Military Review

India’s weapons: elephants and ... armor! (Part of 2)

60
Almost as early in India they began to tame and use elephants in combat practice. It was from here that they first spread throughout the ancient world, and in India they were used in battles right up to the middle of the 19th century! An elephant is a very intelligent and exceptionally strong animal that can lift large weights and carry them for a long time. And it is not surprising that they have been used in war for so long.


India’s weapons: elephants and ... armor! (Part of 2)

Indian war elephant in armor. Royal Arsenal in Leeds, England.

In the times of the ancient Punic Wars, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids already had entire detachments of specially trained war elephants. Their “crew” usually consisted of a drover who guided an elephant and knew how to cope with it, and several archers or spearmen with long spears and darts who sat on his back in a kind of fortress tower made of boards. Initially, even the very fact of their appearance on the battlefield frightened the enemies, and the horses of one of their kind were furious and threw off the horsemen. However, very soon in the armies of the ancient world they learned to fight with battle elephants and began to use them with great caution, because it was already more than once that huge animals fled from the battlefield and trampled on their own troops.

To protect the elephants from the enemy weapons, in the same way as horses, they began to be covered with protective shells. The earliest mention of the use of elephants in protective weapons refers to 190 year BC. Oe., when they were used by the army of Antiochus III the Great of the Seleucid dynasty in the battle of Magnesia against the Romans. Despite the bronze armor plates, the elephants that had become unmanageable during the battle turned to flee and crushed their own troops ...

In the 11th century in India, Sultan Muhmud of Ghaznavi had 740 war elephants who had armorheads. In one of the battles against the Seljuks, the Indian Arslan Shah used 50 elephants, on their backs sat four mail-clad spearmen and an archer. Enemy horses at the sight of elephants began to rage, but the Seljuks still managed to repel the attack, hitting the leader of the elephants in the stomach - the only place that he did not have covered with armor.

In his march on Delhi in 1398, Tamerlane also met with elephants dressed in chain armor and trained to snatch riders from saddles and throw them to the ground. Elephants were usually placed in front of the troops and invulnerable to swords and arrows with a dense line of attack on the enemy, which threw him into fear and horror, forcing even the most worthy to flee.


"Elephant from Leeds". View from the side where the armor is preserved more.

The army of Tamerlan was hard, because the elephants of the Hindus were not only archers, but also throwers of grenades, bannas, producing a terrible roar, as well as rocket men with missiles from bamboo pipes. Nevertheless, the victory was left for the warriors of Tamerlane, who managed to get arrows on the elephant drivers. Feeling no longer a solid hand of man, in the roar and under the fierce blows that fell on them from everywhere, the elephants, as it happened very often, began to panic and fled. The frightened and enraged elephant was so dangerous for its own troops that even in antiquity every elephant driver had not only a special hook to control the elephant, called ankus, but also a hammer and a chisel, which, if an animal went out of obedience, had to be slaughtered to the head. The elephant, enraged by the pain, was chosen to kill, but not to be allowed into the ranks of its troops.

After that, Tamerlane himself used war elephants in the battle of Angora and won it, despite the fierce resistance of the Ottoman army. Russian traveler Afanasy Nikitin, being in India in 1469, was amazed by the magnificence and power of the Indian rulers, who even went for a walk accompanied by war elephants, Nikitin wrote: "... the sultan left for a walk, and with him 2 great sightings and 300 elephants dressed in damask armor with towers, and the towers are bound. In the towers on the same 6 people in armor with guns and with food, and on the great elephant 12 people. Other contemporaries reported that poisoned spikes (!) Wore elephants' tusks, crossbowmen and chakra throwers were placed on their backs, and warriors with rocket weapons and grenades covered elephants on the sides. In the Battle of Panipat, only the continuous fire of artillery and musketeers made it possible to repel the attack of the elephants who, even with all their weapons, were a good target for gunners and shooters from Babur’s army.


Images of Indian war elephants on ancient miniatures.

A whole series of images of war elephants of the Mughal era reached our time, for example, in the illustrations of the famous manuscript “Babur-name”. However, the drawings are drawings, but the real armor of an elephant survived only one and now it is located in the British Royal Arsenal Museum in the city of Leeds. Apparently, it was made at the end of the XVI - beginning of the XVIII century. The armor was taken to England in 1801 by the wife of Sir Robert Clive, the then governor of Madras. Thanks to Lady Clive, we know exactly what this unique armor looked like, the result of the gradual (long) development of horse armor.


