If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?

[Rich2018]

Tanks can be stopped with ied's, concertina wire, or even road traps...

Possibly, but so what ?

Tanks primary focus is direct fire, they can do indirect fire like howitzers, however past ww2 and korea the practice was almost entirely abandoned...

I think you mean "post" Korea/WW2
And no, tanks are ENTIRELY focused on direct fire
Are you aware of any examples in Korea or WWII of tanks being used in an indirect fire role ?

They have armored artillery, most self propelled artillery is armored...

"Armored" in that SPGs are made of metal. They are bullet proof perhaps and proof against shell fragments, but by no means would you call this "armor"

You mention "shoot and scoot", why do you think an artillery unit might want to move after firing ?
This tactic is for self-propelled artillery units though - towed artillery still has to construct defensive earthworks

If the british only defended and never went on the offensive with their tanks then that explains why they lost their empire at an epic rate

I was talking about the Cold War in central Europe. Not the Gulf War, WWII or WWI - where it was actually the British who led the world by inventing the tank
What have the tactics of the Cold War, got to do with colonial policing ?

If you can't differentiate that, no wonder you are so confused
Tell me, what parts of the British empire might have been retained with the use of tanks ?

You're talking with a child's mentality

...forces like those used by russia are going to use their tanks in flanking maneuvers, not just sit at a distance and play nice for british tanks stupid enough to corner themselves into a fixed position.

I explained to you why this was and that Soviet (not Russian) forces would be channeled into killing zones
The BAOR was a corps strength formation and part of NORTHAG (1 BR Corps was joined by 1 GE Corps, I NE Corps and 1 BE Corps)
It had a designated area of responsibility, so no, there were no flanks and the BAOR was anything but corned

Amazing how armchair generals like you know it all, whereas armies like those of NATO were "stupid"
What comic book did you learn your tactics and strategy from by the way? I mean, you obviously have never served in any military

The entire point of a tank is not just armor and firepower but also mobility, if your tanks are sitting still those tanks are wasted.

You still have answered what a "hull down" position is or the relevance of how low a tank's gun can be depressed

You don't know much about armored warfare do you ?

You keep claiming I must not have served in the military but keep basing your experience off the british military, which iof what you said is true explains why britain had a hard ass time defeating a weak ass nation like argentina and why they lost their whole empire in an extremely short amount of time.

If I keep claiming this, it is because you persist in making it abundantly obvious

And Britain defeated Argentinian forces and regained the Falklands, in a campaign the Pentagon had labeled "impossible"...good job the British didn't take US advice in 1982 huh ?

Oh and Britain didn't lose its empire after WWII, she gave it back to the people who lived in the various parts of it...even if it meant winning a war in SE Asia to defeat communist forces first (something the USA proved unable to do in the only major war the USA has fought without British held since WWI)

(unless you count Clint Eastwood's invasion of Grenada in 1983).

 

[CLAX1911]

If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?[/QUOTE He wouldn't he'd deploy the state guard

Say there was some emergency, a hurricane, civil unrest, floods.

Militia is useless against hurricane and flood. You need a different kind of volunteer. Civil unrest he'd deploy the state guard

Militias are why we have the Second Amendment.

Not exactly.

 

[Rich2018]

Not exactly.

Yes, exactly

 

[Waddy]

Do you have a data on gun ownership going back before 1972 and before WWII ?

here are a couple of articles, even an anti-gun article, that demonstrate the degree of gun ownership in America's past, especially the 18th century. For exact numbers of guns produced, or as close as can be determined, the Blue Book of Gun Values is a good reference.

Women: No restrictions. Of course they did not serve in the militia. Laws requiring “householders” (whether or not they were in the militia) to have arms were common, and these usually included a woman who was the head of the house (e.g., a widow).


Free blacks: Some states had no restrictions, some states had bans on their owning guns. Free blacks served in some state militia, not in some other states, and in some states policies changed depending on military necessity. They were excluded from the federal militia by the Second Militia Act of 1792.


Slaves: Several states banned gun ownership, or allowed ownership only with the master’s permission.


