11-27-2016, 09:19 PM
Big enough differences between riots and ancient, medieval, early modern battles as to make them apples and oranges:
- The intent of all participants in a battle is to kill the enemy. Its a key part, everyone goes in knowing that if they or their unit screws up they die. Even if they fight well they have a good chance of death or serious bodily harm. In riots, the opposite is true. Neither side is trying to kill their opponents, because if they do it stops being a riot and starts being a firefight. Both sides have access to deadlier weapons than solid missile weapons, bludgeoning weapons, fire hoses, etc., if they really wanted to kill one another firearms and fragmentation high explosives would be used. And if the riot control forces actually believe there is a realistic threat from high explosives they sure as hell WOULD NOT FORM IN TIGHT FORMATIONS.
- Riots aren't bloody because the whole event is dictated by the wills of public pressure, lawyers, and journalists. The normal reaction to drive off a group of violent rioters is to kill the ring leaders and kill enough of the rest to rout them. This is why totalitarian govts regularly do this, their leaders don't need to worry about public pressure, lawyers, or journalists. Rioters can't risk breaking out the guns unless they are trying to purposely trigger a mass slaughter for purposes of propaganda (like the use of explosives during the 2005 Loyalty riots in N. Ireland). Riots are nothing like battles, mindset is completely different, and tactics are driven by politically driven mission to contain, not disperse through violence. Riots mean use of kid glove rules of engagement, mostly defensive tactics used against non-effective rioters who lack effective weapons and their own mindset to kill. The whole point of a riot is neither side wants to escalate it to a battle. Ergo, its not a battle, and can't be compared to one another.
- Let's talk about weapons. When are riot control bludgeoning weapons tipped with bits of sharpened iron? Never. Why not take a night stick and add studs to it like a WWI trench weapon? Because it is too dangerous and thus wouldn't be authorized. Because if the riot control forces were actually looking to hurt or kill the rioters they wouldn't be using close combat weapons, they'd be using machine guns, assault rifles, shotguns with buckshot and slugs, and pistols loaded with hollow points. Riots typically bring wood or metal bludgeoning weapons. Or they throw bricks, rocks, bottles, molotov cocktails. Why aren't they throwing pipe bombs? Because that would get them killed. Why are they bringing guns and shooting the riot control forces? Because that would get them all killed. Neither side is using weapons that are truly dangerous. Sure they can kill in the worst case scenario but they rarely do. Whereas all weapons used in a true battle are easily capable of killing someone, even when used by untrained children (a five year old has the strength to easily run someone through with a sword).
- Tactics are driven by the realities of the fight. For thousands of years in battles infantry clustered in close groups because it offered the best protection in battle against the enemy they faced. That changed when weapons became more effective, clustering risked excessive casualties, resulting in infantry fighting as skirmishers had in the past, not as line infantry anymore. Riot police revert back to close order because they don't face real threats. Period, end of story. If the threat of death or serious bodily harm was real, they'd be showing up in armored vehicles or shooting rioters from the safety of roofs or windows of stout buildings. Not standing shoulder to shoulder
This is why all combat arms soldiers and Marines don't take riot training seriously. Because they know they wont get called to do it in real life because 350 days of the year they have a "Shoot them in the torso twice and then once in the face as you pass their bodies" mindset, because that's what infantry combat is. So taking these guys, who are straight up trained killers, and telling them not to lead from the front, and not to kill protesters throwing rocks at them is ludicrous. They know it. The politicians who refuse time and again to include actual military forces in riot control (too high of a risk of one of them doing what they believe to be the right thing and simply shooting down the rioters like bowling pins).
- An infantry combat leader goes into battle knowing the odds don't favor them, historically and in training they repeatedly demonstrate a high risk of death or serious bodily harm, being in battle means a near guaranteed chance of becoming a casualty, especially for hard fought battles. Life expectancy for front line leaders has always been excessive, but for thousands of years every military organization that knew what they were doing, who regularly won battles they fought, they all placed leaders of some sort in the front ranks to supervise the leading fighting men, to lead actually lead them (Follow Me), and to provide reassurance and an example of steadfast bravery to men who are often pissing down their legs scared and need to be encouraged to do what they are supposed to do (advance into what can appear sometimes as certain death).
