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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

Exactly.

Lloyd always seems to forget the effectiveness of suppressive fire. He also seems to think that the majority of infantry use their rifles on full auto, which is completely ridiculous. If there’s a guy that’s shooting at my squad from a window, I’d happily “waste” a whole magazine to keep his head down enough for my mates to move in, or to get to cover. Most ammunition consumption in modern warfare is suppressive fire. I love Lloyd, but man can he be a bit of a twit.

Concur ... these stats say more about changes in doctrine and tactics than efficiency of weapons.

Nate I'm sorry but your profile picture looks like one of those last pictures you'd see of a serial killer. How many bodies do you have hidden in your basement?

Lol how much tape did you have holding the saw together by the end of tour

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

Momentarily is not the job. "Effect" does not equal "effectiveness".

​@@jeffzeiler346 The best time to delete this stupid ass comment was the moment you posted it.😂🤡 You literally just said being effective is not an effect.🤣💀

@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

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 weird to think but suppressive fire was somewhat uncommon with anything except crew served machine guns until after WW2. The reason the Germans made SO MANY submachine guns and developed the worlds first real sub machine guns and assault rifles were to turn each man into a machine gun crew and one of the MP-18 and later MP-40's main purposes was as a mobile machine gun so a single squad could each have the ability to lay down suppressive fire, but both were somewhat rare compared to post WW2 conflicts.

@@arthas640 is this something to do with bullet cost? quarter million bullets start to cost substantially, so perhaps by WW2 they had automated/streamlined this production cost enough.

Oh boy...Of course they wouldn't, because most of all armies are composed by smart, calm people who think of consequences

Lol the management theory of the importance of productivity but without the second management theory regarding efficiency, economy and the importance of minimising cost (which is clearly an irrelevant concept in the military)

That depends on what you consider modern weapons. If you include the world wars it's a no brainer, the single biggest events not counting diseases that have killed the most amount of humans, but since the world wars a lot of death in war has been very miniscule.

Thats debatable. Half a million men dead in 4 years in 1861 to 1865. Thats half of Vietnam's casualty rate in the same time frame.

@@clareryan2640 What is more relevant. The material cost or the human cost

@@hresvelgr7193 fair question 👍 and an intriguing one🤔 my comment was intended to be an ironic commentary on the ridiculousness of both the military industrial complex and its incestuous relationship with modern economic system🤦 HOWEVER! I realise your question is pertinent to the question ‘what is the use of dead soldiers/warriors’ - the philosophical answer is that they are useful because they are dead and will no longer cause more deaths and destruction and unhappiness😳 there have been societies throughout history who have found a way to be sustainably warfare free - they have found ways to channel their young men’s violence, but ultimately invaders have disrupted the balance. Are young men who choose war worth saving? Are old men who advocate that choice admirable? It’s not straightforward or easy. There is SO MUCH, SO MUCH suffering in warfare. Is it fair that it is young men and old soldiers who make the decision to engage in it??? What about the women, the kids, the grandparents? Did they say please American young men, come and fight in our country. Did they say Arabia come bomb our country and get rid of the Houthi? We want our suffering to be one of warfare and famine? 🤦

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.

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?

Lindybeige out of context.

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

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?

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 🤣

We all love crazy history man < 3

Me too, if all teachers were like this fella - everyone would've loved going to school, im always enthralled with his lectures/programmes

I keep waiting for him to say that Camelot is only a model.....

@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.

you must look at the tactics line infantry in modern warfare would be suicide

@@trollmastermike52845 I think you must have commented on this post mistakenly, because i'm not saying that it wouldn't be suicide. The question was "Do better guns improve fighting effectiveness", i say yes they do. Assault rifles are better than muskets, and line tactics or not its fucking suicide to bring a musket into a modern gun fight.

@@ScreamingManiac Getting tired of explaining this. The comment said nothing about tactics. Only answering the question posed. Talking about tactics here is irrelevant and the effort is better saved for someone who is talking about tactics.

@@CountSpartula I replied to the wrong comment never mind sorry that's why its seems unconnected to what you were saying. didn't realise till now

@@ScreamingManiac Oh, my apologies then for being rude.

"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

Pixely Charge LOL

If you are doing a project for school , then I would advise you to get your information somewhere else !!!

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."

Kills per gun/person would be a better measure imo. But even then, the person that kills the most is not always the most effective, suppressing and intimidating the enemy is also important. So in reality, modern weapons are more effective, not just because they kill more enemies, but also because they protect your allies better (and yourself).

yup, u r right.

@@lievenvanloo6011 Also you're forgetting that you dont have to kill a enemy that is wounded and cant fight is still a good thing

Absolutely. Modern combat is most frequently fought at great range as well, where the enemy is a small dot

@@ServantofBaal great point because its hard as shit to hit someone who looks like a pebble to you accurately .

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

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😂

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.

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

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

This video is particularly bad.

the weapons available influence the tactics used..

