www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

Lt. Staplic wrote:Why is it wrong....simpler technologies are easier to figure out.

Of course, but "easier" is a relative term. In this case it doesn't matter whether you're talking about Brown Bess or a jimpy - they're both Outside Context Problems to a civilisation that has no concept of firearms.

You need not an academic understanding, but an intuitive understanding of the workings behind the technology. Natives could pretty quickly figure that Powder + Bullet = Bang for the musket, but I doubt they'd ever figure out how works an MP5. Maybe they'd know it's "pull the trigger", and maaaaybe they'd know a magic box is used to make it fire again once it stopped firing, they could never actually figure out how the mechanism work.

Hell, if your soldiers put the safety on before letting them take the gun, the natives might actually start to believe the magical deathgivers only work in the hand of the Foreigners. Why would they think that a small switch allow for the firing and not firing? Do they have anything remotely similar?

The natives already have firestones. They know how to create sparkle, and they know how a sling works, so they know how dangerous a fast bullet might be. The only foreign element to the musket there is the gunpowder. You need a lot more culturo-technological background to figure out the MP5 intuitively, without anybody telling you anything about it.

It is only a matter of time before they find that switch and know that it is operable. ONe look inside such a 'magic box' also reveals the individual bullets. Problem solved.
They may even take one apart and discover the mechanism. It is a matter of time before they understand the workings, a matter of far more time before thye can replicate it.

shran wrote:It is only a matter of time before they find that switch and know that it is operable. ONe look inside such a 'magic box' also reveals the individual bullets. Problem solved.
They may even take one apart and discover the mechanism. It is a matter of time before they understand the workings, a matter of far more time before thye can replicate it.

Have the native americans ever developped the metalworking techniques to recreate rifles, or did they had to trade/raid for them?

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

shran wrote:It is only a matter of time before they find that switch and know that it is operable. ONe look inside such a 'magic box' also reveals the individual bullets. Problem solved.
They may even take one apart and discover the mechanism. It is a matter of time before they understand the workings, a matter of far more time before thye can replicate it.

Have the native americans ever developped the metalworking techniques to recreate rifles, or did they had to trade/raid for them?

Generally, the First Nations were neolithic (though, considerably advanced as such.) The Inuit were notable exceptions, having developed the metal ulu and harpoon head, though I don't believe any First Nations had the ability to forge something as demanding as a gun barrel or the intricate part necessary for a wheellock or flintlock. In fact, iron tomahawks weren't even in use until manufactured by the British as trade items.

In any event, my point remains - there is no need to discuss a "degree" of advancement or alien-ness of a technology that is beyond the aboriginal culture in question. Yes, we all know that an automatic firearm is more advanced than a smoothbore musket; but that distinction is completely tangential for an observer who has no prior conception of either one. The only differential observation that a Native American (for example) could or would make between the two is that the the former kills more people in a given time span than the latter. There would be no possibility for that Native American to make a judgement on the technological advancement of one over the other. The difference noted above would be judged to be the same as the difference between a finely-crafted war club made of hickory compared to a slipshod one made of an inferior wood.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Have the native americans ever developped the metalworking techniques to recreate rifles... ?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we've got it now.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Have the native americans ever developped the metalworking techniques to recreate rifles... ?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we've got it now.

...

I meant the American Indians...

...



GODDAMNIT!

@ Seafort

I know, but take someone who doesn't have any knowledge of firearms, and show them a flintlock, and show another an M5 and see who figures out how it works first....You wouldn't need a foreknowledge of any part of the technology to understand a simpler tech first. and yes, simpler tech is said from our context where we know both rather than from the perspective of the primitives.

@ Mikey

I'm not talking about the primitives ever looking at one and figureing out that the M5 is more advanced than a musket just buy looking at an M5, I think I understand what your saying, that an alien piece of technology, regardless of how advanced it is relative to other alien technology is still just alien technology, there is no degree of seperation to the natives, which I agree with. I'm talking about the amount of time it would take for them to be able to figure out how a Musket works as oppossed to an M5.

eventually I'm sure they could figure out/understand both, but it would take longer to understand the workings of the M5 than it would to understand the musket. Similar to how it's much easier to figure out how an analogue clock works than it is to figure out how a digital clock works.

Lt. Staplic wrote:I know, but take someone who doesn't have any knowledge of firearms, and show them a flintlock, and show another an M5 and see who figures out how it works first....You wouldn't need a foreknowledge of any part of the technology to understand a simpler tech first. and yes, simpler tech is said from our context where we know both rather than from the perspective of the primitives.

Well, I don't see the wrong in calling a flintock a "simplier" tech than a MP5. If you were to call it a "Simple" tech, some might take issue.

But in that care, you are merely comparing to the level of technological complexity of now compared to before. So any comparison, as long as you have an established benchmark, won't be controversial. People take issue when you set up an arbitrary line between what's "simple" and what's not.

So, I still believe that modern weaponry just couldn't be comprehended except for it's most basics by the less advanced society that were the native americans. If you start addind tanks, gunships and predator drones, you could easily be a God/His representative for them, especially if they never figure out that somebody is controlling them (and how could they?)

