modern archers?

[VAE VICTUS]

ok is it me or does it seem that modern armies are now made of "archers"?
i mean usually they dont close to melee as the main point of the battle,although it is still a important ppart of warfare.but i mean now our guns function as bows in a way,kill the enemy when they are far away.so armies of today are like mostly made up of "archers".any thoughts?

[Kagemusha]

One could say that.One could also say that the mortars and artillery are doing what the archers did in earlier armies.Peppering enemy before assault or harassing them when enemy approaches. :bow:

[Watchman]

"Archers" only in the sense of "missile troops". European armies started relying increasingly on firepower in the 1600s and the trend only got stronger later on, although the bayonet and cavalry charge remained important all the way to the end of the 19th century. Once multiple-shot firearms became the norm hand-to-hand combat became a tactic of desperation, very close quarters or quite unusual circumstances and firepower now reigns supreme.

Seeing as how the Europeans used their well-refined method to take over virtually the whole rest of the world in about fifty years everybody else had to learn the idea right fast - either to survive or because they were now in a sense very much a part of an obscenely expanded "Europe" and served in the armies of their colonial masters.

[Watchman]

Those are some very general principles then...

[Kagemusha]

Yes.Very rough.I thouht it like you divide an modern army like you would divide an ancient one.First you have infantry what ever they are fighting with,then cavalry/MBT´S and AFV´s and supporting troops archers,catapults/mortars,artillery.Ofcourse modern army has units that you cant categorize like this:Helicopters and airforce.
Its really just a mindgame. ~:)

[Watchman]

So far as I know modern warfare is all about logistics, to even greater degree than in the preceding eras. And that in the broadest possible sense - it's about all the groundwork (technical and methodical developement, opinion manipulation, political maneuvering etc. etc.) that needs to get done long before the actual conflict, and which is then used to sustain one's own fighting forces in an (post)industrial-age war.

You mess those up, and all your fancy toys won't buy you a cold drink in Cairo when you're thirsty. Just ask the Nazis; they paid too much attention on fancy high-tech toys and actual fighting and too little to issues like diplomacy, long-term contignency planning, opinion, resources etc. etc. and in the end lost totally. The assorted infamous colonial/ideological wars - Indochina, Ageria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and so on - show a similar shortage of "groundwork". Although one side was by far superior militarily, shortcomings in other areas (most commonly planning and opinion management...) led to its ultimate and ignomious defeat and departure, ceding victory-by-default to the as-such weaker side.

[Watchman]

The infantry handles close terrain and the drudge work of actually holding land. The tanks and the flyboys seem to do the major part of the "taking land" (save rough) and "destroying enemy" gigs these days.

'Course, these days most wars are asymmetrical anyway so the point is moot.

[Kraxis]

For the purposes of this analogy, I think Main Battle Tanks can count as infantry.
Since tanks actually destroy enemies and pursue them, I think we can count them as the heavy cavalry. And yet, heavy cavalry seldomly were as effective in leading the assault.

But I agree that infantry is still infantry, they just slug it out over longer distances than 30cm.
I also aree that arty is the archers, though very very effective archers. What was it, 2/3rds of all casualties in WWII and later have been from artillery. That effectively cuts into the infantry's role.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

ok is it me or does it seem that modern armies are now made of "archers"?
i mean usually they dont close to melee as the main point of the battle,although it is still a important ppart of warfare.but i mean now our guns function as bows in a way,kill the enemy when they are far away.so armies of today are like mostly made up of "archers".any thoughts?

As well as artillery.:2thumbsup:

[Avicenna]

Mortars and Artillery are Archers

Rifles are Slingers (roughly)

The nazis did turn a lot of Germany, with quite a few Germans eager to serve, whether their post was to be a secretary or a soldier. If they focussed less on the fighting, then they would have just lost earlier and with (maybe) less dead. Hitler had already managed to make many Germans think that they were doing the will of God, brainwashing them and telling them that they were the ones whom God favoured and were doing his divine will. This nothing if not propaganda.

[Papewaio]

Very General Principles of Warfare.

The principle of warfare as an individual is to Cut.

The principle of warfare as a group is to get as many pointy sticks at the point of contention to perform a Cut.

=][= Appendix.

