Home >> History >> 10 myths about the war and weapons

10 myths about the war and weapons


The networks actively goes army anecdote that in order to engage in hand to hand combat, commando must first enchanting about... losing not only a gun and a pistol, but a knife, a belt, a digging shovel, a helmet and flak jacket, and even choose a completely smooth and "sterile" area where there are no wooden sticks, or even stones. Oh Yes! And meet there the same enemy gouging (also completely lose all military ammunition).

But many kinoboeviki and TV shows hard to convince us that the only special forces and fight. Of course! It's much more spectacular and very dramatic!

From them we learn that all ancient peoples (Greeks, Celts, Gauls, Vikings, etc.) fought only crowd randomly together and raced on the same mob of enemies and randomly nail a sword or axe in all directions.

And that samurai was able to swim across the wide river in full gear, shooting in the process of bow; what a ninja actually ran across water obstacles in the water that; Mongol arrows had great destructive power (punching man through and through) and never flew wide of the goal; that neither automatic, nor even the gun almost does not require reloading and can shoot as much time as you need, etc.

And well if such things were found often only in the movies does not intersect with the real historical events. But historical movies are not much of a bother to even the slightest credence to what is happening on the screen.

And here's the 10 most common myths about the war:

10. Hand to hand combat

How many times have we watched different science fiction movies, how two characters, just malausia each other from a distance with a laser weapon, a sudden burst of a certain mysterious feeling heavy toss the gun aside and starts breaking each other's bones with my fists. Hmm...

But the same gun (if you beat the enemy to them) would make the shock much greater "weight". No, on the one hand all is clear, – the romance of space, intergalactic knights (which, of course, have their own written and unwritten codes of conduct) and the like...

And, thanks to the scene with melee, you can catch the shot of both "antagonists" (and even close up) that would be problematic in case of a shootout from afar.

And on the other side in this battle of logic? If you really need to deal with this evil type completely – just shoot him already and do not suffer (and don't annoy the audience inspirational speeches in the process). By the way, in the movies, is positioned as a historical, this situation is also not uncommon.

Meanwhile, by the beginning of XX century, casualties from melee (hand-to-hand and bayonet battles), real wars had not more than 2% losses.

9. Shooting "in Macedonian"

Looks very impressive on the screen when the hero (or heroine) shoot from both hands, two pistols (or guns) at the same time very beautiful flying somewhere to the side, in the shelter.

Indeed, this method of shooting from time to time been used in life, but only in strictly defined cases.

For example, in the first half of the twentieth century such a blast shooting in the style of "in white light, like a lot of money" is sometimes used by detectives, gangsters or secret service agents, just because she sowed panic among the enemy because of the General effect of surprise and a huge noise, causing him to rush to the shelter.

But the benefits of such seemingly overwhelming fire – at least, for the percentage of hits, of course, is negligible.

But especially funny to see the "Macedonian" shooting in films about events of XVI-XVII centuries, when the charging of each pistol (which was then not repeating) took several long minutes, but the impact was so strong that the arrow would simply be knocked back.

The only thing in those days helped to reduce the intervals between shots, to wear simultaneously two to four pre-charged gun.

8. Katana is the best sword

Today, thanks to the film industry, many firmly believe that the coolest sword of all times and peoples is a Japanese katana. The katana is even famous Witcher Geralt of Rivia (although he uses her as a normal sword).

The best part of the situation is that until the second half of the twentieth century, no one suspected (except the Japanese), how good it is. Hmm...

And about the incredible prowess and unsurpassed martial art of the samurai no European had no clue, despite the fact that Europeans – Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, etc. – not just had regular contact (and conflict), but also quite actively traded with the Japanese since the XVI century.

All those "barbarians" (according to the "civilized" Japanese people) who had to meet them in battle, in unison argued that the samurai to fight like, but not so good, and the steel from which made their swords (Yes, very unusual apparently) – not the best quality.

But the Japanese truly believed that they are particularly terrible in melee, and because of jumping towards the enemy (armed with rifles and machine guns) katana at the ready, even during the Second world war, suffering enormous losses.

7. The effectiveness of small arms

Again, judging by the movies, in all the wars the main role is played by infantry. It also causes the enemy main damage continuously shooting with pistols, rifles and machine guns, regularly getting right on target (well at least in 50% of cases).

In fact, even in the last war in which firearms played a very significant role in the First world war, a bullet was responsible only for approximately a quarter of the losses. Others have effects of the use of artillery, bombs, etc.

After all, at the forefront is usually only up to 5% of live enemy forces (that threaten them and the bullets). But artillery and aircraft are able to "finish" and to the far rear, bringing significantly more deaths and material losses.

Well, since about the 1970s (if you consider that small arms is becoming more rapid-fire) you need to spend 40-50 thousand bullets to eliminate only one infantryman. At the same time bomb, successfully dropped on a cluster of the enemy, will cause him great damage.

6. Trench warfare

Judging by the numerous films about the wars of the XX century (and even of future military campaigns on some distant planets), – most of the time the soldiers sitting in the trenches, from time to time making forays into the exploration in the neighbouring thickets, and in a particularly heroic moments popping one jump up and bellicose, shouting and guns blazing, rushing to meet the enemy.

