watches too many movies.
You file the SALUTE report
And then to light them the fuck up
i think majority of these examples landed on WW2 scenario. Ambushes did happen quite often. And going little bit more to the future. Viatnam war. Entire doctrine was search and destroy. If your squad crossed path with an enemy force, most likely outcome was a firefight.
Nikolas "I seem to have strayed from my point" Lloyd
Lindy "I make extensive videos on subjects I am fundamentally misinformed about" Beige
I like pie.
GunboatDiplomat Nikolas “I have an interesting point to bring up about a particular subject matter, but I express it in such a way that it sometimes make me seem uninformed” Lloyd.
But seriously, I think with a lot of his controversial videos he has an interesting point about a specific subject matter that I do think is valid, but then he might overemphasize that point so far that it stretches its logical limits. Like here I understand what Lloyd means is that the efficiency of muskets in the early modern age were greater than that of weapons today due to a number of factors like tactics, strategies, and technologies, and mentality. Basically that Context is important. It’s just an interesting concept to think that a musket was more efficient than a modern day firearm. Likewise, I can understand the logic he used in his Bren gun and Language videos, but I understand he was fundamentally wrong or didn’t consider some very important factors.
Anyways I enjoy his presentation style and I like the ideas he brings to the playing field, even if I think they may be not entirely true.
@@midshipman8654 the title can be misleading since he considers fighting effectivness by kills rather than lack of losses. Infact this was exactly the problem of WWI the weaponry advanced ahead of tactics and when soldiers figured it out they simply dug trenches and before higher ups realized frontlines were dug so deep neither side could realistically expect to push enemy from their trenches.
That is a good example of weapon push. effectivness of single soldier is indeed higher with musket, but effectivness of a platoon per soldier is higher since there are more survivors and less soldiers in a single platoon. Loyds controversial videos are mostly "technically, yes" kinds where you have a valid point that is accurate but it is taken out of context or looked at specifically. Like saying that the more suicides the less there are suicidal people. On the surface logical statement if people are sucessfull in suicides they are removing suicidal people from the whole. But it doesnt count for rise in depression of the close families, depression in general public when information about rise in suicides is brought to them. It also doesnt consider that sucides would be more accesible in that scenario making more people consider suicide as a valid option out of troubles. All of which would actually make number of suicidal people rise in proportion to number of suicides.
Satori sama true, I personally think the title should be different, but really the contents of the video is mostly about musings on the mind games and mentality of front line soldiers. It’s more Lindy banter and I personally appreciate it.
I might of missed it but one of the other reasons for reduced kill rates is medicine. I would like my odds better with blood transfusions and antibiotics than with hacksaws and used cloth.
I thought about that right after he started talking. LOL
dagger
gun shot wounds can be surprisingly survivable if you get immediate medical attention. I was watching a medical documentary about the ER and they said that even a gunshot wound ot the head had around a 2 out of 3 survival chance provided you got immediate medical attention
@@arthas640 And transportation has improved. I will take paramedics over the untrained.
No used cloth used back then
This video gets considerably less controversial if you replace "effectiveness" with "efficiency".
@William00048 , that does not appear to follow from my comment.
Not so much "less controversial" as much as "less wrong".
Combat effectiveness is intuitivly and obviously determined by pitting the two armies against each other, to obvious results.
Nobody cares for the efficiency of each shot fired, ammo is cheap (tho that measure would make his argument work).
@@aenorist2431
That is so true.
Real life is not like video game which all about kills counts.
I am amazed that anyone watched the whole thing to be able to make that statement
@@JohnFrumFromAmerica I dont think many people in the comments watched more than the first 10 minutes
Correct me if I am wrong because i may have missed some cuts, but did this man really just film a 50 minute video in one take? Thats damn impressive.
I would presume that he does multiple takes of this one take. Interrupting other takes as soon as they aren't good.
Metatron does a video about how good Lloyd is at creating content without the need to cut and always reaches his talking points with fairly good direction and not to much side noting but when he does get off track a bit it’s usually small but very entertaining on the way back to the main point
hes a pro
Even the method in which Lloyd delivers his lectures is impressive
@@davidmcintyre6513 the man is a naturak professor
Comparing effectiveness per bullet is missing that the entire way of warfare has changed in the last 200 years.
It's depressing honestly. He's a good presenter, but the information he presents on anything in modern combat is just awful.
@@DuraLexSedLex Well he's pretty good with tanks but modern small arms don't seem to be his strength.
war... war never changes
He should have compared the effectiveness per weapon deployed instead.
War... has changed. It's no longer about muskets, firing walls, or synchronised reloads. It's an endless series of proxy battles fought by suppressing fire and bombardment. War, and its consumption of life, has become a more distant machine. War has changed. Psychologically trained soldiers carry automatic weapons, use suppression tactics. Adrenaline inside their bodies enhance and regulate their abilities. Recoil control, information control, enemy movement control... fire control. Everything is monitored and kept under control. War - has changed.
"It's alright, only one bullet in 20k kills anyone!"
Brilliant!
"So what's the rate of fire then?"
**laughs nervously**
For the Motherland!!
Certainly true for stormtrooper
Little did he know the enemy had just fired his 19,999th shot
They did try Napoleonic infantry tactics against modern infantry weapons, it was called WW 1 the kill rate was quite high.
Most of those killed in the great war were killed by Artillery and Machine gun fire. With massed rifle fire being most effective in the early stages of the war.The trench deadlock led to changes in weapons and tactics. As in the American Civil War covering open ground against an entrenched enemy was quite dangerous.
@@davidtong2776 I was being a bit snarky for effect. The machine gun was mainly what I was talking about. I know about the U.S. Civil War and the Brits also had a lot of trouble during the Boer War with the "smokeless" rifles the Boer were using. Bigger point is you simply couldn't use 18th/early 19th century infantry tactics once rifles with modern ammunition (where the gunpowder and bullet come as single unit) became the dominate weapons as they could generally hit what they were aiming at and had a much quicker reload time vs a musket which created no spin on it's ammunition so they were highly inaccurate and took much longer to reload requiring mass formations to be effective. Fun fact when using muskets the command was not "ready, aim, fire" but "ready, level, fire".
@@killgoretrout9000; There is no doubt that between 1815 and 1915, that arms and effectiveness of Infantry weapons changed more that they had in century before. But there is also something valid in pointing out the huge wastage of ammo and bombs present in "Modern warfare" After all if this were not so, why would we build smart bombs.
How about the Franco-Prussian war. Infantry armed with bolt actions advancing in formation against each other.
The American Civil War is an even better example.
If you gave one man a modern assault rife in napoleonic wars, his kill rate - effectiveness will increase to insane levels.
give him an M249, teh blood bath would be ridiculous
Until he runs out of ammunition.......
@@caseyellis1249 WE NEED TO BRING A CREW OF AMMO CARRIERS !!! XD
Modern sniper would be so much better. No Napoleon = no war.
@@PyroGobbo why ? wouldn't it be more effective to cut down the lines of soldiers?
I like how "enemies killed per round fired in the era when the weapon was commonly used" is the metric for "effectiveness".
yeah, that is pretty wonky
Wonder if antibiotics and modern medicine lowered the kill rate
@Mister Jane Doe Unfortunately with people like Lloyd, they have literally zero hands-on experience with the subjects they talk about, and so they tend to have over-intellectualised theories or notions that are completely divorced from reality, usually because it's based on a combination of wishful thinking + broad assumptions + oversimplified statistics. Same thing with his other video on soldiers shooting each other, in which I believe he proposed the idea that soldiers in wars don't like shooting each other during a battle which is why so many rounds they fire miss their target, which is total nonsense.
