Upload
Login or register

rhydonsmash

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/03/2011
Last Login:8/20/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 8 total,  38 ,  30
Comment Thumbs: 360 total,  492 ,  132
Content Level Progress: 20.33% (12/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 132 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 133 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Content Views:1279
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:243
FJ Points:388
Favorite Tags: fuck (3) | shit (3) | the (3) | fucking (2) | what (2)

latest user's comments

#113 - Stop trying. He's 16, never talked to a police officer, and do…  [+] (1 reply) 04/13/2016 on CHILL, PUPPER, CHILL!!! +2
User avatar
#117 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
It's hilarious because you sound like every childish 14 year old on a soverign citizen video ever.

Normal, adult people don't have trouble the police. You do because you're either not normal, or you're not an adult. Grow up buddy.
#108 - Preach.  [+] (1 reply) 04/13/2016 on CHILL, PUPPER, CHILL!!! +5
User avatar
#119 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
Yes, continue preaching incorrect information to your fellow low information ignoramuses, lol.
#104 - Once again, I've yet to say it was illegal. The fact that I've…  [+] (1 reply) 04/13/2016 on CHILL, PUPPER, CHILL!!! +1
User avatar
#123 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
Thats Doc Holiday from Tombstone. The "muh anonymouse" movement is cancer started by a bunch of no life shut ins.

If you have yet to call it illegal then I guess you're taking back your first assertion that "you should always assume cops are wrong".

He refused to get up and he refused to communicate. He could have easily been sitting on a weapon. Standing up readies someone for a search and arrest. He did not comply. It's not a considerable movement to reach and grab a knife under your butt cheek.

The prior charges are important because cops need to know if someone has a violent history. This one does, so they changed their tactics to fit the situation. You don't ask Ted Bundy to talk for instance.
#96 - I never said what they did was illegal. I simply stated that y…  [+] (3 replies) 04/13/2016 on CHILL, PUPPER, CHILL!!! +1
#98 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
No, your personal experience gives you knowledge about being a felon and being arrested, it doesn't make you knowledgeable on whether or not a police entry is illegal or not. You don't become an expert on law the moment you rape an old lady, sorry.

It's idiotic to assume that computer techinicans are putting viruses on my computer just because I see them pressing buttons on a keyboard. The whole "always assume cops are wrong" is beyond retarded.

Tbh I'd say that everyone bandwagoning me in this thread is trolling, but I know thats not the case.

You are all legitimately this illogical. You think what they did was illegal just because you "feel" it is. Complete insanity.

In my experience anti coppers are the bottom feeders of society. I don't subscribe to that hate group bullshit but the amount of incoherent rage you people feel towards law enforcement is creepy at best and dangerously stupid at worst.
User avatar
#104 - rhydonsmash (04/13/2016) [-]
Once again, I've yet to say it was illegal. The fact that I've had to state this twice is telling me that you're the one not using logic. I'm not going to say it was illegal. I don't know the backstory, nor do I really care.

Nor did I say computer technicians were putting viruses on your computer, but they could definitely be trying to use your ignorance against you and charge you to do nothing. Much like police bringing up prior charges wit no backstory, to give an explanation for why a police dog mauled an obviously defenseless person(And their comment he could still be hiding a weapon, is ridiculous. Seriously, open handed with them in the air? Where would it be that they couldn't disarm him before he attacked. He's sitting on a couch. He'd need to make considerable movements just to have it in his hands by the time they were close)

And is your profile picture guy fawkes? If so, that's very ironic.
User avatar
#123 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
Thats Doc Holiday from Tombstone. The "muh anonymouse" movement is cancer started by a bunch of no life shut ins.

If you have yet to call it illegal then I guess you're taking back your first assertion that "you should always assume cops are wrong".

He refused to get up and he refused to communicate. He could have easily been sitting on a weapon. Standing up readies someone for a search and arrest. He did not comply. It's not a considerable movement to reach and grab a knife under your butt cheek.

