Lindybeige
Published 26 Feb 2011A weapon can be very effective even if it never actually kills anyone.
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Lindybeige
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: https://twitter.com/Lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Forgotten Weapons
Published 2 Jan 2021http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
https://www.floatplane.com/channel/Fo…
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
(Edit: Tungsten carbine is, of course *denser* than steel, not lighter. Sorry.)
I have done several previous videos on the Boys antitank rifle, but never actually fired one — until today! We’re out at the range with a MkI Boys and five rounds of its .55 Boys ammunition. So let’s see if it’s as painful to shoot as people say …
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85740
Forgotten Weapons
Published 13 Nov 2017The United States first experimented with a combination trowel and bayonet in 1868, producing 200 experimental examples made from standard socket bayonets. This was immediately followed by an additional 500 Model 1869 trowel bayonets made new. These were distributed to a few companies of the infantry to test in the field. Remarkably, the trials reports were overwhelmingly positive.
The US infantryman at that time did not carry any sort of entrenching tool, and so even an awkward combination tool was an improvement over a canteen cup or other ad hoc tool for digging. The bayonet was seen by some officers as becoming obsolete with the introduction of breechloading rifles, so the reduced effectiveness of the new item as a bayonet was not a substantial concern. The intended use of these tools was not to dig elaborate trenches, but rather to hastily construct a shallow ditch and embankment which would provide just enough cover to shelter a prone soldier.
With the trials reports in, the government purchased 10,000 of the improved 1873 pattern trowel bayonet, which featured a stronger blade and a much more comfortable handle for digging. These were issued and used in the field (and in several combat engagements), but the developmental direction turned towards combination knife trowels instead of bayonets, and there would be no further development or issue of these tools after the 1870s.
See the full trials report here: https://books.google.com/books?id=qUE…
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
If you enjoy Forgotten Weapons, check out its sister channel, InRangeTV! http://www.youtube.com/InRangeTVShow
Historia Civilis
Published 21 Mar 2017Patreon | http://historiacivilis.com/patreon
Donate | http://historiacivilis.com/donate
Merch | http://historiacivilis.com/merch
Mailing List | http://historiacivilis.com/mailinglist
Twitter | http://historiacivilis.com/twitter
Website | http://historiacivilis.comMusic is:
“Day Bird,” by Broke For Free
“Drums of the Deep,” by Kevin MacLeod
“Flood,” by Jahzzar
Forgotten Weapons
Published 29 Aug 2018http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
The main British sniper rifle of World War Two, and arguably one of the best looking military sniper rifles of all time, the No4 MkI (T) was something the British military knew they would want even before the No4 MkI rifle had gone into real production. The first No4 snipers were built on leftover trials rifles from Enfield, and the pattern was formally introduced in February of 1942. First use was in North Africa, but the fighting there was not really suited to sniper rifles, and the weapon’s practical combat debut was in Italy in 1943.
The No4 MkI (T) was a conversion of a standard No4 MkI rifle, using examples chosen for particular good accuracy. They were sent to Holland & Holland to have scope mount bases added and No32 telescopic sights fitted (along with cheek risers on the stocks and having the battle sight aperture ground off to allow room for the scope bell). Between 23,000 and 26,000 were made during the war, and they would continue to be used in the British military for decades, including later conversion into 7.62mm NATO L42A1 rifles [which Ian discusses here].
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85704
SandRhoman History
Published 21 Feb 2021CuriosityStream link: https://curiositystream.com/sandrhoman
The “Infantry Revolution” of the late Middle Ages is kind of a hot topic among armchair historians and academics alike. This is how the argument goes: In the late Middle Ages, infantry grew in importance to the detriment of heavy cavalry; by then battles were increasingly won with pikes, longbows and arquebuses instead of mounted knights with lances, the argument continues, and as a result of that, the socio-political make-up and development of European polities changed lastingly. So, this Infantry Revolution supposedly had an incredible impact on European state building processes AND, the argument finally concludes, it laid the foundation to Europe’s conquest and colonization of many parts of the world. However, in public spaces such as YouTube this whole debate is more discussed in regards to tactics and fighting techniques than economics and politics. Consequently, much of the public discussion is about how and if the importance of knights changed after the High Middle Ages. Likewise, topics such as the efficacy of the English longbow or the impact of pikes in the late Middle Ages are frequently the subject of discussions. All of that is controversial to say the least but it gets worse: these changes must be viewed in the broader military changes such as the rise of gunpowder artillery between 1420 and 1530 — called an artillery revolution — the decline of sieges between the 1420s and the 1530s which, among many things, led to the resurgence of heavy cavalry in the later late Middle Ages. Lastly, all of these revolutions belong to a notion called “military revolution”. This video is not intended to argue one side or the other of the “infantry revolution” but to provide a broad overview over both the debate and the military changes during the 14th and 15th centuries. It explains how contemporary historiography quarrels over the infantry revolution.