@@imperiumoccidentis7351 You pretty much summed up my stance and why I don't take this channel very seriously. It was refreshing at first to just hear someone talk naturally and ramble on while sounding like they were relatively intelligent without needing a tightly controlled script and editing. Meant I didn't have to go live to hear a decent conversation. But over time the examples piled up, and I came to realize Lindy here (I refuse to call creators by first name, what you think it makes you closer friends? THEY chose their username, more respect in just honoring their choice) has experienced a fraction of the world from a tabletop gamer's perspective. He speaks of combat but has never fought for his life. He reviews tactics but has never led men. He gives feedback on guns and tanks but has never tinkered with a hobby welder or shot a practice arrow. It's not that you can't have any valid opinions without parallels in experience, rather it's that in cases like this one, Lindy has absolutely zero experience at all. I know plenty of people who can extrapolate their experience and knowledge just fine to peripherally related areas, or new areas that use similar principles (I'm one of those people), but he doesn't have any knowledge or experience in these topics he discusses except the guessing of other historians and what has been repeated by a bunch of random third parties. So he can tell you roughly accurate lists of events that have happened, but getting into why and how and quantifying things? No, I can seriously blindly guess at every random example and be closer to the mark than the explanation I will find here.
Stil, it beats the over-edited under-honest competition. I'm convinced Lindy is a genius in his own mind at this point (aka usually wrong) but I'd still rather watch him than something edited into oblivion where the creator can hide all intentions and mistakes while pining for likes. So I still watch Lindy, I just don't Listen. He's been relegated to white noise when I'm busy but it's too quiet.
@@imperiumoccidentis7351 He’s not the first to propose that, and a lot of combat psychologists think that is the case, especially in the pre-vietnam era. Self-reporting studies from ww2 show the same thing
"We lost the battle but each bullet we fired hit its target - 100% victory!"
Three out of three. Perfect score.
Destroyed village to save it? 100% victory?
@Ryder Steel planet broke before the guard did? 100% victory
KDA players.
"I seemed to have strayed from my point slightly," - Lindybeige 2019
Every lindybeige episode
And 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008
@Dieter Gaudlitz Yes it is
@Dieter Gaudlitz
Absolutely! In addition, if he would constantly stay right on the topic and never digress even for seconds, we would know with absolute certainty that Lindybeige was kidnapped and replaced by an impostor.
And now you all know why Lindy's tamper-proof.
Ha
Musket: 1/20th the bullets per kill.
Assault Rifle: 200x the bullets available.
@bla blahblah Based schizo-poster
@bla blahblah Your points about the effectiveness of muskets vs modern assault rifles are great. Your organization leaves me wanting. Your unnecessary comment about something you haven't even researched fits very well below this video. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@bla blahblah It's a myth that modern assault rifles are "designed to wound". militaryarms.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-poodle-killer-myth.html
@bla blahblah you wouldn't use an AR 15 on a coyote the round is to large and despite what pornhub will teach you, too much penatration is a bad thing when hunting petite creatures of the night.
also he's not a troll you definitely ruined your argument by going so far off topic and then again when you jumped at someone for pointing that out.
also also most civil war and revolutionary soldiers were not more effective than modern soldiers in fact they were much less effective because muskets were so inaccurate the only reason they stood 20 yards away from each other was because they had no hope in hell of ever hitting anything closer than that
@bla blahblah If the motherhood thing had actual predictive causation we should see more mass shooters i places where single parenthood was more widespread. Similar to how afaik all mass shooters are men but men are evenly distributed everywhere while mass shooters are not, that obviously isn't their defining trait.
(Also, i tried to google your figures and beyond the usual right-wing suspects one of the first hits was a redaction saying the numbers were wrong and at least a handful had been confirmed to be from quote "stable homes". )
Edit, whoops, I just realized I fell in the trap and ended up feeding the troll.
They actually did experiment with musket tactics with modern weapons. It had quite a large sample size and lasted about 4 years.
Most people call it WWI
Had a good laugh but it is wrong
@@caturix4541 It's wrong, but in some ways, it's almost kind of correct.
Q. And what did that prove?
A. If at first you don't succeed, start another war 20 years later just to see if you had learned anything from the first experiment!
Conclusion: we're all slow on the uptake so let's try a less direct option on other previous competitors, eg:
USSR & China - Cold War;
Japan - Economic;
Europe - don't bother, they're all broke, past it, and already at each others throats;
The Rest - who cares? They're all "shitholes" (an approach favoured by some in the 21st Century).
But we (I hope, the majority) prefer mutual support not division.
@@roblamb8327 Mutual support is pipedream. The minute people run out of external enemies, they simply find internal ones. People only cooperate as long as there is a bigger external threat. That's also why Rome fell, they ran out of enemies to conquer so generals fought each other for the spoils. You can even see it somewhat in America right now.
I think it's better to accept that wars happen but instead attempt to minimise the cruellest aspects of it, like land mines, flame throwers, poison gas, mass rape, starvation etc.
Well said, the end of WW1 was also the birth of combined arms and you are correct
35:30 - Somewhere in the world, The Chieftain looks up. Suddenly alert. Senses tingling.
"He's talking smack about the Sherman again."
Eleven minutes in thinking I was three minutes into a five minute video. Nope, much longer...
@@maxjones503 Six minutes longer than the attention span of a two-year-old. 😜
@@johnd2058 Hooray. I just lost track of time anyway, happy to watch the full thing though.
Exactly. The Sherman wasnt wasnt the best tank in the world. But it was one of the most survivable. The high casualty rates on D Day probably had a lot more to do with that idiotic British idea to make them try to float ashore rather than build a proper LST to land and roll them off. Hot landings are the domain of Marines and Infantry, not armor.
@@davidtuttle7556 That's just a fucking disgusting accusation. I apologise if it appears unclear, but it seems anyone who has any existing knowledge and experience regarding the circumstances in Normandy showed the absence of armoured support for the Americans was responsible for the heavy casualties.
British forces went up against heavier opposition with the tanks and somehow saw far more success. How on Earth was that the case with suicidal vehicles to support them?
That wasn't the rifle, it was the tactics.
Musket- Line up and shoot each other.
Modern combat- hunt down people who are heavily armoured or hiding among civilians.
Well, it's really kind of both, isn't it? The rifle technology dictates the tactics with which it can be used effectively. Muskets were used the way they were because that's how they worked best. Modern rifles and tactics utilize the idea of suppression and coordinated strikes with armor, artillery, and/or aircraft where the rifle's *job* isn't to do the killing but just to throw enough lead downrange to keep the enemy pinned in place for the other weapons.
Don't the tactincs change as technology changes! (Aka guns)
@@ChristosGoulios I think that sums it all up perfectly
@@ChristosGoulios Yes and No, for example, Roman tactics dictated a change in their naval technology during the punic war
British Tank design in both world wars was directly dictated by tactics rather than available technology
@@essexclass8168 You focus too much on specific technologies. I can't speak for the Punic War since I am not well-read on it. In the world wars, on the other hand, trench warfare was created due to the technology that resulted in the birth of it. and thus your example with the tank is misleading since they were designed around a tactic that itself was created due to technological advancement. Similarly, the tank types of world war two and mobile warfare which itself was possible not only due to weaponry advancements but also advancements in logistics medicine and much more. In short, to point at a specific invention and say boom that created the advancement needed to change the age is not my meaning nor my meaning in the previous comment. Technology is a general power or progression that results in such a change that all aspects of life and of course war change with it. In conclusion, to compare the two forms of tactics is just sophistry.
I would define effectiveness as how many men you lose given that you complete your objective
i would say thats a pretty good measure
Space marine docrrine:
90% causality rate
Objective taken
VICTORY!
Exactly.
@@DaTrixie that's more like the Imperial Guard doctrine.
@@iapetusmccool this with 14 different arrows pointing to it
"Do better guns improve fighting effectiveness?"
the British military certainly didn't think so when they accepted the SA80 into service...
"The Bureaucrat". It doesn't work. And you can't fire it.