The prior charges are important because cops need to know if someone has a violent history. This one does, so they changed their tactics to fit the situation. You don't ask Ted Bundy to talk for instance.
#89 - And probable cause is also the most abused way for cops to ill…  [+] (5 replies) 04/13/2016 on CHILL, PUPPER, CHILL!!! +1
#91 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
>Always assume the police are in the wrong

Ya, I can tell I'm dealing with some real logical people here.

And what about you blindly assuming that what they did was illegal without any evidence?

What, you being a felon makes you an expert on illegal entries now? Please.

Your past experiences with cops have no bearing on this. They had probable cause to enter, it was completely legal. The only thing that came out of this was a civil suit that only had merit because the dog bit the dudes face.

There was nothing illegal about the entry. Things aren't illegal just because you feel like they are. Thats tumblr logic.
User avatar
#96 - rhydonsmash (04/13/2016) [-]
I never said what they did was illegal. I simply stated that you blindly agreeing is how you lose your rights, and that probable cause is the most common way for illegal searches to be legally authorized.

And yes, my personal experience with these types of searches does make me knowledgeable on the subject. That's how experience and knowledge works.

And my last comment was followed with the statement, "Unless they have concrete evidence to the contrary"

You wouldn't pay a computer technician to fix your computer when you've never noticed a problem before. You'd need evidence that it's broken. Why are the police different? Oh right, they're not.

Seriously. Stop trolling. Your name is a giveaway.

#98 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
No, your personal experience gives you knowledge about being a felon and being arrested, it doesn't make you knowledgeable on whether or not a police entry is illegal or not. You don't become an expert on law the moment you rape an old lady, sorry.

It's idiotic to assume that computer techinicans are putting viruses on my computer just because I see them pressing buttons on a keyboard. The whole "always assume cops are wrong" is beyond retarded.

Tbh I'd say that everyone bandwagoning me in this thread is trolling, but I know thats not the case.

You are all legitimately this illogical. You think what they did was illegal just because you "feel" it is. Complete insanity.

In my experience anti coppers are the bottom feeders of society. I don't subscribe to that hate group bullshit but the amount of incoherent rage you people feel towards law enforcement is creepy at best and dangerously stupid at worst.
User avatar
#104 - rhydonsmash (04/13/2016) [-]
Once again, I've yet to say it was illegal. The fact that I've had to state this twice is telling me that you're the one not using logic. I'm not going to say it was illegal. I don't know the backstory, nor do I really care.

Nor did I say computer technicians were putting viruses on your computer, but they could definitely be trying to use your ignorance against you and charge you to do nothing. Much like police bringing up prior charges wit no backstory, to give an explanation for why a police dog mauled an obviously defenseless person(And their comment he could still be hiding a weapon, is ridiculous. Seriously, open handed with them in the air? Where would it be that they couldn't disarm him before he attacked. He's sitting on a couch. He'd need to make considerable movements just to have it in his hands by the time they were close)

And is your profile picture guy fawkes? If so, that's very ironic.
User avatar
#123 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
Thats Doc Holiday from Tombstone. The "muh anonymouse" movement is cancer started by a bunch of no life shut ins.

If you have yet to call it illegal then I guess you're taking back your first assertion that "you should always assume cops are wrong".

He refused to get up and he refused to communicate. He could have easily been sitting on a weapon. Standing up readies someone for a search and arrest. He did not comply. It's not a considerable movement to reach and grab a knife under your butt cheek.