SolkaTruesilver wrote:I meant the American Indians...

So did Tsukiyumi.

Lt. Staplic wrote:I'm talking about the amount of time it would take for them to be able to figure out how a Musket works as oppossed to an M5.

eventually I'm sure they could figure out/understand both, but it would take longer to understand the workings of the M5 than it would to understand the musket. Similar to how it's much easier to figure out how an analogue clock works than it is to figure out how a digital clock works.

Well, you get my gist - but even with regard to the above, I think there's less differentiation than you seem to indicate. If you're talking about the aboriginal people being able to build their own versions, then the limiting factor isn't understanding but manufacturing capability. The Native Americans, for example, could've understood an MP-5k all they wanted but didn't have the ability to manufacture the necessary parts.

OTOH, if you're talking about a basic understanding of the principles involved, then all you've got is: primer gets lit > charge gets lit > projectile comes out the other end. The rest is just details. No more difference than if a Boer War soldier were presented with either a WWI brass cartridge or a German caseless ammo round.

yes but with a musket, you can see the primer, charge, and projectile, as three different things. with a MP5 you see a little box that goes into the gun. Even if you open up a magazine you just see elongated metal tubes.

So just by looking at it/examining the guns it would take longer to understand how the MP5 works as oppossed to a Musket.

The problem with that is that you're assuming that the invaders are going to take time out from said invasion to demonstrate how their weapons work. That is, to put it mildly, unlikely. What is a lot more likely is that the closest look any of the locals with get of either the musket or the MP is the view down the business end as it's fired.

Captain Seafort wrote:The problem with that is that you're assuming that the invaders are going to take time out from said invasion to demonstrate how their weapons work. That is, to put it mildly, unlikely. What is a lot more likely is that the closest look any of the locals with get of either the musket or the MP is the view down the business end as it's fired.

from that perspective you also have the fact that one with a musket can kill one before he has to reload, where as the machine gunner can kill several. There's also a different reloading process, so the villagers may see the primer/powder go in, then the ball as opposed to simply changing the magazine. I'm also assuming that every once in a while the villagers would likely be able to take one off a dead man. If they've seen the reload before they could begin to experiment with it.

Not to forget the kill range for a modern assault rifle is much, much longer than a Musket's. So the primitives will have a much lesser change of properly seeing it in action.

The superior technologically-equipped culture should do it's very best to prevent the primitives from seeing the items in anything else than "fear and awe" perspective. No trade whatsoever.

Lt. Staplic wrote:from that perspective you also have the fact that one with a musket can kill one before he has to reload, where as the machine gunner can kill several. There's also a different reloading process, so the villagers may see the primer/powder go in, then the ball as opposed to simply changing the magazine. I'm also assuming that every once in a while the villagers would likely be able to take one off a dead man. If they've seen the reload before they could begin to experiment with it.

I've addressed the ability to kill more people in a given time span already:

Mikey wrote:The only differential observation that a Native American (for example) could or would make between the two is that the the former kills more people in a given time span than the latter. There would be no possibility for that Native American to make a judgement on the technological advancement of one over the other. The difference noted above would be judged to be the same as the difference between a finely-crafted war club made of hickory compared to a slipshod one made of an inferior wood.

As to seeing the primer and powder: so what? An aboriginal neolithic culture wouldn't be able to duplicate gunpowder, nor would they likely want to get anywhere near it. The weapon with an external action would likely evoke greater awe and fear due to the external flash at the action; the greater muzzle flash (due to the imperfectly-fitted musket ball vs. the perfectly fitted and rifled bullet & the recapture of barrel gases; ) and the huge amount of residual smoke that the musket excretes. Even if our hypothetical aborigine did try to reload the musket and fire it, the chances are almost absolute that he'd misjudge the amount of powder needed and ruin the gun (and kill himself in the process.) Even if he got the amount of powder correct - would he know where to load the primer? How much? How to half-cock and work the action? How to feed the fuse, if it's a matchlock? How to angle the striker, if it's a flintlock? Etc., etc.

All in all, you're assuming that it is obvious to anyone that modern automatic weapons are technological advancements over muskets, because it's obvious to us. That's not the case. Even if both types were presented simultaneously to a neolithic aboriginal, chances are greater that he'd see one as a better class/quality of weapon rather than two different weapons separated by technological advancement.

Look at the obverse: I look at a Glock compensated handgun next to an MP40. By your logic, we should assume that the Glock is a far more primitive type of weapon. Technologically speaking, however, it is far more advanced.

I think guns might be the wrong subject to use when discussing how easy it is to differentiate between technology a century or two apart. At the end of the day, a gun of any description follows a pretty standard shape and has, more or less, the same effect.

Take something like a warship, though. An 18th century Man of War is something that a primitive society could understand. It's made of wood, and it uses giant sails. The only strange thing about it would be how big it is and how its shaped.

Compare that to a modern aircraft carrier, though. Would a primitive society so easily comprehend what that was?