They should switch back to.30-06 or just a stronger round in general
This
@@unsuspiciouschair4501 a bigger round isn't always better lindybeige was way off with that 5.56 vs 7.62 part. 5.56 may be smaller but it moves much faster and is therefore much better at penetration compared to 7.62 and maintaining accuracy at range, as the 7.62 is much bigger and slower and it's more easily pushed by wind and begins dropping sooner and more drastically than 5.56. Not to mention that 7.62 and .30-06 have noticably more recoil making 5.56 easier to shoot faster and more accurately in semi-auto or burst firing modes. And you can fit more rounds in a magazine with smaller bullet cartridges. A lot of modern AK's used by militaries take a smaller cartridge 5.45x39 now instead of 7.62x39 for all of these reasons. Bigger isn't always better, after a certain point a lot of bigger cartridges are straight up impractical in modern fire fights. With proper shot placement a .22lr is just as likely to kill as a .45acp.
@@bickyboo7789 At the time he was talking about sexiness of calibres I was reading, "It is today as true as formerly that it takes on average a man's weight of lead to kill him in battle".
From around 1900.
„Some rather speculative conjectural not entirely sound statistics“ me everytime i‘m doing a presentation in school
Pixely Charge LOL
If you are doing a project for school , then I would advise you to get your information somewhere else !!!
"Walking forward is militarily a good thing to do".
*Laughs in minefield*
"usually, if your orders are good"
I didn't know you could walk through a minefield unharmed by walking at angles.
*laughs in cannae*
Going forward is not a good idea when figting Latvija. We specialize in mines.
Laughs in wars after 1890
With the crew-served/machine guns, at least in the U.S. military, there's a saying that goes "Grumpiest man on the march, happiest man in a firefight."
Damn right, I humped that fekking 249 for a year back in 2003.
I was with the 101st and we were in the third wave crossing the border into Iraq.
When we were waiting for the go signal in Kuwait, to do PT we did rifle PT daily, and the 5 SAW gunners in my platoon were in the back just cursing at the rest of the platoon who had M4's.
@@mattheww.7825 is the recoil manageable? And aren't you the enemy's main target?
@@arx3516 okay so, the recoil is manageable, in 3 to 5 round bursts, basically the mantra we were taught in Basic was squeeze the trigger and say "Die M***** F***** Die" and release. As to becoming the enemies main target, yep. My step dad, who was a Ranger in the 50's and 60's bluntly told me before everyone shipped out to Iraq in 2003, "Son, as soon as you squeeze that trigger, everyone is going to be gunning for you." So, there is really nothing you can do, so don't think about it.
@@mattheww.7825 that's the role i think power armor would be perfect for, if it existed, you can handle far heavier weapons and their recoil, and being basically invulnerable from regular weapon's fire you are encouraged to make yourself a target leaving your unarmored mates with more freedom to maneuver. P.S: are you also reccomended to wear a bandana and take your shirt off when screaming "Die ***, Die!" ? XD
@@mattheww.7825 If you're doing it right you're too busy shooting at them for them to be shooting back at you. I suppose that may depend on the size of the engagement though.
"Do better guns improve fighting effectiveness?
" Well... give me a 30m gatling, a loader, and tonnes of ammo and bring 20 divisions of 17th century infantry. I wonder how long it'd last.
Are you very sure you wouldn't be outflanked? Your gattling could only shoot 1 direction at a time against 20 divisions of musket wielding infantry running into covers and trenches, proning in multiple directions.
@@wahidpawana424 just spin in circles
@@notyetdeleted6319 lead sprinkler
Chk chk chk BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
chk chk chk BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Just use a GAU-8 avenger
In short : muskets are more effective, because they were used against people that just had to stand there and die. The brilliance of Lindy comes from the fact, that it is technically correct, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
No not correct. Not all armies fought European style.
Rangers and natives for example fought with cover.
Per shot they are much more effective.
There are many stories of, I'll call them hillfolk.
People that from a young age were taught Not to miss.
One is something like this.
I was 6 years old when Granpappy took me hunting.
Granpappy told me if I miss I don't eat. He gave me a rifle, the powder for one shot, and one ball.
An hour later I was so excited 200 feet away was a buck. I cocked the gun waited, and shot. I was so proud of myself I knew I hit it.
Walked over to where I know it was. NOTHING.
I was not allowed to eat for 3 days.
From that day forward I rarely missed.
......
We think of bullets as cheap. To hillfolk the cost of one shot was expensive.
Also I will remind or tell you why the US Army changed from full auto to burst. The M16A1 went through a lot more ammo then the M16A2. When a soldier is given less rounds they shoot better.
@@pychohobo1832 "When a soldier is given less rounds they shoot better."
Sure, they do. And when you don't give them any bullet, they don't waste time taking aim and perform better in CQB.
No, it isn't correct in way.
@@pychohobo1832 Yeah but not all Europeans fought in that manner either. What I think he means is that as weapons get more effective, the people using them are less likely to get killed. So better weapon are making war less dangerous.
Why give soldier boolets when we can arm them with bayonets and use the rifles as intended. As spears and javelin.
Kills per bullet goes down. Kills per soldier goes up.
Oh, and the enemy does not stand out in the open these days.
Aye the sneaky bastards hide behind rocks and trees, not like a sporting Englishman who marches slowly towards the enemy machine guns!
Kills per soldier is the same, as every soldier killed will make for the same increase as the decrease in k/d
@@stijn1113 What?
This isn't necessarily true in all cases. If two equally sized equally equipped opposing armies wipe each other out completely, it's 1 kill per soldier regardless of weaponry. It holds true for ancient, napoleonic, modern and literally any tactic as well.
@@DommHavai Not really. You could have all the kills with one soldier.
The averages would be the same though.
A pointy stick uses even less bullets, but ...
Spears will always have a point after all! The main reason spears where so popular throughout history is just that nobody was ever able to argue that it didn't have a point.
You can always through a pommel
@@namewarvergeben hahaa
Use rocks, they you can pick them up after throwing them, with enough time and a sturdy enough rock you can reach incredible levels of kills/rock. Clearly rocks are the superior weapons and should immediately replace all current weapons.
@@Subjagator
"A rock. This Granite Inc. model is an upgraded version. It weighs 1pound. Min. strength 1."
I heard of a story that an f-16 pilot in Afghanistan ran out of bombs, so he used the sonic boom his aircraft could make on the enemy. He dived down at a high altitude and once he hit supersonic he pulled up and the sonic boom traveled to the ground and struck fear into the enemy making them think he was still dropping bombs.
"Japanese has no word for surrender"
降参
降伏
負ける
Japanese has many words for surrender. Always be very sceptical when someone tells you something along the lines of "Did you know X language doesn't have a word for Y?" because they're almost always wrong.
Most of the times it's "it doesn't have a specific word for this specific thing that has a word in this language, but it has a more general word that applies to a concept which in the other language is divided into several words".
Madotsuki English doesn’t have a word for coup d'etat
@@andrewlynch4126 Well, it does - it's coup d'etat. Just because it's loaned from another language doesn't mean it's not the official English word for the concept. English has a long and rich history of importing French words, after all.
Not saying anything about Japanese, but just because a language has a word for something doesn't mean the average native speaker would know it or recognize it. There's also words that are constructed specifically for translating foreign concepts, which are only used when translating foreign documents.
Indeed..." Irish has no word for republic ", looooooool
That's not the musket being effective, that's outdated battle tactics.
Yeah, people fighting in line form probably played a big role in making fights a blood bath.
Also suppressive fire wasn't a thing back then because you couldn't really do it. Back then every bullet had to be aimed at the enemy to kill because of the long reload times. Now you can fire 30 rounds in a few seconds with no effort whatsoever so shooting at an enemy just to keep them from moving is actually a viable tactic. Also one has to remember that battles are in completely different scales now as well. You don't just send 10,000 soldiers into a single area to fight off against another 10,000 soldiers anymore so getting anywhere near as many dead in any battle is way less likely.
If i had shot at 600 yards I would have got my arse kicked, 150 yards maybe
Just look at WW1. Musket lvl tactics vs machine guns. How effective were those machine guns again?
This comment needs more likes.