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhis…
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SandrhomanBibliog…
Bibliography:
Bane, M., English Longbow Testing against various armor circa 1400, 2006.
Ayton, A., / Price, J. L., (Hrsg.), The Medieval Military Revolution. State, Society and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, 199J.
Black, A Military Revolution? Military Change and European Society 1550–1800, 1991.
Devries, K., Medieval Military Technology, 1994.
Dierk, W., s.v. “Heeresreform”, in: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit
Ortenburg, G., “Waffe und Waffengebrauch im Zeitalter der Landsknechte” (Heerwesen der Neuzeit, Abt. 1, Bd. 1) Koblenz 1984.
Magier, Mariusz; Nowak, Adrian; et al., “Numerical Analysis of English Bows used in Battle of Crécy”. Problemy Techniki Uzbrojenia. 142 (2), 2017, 69–85.
Meumann, M., s.v. “Military Revolution”, in: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit.
Parker G., “The ‘Military Revolution’, 1560–1660 – a Myth?”, in: Journal of Modern History 48.2, 1976, 196–214
Parker, G., Die militärische Revolution. Die Kriegskunst und der Aufstieg des Westens 1500–1800, 1990 (Engl. 1988)
Roberts, M.: “The military revolution, 1560–1660”. In: Clifford J. Rogers: The military revolution debate. Readings on the military transformation of early modern Europe. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 1995, S. 13–35.
Rogers, C.J. / Tallet F. (editors), European Warfare, 1350–1750, 2010.
Rogers, C.J., The Efficacy of the English Longbow, 1998.
Schmidtchen, Volker, Kriegswesen im späten Mittelalter. Technik, Taktik, Theorie, Weinheim 1990.
Soar, H., Gibbs, J., Jury, C., Stretton, M., Secrets of the English War Bow. Westholme, 2010, pp. 127–151.
The infantry do not have a single capbadge, they are described as a single capbadge but they all have different badges, lots and lots of them. Due to amalgamations and drawing down they are merged and start using new ones. One day they will be merged into the Royal Corps of Infantry.
The infantry (note not “infanteers” as they really hate that) are the actual troops who stand toe-to-toe with the enemy and bayonet them in the face. Boots on the ground, their job is to be pointed at the bad guys and go wreck it. They may get delivered in various ways including aircraft, boat, ship or their own vehicles, but same job: “infantry go smash”. Can be identified by neck tattoos, traditions that the Victorians would think are dated, officers wear faded red trousers and soldiers fight each other on Friday nights.
Combat Boot, “So, ‘capbadges’, what’s that all about then?”, combatboot.co.uk, 2020-11-13.
SandRhoman History
Published 7 Feb 2021Everybody quarrels over the efficacy of the English longbow. Many historians, reenactors and history enthusiasts alike hold the view that arrows piercing armor is a myth. Some base this view on testing as was done for example by Tod from Tod’s workshop. Together with his team, he provided an invaluable data point for this debate. Others, such as traditionalist historians are often open to the possibility of arrows piercing armor, even though they are aware of actual testing of the longbow. In general, the efficacy of a weapon is much more complicated than its mere armor penetration value. So, in this video we’d like to shed light on the whole debate and explain why it is so hard to find common ground on this issue. This is why everybody disagrees on the efficacy of the English longbow.
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhis…
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sandrhoman
Tod’s Video: ARROWS vs ARMOUR – Medieval Myth Busting https://youtu.be/DBxdTkddHaE
Tod’s playlist: MEDIEVAL MYTH BUSTING https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLI…
Bibliography:
Rogers, C.J., The Efficacy of the English Longbow, 1998.
Devries, K., Medieval Military Technology, 1994.
Bane, M., “English Longbow Testing against various armor circa 1400”, 2006.
Soar, H., Gibbs, J., Jury, C., Stretton, M., Secrets of the English War Bow. Westholme, 2010, pp. 127–151.