Some forces, police, paramilitary, actual military, might be trained in riot control or mock melee battles to not put leaders in the front ranks, but in actual battle NCOs and officers still typically lead (depending on the militaristic culture of said nations). What this means is that if someone is doing combat role playing skirmishes or they are training or actually participating in riots and manage to move and operate "effectively" without leaders leading from the front it doesn't prove it works in actual battle. All the people actually fighting have leaders leading.
Modern US Army, Team Leaders are typically sergeants, they lead from the from, walk point, they lead stacks, they do everything first, the US Army Infantry's actual motto is "Follow Me." Typically the same mindset with the US Marine Corps in actual practice (though not in some doctrine), Corporals lead from the front, by example. WWI, WWII, those wars were characterized by whatever side of infantry led by pistol or SMG waving officers and NCOs screaming "Follow me" from the front, leading men into grazing fire and artillery and mortar impacts. The American Civil War, leaders led. During the Napoleonic Wars, all nations participating had officers that led from the front in most formations and conditions. Where as Gustavus Adolphus when his cavalry was performing an attack? In the battle of Agincourt, where was Henry V and why was he standing where he did? Where would a Scandinavian Thegn or chieftain/warlord position themselves in a shield wall, back or front? Where would a Gallic chieftain position himself in battle? Where was the commander of a Macedonian file placed in the formation? Where did Alexander ride in the wedge formation of a Royal Agema troop? Where did Greek kings or Strategos place themselves in a hoplite phalanx?
Were the Romans simply the only ones in history who placed no leaders in the front ranks? And yet still managed to take 3-4 times the casualty ratios of leaders to the milites gregarii, despite wearing better body armor?
I dare someone to name a single culture, peoples, state, kingdom, or nation in history of the world that possessed a capable military force who didn't place at least some unit leaders in the front ranks or on point.
- A famous firearm trick shooter can shoot a 2.5 inch barreled revolver upside down, one handed, and hit torso sized steel targets out to 200 yards.
![[Image: hqdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HIwVK_FxGZk/hqdefault.jpg)
This is just an example that just because someone finds a way to do something in an unconventional manner, that doesn't mean its a good idea to use it in high stress life and death situations. And it doesn't mean that's how people shot pistols way back in the day.
- The intent of all participants in a battle is to kill the enemy. Its a key part, everyone goes in knowing that if they or their unit screws up they die. Even if they fight well they have a good chance of death or serious bodily harm. In riots, the opposite is true. Neither side is trying to kill their opponents, because if they do it stops being a riot and starts being a firefight. Both sides have access to deadlier weapons than solid missile weapons, bludgeoning weapons, fire hoses, etc., if they really wanted to kill one another firearms and fragmentation high explosives would be used. And if the riot control forces actually believe there is a realistic threat from high explosives they sure as hell WOULD NOT FORM IN TIGHT FORMATIONS.
- Riots aren't bloody because the whole event is dictated by the wills of public pressure, lawyers, and journalists. The normal reaction to drive off a group of violent rioters is to kill the ring leaders and kill enough of the rest to rout them. This is why totalitarian govts regularly do this, their leaders don't need to worry about public pressure, lawyers, or journalists. Rioters can't risk breaking out the guns unless they are trying to purposely trigger a mass slaughter for purposes of propaganda (like the use of explosives during the 2005 Loyalty riots in N. Ireland). Riots are nothing like battles, mindset is completely different, and tactics are driven by politically driven mission to contain, not disperse through violence. Riots mean use of kid glove rules of engagement, mostly defensive tactics used against non-effective rioters who lack effective weapons and their own mindset to kill. The whole point of a riot is neither side wants to escalate it to a battle. Ergo, its not a battle, and can't be compared to one another.
- Let's talk about weapons. When are riot control bludgeoning weapons tipped with bits of sharpened iron? Never. Why not take a night stick and add studs to it like a WWI trench weapon? Because it is too dangerous and thus wouldn't be authorized. Because if the riot control forces were actually looking to hurt or kill the rioters they wouldn't be using close combat weapons, they'd be using machine guns, assault rifles, shotguns with buckshot and slugs, and pistols loaded with hollow points. Riots typically bring wood or metal bludgeoning weapons. Or they throw bricks, rocks, bottles, molotov cocktails. Why aren't they throwing pipe bombs? Because that would get them killed. Why are they bringing guns and shooting the riot control forces? Because that would get them all killed. Neither side is using weapons that are truly dangerous. Sure they can kill in the worst case scenario but they rarely do. Whereas all weapons used in a true battle are easily capable of killing someone, even when used by untrained children (a five year old has the strength to easily run someone through with a sword).