I am personally a bit shocked lindybeige think it is valid to compare the effectiveness of old/modern weapons by looking at their effectiveness in their respective eras. Modern assult rifles are used on a modern battlefield, so musket effectiveness statistics are not comparable. Bullets to kill means nothing. Modern manufaturing makes bullets worth a lot less and it makes very little sense to look at the individual weapons effectivness in terms of getting kills when every weapon is designed for different purposes. A modern sniper rifle would for example do very well by lindybeige metrics, but that doesn't mean it a good idea to outfit every soldier with sniper rifles.
In sweden, we have precise mobile artillery vehicles that look like regular trucks. They show up out of nowhere, hit a target with 3 consecative rounds in the same slit-second by firing at different arcs, and then pack up and leave before the enemy knew what hit them. Using modern weapon systems like this is how wars are fought today, not with infantry. Bullets doesn't matter, information does. If you know where the enemy are, you've already won.
And as for infantry, infantry are there to provide presense and control of strategic and tactical objectives that other armed forces elements has driven the opponent forces away from.
Eg. The goal is not to kill the enemy, but to get them to realise that it's in their best interest to be somewhere else regardless of what their own officers try to order them to do.
And the main weapons of any modern infantry squad is not their rifles, it's, in order from least to most important, their 40mm grenade launcher, their general purpose machinegun, their Recoilless rifle, and the laser range finder/laser designator and portable, jump frequency radio set...
@@SonsOfLorgar i'd argue the radio is the most important
@@mawdeeps7691 Yes the Radio, Fragrant Flower this is Fragrant Flower Advanced, Fire Mission, over.
And sweden of all countries is the great warrior nation?
You cant even defend your country from a bunch of migrating jihadists
An organism necessarily must exist in the environment it's evolved for. You wouldn't compare a shark's killing effectiveness on land versus a lion's, and vice versa. You compare each within their respective environment because an environment is just as much shaped by the organisms/tools/ideas that exist within it as vice versa.
"Do better guns increase fighting effectiveness?". Well, if they don't, then they aren't really better guns.
No, the assault rifle was so effective that they had to change the tactics, plus a musket can fire 2 to 3 times a minute, while an assault rifle can fire in automatic, so it is unfair to compare them in ammunition.
jed yao “unfair to compare them in ammunition” but that’s the whole point of this video lol. And if you put a man with a musket into a modern battle, they would be significantly less effective. This comes down to a semantic argument of what is more ‘effective fighting’, is it statistical amount of kills, or is it how generally dangerous you are with your weapon. If you go by statistics, then sure. Musketeers may have had more success per person. But that doesn’t actually mean that the musket is a more effective weapon in general, because a fight between the two would certainly end badly for the guy with a musket
@@lmanproductions8680 One could even say the more effective fighter is one that obtains their goals in the conflict, a high casualty rate is not necessarily correlated to that, perhaps could even be adverse to those goals.
Better is a bit of a simplification. I think what he meant was “more advanced”
@@lmanproductions8680 But the muskets had less success per person. Their accuracy is far worse.
"Muskets were deadlier than machine guns!"*
*Per bullet fired.
We can't maintain our civilization without the asterisks!
I only have 1*
What I learned from this video, is that swords are infinitely more effective than guns, after all, they kill infinitely many people per round fired.
Really? nobody gets the 1 (ass to risk) joke? Meh, oh well then.
What about Sniper Rifles, I'm sure these weapons has better kill per bullets fired than muskets
And Sniper Rifles are better guns than Muskets!
No we fire more bc the more we fire the less weight we have to walk 5 miles back with.
42:10 makes the whole video worth it
Lindybeige out of context.
So MANY problems.
1) Modern infantry are not trained to open fire at 600 yards, they are trained to open fire within effective range of their weapon. Even with meeting engagements the range of the action is rarely more than 400 yards, and usually shorter. The only real exceptions to this general rule with modern weapons are the Boer War, and Afghanistan. In Vietnam the range of engagement was regularly less than 100 yards.
2) The idea of infantry effectiveness being linked only to kill rate is fatuous at best. The modern infantryman is NOT there to kill the enemy, he is there to pin the enemy by supressing him thus allowing the REAL battlefield killers to do their work, artillery and Airpower. What you see here is not that the musket is more effective, but that it was USED differently.
3) Modern Doctrines are NOT the same as older Line doctrines. The weapon dictates the doctrine, comparing them is like comparing chalk and cheese, and effectively useless. Modern Infantry are NOT fighting an enemy that is stood up in a nice neat line 50 yards away, they are fighting an enemy who is actively seeking cover, and actively maneuvering. Modern warfare is about MANEUVER, if you take away the enemies ability to Maneuver you will win the battle, you take away the enemies ability to maneuver by supressing him, allowing your maneuver elements to outflank the enemy while he is pinned, and your support artillery to work them over.
What makes better soldiers in ALL cases, and all eras, is contant training and discipline. It is the training in their weapons and tactics that make an effective soldier. The true mark of effective soldiers is not kills per round, but whether they win....
well written. it's an absurd comparison from someone who thinks they know way too much... but then again why do we watch lindy? i learnt some neat things about weapons and the price i paid for it was sitting through a presumptous brit. meh.
@@socialist-strong I recommand the Evolution of Military Small Arms by Dr. Richard S. Faulkner it is an much more interesting and factual watch.
With an individual combat rifle with iron sights on a timed 300m range most soldiers to include non combat arms (maintenance, supply, and medical) can engage targets out to 200m with a much better than even chance of success. People start having problems at the 250m and they have real problems at the 300m. More specialized weapons like crew served weapons, sniper rifles and heavy weapons have longer ranges but the argument seems to be about a soldier's individual assigned weapon.
Double shots and spamming single fire accurately is the name of the game. Mostly full-auto is not used and is complete waste of ammunition.
Your an officer aren't you
TL;DR modern weapons use modern tactics in modern warfare
Dont you mean TL;DW? But thanks. Im still gonna watch the 50 mins.
@@funeraloak7422 Yeah, I mean why would you come to Loyd channel if you don't like hour long videos
That's covering the first 10 minutes, it gets more interesting later.
I think that's the point. Better guns make soldiers better at taking cover. Check out the second graph at: www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2017/06/09/attrition-in-future-land-combat/
Well the real TL;DR is: The more modern the warfare is the more it is about morale rather than resource spent vs kills. Also, weapon uniformity is important.
Mom: what are you watching?
Lloyd: 42:12
I want to see an entire air battle reenacted by Lindy playing each part with a model plane and doing all his own sound effects like that. They can just edit each Lindy into a single shot.
Lmfao I was only 10 minutes in when I clicked on that, what a change 🤣
_I am imagining Lindybeige in a post apocalyptic Britain:_
*_dressed like Sean Connery in Zardoz and armed with a Bren gun_*
Please don't.
I don't need the horror of that burned into my mind,
Sean Connery in a big red nappy is bad enough
Lindybeige how about as a doughboy my friend?
Marcello Antonio Ledda that’s always been my go-to dystopia image...
I love how THIS comment is one of the few Lloyd replied too haha
Spray and Pray
Hose 'n' Pose
Wolfbang Amadeus Mozstart-and-stop
Wolfbang will now be my future sons name cause I liked it so much upon reading it here for the first time
@@lamolambda8349 yes
If you use the metric treasure committed per enemy dead you can also conclude that the zenith of battle effectiveness took place at the Stone Age xD
No, not tanks, ROCKS! :D
Not rocks, STICKS! Easier to sharpen.
*less effective at killing. Suppressing your enemy is still very effective
ye modern weapons are more likely to keep yourself alive ^^
Exactly my thought. Supression is quite tactical.
@execute_order66 you really think that in a napoleonic scenario a musket would be more effective compared to a modern assault rifle?...
@execute_order66 if a modern army were to fight with tactics from that time and approach in a tightly packed line of men it would get utterly mowed down with a lot less ammunition expended per kill that is completely certain as modern weapons are a lot more accurate, more reliable and more deadly when they hit as well .