The prior charges are important because cops need to know if someone has a violent history. This one does, so they changed their tactics to fit the situation. You don't ask Ted Bundy to talk for instance.
#230 - "The typical heavy cavalry charge crossed 400 meters in 2…  [+] (1 reply) 04/10/2016 on /his/ on Navy Seals 0
#235 - dehymenator (04/11/2016) [-]
The source of that pic is an Italian weapons training manual from the beginning of the renascence.
www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/

The 350 meters in 15-20 seconds is wrong. That is 45 miles per hour. Thats what a modern thorough bred race horse gallops at with a light jockey. And that tires the horse to exhaustion in less than 3 miles or so. A medieval war horse was bred for strength not speed. Race horses are typically 900 pounds. A medieval war horse was commonly 1200+ pounds. They were stronger and tougher, but slower. Also they were carying 300 pounds of man and armor. That means they will be much slower than that and tire much faster. So galloping 350-400 meters would take longer and likely tire the horse to some extent. That maneuver they describe sounds more like light cavalry to me.

The max range of crossbows and long bows was 350-400 meters. But that is shooting at a 45 degree angle so you can't aim your shots at all. Its massed volleys at that point and the projectiles are going to bleed much of their energy in that flight. That is not a range where archers are dangerous to heavy cavalry. At about the 150 meter mark medieval crossbows and longbows can use a much flatter trajectory to hit. This means the shots can be aimed and can maintain more of their energy making this range and in much more dangerous.

That is why cavalry used that 400 meter startup to get up to a gallop for the last 150 meters. That way they could avoid staying in the effective range of archery for a long period and still have a fresh horse when they got there.

"Turkish tactics of using archery against the Crusaders before the actual battle began, in order to unsettle the army, was difficult for European commanders to overcome. When the Islamic tactics worked, the main offensive threat of the Latin states, the charge of the Heavy Cavalry, was effectively removed."

The bold and italicized parts show the flaw in using that quote to condemn the heavy cavalry. If you surprise an enemy with volleys of arrows before the battle begins it does make it hard to organize an army. But if that happens after the army is ready the effect is minimal. Its unlikely that they were able to employ this tactic with any amount of regularity. It sounds pretty opportunistic.

And it says "when" it worked. It doesn't say it always worked or even often worked. Its basically saying sometimes when the Turks were able to shoot at them when they were not in formation before the battle began it made the enemy heavy cavalry much less effective. That does not mean archery was the hard counter to heavy cavalry.

The first crusade took over the western 1/3 of Anatolia, most of Armenia, and Syria. Now they were relatively quickly lost because of the infighting in Constantinople shortly after the first crusade. But the point is valid. The Turks did not deal with heavy cavalry very well in the first crusade.

Heavy cavalry was commonly employed up until muskets and cannons became common. The battle of mohacs is a prime example of the fall of heavy cavalry in europe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs
#223 - That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. First off…  [+] (3 replies) 04/09/2016 on /his/ on Navy Seals 0
#228 - dehymenator (04/10/2016) [-]
The typical heavy cavalry charge crossed 400 meters in 2 minutes. And this assumes they were not employing scouts which is one of the major advantages of a mounted force. Things only appear out of no where if you are standing still and not looking for anything. When others cavalry finds me, I find them too. So its a surprise on both sides.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_tactics

The point behind my idea is that it is there if you need it. If the situation calls for pikes you can get a number of them deployed quickly. The people who would use the pikes would be at the back of the formation. The number of pikemen needed is called out. That number of pikemen do the procedure I described previously. *they hand their mounts off to other per-designated people who are mounted. A single person on horseback can lead several horses. See pic* This way everyone can be mounted if need be or can be deployed as foot if need be. 6 guys could lead away 30 pikemen's horses. And it was a common thing in the late middle ages for knights to dismount to fight.
Sadler, Border Fury, p. 32.
Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, p. 31.

Horses were not in the minority. Mounted knights were the main offensive weapon of the crusades. Poor people couldn't buy enough, food, armor, and weapons to make it to the holy land to fight. Most crusaders had weapons, armor, and a horse.
www.umich.edu/~eng415/topics/war/Crusader_Warfare.html

I kinda doubt you raised many war horses on your farm. Horses used in cavalry attacks were trained from birth to not flinch or bolt from an incoming enemy attack. It would have made them useless if that were the case.
www.nam.ac.uk/microsites/war-horse/explore/training-sport/training/

You don't have to get so mad dude.