Magier, Mariusz; Nowak, Adrian; et al., “Numerical Analysis of English Bows used in Battle of Crécy”. Problemy Techniki Uzbrojenia. 142 (2), 2017, 69–85.
Epimetheus
Published 13 Aug 2018Roman legion vs Macedonian phalanx (Macedonian wars)
Battle of Pydna 168 BC and battle of Cynoscephalae 197 BCSupport new videos from Epimetheus on Patreon! 😀
https://www.patreon.com/Epimetheus1776roman legion, roman legion tactics, macedonian phalanx, Macedonian phalanx tactics, Macedonian phalanx vs roman legion, ancient Macedonian army, ancient roman army, roman army, Roman legionary, rome vs Greece, Rome vs Macedon, roman army weapons, Roman army tactics, Macedonian wars, battle Cynoscephalae, battle of Pydna, republican Roman army, Roman maniple, Roman republic, documentary, ancient Rome documentary, ancient Greece documentary, rome documentary, battle of magnesia, rome selucid empire, Roman empire vs selucid empire, diadochi, ancient,
Forgotten Weapons
Published 4 Nov 2020http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
https://www.floatplane.com/channel/Fo…
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
The MG42 was developed to be a more reliable and easier to manufacture replacement for the MG34, although both would serve side by side until the end of World War Two. Designed by Grossfuss company engineer Werner Gruner with no previous military or small arms design experience, the MG42 used heavy stampings for its main assemblies, thus reducing German need for expensive and difficult to obtain alloyed steels.
As a practical matter, the MG42 had a much higher rate of fire than the MG34, at 1500-1600 rounds per minute (more than 50% faster than the MG34). This was deemed desirable to improve the effectiveness of suppressing fire and the density of the cone of fire, but naturally resulted in much higher ammunition consumption than other machine gun models.
This example is a very early production Gustloff example, with the early horizontal charging handle, unreinforced wooden stock, and adjustable front sight. It was most likely captured in North Africa from Rommel’s forces, as they were a primarily user of the very early MG42s.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85740
Lawrence W. Reed remembers the US regiment that spent the most days in combat during WW1 and was awarded the French Croix de Guerre for the unit’s incredible fighting efforts:
“Some of the colored men of the 369th (15th N.Y.) who won the Croix de Guerre for gallantry in action.” Left to right. Front row: Pvt. Ed Williams, Herbert Taylor, Pvt. Leon Fraitor, Pvt. Ralph Hawkins. Back Row: Sgt. H. D. Prinas, Sgt. Dan Strorms, Pvt. Joe Williams, Pvt. Alfred Hanley, and Cpl. T. W. Taylor.
Records of the War Department General and Special Staffs via Wikimedia Commons.
Formed from a New York National Guard unit, the men of the 369th learned basic military practices at Camp Whitman, New York, before being sent to Camp Wadsworth in Spartanburg, South Carolina, for combat training. They were not welcomed by many of the locals there, and some were subjected to discrimination and vile epithets for no more reason than their color. In December 1917, they were shipped to France where they expected to see action on the front lines.
Their high spirits were quickly dashed when it became apparent the Army did not want to deploy them for anything other than manual labor, far from the fighting. Even the rifles they brought with them were confiscated by US Army officials.
The commander of the American Expeditionary Force, General John J. Pershing, was reluctant to commit any US troops to the front until he felt he had assembled them in sufficient numbers to ensure victory. The French, meanwhile, were desperate for manpower. Finally bowing to French pressure, Pershing gave them the 369th. While some regarded black troops as expendable, they ultimately proved themselves indispensable.
Consider this amazing record of the Harlem Hellfighters: No American unit experienced more time in combat than they did — no less than 191 days under fire. They never lost an inch of ground. The enemy never captured a single of their number. They suffered the highest casualty rate of any US regiment. None deserted. The grateful French bestowed their highest military honor, the Croix de Guerre, upon the entire regiment. Many individuals of the regiment received the US Army’s second-highest award, the Distinguished Service Cross. Posthumously, Henry Johnson received America’s Medal of Honor in 2015. The 369th ended up as the most decorated US regiment of the war.
Another distinguishing feature of the Harlem Hellfighters was their band, the largest and best-known of any regiment. Its leader was James Reese Europe, whose enlistment in 1917 proved to be a boon for recruitment. He was one of America’s best-known black musicians and others like Noble Sissle, who became Europe’s lieutenant and lead vocalist, were eager to serve with him.