For many of the other things I said I said them from what I consider to be solid guesswork but for your last point I know for a fact that in antiquity and medieval times casualty rates on battle fields were a lot lower than people usually think. when you look at some historical battle that is known as one with a rather close outcome and intense action you will not see high casualty rates.
@execute_order66 the 3 battles in history that are famous for one side being encircled and completely slaughtered don't have low casualty rates? :o must be that all ancient battles were that way...
Lindy might be that guy on the team who points to his kill count when the team asks why he's not helping to capture the flag.
Pro-tip: You didn't lose because the battle maniac was too busy killing the enemy. You lost because you failed to take advantage of your teammate's hard work in clearing the field of enemies.
@@RandominityFTW In many CTF games, when you die you respawn at your own base and when you kill the enemy, they respawn at their base. It's essentially a free teleportation that you can use to your advantage IF you bother to think beyond your gun sights. Timing is everything, and putting enemy players where you want them is just as important as positioning your own players.
For instance, when someone on your team is trying to get in and out of the enemy base with a captured flag, you're not doing them any favors by "clearing the field" and sending a constant stream of enemy players directly into their escape path. Likewise, if someone is approaching your own base with the enemy flag, it might be highly advantageous for any farflung teammates to deliberately lose their fights or even fall on their own grenades, scoring a free ride back to the base to protect the flag carrier.
You are literally arguing against coordination and teamwork in a team oriented game. You obviously posted here solely to negate my comment and prove to everyone how much of a smartypants you are. You've actually succeeded in proving that your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance. You are That Guy. Congratulations.
@@herbderbler1585 No, I'm arguing that you're too incompetent to utilize the battle maniac that isn't going to listen to you anyways. If he's actually putting them fuckers in the dirt, your inability to capitalize on that is all on you.
@@RandominityFTW He's not putting them in the dirt. He's putting them in the enemy base. Repeating the same ignorance with added sass does not equal a valid rebuttal. Try again.
@@RandominityFTW That very much depends on what type of game mode you are playing and in what game exactly. For example, in a Conquest mode (multiple flags on the map, you have to stand in a certain area to capture them and the team which controls the most flags for the longest time wins) in a game like Battlefield, which is 32 vs 32 players for rounds that may last up to an hour, even an infantry with a 32-0 killcount won't matter much if he's not playing the objective. Respawn is too quick and too easy to make killing one guy every minute make a difference (especially if the enemy killed are not on an objective).
Basically a high-kill low-objective player only really matter if 1) he's in a vehicle that can actually cause massive damage and hinder the enemy in a significative way (jet, helicopter, tank eventually) or 2) if he's actually wiping out enemies on the objectives (but than you could hardly say he's not playing the objective).
Love the channel, and all the content. However, I think there are 3 missed points here. 1- suppressive fire IS effective fire, even when not killing. That’s not the purpose. 2- machine guns are not used more because people would notice, they have tactical importance, it’s their job to get into place and lay fire. 3- correlation is not causation
the return of the "Spandau"...
Well, I think modern tactics and medicine are essential to this discussion.
@@dcarmichiel well in the video lloyd DID talk about tactics: musket tactics are to fire volleys at large groups of men, travel in large groups of men; modern automatic guns: spread out with way fewer men, spray at individual targets
@@dcarmichiel kill rate decreases if the bullet doesn't kill them, thus medicine matters. if modern tactics include the difference in logistics, namely that modern soldiers can't create their own amunition on the fly, and bullet caliber matters, then one could say that the modern soldiers are something of a disadvantage, since musket balls are just balls of lead, easily melted over a fire, and black powder is universal. hell, one ship ended up using cheese as cannon shot, and it worked, so the old guns are more versatile too.
no need to be so rude
please watch the video again if you think this way, because i can only assume you've missed the point thats being talked about, good luck.
I don't know who she was, I just want to be off topic, too! 😂
@@lupus67remus7 cant say i know bud :D
"per round shot"???
how is this the most useful stat for effectiveness
It should be enemy killed per soldier lost.
@@bdcopp better than per round shot, but other factors are also important.
considering theres probably a difference in the rate of surrender, then that should probably be involved. Some weapons might be more risky to civilians (eg explosives and rapidfire), and numerous other factors.
Effectiveness isn't just measured by killing the enemy. It's also measured by controlling ground, denying the enemy and not taking casualties.
I believe the logic is false.
with such logic, it is stating craftman work process is better than assambly line in mass proudction.
Becuase it take one craftman to create one product but take 20 assambly line workers to make one.
And we all clearly know that is not true.
Aye, Lloyd dropped the ball on this one.
i think the video would be beter if teh title was " The physiological effectiveness of varius weapons from modern and ancient warfare " or something similar. that way he could avoid implying that shot per kills are great measurements for efficiency
You've obviously never been a caveman.
Jerry Lin That's a bit of a misconception too, tbh. People always specialized when they could, doing one process or part of process to increase efficiency. That wasn't always the case and still nowhere near industrial efficiency, of course, but worth mentioning.
But yeah, ugh, this video.
You guys are clearly not smart enough for this channel.
Modern warfare logic: Throw enough ballistic projectiles at the problem and it will eventually go away.
Warhammer 40K logic: Same, but more dakka!
"There is never a problem that can't be solved by enough firepower, if you've not solved your problem you simply are not using enough."
No just throw enough guardsmen at it, and you just can't lose.
Big guns never tire
Projectiles will never substitute for good old holy honorable meleeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
Screw bolta, face my chainsword!
@@gabeclancy9937 *happy krieg-made gasmask noises*
Effective .. getting the job done regardless.
Efficient .. how well the effective is done.
This guy get's it
Stuka impression superb thank you for that
He’s been waiting since he was 9 to do that on camera 😂😂
Haven't watched the video yet, but knowing Lindybeige it's about how old-timey Brrritish soldiers are better than modern ones by some arbitrary factor.
No different than the modern day hard-on everyone has for the WWII German military. Mein Gott the Germans were near damn perfect in zeir military equzipment, hardvere und tactics.
@@leod-sigefast Motorized artillery is for suckers, uberpferd masterrace!
You called it.
@@leod-sigefast I keep hearing people deride wheraboos but I have only ever seenone, and I am fairly sure he was trolling.
Llyod I think you should brush up on your basic infantry doctrine
Maybe you should try finishing the video before you comment.
Hard oof: the comment.
Llyod
Lindybeige
@@OCinneide I mean if you have to take 50 minutes to go in a circle a dispell your own points then your arguement is shit.
I've never seen such flawed logic. Incredible move
Not to be that guy but the Japanese language has got plenty of words for surrender or capitulate.
But isn't it really cool to say that they don't? It implies that for all of their history, including civil wars, they slaughtered everyone down to the last man and never gave any ground. Terrible military tactics, but tre' cool.
@@mutinyontheark good you remembered that I have to download total war shogun 2.
It's called "hyperbole" you nitwits.
There may not be an specific word for the foreign equivalent but there is always another word than in the right context can mean it
@mutinyontheark for that comment you are my hero xD
getting the camouflaged man to drop down and call in his position so ordinance can kill him IS being effective
Thank god someone said it. Make him engage you so you can call artillery, attack helicopters, or a plane whatever is in range.
Couldnt you do that without wasting ammo? Just call it in?
@@ClockworkAnomaly yes I suppose you could ask them nicely to stay in place while you wait for ordinance/air/flank etc
^That's the main concept of modern war, yes
@@ClockworkAnomaly No, because people in combat tend to move around a lot when not suppressed
*Prrrrrrrrrt vs. Boom*
Place your bets!
PrrrrrrrrrrrRrRRRRRrRrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM
Laser
prrrrrt.
you can spray
cons:
you are a stormtrooper
bOOM
you are immediately a protagonist in an action movie with guns involved
cons:
you dont fire as much
That should have been the title of the video
Prrrrt + Boom = BRRRRRRRRTTTTTT
Training improves effectiveness. Also as a former machine gunner, accuracy by volume is definitely a thing.
Well, someone can take a very old musket and shoot once every ~40 seconds, or get a minigun and tear through a whole platoon alone.