"Elephant Horse". What is it and for what? Alas, it was not possible to photograph and translate the tablet under this strange figure.

Thanks to this armor, we know what the unique protection of war elephants looked like, which became, in essence, the result of the development of horse armor. The armor is a set of small and large steel plates connected with the help of chain mail. Without missing plates, the armor stored in Leeds weighs 118 kilograms. The complete set would have to consist of 8349 plates with a total weight of 159 kilograms! Large square gilded plate of armor covered with chased images of walking elephants, lotus flowers, birds and fish.


Fragment of the Leeds Elephant Armor.

Perhaps only these plates were visible from the side, while the rest of the armor was covered with a cloth cloth with square cuts. All square plates were lined with cotton pads. Details of the armor, which consisted of several parts, were put on the elephant on top of the linen lining. The side parts had leather straps that were tied to the elephant on the sides and on the back.

Leeds' elephant head protection consists of 2195 plates of 2,5 size to 2 centimeters connected vertically; around the eyes the plates are arranged in a circle. Her weight - 27 kilograms, it is attached to the ears of an elephant. The armor has two holes for the tusks. Two thirds trunk is not protected. The throat and chest protection weighing twelve kilograms has a lower jaw cut in the middle and consists of 1046 plates measuring 2,5 by 7,5 centimeters. The mounting of these plates is such that they come one upon the other like shingles.

The side parts of the armor consist of three vertical panels each. Chased steel plates with drawings are inserted into them; there are eleven in the front, twelve in the middle, ten in the back. In addition to large plates, each panel contains smaller ones connected by chain mail: the front panel contains 948 plates with a total weight of eighteen kilograms; medium - 780 plates with a total weight of twenty-three kilograms; back - 871 plate with a total weight of twenty-three kilograms.


Indian swords. Some have a gun at the base of the blade.

The front panel is decorated with chased plates; on five plates are depicted war elephants, on one - a lotus, on one - a peacock and on the four lower ones - fish. On the plates of the central panel - seven elephants, lotus, peacock and three pairs of fish. On the back - seven elephants and four pairs of fish. All the elephants on the plates are oriented in the direction of travel headfirst. That is, taking into account the total number of plates and the chain mail weaving that connects them, it can be said with confidence that we have a typical baxter in front of us;


It is possible that some warrior, who also sat on an elephant, wore such armor. Who knows?

Interestingly, on the figure of an elephant, recreated in Leeds, his back over the shell is covered with a regular carpet and it is on him, and not in some kind of "bound tower", that a single warrior spearman sits behind the driver. True, there is a photograph of the Royal Archives, dated 1903 year, which also depicts an elephant in an armor of metal plates and armor scales, sewn on a fabric base. So on his back is visible a small platform with sides, in which soldiers could easily be placed. In addition to the protective armor on the elephant was put on and "weapons" - special metal tips on the tusks; it was truly a terrible weapon. Only one pair of such tips has been preserved, brought to England from Garbage, where it was in the arsenal of the Maharajah Krishnaraji Vadiyar III (1794 –1868). In 1991, one tip from this pair was offered for sale at Sotheby's [1] auction.

The last battle elephant armor is also stored in England, in the hometown of William Shakespeare, Stratford upon Avon, in the Stratford Arsenal Museum. However, this armor is significantly different from the armor from Leeds in that, on the contrary, it is made of very large plates that cover the head, trunk and sides of an elephant, and on its back there is a turret with four pillars and a roof. On the front legs - large plates with spikes and only ears covered with plate armor, similar to that found on an elephant from Leeds.

Thus, the elephant armor was developed (or, at least, kept in the arsenals of India) for a very long time, and even then, when they proved their complete hopelessness, as well as the battle elephants themselves. The fact is that with all his skill in the training of an elephant, a person is physically unable to cope with it. Any misstep mistake on the battlefield, the nervousness of the elephants themselves, which are quite easily panicked, the skillful actions of the enemy - all this could very easily lead the war elephants to exit obedience. In this case, they turned into a “Doomsday weapon”, using which the commander put everything on the map in the most decisive way.