User avatar
#230 - rhydonsmash (04/10/2016) [-]
"The typical heavy cavalry charge crossed 400 meters in 2 minutes."

The source for this information is a tiny pixelated graph. Here's another quote from that same page.

"The most devastating charging method was to ride in a looser formation fast into attack. This attack was often protected by simultaneous or shortly preceding ranged attacks of archers or crossbowmen. The attack began from a distance of about 350 metres and took about 15–20 seconds to cross the contemporary long range weapon's effective distance"

The second quote matches the numbers I brought forward before. About a minute and a half for a mile charge.

Here's another quote from your own source.
"Turkish tactics of using archery against the Crusaders before the actual battle began, in order to unsettle the army, was difficult for European commanders to overcome. When the Islamic tactics worked, the main offensive threat of the Latin states, the charge of the Heavy Cavalry, was effectively removed. (Hurley, 39-41)

Your own source calls it a ineffective strategy against the most common soldier the Europeans went against, or really anyone who was engaging in warfare the 500-600 years prior. Maybe that's why Europe effectively lost the Crusades.

Admittedly, I have to give it to you on the war horses. The source is solid, and further research reinforces it. I've learned something here. You would indeed be correct that we didn't raise war horses.


#235 - dehymenator (04/11/2016) [-]
The source of that pic is an Italian weapons training manual from the beginning of the renascence.
www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/

The 350 meters in 15-20 seconds is wrong. That is 45 miles per hour. Thats what a modern thorough bred race horse gallops at with a light jockey. And that tires the horse to exhaustion in less than 3 miles or so. A medieval war horse was bred for strength not speed. Race horses are typically 900 pounds. A medieval war horse was commonly 1200+ pounds. They were stronger and tougher, but slower. Also they were carying 300 pounds of man and armor. That means they will be much slower than that and tire much faster. So galloping 350-400 meters would take longer and likely tire the horse to some extent. That maneuver they describe sounds more like light cavalry to me.

The max range of crossbows and long bows was 350-400 meters. But that is shooting at a 45 degree angle so you can't aim your shots at all. Its massed volleys at that point and the projectiles are going to bleed much of their energy in that flight. That is not a range where archers are dangerous to heavy cavalry. At about the 150 meter mark medieval crossbows and longbows can use a much flatter trajectory to hit. This means the shots can be aimed and can maintain more of their energy making this range and in much more dangerous.

That is why cavalry used that 400 meter startup to get up to a gallop for the last 150 meters. That way they could avoid staying in the effective range of archery for a long period and still have a fresh horse when they got there.

"Turkish tactics of using archery against the Crusaders before the actual battle began, in order to unsettle the army, was difficult for European commanders to overcome. When the Islamic tactics worked, the main offensive threat of the Latin states, the charge of the Heavy Cavalry, was effectively removed."

The bold and italicized parts show the flaw in using that quote to condemn the heavy cavalry. If you surprise an enemy with volleys of arrows before the battle begins it does make it hard to organize an army. But if that happens after the army is ready the effect is minimal. Its unlikely that they were able to employ this tactic with any amount of regularity. It sounds pretty opportunistic.

And it says "when" it worked. It doesn't say it always worked or even often worked. Its basically saying sometimes when the Turks were able to shoot at them when they were not in formation before the battle began it made the enemy heavy cavalry much less effective. That does not mean archery was the hard counter to heavy cavalry.

The first crusade took over the western 1/3 of Anatolia, most of Armenia, and Syria. Now they were relatively quickly lost because of the infighting in Constantinople shortly after the first crusade. But the point is valid. The Turks did not deal with heavy cavalry very well in the first crusade.

Heavy cavalry was commonly employed up until muskets and cannons became common. The battle of mohacs is a prime example of the fall of heavy cavalry in europe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs
[ 242 Total ]

user's friends