It is from the same area as the previous item, saying that fighting mostly infantry and the enemy deals major damage.

In fact, first, even in the 1940s infantry infantry units did not exceed in number 12% of the total number of soldiers and officers in the army.

Secondly, at the forefront usually are also mortars and anti-tank units, etc.

Thirdly, the front (oddly enough!) is constantly moving, so to arrange the trenches "feel" makes no sense, because they still have to dig a new one, in another place.

And fourthly, the army is engineering, logistics and medical services, cooks, drivers, etc., etc.

5. Useless armor

Quite often we see in pseudo-historical films, and particularly films in the fantasy genre, and knights who never take off the armor (almost sleep in them).

With logic there is a clear problem, though, because in heavy armor is difficult even just to sit down, stand up and take a few steps (especially when they still flaunt huge spurs).

If we consider that usually in these movies, any armor easily penetrated not only the sword, but the usual arrow... So a clear advantage in a battle against a knight in armor gets a character with only a sword and light.

Oh Yes! In fantasy movies there is such a wonderful thing as a female "bronevik" (which, actually, covers just part of the same body as regular bra). Enchanting is useless!

Well, in real life armor (and even regular mail), first, still in most cases well have saved their owners from lethal damage, and secondly, did the enemy's attack very predictable, he either had to strike heavy blows, wasting power, or to carefully aim at the most vulnerable places (of articulation of the individual fragments of lat).

4. Battle axe

In most movies about Vikings every warrior uses in battle axe on a long handle, and the cool kids – burly Berserkers with red beards – a huge double-edged axe.

Now imagine how much carefully it is necessary to use such a weapon in a tight formation or on the narrow deck to under the blow did not hit their comrades.

Generally, battle axes was well known to the Scandinavians, but they were used very rarely.

And by the way: war hammer in the form of a blunt hammer – too modern an idea about the weapon. In fact, he had just recalled a sharp narrow ax, the ability to put the opponent a bruise, but to break his armor.

In real life ordinary Vikings fought, often with spears and in the ranks, but what their jarls and kings (according to the status) – heavy swords.

And another point: in the battle for the axe is very important to not only strength and growth, and because of the fantasy tradition to arm with axes of the dwarves looks a bit strange (for reasons of expediency).

3. Long sword

Another long-familiar kinowledge: noble errant knight who goes only by foot and always belted with the sword.

Oh Yes! In the movie, the knights still quite often the swords are back in a special scabbard, deftly and instantly removing them if necessary.

But when you consider that even a short medieval sword reached a length of not less than one meter and was very heavy, and he and the other method of wearing it, hmm... not very comfortable.

Either he can Bang on the feet and dragging on the ground, or (in the second case) the knight must grow very long and strong hand to quickly draw the sword from behind and beat them as we show in fantasy.

By the way, even the fencing techniques sword appeared not in the middle Ages, and at the turn of XVI-XVII centuries. Before that they were used exclusively by mounted knights (and the sheath they are not fastened to his own belt, and saddle horses).

And they do not wear swords with him constantly, and took out before the fight (which deliver powerful chopping blows actually blunt the blade). The rest of the time the knights were done with daggers.

2. "Irresistible" arrows

Well, first, in the movie, the commander of the archers definitely commanded "Fire!", although fire is something no visible. Secondly, the generally accepted notion that an experienced medieval Archer always shoot right on target at a distance of 500 meters and 200 meters is easily pierced any armor, too, to put it mildly, hmm... exaggeration.

In fact, the arrow was off the string with a speed of maximum 50 m/s, besides a bit of an angle, and that is absolutely not dependent on the skill of the shooter. So skilled Archer knew that he either shoots accurately (trying to adjust the angle of the arrow's flight), or just very far away.

In real life a short (lightweight), the bow was used for hunting small game, and a long and powerful was intended mainly for unsighted shooting canopy. Efficiency, in this case, more or less justified only if the enemy shot long and fortified positions.

By the way, the irresistibility of arrows – a fact refuted by the famous "Mythbusters". Literally all testers were well beaten off a flying magic arrows with a sword.

And one more thing: aiming to shoot a bow on gallop, too, is almost impossible.

1. Attack the crowd

As we already said in the beginning, fantasy films, pseudo-historical, and historical paintings of any ancient warriors in a crowd rushing towards the same rabid crowd of enemies, brandishing a formidable weapon.

And this is the most absurd Kinomir about the war. Perhaps it was generated by the experience of the wars of the beginning and middle of the last century, when the infantry had to quickly cross the dangerous distance to the enemy trenches, where there was the least chance to die from a bullet or a shell fragment.

But actually before that, since ancient times, warriors went on the attack, often a tight formation and not especially slowly.

First, to run fast in heavy gear, with a long spear, and even with a huge shield – not very useful (and why waste power?).

Secondly, going in the phalanx or square, you can not fear for your back and don't look back in anticipation of the threat of the enemy coming from the rear.

And that's just the fighter detached in the heat of battle from teammates, often quickly died, surrounded by enemies.

^ Top