So, i'd say yes.
But since the guy with the minigun will use up so much more ammunition, he clearly isn't anywhere near as effective of a combatant!
@boomgoesblitzhound Exactly! The fewer resources spent per kill, the more effective. Cavemen in loincloths with rocks and sticks were the most effective unit in all of human history since they didn't use up anything of value.
I believe there's a reason the invention of the machine gun in WWI was so devastating, and it's probably not because it wasn't more effective.
IndustrialDonut that was military strategy at the time. It wasn’t ready for artillery, machine guns, even planes weren’t used to they’re full potential. The gun itself was quite flawed, weight being the main flaw.
Battlefield communications limited control of troops to range of voice or whistles, etc. once they had gone over the top. That made for nice close target masses .
@@nap0038 "The gun itself was quite flawed, weight being the main flaw" This is a really dumb statement but good job at trying to be a contrarian.
Deltaworks23 the gun was 60 pounds and could’ve been more with the addition of a tripods and shields. It’s quite actually an important distinction between the LMG and HMG. Soldiers needed rapid firepower that was easy to move on the offense, so LMGs and SMGs were developed
@@nap0038 still not a flaw. The LMG's of the time could not provide continuous fire and the SMGs would not be that good to defend a position. Even with LMGs and SMGs you'd want a belt fed for defensive work and plunging fire. Machine gun theory of today is still based on the fixed machine gun theory developed during WWI.
10:30 when the tree starts speaking Vietnamese
I love your videos mate but it's kind of hilarious, you have clearly never experienced suppressing fire! Lol
I think he kinda forgot to mention this, since he has done some videos about suppresion fire. Seems like he got carried away more than usual.
Not just suppressive fire, I've never heard of a modern gunfight where people just line up 100 feet across from each other....
The big word here being "Relative"
Watch. The whole video. Mate.
@@CreeCore94 no I think you miss understand relative to there respective battlefield the musket is more effect. There are also a lot of relative hypothetical elsewhere. Not a bad thing just something I noted.
@@Alex-cw3rz oh, I thought you were jumping to conclusions like many have in the comment section. Thanks.
Relative should always be the big word
1:58, well, hopefully you'll mention this, as I'm only 2 minutes in, but the lethality of muskets was largely due to the fact penicillin had not yet been invented. The first aid kits modern soldiers carry is like total sci-fi compared to the non-sterile rags back in the day, not to mention portable defibrillators. Getting wounded - any wound - in the old days was WAY worse than getting wounded now, as a great deal of casualties back then happened AFTER the battle was already won or lost, as the injured would die from infection, cardiac arrest, and excessive blood loss (which can now be treated via blood transfusion). Medically, it was far more dangerous to be a soldier then than it is now.
Overall his point was about how many people were shot, not died. I might be wrong though
I kinda agree but a musket ball could be .75 caliber and up which to some people would be considered a cannon nowadays too
My father was a bren gunner, Lindy summarized every bren gunner perfectly. Give a brick shithouse something that sprays lead and they'll murder armies.
thaaaaaaat's not what "effectiveness" means. You're talking about kills per shot. very well. continue.
How is kills per shot not a measure of effectiveness?
@@blackwingdragonmasta
At one time he is talking about kills per shot and one time he is talking about kills per soldier and he is not really trying to keep it clearly separated.
@@blackwingdragonmasta It is a measure, but not the right one. The biggest goal of war is to persuade the other side to quit fighting. It's hard to put a number on size and sophistication of force that can be persuaded per soldier per death per dollar.
@@3gunslingers When a closer approximation would be enemy large units taken out of the fight per our unit per time invested.
@@blackwingdragonmasta It is A measure of effectiveness, not THE measure of effectiveness
Man it's hilarious how far off his tangents go. You certainly lost sight sight of the beginning question but I loved listening to all of it. It was all informational and I enjoyed listening to all random aspects of it.
The perfect speech to make my countrymen surrender ?
Commander : _"Ok guys, either come out, or we're turning off the WiFi .. no more cat videos for you!"_
@pagansforbreakfast
lol … well, to be fair, it is a very potent threat ! 🤣
Heck, I used to live before the internet *and WiFi* and even I think it sucks when there's no WiFi.
When my dad was in the french army he was a machine gunner using a aa52 LMG. He told me they were always trying to shoot as much ammo as soon as possible in an engagement to get rid of the weight for the rest of the operation, and it gave them a reason to retreat.
That's also one thing to consider.
Yea that’s not SOP
@@ViktoriousDead it is for the french
Pretty french tactic if u ask me
@@henri.stach1208 I mean in times of peace when doing military service some are more concerned than others about what they are doing...
My dad got 6 months of jail for crashing a military ambulance in a tree when comming back to the base after a night in a club with a few friends, and 6 more months for hoisting a bicicle on the flag pole during the night and throwing the string on it so that they couldn't take it down, in the morning all soldiers were in line in front of a bicicle... XD
@@atrior7290 So your dad was just kind of a shithead😂
more deaths per round =/= a more effective weapon. why is this the criteria???
Because Lyode has run out of shit to talk about that he actually knows about and need to keep making that sweet TH-cam money.
Because it's the only way a musket stands a pissed on snowballs chance in hell against an m4
@Lics Norgi I mean, if muskets were still effective, we would still issue them
@Lics Norgi I'm not a writer, but I am an avid shooter. I do own an antique musket, and several more modern rifles, and given the amount of time it takes to reload a musket, my akm is pretty well a better weapon
It isn't, and nor is it claimed that it is. It's just a springboard to talk about the psychological effects of weaponry.
Because you can't use suppressing fire with a musket
At 20:31, when he is speaking of the machine gun crew, it is called diffusion of responsibility in social psychology.
@Repeat After Me: An unbelievably accurate summation of our current Western governmental and societal malaise. Depressing as hell, but accurate. Thank you for your insight.
@Repeat After Me: Here's the other angle.
My country has just replaced its 5th state secretary of justice in a row. This time because a report inaccurately portrayed crime by immigrants (this is woefully simplified but it will do for this example).
The secretary is quoted as saying _"That the figures were reported in this way falls under my administrative responsibility. Not only_ am _I responsible for that in the constitutional sense, I_ feel _responsible for it."_
Now, either all Justice ministers have somehow, suddenly become incompetent. Or there's an issue with the people working below them.*
As with this report for example. The minister gave the "go-ahead" for publishing it, but you can be sure he has had very little to do with its contents.
* - as far as I know, we only replace the cabinet and secretaries, and not the entire ministry.
TL;DL: Time after time some higher up takes responsibility for the faults of his subordinates, but the actual culprits just stay safely employed.
In Dungeons and Dragons I managed to have a stealth gunslinger, who deliberately liked black powder because each shot came with a built in smokescreen, which I used to disengage stealthily after the deafening crack.
Yes.
Next question please.
Also Lindy, you seem to be developing an increasing tendency to present videos on subjects that you are massively misinformed about or just plain clueless, and then present these personal opinions and biases as fact.
No
@@jessISaRicePrincess YES. Don't be stupid. The discrepancy between musket kills and modern rifle kills is a simple change in fighting doctrine that came as a result of modern weapons being much more effective than a musket. Also supressive fire was not a thing back then.
You must be fun at lectures
@@darkblood626 oh sorry in my blind rage at the video i got dyslexic by the title i thought the title is "do better guns not improve fighting effectiveness" sorry about that but i do agree with you it's just i got to worked up by the video
Bruh, he's been like this for a very long time. Lindy should stick to what he knows and venture on topics he doesn't with help of experts.
The wierd thing is: I've seen this in practice, whilst playing red orchestra. Because most weapons are bolt action and only hold 5 rounds you tend to spend more time waiting for the perfect shot because you know that once you fire, your position is given away and the enemy is likely going to retaliate and kill you, as opposed to cod, where you just spray and pray.
You seem to confuse effectiveness with efficiency, the whole video seems quite biased.
Nope
Fuc, enlighten my confused mind. I thought they were the same?