Did you pay attention at all?

Military tactics are dictated by the capabilities of the weapons/equipment/men.

Vlad Constantin Minea It has as much to do with communication and control. When command and control is limited to seeing the commander and hearing voice, bugle and drum signals then the colored uniforms and flags and close block formations remained the norm. Rifle musket armament turned those tactics into a blood bath, but there wasn’t a practical alternative.

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.

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.

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.

just imagine someone trying that

Fernando Gil Cruz Barbosa just line up a bunch of muskets and fire them one at a time with someone reloading them after you fire

@@coleschaefer6016 how long does it take to reload? 10 seconds? 30 seconds? So you'll need somewhere between 15-45 musketeers to surpress one area 😂

yep, try using musket tactics with assault rifles, that would be quite a spectacle

Let's have a line battle like they did back in the day with muskets; except give one side assault rifles. I wonder which side will be more effective?

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

No, not tanks, ROCKS! :D

Not rocks, STICKS! Easier to sharpen.

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).

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.

I had the same thought myself - there would be a lot more vegetarians if people had to kill all those chickens themselves- chickens are a domestic kill, cows and pigs are a bit more technical 🤔 lots of people in urban areas keep chickens. Rabbits are another option, Guinea pigs too🤔 it takes time, exposure and necessity to desensitised to killing things. Slaughter men at abotoirs and meat processing plants are not paid enough

@@clareryan2640 they should not exist at all. Cruel and unnecessary in a modern world

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...

Wolfbang will now be my future sons name cause I liked it so much upon reading it here for the first time

@@lamolambda8349 yes

Unironically a good example.

Exactly, and that understanding of timing and confidence to pause for those tiny moments, just like real life, comes from experience and “training” (peer feedback)

Well that's the difference of real life and video games. In a video game you get shot at and immediately think "Oh I'm getting shot at, I wonder from where?" whereas in real life you go "oh no I'm getting shot at, better dive for cover and stay there". Never underestimate how terrifying it is to have bullets fly past you.

@@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

He’s been waiting since he was 9 to do that on camera 😂😂

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.

Yeah, agreed, but in reality this cant be done, because usually your unit uses more than one weapon in a firefight: for example mortars, hand granades and rifels. Or at least 50 caliber and 5,56 mm. You make 20 prisoners. Which weapon do you contribute the 20 prisoners to? The effectivness or efficiency is determined the old way by looking at the wounds of killed or injured enemies and find out which weapon caused it.

Haha, yes Lloyd is actually really good at sound effects in a low-key way. I was particularly impressed by his steam engine impression in his video about stirling engines.

Yea and wait for the Stuka-Sound

also 42:12 is a banger, too

PewPew thx alot ^^

This guy get's it

"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*

You miss the point. The psychological effects of weapons is tied to how they are used and wars are fought.

@@AndrewTheFrank I think the OP has a point. Effectiveness can be meausred under lab or real world conditions. Lloyd is talking about how they performed in real world conditions. It's worth pointing that out. An example: 1) Condoms are 99% effective (under lab conditions). 2) Condoms are

So basically, the more effective it is in real world conditions, the more fearful it is

@@AndrewTheFrank yes you're correct but since thats his focus on his video and not actually the way most weapons are used ( supresion )

@Biggsy Lloyd is mostly reviewing a book. He also talks about the problem the book has with the definition of effectiveness and that the author acknowledges it. And when looking at the difference between ideal and practice you get into the study of why, which leads to looking at soldier psychology. Thus why its a major focus of the video.

BOOZy modern weapons’ problems require modern battle tactics solutions

That's not actually the point of the video, though.

Why would you not want to watch a lindybeige vid tho

TA:FO = Total Ass: Fuck Off

World War 2 taught us well. With modern weapons or tech comes the need to modernize tactics to effectively use em efficiently.

like the zulu war

against people with equally good guns, I reckon. Most of the time, people with bad guns tend to be defeated. But the point is that the features of muskets persuaded bigger armies to stay in huge lines due to many factors and pour volleys of fire on mass if they wanted to be effective, considering the effective range of a musket. 'Effectiveness' here is meant to be the death/ammumition use ratio. Modern warfare isn't won by killing the most number of enemy troopers, but about carefully executed operations and pushing the enemy into a smaller and smaller territory untill they surrender. There is a lot of motivation to surrender if you think you're hopeless these days, but that's definitely not the case when muskets were around. Most POW's would starve or be killed by disease, mistreatment etc. They would rather fight to the end and stop the enemy at greater costs than a normal soldier would do in modern warfare. This isn't to say that the 18-19th century soldiers were more brave and the modern soldier is a coward or anything, but the modern requirements of war from a soldier has changed, because guns have changed. So 'effectively' fighting with the enemy and causing as much as casualties as possible before you die or surrender is not very appealing to a modern soldier than a musket bearing soldier. I do understand your confusion, though, this being a very buggery topic is accurate.

Artilleryman