Swordsmen have a pointy metal stick that allows them to Cut those near them.
Spearmen have a longer pointy stick that allows them to Cut those near them and near their friends.
Cavarly allow the pointy sticks to move faster and to group quicker then those on foot. They allow more sticks to get to the point of contention quicker to perform the Cut.
Archers have small pointy sticks that can Cut from a longer distance then Spearmen.
Assault riflemen have a lot of little pointy sticks that can all Cut from a longer distance then the Archers.
Nuclear bombs use massive numbers of very tiny pointy sticks to Cut a lot many times at an area far greater then that of any other previous pointy stick.

[Watchman]

That analysis strikes me as somewhat reductionist, though.

[Ja'chyra]

Actually, if modern armies had the freedom to act to the best of their abilities infantry (ie an infantryman) wouldn't be needed at all except as an occupation force, with the amount of firepower that a modern military nation can bring down in a given area it makes it unnecessary for the footsloggers to be sent in.

[Watchman]

The take-destroy-hold division, huh ? I'm not entirely sure about that. I'm under the strong impression enemies gone into hiding in suitably broken terrain aren't too easy to deal in anything but the old-fashioned way - unless you're willing to type saturation-bomb the area with neutron bombs or something along those lines. Dropping bombs into wood-covered mountains tends not be a terribly effective way to root out fuerillas you know. It's sort of how way back in antiquity even the best horse-archer armies tended to find it necessary to eventually stick in with assorted ironmongery to get their foes finished for good.

[Ja'chyra]

While it's true that tanks aren't that much use in mountainous terrain it doesn't pose as many problems to the airforce. Undoutedly there are places where men would be used in place of technology, but I think we'll all agree if given a free reign then there is the technology to subdue the enemy in any type of terrain.

As for comparing it to Ye Olde archers, modern explosives are much more effective than arrows, and even hiding in wooded areas is no protection.

But, and quite rightly so, the military will never be able to deploy there full resources as the results would make the area fought over worthless for everyone. Some of the restrictions I find quite ludicrous though, like the illegality of using armour piercing rounds from small arms or not being able to use lasers to blind your enemies when it is perfectly acceptable to shoot them in the head????

[rotorgun]

I would say, having been an infantryman in my ancient past, that the modern infantry man fights more as a skirmisher. The formations used are rather open like a skirmisher formation tends to be, and the rifle is a modern day replacement for the sling or javelin. Sling ammunition was often formed into bullet like shapes made out of lead, which is interesting. In some ways they are also like legionary soldiers, trained to fight as a team with preset battle drills, and formations. With the emphisis, in recent times, on the use of body armor, it is hard not to see some resemblance between them. I guess I'm saying that they are a ,sort of, combination of both. Hmmm.....interesting topic.

[Orda Khan]

Since tanks actually destroy enemies and pursue them, I think we can count them as the heavy cavalry. And yet, heavy cavalry seldomly were as effective in leading the assault.

But I agree that infantry is still infantry, they just slug it out over longer distances than 30cm.
I also aree that arty is the archers, though very very effective archers. What was it, 2/3rds of all casualties in WWII and later have been from artillery. That effectively cuts into the infantry's role.
Yes, I agree Tanks = Heavy Cav. Didn't most cavalry regiments end up as tank regiments? I am not too up with modern warfare but it certainly seems that things have been changed so that killing is done at a distance. It must be dreadful and extremely traumatic to kill another up close, far better to kill him a mile off

.....Orda

[Watchman]

I'd say it's really just more that current weapons technology makes killing at a distance so effective killing face-to-face normally only happens in "close" terrain - woods, trenches, built-up areas, that sort of thing - and similar circumstances where burying the other guy under sheer firepower isn't really possible, or at least the remnants need to be mopped up the old-fashioned way.

Dunno about the psychologies of it though.

[Gealai]

Hm the mountains can clearly restrict the airforce, at least rotor-based helicopters - they just have to be high enough as the Soviets learned in Afghanistan. Soviet Attack Helicopters with relative heavy load were forced to fly low and close to the ground of the valleys. The Afghans learned to use the RPG-7 in squads as airbusting missles (4.5 sec timer --> explosion around 920m) to take down the so very restrained approaching helicopters. One needs a lot of training to get good killing-quotes with such a system. Then arrived the Stinger...

[doc_bean]

r not being able to use lasers to blind your enemies when it is perfectly acceptable to shoot them in the head????

The problem is that they can have huge range and can blind anyone, including civilians. In a war like Iraq such a weapon would have been devastating for the civilian population.

Besides, killing your enemies is considered honourable in modern war ethics, blinding them not so much. If the Byzantines where still around they'd probably love it.