- Tactics are driven by the realities of the fight. For thousands of years in battles infantry clustered in close groups because it offered the best protection in battle against the enemy they faced. That changed when weapons became more effective, clustering risked excessive casualties, resulting in infantry fighting as skirmishers had in the past, not as line infantry anymore. Riot police revert back to close order because they don't face real threats. Period, end of story. If the threat of death or serious bodily harm was real, they'd be showing up in armored vehicles or shooting rioters from the safety of roofs or windows of stout buildings. Not standing shoulder to shoulder
This is why all combat arms soldiers and Marines don't take riot training seriously. Because they know they wont get called to do it in real life because 350 days of the year they have a "Shoot them in the torso twice and then once in the face as you pass their bodies" mindset, because that's what infantry combat is. So taking these guys, who are straight up trained killers, and telling them not to lead from the front, and not to kill protesters throwing rocks at them is ludicrous. They know it. The politicians who refuse time and again to include actual military forces in riot control (too high of a risk of one of them doing what they believe to be the right thing and simply shooting down the rioters like bowling pins).
- An infantry combat leader goes into battle knowing the odds don't favor them, historically and in training they repeatedly demonstrate a high risk of death or serious bodily harm, being in battle means a near guaranteed chance of becoming a casualty, especially for hard fought battles. Life expectancy for front line leaders has always been excessive, but for thousands of years every military organization that knew what they were doing, who regularly won battles they fought, they all placed leaders of some sort in the front ranks to supervise the leading fighting men, to lead actually lead them (Follow Me), and to provide reassurance and an example of steadfast bravery to men who are often pissing down their legs scared and need to be encouraged to do what they are supposed to do (advance into what can appear sometimes as certain death).
Some forces, police, paramilitary, actual military, might be trained in riot control or mock melee battles to not put leaders in the front ranks, but in actual battle NCOs and officers still typically lead (depending on the militaristic culture of said nations). What this means is that if someone is doing combat role playing skirmishes or they are training or actually participating in riots and manage to move and operate "effectively" without leaders leading from the front it doesn't prove it works in actual battle. All the people actually fighting have leaders leading.
Modern US Army, Team Leaders are typically sergeants, they lead from the from, walk point, they lead stacks, they do everything first, the US Army Infantry's actual motto is "Follow Me." Typically the same mindset with the US Marine Corps in actual practice (though not in some doctrine), Corporals lead from the front, by example. WWI, WWII, those wars were characterized by whatever side of infantry led by pistol or SMG waving officers and NCOs screaming "Follow me" from the front, leading men into grazing fire and artillery and mortar impacts. The American Civil War, leaders led. During the Napoleonic Wars, all nations participating had officers that led from the front in most formations and conditions. Where as Gustavus Adolphus when his cavalry was performing an attack? In the battle of Agincourt, where was Henry V and why was he standing where he did? Where would a Scandinavian Thegn or chieftain/warlord position themselves in a shield wall, back or front? Where would a Gallic chieftain position himself in battle? Where was the commander of a Macedonian file placed in the formation? Where did Alexander ride in the wedge formation of a Royal Agema troop? Where did Greek kings or Strategos place themselves in a hoplite phalanx?
Were the Romans simply the only ones in history who placed no leaders in the front ranks? And yet still managed to take 3-4 times the casualty ratios of leaders to the milites gregarii, despite wearing better body armor?
I dare someone to name a single culture, peoples, state, kingdom, or nation in history of the world that possessed a capable military force who didn't place at least some unit leaders in the front ranks or on point.
- A famous firearm trick shooter can shoot a 2.5 inch barreled revolver upside down, one handed, and hit torso sized steel targets out to 200 yards.
This is just an example that just because someone finds a way to do something in an unconventional manner, that doesn't mean its a good idea to use it in high stress life and death situations. And it doesn't mean that's how people shot pistols way back in the day.
