Official Safehold Speculation Thread

OsageOrange wrote:

DDHvi wrote:I'm not thinking about putting them into the military. It can make sense for civilians to know how to defend also. There have been cases in the US of a licensed concealed carry gun stopping an attack on them or others. And it has been shown that even Marines are vulnerable if they are in a gun-free zone. Altho some of them used themselves to draw the attackers away from other vulnerable people. In another case, an attack in a gun free zone was stopped because a man illegally had a concealed carry weapon.

Let's be blunt: some of the most vicious attacks on women require the attacker to come close. While not totally effective (what is?) civilian women trained in unarmed combat would have an ace in the hole in such a situation.

I do recall some ladies have been in combat roles. However, if a culture is going to take defense seriously, this possibility should be considered, even if just as a backup.

For that matter, if a culture pushed in particular for UAC training for females, the males just might learn to be a little bit more polite

BTW, IIRC in the last few years, in real life, the percentage of ladies applying for, training for, and getting concealed carry licenses has gone up quite a bit.

In any case, anyone wanting to provide defense by any means should get solid training, which both Sharleyan and Iris did re guns.

That would make a lot of sense- and might just set up some sort of situation where a woman might prevent or reduce the lethality of an attack

Expert snuggler wrote:An initial step could be training women for a Home Guard.

Louis R wrote:One thing you're overlooking is just how little what you're holding in your hand matters for tactical training - until people start putting holes in you, it's _all_ drills. doesn't matter if you're firing blanks from a muzzle loader or a breech loader at 3x the rate, or not shooting anything at all much of the time, the fire-and-movement drill is exactly the same: once you give away your position, you get your butt to the next one. if you execute, your sergeant will be happy with you. if you don't get it right, he won't be...

the biggest issue with doing it with muzzle-loaders is that once you get good at it, it's so much easier with a Mandrayn you risk getting cocky about how good you are. and then don't treat the guys with the real hole-makers with the respect they deserve: you're just as dead with a matchlock ball through your gut as you are with an M96 bullet there.

I have to agree that the ICA looked really polished and confident in their first engagements. But, remember, these were all retrained old-model army troops, many of them veterans. It would be very surprising if a significant portion of their training was spent as opfor - standing around in old-style formations seeing just what it's like to be on the receiving end of the new tactics. When they went over the line in the Gap, they had a pretty good idea of what they were doing to the other guys, and that would have been a great confidence booster. The next batch may never touch a pike or a matchlock, but they don't need to, because they _know_ all the new-fangled stuff works - in fact, it won't _be_ 'new-fangled' to them - and all they need is to learn how to do it themselves.

You're also exaggerating the complexity of training for the new support arms. Using them and coordinating them isn't a grunt's problem. All he needs is confidence that they work, which is best gained from a couple of fire-power demonstrations where you spend a day digging the best positions you can, then hike back to the firing line and watch the arty spend a half-hour or so shooting them to ratshit. Very instructive, that

Actually employing them is a command problem that comes down to understanding capabilities [you get that best by digging right beside your squaddies] and doctrine. Execution is a matter for the support and arty troops, who have their own training regime. The line commanders' job is to know what to, and what _not_ to, ask for, when. Learning that isn't really as time consuming as people are trying to suggest.

*quote="lyonheart"*Hi Don,

The ICA evidently practiced with what the Mahndrayn could do with their flintlocks and had a few Mahndrayns to train with [textev conflicts], but adding mortars and indirect fire to the mix is a far bigger jump in complexity, NTM all the tactical changes including corps training, while substituting flintlocks for the Mahndrayns for most, that I struggle to see how they succeeded so well.

L

n7axw wrote:I have wondered about training times myself. Many of the Corisandians had some training with flintlock muskets. Back then Charisians were forming square with close order formations. The tactics of unit dispersal really didn't come until the Mandrayans arrived in Siddarmark with Hanth and BGV.

Along with becoming accustomed to the range of their rifles, learning the tactics appropriate for the Mandrayans would be what's actually new to them. What that means training wise, I am not sure. My impression is that DE's and BGV's people learned pretty much in the field since they first got the Mandrayans when they arrived in Siddar City. Up to that point the were using the same muzzle loading rifles they took to Corisande.

Don

saber964 wrote:

Expert snuggler wrote:An initial step could be training women for a Home Guard.

I proposed something different, with a nice catchy acronym.

Woman's
Imperial
Naval
Service

This like what they did during WWII with the WAVES WAC's SPARS and WASP's

lyonheart wrote:Hi OsageOrange,

Besides the concealed carry aspect which I support, the vast potential market of smaller lady sized pistols ought then to be quite remunerative for Edwyrd.

Then there's the reaction to the news 'the women across the empire are all armed', NTM looking for men not paying attention to them but concentrating on their dreams of heavenly rewards, however long that takes to get back to the temple.

L

Tonto Silerheels wrote:Keith_w wrote:

I'd like to point out that last year, in the United States, over 10 times the number of people are killed or injured by personal weapons than were stopped from committing crimes. Most of the world gets along just fine without them.

Kinda makes you wonder why they issue 'em to the military.

~Tonto

Tonto Silerheels wrote:PeterZ wrote:

That's simple. They issue firearms to the military to kill people and break things.

You're missing the genius of Keith_w's idea, PeterZ. Take Juno beach, D-Day, for example. Canada suffered 340 killed, 574 wounded, and 47 taken prisoner. If Canada had only had the foresight to deny their soldiers personal weapons, they could have had 340 fewer killed, and 574 fewer wounded. (I can't really see how disarming the soldiers would have kept the 47 from being taken prisoner.) That is, unless the Germans retaliated by disarming their soldiers.

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'arms race'.

~Tonto

Tonto Silerheels wrote:PeterZ wrote:

That's simple. They issue firearms to the military to kill people and break things.

You're missing the genius of Keith_w's idea, PeterZ. Take Juno beach, D-Day, for example. Canada suffered 340 killed, 574 wounded, and 47 taken prisoner. If Canada had only had the foresight to deny their soldiers personal weapons, they could have had 340 fewer killed, and 574 fewer wounded. (I can't really see how disarming the soldiers would have kept the 47 from being taken prisoner.) That is, unless the Germans retaliated by disarming their soldiers.

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'arms race'.

~Tonto