@@dekaron12 being effective is being able to do a job to a satisfactory standard. being efficient is being able to a job with the least amount of wasted resources.
for example. if two archers can reliably hit targets at 100m, it means that both are equally effective at hitting targets from 100m away since both of them met that specific standard.
however, if the first archer required 10 arrows to achieve a hit on a target while the second one only required 2, that means the second archer is more efficient at doing his job.
@@hang_kentang6709 damn that was pretty fuccqing good. You a teach in real life?
@@dekaron12 Thanks, and yes i do teach in real life. also, its pretty obvious that better guns do improve fighting effectiveness. they are so effective that it changed the old ways in warfare. for example, brightly coloured coats and tight formation went out style after guns got better.
So basically someone with more Dakka is more likely to go choppy?
ITZ ZOGGIN SCUHYENSS' YA GIT'
*Lindybeige makes a wonderful video about common sense things from ancient history with books and real data backing him up*
Lindybeige's audience: Ah, this is wonderful, ty for the discussion that seems to make sense and is confirm-able with scientific, non-anecdotal data.
*LIndybeige opens his mouth on anything post 1700 with nothing but word of mouth, anecdotes, and guesswork backing him up*
Lindybeige's audience: OH GOD WHY!? Its all anecdotes and shit logic, wtf...
Empty tanks have the fewest casualties ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Who da thunk dat?
Empty tanks kill less enemy infantry, who in turn create more friendly casualties.
Hmmm, I dont know about kills/bullet being a measure of "effectiveness" more like efficiency. If a soldier with a musket and a soldier with a modern gun both kill the same amount of enemies in an engagement theyre both equally effective. The modern soldier will use way more ammunition, so way less efficient, but not less effective.
A diminishing returns when increasing rate of fire, if you will. Each new bullet you can fire each minute increases your effectiveness, but not as much as the last did.
@@TheSpecialJ11 ok but youre talking about bullets/minute i made a point about kills/bullet
@@icedragonair Sorry mixed it up in my head. Principle still holds though.
@@TheSpecialJ11 no principle makes sense youre just introducing another variable. I was deliberately ignoring time as a variable because in a battle people dont fire at a constant rate. Its in bursts, and different weapons have different firing patterns so this all get too complicated to compare really fast. So how many bullets does it take to kill 1 man is simpler, wether diminishing returns applies if you ask how many bullets you need to kill 2 men im not sure, could go either way.
@@TheSpecialJ11 there could even be increasing returns
Classic Lindybeige content, God bless you Lloyd never change
Next week: How Spearmen defeating tanks in Sid Meyer's Civilization is actually realistic.
Then the following week:How Great Britain has never made a single weapon that was less then phenomenal.
For an example of weapon pull, the First Opium War(1839-1842) the Imperial Chinese Army was using smooth bore bronze cannons/artillery and the British Navy were using rifled iron/steel cannons/artillery with a far greater range than the Imperial Chinese Army - so the British Navy bombard the Chinese forts without risk of getting hit by the Chinese Forts.
Paused at 1 sec. In short, YES. They absolutely do. Otherwise we would still be loading projectiles down the muzzle. An assault rifle is more effective, no question. Ok continue Lindy.
I'll wager Lindy never served. Never served anything other than an impeccably presented afternoon tea.
"Ta ta ta ta ta I've got a bren gun!" I love listening to your topics
If I kill 5,000 of them and spend 5,000 bullets, and they kill 6,000 of me and spend *500,000* bullets.... *I. STILL. LOSE.*
_(THE WINNER ISNT THE SIDE WITH THE LEAST SPENT BRASS IN THEIR GUTTER)._
well if you are the soviet union you are the winner in that case, 80% of your pops are dead but you still won!
@@erickarlsson1361
Yup, winning isn't always about killing more people. There can be many objectives in a battle or a war and not a lot of them are just killing the other guys.
If you kill 5,000 of 5,000 army and they kill 6,000 of 10,000 army you win no mather who use how many bullets.
but what if shooting 5000000 bullets causes them to not be able to sustain their conquest, and all of a sudden they have no bullets to counter the resistance?
@@erickarlsson1361 still better than being the loser i reckon
“Yes” -
Thanks for watching everyone.
I'm just 2 minutes in, and I'll listen more, but you're defining effectiveness so wrongly. Comparing round to round is an absurd measure of effectiveness. That's just "bullet efficiency."
Plus, you can easily tweak it in a contemporary rifles favor. Should accuracy be a factor, bullet for bullet the assault rifle will win.
*TL;DW
Semiauto weapons tend to effect practical accuracy negatively, even more so with automatic weapons.
Firing at paper targets isn't the same experience than if you have a target that's trying to kill you, and is moving.
The higher the rate of fire of a weapon, the higher your propensity is to shoot with not a great sight picture. You can afford to miss, as you have the ability to make follow up shots.
Single shot weapons force a person to try and be more accurate as you don't have that accuracy.
The total round expenditure of militaries is far greater because of this.
However, unit tactics are vastly different and battle is far more diversive than previously. Increases in range and weapon accuracy allows for attack possibilities that are not possible compaired to those with earlier weapons.
Comparison between weapons and troops cannot be made when technology has changed the battlefield so much that one is talking about two very different realities.
One can say that practical accuracy under fire is less than previously, but that doesn't mean that older weapons are more efficient at killing. You can say that the psychology of fighting changes when weapon rate of fire is different,but thats the only accurate comparison one can make.
Also, body armor and field medicine is far greater than it was.
A target with modern body armor will more likely require to be hit several times before one hits a place where the hard plates designed to stop rifles isn't present. This makes it more likely that you have hit a place where lethality is relatively low. Mix this with much faster response times to get to a medic who has superior outcomes than the medicine of old, and casualty rates drop even lower, skewing the numbers much greater.
the subject isnt about the bullets, its about "guns" effect on fighting effectiveness.
@@nichlas26 Lloyd brought it up, which is what I am responding to. Context is important.
During my service, 1965 to 1985, we were issued 160 rounds in ten round stripper clips. Our M-16 came with one 20 round magazine...
No, see I was being stupid of purpose!
Come on Lloyd, Even Sharpshooters with rifles, barely but technically better guns, had better ammo/kill ratios than musketeers. it's brutally obvious that modern infantry tactics have led to changes in doctrine that take away almost all of the killing power of small arms. also, if you are indeed arguing from the position of efficiency, if it takes 200 rounds to kill someone nowadays, or even artillery, I would assume that it is easier and cheaper to produce 200 rounds today than 2 two centuries ago. Remember, soldiers don't go to war, countries do.
He has no evidence to support his assertions that black powder muskets of the Napoleonic Wars were more effective than a modern rifle. On the other hand, there were numerous field reports that showed hit rates of less than 3% from a platoon of 100 men volley firing at a white cloth target 100 paces away. That is, out of 100 shots fired, 3 were judged to have inflicted a casualty on an enemy rifleman standing in formation.
Put a group of 100 men across from each other, arm one group with assault rifles and the other with muskets, and the entire group of musketeers will be dead or dying before they ever get a 2nd round off.
Except modern day combat isn't about killing the enemy, suppression and fore superiority is the name of the game.
If you can pour more round on the enemy and make them not combat effective then you still win.
Considering the fact that modern wars don't seem to ever end, maybe just maybe not killing enemies doesn't work?
Modern military rounds hardly stagger today's advanced strawmen.
Holy shit, that's an accurate summary of rebuttal
You're showing your lack of understanding of modern combat
thank god someone said it.
It's not about tactical advantage of military's particular discipline it's about the firearms correlation to human psychology. Moral of story if you think your stick is bigger you will be more likely to club thy enemy and if your buddies stick is smaller he will stand back and let you club away cause your sticks bigger you don't need his little stick in the way.
@@jeffkruger9497 no it's about effectiveness, to take a town in the 1800s required much more men than it does today. So I will argue that modern weapons make soldiers more effective as it requires fewer people to have the same effect.
