Considering their opponents were armed with knives & bows (and they'd already flogged them in the last encounter) perhaps they didn't feel the need for an organized assault (trying to think within the story lines), look back in History there's more than one example of an overly confident (and thus inadequately prepared) force being defeated... now isn't there?
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Avatar, weapon of choice?
- Thread starter lorise
- Start date
Considering their opponents were armed with knives & bows (and they'd already flogged them in the last encounter) perhaps they didn't feel the need for an organized assault (trying to think within the story lines), look back in History there's more than one example of an overly confident (and thus inadequately prepared) force being defeated... now isn't there?
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,337
The Rwandan Genocide was real and not long ago.What was it 900,000 dead by machete? At the rate our leaders are pushing race and class wars and destroying our economy it won't be long until we're all fighting with swords and knives if we're lucky enough to have them.Ammo will run out for 99% of the population in weeks at best,then the old skills,the skills that can't be banned or confiscated will be as useful as they always were.
You're correct,fighting skills can't be learned playing video games alone.
However the military has learned the video game generation learns quickly and has good reflexes and eye hand coordination from video games.I play them myself at 43 and do believe they help train you to think quick.Thinking fast is one kind of speed needed in combat.The faster you register a threat the faster you can respond.Video games IMO can build that kind of speed.MPH hand and foot speed still needs good old hard work and proper technique.
Mental speed is why old Martial Art masters often can beat younger and faster men.
Reaction speed called sensitivity in Chinese Boxing can be improved well into old age.Strength,endurance and MPH hand and foot speed unfortunately can not.
Why learn to fight with a sword if you can't take it with you anywhere?
You can take a walking cane which is almost as effective if you have the right cane and can be used using sword techniques.
The Samurai Miyamoto Musashi beat several other Samurai in duels with a wooden boken and in his most famous fight he carved a large stick out of an oar.
IMO the ability to use everyday items effectively in a fight is a good skill to have.That said I have a safe full of modern weapons and ammunition and have the skills to use them at a high level.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,337
Zulus defeated the British at the Battle of Isandlwana.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,185
I'm guessing you're hinting at the Cuban missile crisis/Bay of Pigs?
But if the humans would have had a plan then the movie would have lasted 5 minutes and all the aliens would have died, ruining the movies story. (Not that it was very good to begin with...)
Last edited:
Good call...
No I wasn't actually but thanks for putting it out there :thumbup:
FWIW I was actually thinking of the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876... in complete contrast is the Battle of Midway where a numerically inferior (but well prepared) force were victorious :thumbup:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
That doesn't really compare, since Brits didn't even have even basic aviation, let alone orbital bombardment capability, which simply excludes any physical contact with the enemy, negating any advantage enemy has on the ground, physical, or CQC weapons, or anything.
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 7
I have a lot of friends and family in the military, several of which have served or are still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I asked a few of them if they had seen Hurt Locker and what they thought of it, many of them were actually quite insulted by the way the director had the soldiers portrayed. They felt that their roles were disparaged not to mention a lot of inaccuracies in how tactics and deployment of the unit were shown. They mentioned that several of the scenes were just plain silly.
I thought Hurt Locker was ok for a movie but I thought the ending was pretty lame. After talking with my brothers and some of my friends, my respect for the film and director was taken down a notch or two......
Avatar was a pretty entertaining film regardless of one's political leanings....
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,428
For me Avatar had great effects and powerful symbolism, but not reality. Best Cinematogarophy winner: An insane budget on the special effects in a movie about nine foot tall aliens riding dragons around and knife-fights. James Cameron :thumbup::thumbup:
The knife OP is talking about is at least a three-foot long combat blade, great scene.
The knife OP is talking about is at least a three-foot long combat blade, great scene.
i agree, if ya have airpower with assault choppers, missles, bombs, automatic weapons, all the good stuff, the bow and arrow folks are gonna be up against it, it isnt very likely they will prevail, they would need at least some AK's and stingers, maybe a few milan anti tank missles, etc, with just stone age weapons its gonna be difficult, even with poison arrows and flying creatures to ride..
my nephew, who did a tour with the USMC infantry in iraq in '08 and just got back from 'ghanistan loved it, go figure.
any movie is gonna have some inaccuracies in tactics and such, hurt locker got a lot of things right though,
Poor tactics, deployment & preparedness can easily be compared despite differing time lines, FWIW the then British forces had been recently re-equipped with breech loading rifles a dramatic improvement over their previous musketry both in accuracy & sustained rate of fire, additionally this invasion force had 2 7 pound artillery pieces and a rocket battery (rocket technology hasn't been Sci-Fi for quite sometime).
Because British Command grossly underestimated the battle readiness of the Zulus (augmented by British overconfidence) the then field Commander never bothered with standard entrenchment & defensive embattlements when setting up his encampment at Isandlwana
The rest as they say is history...
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,185
If you ever watch Avatar in non-3D you'll realize that the movie was pretty bad and was made to showcase and cash in on the 3D trend. The plot sucked, the actors sucked, the majority of the movie sucked, only the knife fights and falling tree were any cool. They could have removed at least an hour of the movie and it wouldn't have affected the story at all. There was a lot of fat that needed to be trimmed from the movie IMO.
The knife was pretty cool though, of course it was overly ridiculous and too "tactical" to be practical but it looked awesome for the movie.
The knife was pretty cool though, of course it was overly ridiculous and too "tactical" to be practical but it looked awesome for the movie.
HolyRoller
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 675
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
If there was "normal" commander, the only thing he'd deploy was a few hundred ton rock from high orbit.
And still, none of that compares to kinetic bombs form the orbit, or even hellfire missile from the gunship.
I don't argue that one. However, in space, interstellar travel capable civilization will have 0 trouble directing a rock or two to the planet. There is no need for ground assault, or expensive nukes, kinetic energy will do it. That is how dinosaurs got wiped out, and Navi with their battle readiness and carbon fiber bones would fare exactly the same.
For that matter, Navi would never know what hit them and Humans could later land and help the survivors (if any). At any rate, ground/aerial assault was dumb.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,337
Yea well,the Zulus didn't have the flying dragon things either so it all works out.
Spears beat cannon,rifles and machine guns was my point.At little Bighorn the Indians had better weapons than the soldiers.Many had lever action repeating rifles while the soldiers had single shot Springfield carbines Model 1873.
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,337
If you had to choose just one knife to defend against a hundred ton rock launched against your homeworld in a slingshot trajectory around the nearby gas giant what would it be?
HI 20inch CAK preferably by old Sher.
My initial response concerned tactics, troop deployment, reconnaissance intelligence & command attitude not "super weapons" Vs bows, knives & flying beasties... at least InfidelShootist got the gist of the discussion.
InfidelShootist said:
Apparently Custer was offered the use of Gatling guns but declined as he felt they would impede his advance, makes you wonder if a multi-shot weapon like that could have altered the outcome OR prolonged his defensive position long enough for reinforcements to arrive?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
Dragons were not space flight capable
Anyway, my point is zulus were much closer to brits in terms of weapons than Navi were to interstellar travel capable civilization.
Thus, it's very unlikely such battle would ever occur, there's plenty of ways to sterilize the planet w/o ever coming to the surface.