Poor whites: To claim that they were excluded from gun ownership or from militia service is absurd. There were absolutely no property or wealth restrictions on gun ownership, nor on service in the militia. To the contrary, many states had programs to supply poor people with guns (“public arms”) for militia service, if they could not afford their own. Further, the laws requiring householders to be armed often required that the household provide arms to adult male servants. State laws also required that when an indentured servant finished his or her term of service, the master must provide the former servant with “freedom dues” so that the servant could begin independent life. The freedom dues were specified set of goods; in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, freedom dues for male servants included a firearm. In short, the state laws of the 17th and 18th centuries in America were generally prescriptive about gun ownership by poor people, and the prescriptions were to put guns into the hands of the poor

volokh.com/2011/12/09/laws-about-gun-ownership-in-early-america

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. [105] Several colonies’ gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. [105]
Some laws, including in Connecticut (1643) and at least five other colonies, required “at least one adult man in every house to carry a gun to church or other public meetings” in order to protect against attacks by Native Americans; prevent theft of firearms from unattended homes; and, as a 1743 South Carolina law stated, safeguard against “insurrections and other wicked attempts of Negroes and other Slaves.” [105] Other laws required immigrants to own guns in order to immigrate or own land. [105]

gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control

Though we are primarily discussing the East, as in the above articles, this article describes gun ownership in the West;

“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part,” says Winkler. “Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea.

smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west

Here is the link to the aforementioned Blue Book of Gun Values. Probably your best source for actual gun production numbers;

Home

Finding the Blue Book value of your new and used firearms, including pistols, rifles, shotguns, airguns, and blackpowder guns is easy with the number one source of gun pricing. This site provides values and information on firearms in a convenient online pricing guide format, and allows you to...

www.bluebookofgunvalues.com

The fact is, as stated by even these anti-gun writers, is that guns were a common and highly prized individual right. A mark of American citizenship. That isn't surprising; most of these people immigrated from Europe, where they were primarily excluded by the upper classes form personal gun ownership, and from owning land. So owning your own land also became a major reason for immigrating to America. Land and a gun to defend that piece of land.

 

[Rich2018]

here are a couple of articles, even an anti-gun article, that demonstrate the degree of gun ownership in America's past...


volokh.com/2011/12/09/laws-about-gun-ownership-in-early-america

Talks about laws and restrictions but not about actual levels of gun ownership

gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control

Again talking about gun laws, but not actual levels of gun ownership
One law talked about compelling men to carry a gun to church in case of Indian attack. I was talking about the bulk of the population who lived in the large cities, and not in frontier towns, who had no fear of Indian attack

Though we are primarily discussing the East, as in the above articles, this article describes gun ownership in the West;

Indeed, I was very much referring to the bulk of the population who lived in civilized cities, not wild frontier towns where life was, shall we say, somewhat more butal and violent

Here is the link to the aforementioned Blue Book of Gun Values. Probably your best source for actual gun production numbers;

Home

Finding the Blue Book value of your new and used firearms, including pistols, rifles, shotguns, airguns, and blackpowder guns is easy with the number one source of gun pricing. This site provides values and information on firearms in a convenient online pricing guide format, and allows you to...

www.bluebookofgunvalues.com

Cheers, but that just gives a list of books
What was the top selling gun (and numbers sold) in say 1850 or 1900, versus the top selling gun of 2019 ?

The fact is, as stated by even these anti-gun writers, is that guns were a common and highly prized individual right. A mark of American citizenship.

I'm not sure it was...it has definitely become that but 100-150 years ago, I don't think gun ownership was highly prized outside of the violent frontier towns.

 

[RF667799]

Talks about laws and restrictions but not about actual levels of gun ownership



Again talking about gun laws, but not actual levels of gun ownership
One law talked about compelling men to carry a gun to church in case of Indian attack. I was talking about the bulk of the population who lived in the large cities, and not in frontier towns, who had no fear of Indian attack



Indeed, I was very much referring to the bulk of the population who lived in civilized cities, not wild frontier towns where life was, shall we say, somewhat more butal and violent

The bulk of the US population in the 1800s was rural. In 1800 about 97%. In 1850, 85% was rural. So the bulk of the population didn't live in "civilized cities", as you put it.

 

[BahamaBob]

The bulk of the US population in the 1800s was rural. In 1800 about 97%. In 1850, 85% was rural. So the bulk of the population didn't live in "civilized cities", as you put it.

That is not true. In 1850, There were 100 cities including 6 with a population of over 100K, including New York with a population of over 500K.

1850 United States census - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rich2018]

That is not true. In 1850, There were 100 cities including 6 with a population of over 100K, including New York with a population of over 500K.

1850 United States census - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Indeed. By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation.

 

[Fledermaus]

Indeed. By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation.

The United States began as a largely rural nation, with most people living on farms or in small towns and villages. While the rural population continued to grow in the late 1800s, the urban population was growing much more rapidly. Still, a majority of Americans lived in rural areas in 1900.

-Wiki

 

[RF667799]

That is not true. In 1850, There were 100 cities including 6 with a population of over 100K, including New York with a population of over 500K.

1850 United States census - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of the total US population in 1850, 85% was rural. I think I was off a little on the 1800 population. Only 94% was rural.
I'll get you a link to the data later, when I'm not posting from my phone.

 

[RF667799]

The United States began as a largely rural nation, with most people living on farms or in small towns and villages. While the rural population continued to grow in the late 1800s, the urban population was growing much more rapidly. Still, a majority of Americans lived in rural areas in 1900.