He's got gamer logic, no infantryman fires his rifle in 'brraps' as he puts it. I made it 40 seconds in and realized he's a fucking tard.
you're forgetting that he is only talking about weapons not modern combat tactics, he isn't comparing tactics if it was tactics then it would be a no-brainer but since its weapons used in the tactics of the time its more subjective.
I certainly wouldn't use the formula [ammunition expended / enemies killed = effectiveness] or swords would be the most "effective" weapon ever. You make it seem that one of the main concerns is ammunition conservation; However, the objective in combat is often keeping friendly forces alive and enemy forces neutralized. A weapon which helps keep your soldiers alive while engaging enemy weaponry is what most people would conceded an "effective" weapon.
Exactly. Following his logic would imply that suppression fire is the least effective thing ever because it usually involves lots of shots and very little killing.
He's not talking about bullets per man killed though it does somewhat support what he's said. He's talking about how when you start giving everyone better guns (or equipment) and they start shooting each other it makes everyone less likely to fight or fight effectively. The MG42 he mentions later ties more in to what he's saying. The machine gun intimidates the guys its shooting at because they think it's better than what they've got, but also on the side of the guys with the MG they feel like the MG is doing all the work and so are less likely to fight their hardest if they're not the men manning the MG.
As to the term "effectiveness" he's using what is mentioned it's from a book on tactical psychology called "War Games" which he brings up. It's not his definition and he does say it's pretty vague.
R. Hyland I really have to just disagree. When you equip soldiers with better weapons they would definitely fight for longer and from greater range, and be more willing to engage the enemy not less. I understand the point Lindy is trying to make I just think he is incorrect. Which happens to everyone from time to time.
A solider with modern weapons is more effective than one from a century ago. As is discussed soldiers are much more disconnected from the killing today; But that disassociation from the killing that they have to do would most likely make them even more effective not less. It takes a certain person to slit someone’s throat and a different kind to shoot them with a MG.
@@Nordy941
It's not about if we put them on the battlefield and compared their performance in terms of ground taken, enemies killed, or allies preserved. And I apologise for repeating this but I don't think I phrased it properly the first time nor do I think Lindybeige was particularly clear either and I don't think you understand what's being said either. The "effectiveness" you are describing is what a a soldier can accomplish in terms of hours fought, mental resilience and preservation of his forces. What he can actually accomplish? Is that correct? If it is then we're having the wrong argument.
The "effectiveness" Lindybeige refers to is a very poorly defined (as in its not well explained and no baseline provided) term from the tactical psychology book from what I understand and I may be wrong is that it refers to how willing a soldier is to fight in comparison to those around him, both friends and enemies regardless of the time period. And the armament of the soldier (or his perception of it) plays a part in that is described as weapon "pulls" or "pushes". If a soldier fields he's outmatched in terms of his opponents, he's less willing to take risks or aggressive action. And even in comparison to his allies if he feels he's got the smallest gun then he may feel inadequate compared to his allies. Or he's not the best man for the job even if it would still be reasonably effective. It's about the perceived parity of armaments or fairness of the engagement and how hard a soldier will fight in relation to that.
I apologise if I've misunderstood. But I feel too many people latched onto the opening of the video where he talks about the ammunition expended with muskets vs modern weapons.
You have to consider that a burst of fire from an assault rifle might be three 55 grain rifle projectiles, and a musket ball is a single .69 caliber 1oz slug. So the assault rifle and the musket are the same per grams of lead in the target.
Knives kill more people per shot than muskets do.
Knife > Musket ?
Historically, yes. That's why they had bayonets, too.
@@animistchannel2983 Bayonets are not knives. They function much more like spear-tips.
@@atticusbeachy3707 Learn more about how actual soldiers have used and modified their equipment for close-fighting. Either way, stabby-stabby and slicey-slicey amount to the same thing, compared to shooting bullets.
You can check out Schologladiatoria channel's video on "WW1 Bayonets used as Fighting Knives" for a start.
Of course, in recent history, a lot of bayonet setups are just a clip-on rack you stick an actual knife into, so you can choose freehand or as a barrel extension.
@@animistchannel2983
Of course you can use bayonets like knives. That does not make them knives.
And no, bayonets used like knives do not amount to the same thing as bayonets fastened to the ends of muskets.
Spears > knives and it isn't close.
@@atticusbeachy3707 Yes, if you use a bayonet as a knife, that does in fact make it a knife. You could even slice carrots. As for whether it's on the rack or not, compared to shooting ammunition, slicey & stabby both don't run out of shots, as per your original post. As for "spears > knives" do go watch Matt's video and think about the variables. Seriously, it's a good video from a qualified instructor source.
Weapon choice is always situational. The world is full of differently sized and shaped spaces and terrains and kinds of encounters. The right choice depends on how close you actually are, and to whom, and what's around you.
Spears are awesome melee weapons in an open level field with a shieldwall and room to maneuver around. In a narrow trench or a bathroom or a 90° turn in a stairway... not so much. In a forest... not so much. Fighting uphill (or downhill, or sideways on the side of a hill)... not so much. Against an armored opponent with empty-hand and/or knife skills (even if the spearman is also armored)... not so much.
All of those are situations where your spear can turn into the worse choice in a hurry.
Once you get into mixed fighting and foliage/clutter, spears get tossed aside for a reason. You soon find yourself using both hands (!) to hold what amounts to a crappy spanking rod that snags you on everything, and you have basically no grappling options until you drop it. It's the same for my pet favorite, the quarterstaff or bo staff.
The problem/tradeoff with the spear in combat is that it's only properly dangerous at one end and in a linear fashion, much like a firearm. Anything that knows what it's doing and gets inside that radius eats you for lunch.
The romans were masters of spear warfare, and even for them, their front rank would drop their spears and draw gladius (short-sword/long-knife) if the enemy closed with them. Still, they lost 2 legions to the Suebi and had to draw a line on their map saying "our empire stops here" because of these considerations.
Personally, I spent many years practicing and teaching people exactly how to do these kinds of things, and why they should be aware of it. For example, in modern terms, you would think firearms > knives as well. "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" is a great-sounding proverb -- too bad it's misleading on its own. The other half of that is, "don't bring a gun to a knife fight."
Within 9 meters, which one applies depends entirely on who is ready first. [It's a 2-second lesson for "...a rookie cop, all pride and glock!"] At grappling range, "knives or empty-hand > all". We have saved a lot of police and military lives by making sure they understood that.
... I refer you all to "Shoot to kill" by Lindybeige a year ago, for an elegant general refute to many of the conclusions of this video.
@incinerator950 I am not sure the data collection was flawed, but the conclusions have come into some disrepute. That said, I believe the current non-draft professional armies are pretty efficient when they are allowed to be.
I had several friends who were in Vi et Nam, and they were very clear that they participated in "suppressive fire" which is another way of saying, spray and pray until the air strikes arrived, and then get the hell out. So, I doubt that their expended ammo resulted in any casualties. This kind of thing is well represented in the comments below.
Now, to the point of the lecture: Do better weapons make more efficient soldiers.
I believe the answer is a resounding "Yes". If the mission is shoot to kill, the modern weapons, and professionally trained soldiers do that better (I have personally assassinated standard 16 pound bowling balls at 650 meters), If the mission is to suppress fire from the enemy, I believe I would rather have a couple of M249's and a few marines with M-4's than a row of musketeers.
The MG-42: 1,000 rounds of PTSD per minute!
More like 1500 rounds up to 2000
1200-1500 rpm.
@@killerklinge52 No, that's too high. 1200-1500.
Former-6-year-contracted Recon Officer speaking: actually, modern weapons (in accuracy: Ammunition) is NOT MEANT TO KILL soldiers, but rather to wound them heavily.
Why is that - short answered:
An immediately killed enemy makes the enemy carry on and let him lay where he fell.
But a wounded soldier at least binds two more fellow enemy soldiers to treat him, carry him, take care of him. Not to mention the devastating psychological effect on the enemy squad seeing their comrade crying, praying and calling for his mother...