Europe’s band was extremely popular with the French, even when Europe introduced his own arrangement of La Marseillaise, France’s national anthem. The Hellfighters’ band brought both jazz and ragtime music to France, where nobody had heard either before.
Mark Felton Productions
Published 6 Jan 2020The story of the largest tank battle of the Pacific Campaign on the island of Saipan.
Dr. Mark Felton is a well-known British historian, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers Zero Night and Castle of the Eagles, both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries. More information about Mark can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fe…
Visit my audio book channel “War Stories with Mark Felton”: https://youtu.be/xszsAzbHcPE
Help support my channel:
https://www.paypal.me/markfeltonprodu…
https://www.patreon.com/markfeltonpro…Disclaimer: All opinions and comments expressed in the ‘Comments’ section do not reflect the opinions of Mark Felton Productions. All opinions and comments should contribute to the dialogue. Mark Felton Productions does not condone written attacks, insults, racism, sexism, extremism, violence or otherwise questionable comments or material in the ‘Comments’ section, and reserves the right to delete any comment violating this rule or to block any poster from the channel.
Forgotten Weapons
Published 3 Oct 2017http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
One of the the flamethrower design styles to come out of experimentation late in World War One was the toroid type, with a donut-shaped fuel tank and a central spherical pressure bottle. The British continued development on this type of weapon between the wars, and used it in World War Two. While the early models used a hydrogen spark ignition system, this was replaced in 1942 by a cartridge flare system like the US and Japanese models.
The tank on this example is a fiberglass one, and very lightweight. This was introduced after World War Two, and this one is an experimental model.
Armament Research Services (ARES) is a specialist technical intelligence consultancy, offering expertise and analysis to a range of government and non-government entities in the arms and munitions field. For detailed photos of the guns in this video, don’t miss the ARES companion blog post:
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
If you enjoy Forgotten Weapons, check out its sister channel, InRangeTV! http://www.youtube.com/InRangeTVShow
Forgotten Weapons
Published 30 Aug 2017When World War One began, the British did not have a formal sniping program, and by 1915 the British found themselves thoroughly outclassed by the Germans in this area. They responded by developing tactics and equipment for sniping, and by mid 1916 they had really outclassed the Germans. However, the mid-war British sniping rifles really left a lot to be desired, even if they were being used effectively in the field. There was no single military optic, instead a wide variety of commercial scopes were rounded up and put into use. The mounts for these scopes were offset to the left side of the rifles to allow for continued use of stripper clips. Clips were arguably not really necessary on these rifles, and the offset scopes led to substantial headaches in use, as they required calculating windage as well as elevation adjustments depending on range.
Through 1918, though, the British developed one of the best sniping rifles of the war, although it would be introduced too late to see virtually any front line service. This new rifle was a Winchester-made Pattern 1914 Enfield with a center-mounted optic, and was designated the P14 MkI W(T). The P14 rifles were more accurate than the SMLE, and the centrally mounted optic made for much simpler shooting. These rifles were deemed to be mechanically capable of 1.5 MOA shooting, with the practical expected group size being 3 MOA.
Three thousand of these P14 snipers’ rifles were assembled and kept in service after the end of the war, but in the mid 1930s a small additional batch of 79 were made for the Irish Free State by BSA. These were all eventually surplussed to the US, and the rifle in this video is one of those late-production guns.
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
If you enjoy Forgotten Weapons, check out its sister channel, InRangeTV! http://www.youtube.com/InRangeTVShow
Forgotten Weapons
Published 24 Mar 2018In the aftermath of World War One, the Japanese military saw the utility of infantry-portable light grenade launchers instead of rifle grenades, and adopted the Type 10 in 1921 (Taisho 10). It went into production in 1923 at the Tokyo Army Arsenal, although the great Tokyo earthquake led to production being moved to Nagoya, where about 11,000 were made between 1925 and 1937. The Type 10 was a remarkably light and handy weapon, weighing just 5.5lb (2.5kg) and disassembling into a transport configuration the size of a wine bottle.
The larger Type 89 grenade launcher was adopted in 1929, which led to the older Type 10s being relegated to use for illumination and signaling, which they did through the end of World War Two.
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
If you enjoy Forgotten Weapons, check out its sister channel, InRangeTV! http://www.youtube.com/InRangeTVShow
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85704
I posted Ian’s review of the Type 89 here.
Powered by WordPress