-Wiki

1920 was the first census that showed a majority urban population. 51%.

 

[RF667799]

Indeed. By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation.

I guess 6% urban population can constitute a largely urban nation to someone who argues a shotgun is not a portable gun.

 

[Waddy]

Talks about laws and restrictions but not about actual levels of gun ownership



Again talking about gun laws, but not actual levels of gun ownership
One law talked about compelling men to carry a gun to church in case of Indian attack. I was talking about the bulk of the population who lived in the large cities, and not in frontier towns, who had no fear of Indian attack



Indeed, I was very much referring to the bulk of the population who lived in civilized cities, not wild frontier towns where life was, shall we say, somewhat more butal and violent



Cheers, but that just gives a list of books
What was the top selling gun (and numbers sold) in say 1850 or 1900, versus the top selling gun of 2019 ?




I'm not sure it was...it has definitely become that but 100-150 years ago, I don't think gun ownership was highly prized outside of the violent frontier towns.

You didn't read the highlighted quotes? Gun ownership was common all through the 17-18th centuries. You can deny the printed evidence, but there it is in black highlight.

 

[RF667799]

1800-1990: Changes In Urban/Rural U.S. Population | SeniorLiving.org

Year Urban Rural 1800 6% 94% 1810 7% 93% 1820 7% 93% 1830 9% 91% 1840 11% 89% 1850 15% 85% 1860 20% 80% 1870 26% 74% 1880 28% 72% 1890 35% 65% 1900 40% 60% 1910 46% 54% 1920 51% 49% 1930 56% 44% 1940 57% 43% 1950 60% 40% 1960 63% 37% 1970...

www.seniorliving.org

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

 

[BahamaBob]

Of the total US population in 1850, 85% was rural. I think I was off a little on the 1800 population. Only 94% was rural.
I'll get you a link to the data later, when I'm not posting from my phone.

That is irrelevant, you stated the population didn't live in "civilized cities". In fact, those cities were much safer than today's cities. Unlike today, murders were rare.

 

[RF667799]

That is irrelevant, you stated the population didn't live in "civilized cities". In fact, those cities were much safer than today's cities. Unlike today, murders were rare.

That was Rich's term. He stated, "...the bulk of the population who lived in civilized cities...".

He followed that up with, "By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation."

Absolutely false The bulk of the population in the 1800s was rural. 85% in 1850. The numbers are relevant.

 

[BahamaBob]

That was Rich's term. He stated, "...the bulk of the population who lived in civilized cities...".

He followed that up with, "By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation."

Absolutely false The bulk of the population in the 1800s was rural. 85% in 1850. The numbers are relevant.

My mistake, I jumped in on the last page of the blog and didn't bother to read what led up to your comment and took it wrong. Sorry.

 

[RF667799]

My mistake, I jumped in on the last page of the blog and didn't bother to read what led up to your comment and took it wrong. Sorry.

No problem.

 

[Rich2018]

That is irrelevant, you stated the population didn't live in "civilized cities". In fact, those cities were much safer than today's cities. Unlike today, murders were rare.

Absolutely correct, the 1800's saw a shift in US population to the cities.

 

[RF667799]

Absolutely correct, the 1800's saw a shift in US population to the cities.

The population was shifting. But the majority of people living in the US throughout the 1800s were rural. Overwhelmingly so, for most of the 1800s. Only 15% of the population was urban in 1850.

This statement of yours: "By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation."

Is just spectacularly wrong.

 

[Fledermaus]

Absolutely correct, the 1800's saw a shift in US population to the cities.

Which didn't happen until well into the 1900s.

 

[Fledermaus]

The population was shifting. But the majority of people living in the US throughout the 1800s were rural. Overwhelmingly so, for most of the 1800s. Only 15% of the population was urban in 1850.

This statement of yours: "By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation."

Is just spectacularly wrong.

He very, very rarely admits his errors.

 

[RF667799]

He very, very rarely admits his errors.

Sometimes I think making errors is deliberate rabbit hole technique.

 

[Fledermaus]

The population was shifting. But the majority of people living in the US throughout the 1800s were rural. Overwhelmingly so, for most of the 1800s. Only 15% of the population was urban in 1850.

This statement of yours: "By the 1800's, the USA was largely an urban nation."

Is just spectacularly wrong.

He very, very rarely admits his errors.

Sometimes I think making errors is deliberate rabbit hole technique.

That can be very obvious when he gloms on to another poster's claims only to argue pro and con....

 

[RF667799]

He very, very rarely admits his errors.

That can be very obvious when he gloms on to another poster's claims only to argue pro and con....

And claim something absolutely ludicrous so that the focus of the discussion becomes that rather than the failed point,