3 ms·

Not military combat, which is the subject of the article.

fsloth 4y ago
I think the point was that training riflemen en masse is easy and cheap, whereas bowmen need far more intensive training - I would find it hard to contest this assessment. When I did my conscript service, we were encouraged to hit target 300m away, and generally people learn to do this quite fast (with a high quality AK-47 copy in this instance). Learning to hit a target with this engagement distance is infinitely easier with rifle than bow, especially if you need to train riflemen en masse. Descriptive is that english longbowmen had to practice continusously. I would probably hit a target with a rifle two decades after my service without much firing range practice. Automated rifle has enabled industrialized utilization of civil population as easily trained effective combatants like nothing else.
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  > Descriptive is that english longbowmen had to practice continusously. I was under the impression the draw weight[1] was a large part of that[2]. [1]: https://youtu.be/1w8yHeF4KRk?t=152 https://youtu.be/1w8yHeF4KRk?t=152 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training
- philwelch 4y ago
  This is true. But over the past century, the relative efficacy of conscript vs professional militaries has swung hard to the side of professional militaries. A mass of riflemen can’t compete on even terms with a combined arms force with tanks, artillery, aircraft, radars, satellites, and so on.
  - fsloth 4y ago
    Yes, modern kit is more important than rifles, agree. That said I would not hold it as a general rule that conscripts and professional armies necessarily would have quality difference if the equipment is the same. Finland has a pretty good conscript army even according to the professional Nato troops who train with them, so I would not discount effectiveness of conscript armies out of hand. Of course, it's the quality of training that matters, and that may be harder to institute on a national scale unless there is a long continous tradition of doing that. Also to my understanding current Ukrainian army is holding it's own with a mostly conscript force (unless I'm mistaken) against a professional army (yes, on paper...).
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Ukraine has a strong professional core and lots of NATO support. But yes, you’re right; if the population and the army are motivated and serious about maintaining a high quality conscript army, they can do so.
- lowtechmagazine 4y ago
  Happy to see that someone actually read the whole article before making a comment.

I think the point was that training riflemen en masse is easy and cheap, whereas bowmen need far more intensive training - I would find it hard to contest this assessment. When I did my conscript service, we were encouraged to hit target 300m away, and generally people learn to do this quite fast (with a high quality AK-47 copy in this instance). Learning to hit a target with this engagement distance is infinitely easier with rifle than bow, especially if you need to train riflemen en masse. Descriptive is that english longbowmen had to practice continusously. I would probably hit a target with a rifle two decades after my service without much firing range practice. Automated rifle has enabled industrialized utilization of civil population as easily trained effective combatants like nothing else.

magicalhippo 4y ago
> Descriptive is that english longbowmen had to practice continusously. I was under the impression the draw weight[1] was a large part of that[2]. [1]: https://youtu.be/1w8yHeF4KRk?t=152 https://youtu.be/1w8yHeF4KRk?t=152 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training
philwelch 4y ago
This is true. But over the past century, the relative efficacy of conscript vs professional militaries has swung hard to the side of professional militaries. A mass of riflemen can’t compete on even terms with a combined arms force with tanks, artillery, aircraft, radars, satellites, and so on.
- fsloth 4y ago
  Yes, modern kit is more important than rifles, agree. That said I would not hold it as a general rule that conscripts and professional armies necessarily would have quality difference if the equipment is the same. Finland has a pretty good conscript army even according to the professional Nato troops who train with them, so I would not discount effectiveness of conscript armies out of hand. Of course, it's the quality of training that matters, and that may be harder to institute on a national scale unless there is a long continous tradition of doing that. Also to my understanding current Ukrainian army is holding it's own with a mostly conscript force (unless I'm mistaken) against a professional army (yes, on paper...).
  - philwelch 4y ago
    Ukraine has a strong professional core and lots of NATO support. But yes, you’re right; if the population and the army are motivated and serious about maintaining a high quality conscript army, they can do so.
lowtechmagazine 4y ago
Happy to see that someone actually read the whole article before making a comment.