So, the knightly "cavalry on elephants" in the East did not appear for several reasons. First, being on an elephant, the warrior was subjected to heavy shelling by the enemy, and secondly, it was extremely dangerous to be on the back of a running, distraught elephant, as, incidentally, to fall from it.


Indian mail armor of the 17th century (Metropolitan Museum, New York)

That is why Indian rajas and sultans, if they were riding on elephants during the battle, then used them exclusively as mobile observation posts, and preferred to fight and retreat on horseback — not so strong, but faster and more easily manageable. On the backs of war elephants were commoners - archers and musketeers, throwers of chakras, darts, warriors with rockets (the last Indians used so widely and successfully in battles against the British that they, in turn, borrowed this weapon from them).


The quality of the Indian Bulat was so great that another warrior was already cut in half, and still struggled to raise the sword!

But, speaking the language of modern times, it was prestigious to have war elephants. No wonder that when Shah Aurangezeb forbade Hindus, even the most noble, to ride elephants, they considered this to be the greatest insult. They were used during the hunt, on the road, with their help they demonstrated the power of the ruler. But the glory of war elephants faded as well as the heavily armed knights in the West, as soon as they were fought by well-trained warriors with muskets and fairly mobile and quick-fire artillery, which they began to use in field combat. Alas, neither the missiles, nor the light cannons on the backs of the elephants did not change the situation, because they could not suppress the artillery of the enemy and ... reach its light cavalry, which now more and more often began to be armed with all the same firearms.
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 17 November 2015 06: 24 New
    +6
    An elephant, unlike a horse, is too smart an animal. And therefore it is much more difficult to send it to the ranks of copies. He has no motivation for this.
    At the same time, one cannot use the artificially derived or natural aggressiveness of a male elephant during the musa period by analogy with a war knight's horse (male). Because with the size and strength of the animal, no one can cope with it. That is, it will be a furious monster that destroys everything around. Not looking, their own or others.
    If you use any analogue of stirrups and snaffles for urging, the elephant will simply get you with a trunk and make a chop. Therefore, the elephant driver always tried to be his friend and authority, and not the master, like a rider for a horse.
    1. Riv
      Riv 17 November 2015 09: 46 New
      +1
      ... An elephant was walking along a deserted battlefield.
      A giant with a gray-steel skin covered with wrinkles, it was like a thundercloud and was as many times larger than a seasoned male, the leader of the herd, as much as a tree boa more than a banana snake. Approaching the overturned chariots, he trampled them at the same time with the horses and corpses of the drivers; trampling other elephants, he crushed them like the Wheel of Time or the planet Ketu, the most terrible between any other planets, the crusher-face of the earth’s firmament.
      Men in iron armor, horse and foot, made under his weight a sound similar to the crunch of thick bamboo trunks.
      Moving without a rider, not needing a chain blanket, that armored elephant slowly pushed from side to side with a powerful trunk resembling a copper karnay, and instead of a ringing buzz, fiery naked snakes burst out of the vent, streaming the firmament from west to east. A crimson cloud hung above the top of the elephant, resembling a boil of a fierce flame, and flaming fireballs ejected from the womb, humming horribly, as if thousands of drums were rattling ...
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 November 2015 09: 50 New
        0
        What is it? Where from?
        A strategic elephant?
        1. Riv
          Riv 17 November 2015 12: 13 New
          +1
          This is from Oldie's work.
          But I’m talking about this: India is the only civilization in which the military-epic works describe the action of weapons that are extremely reminiscent of weapons of mass destruction. In the Iliad, the gods fight with the same weapons as mortals. In the Scandinavian sagas, the most deadly thing you can think of is a flying hammer. The Jews thought of fire swords. And all ... India is unique in this regard. Elephants are nonsense. Entering the battlefield, the kshatriya theoretically assumed that something much more dangerous would be used against him.
          Where did it come from?
    2. Riv
      Riv 17 November 2015 09: 47 New
      0
      ... An elephant was walking along a deserted battlefield.
      A giant with a gray-steel skin covered with wrinkles, it was like a thundercloud and was as many times larger than a seasoned male, the leader of the herd, as much as a tree boa more than a banana snake. Approaching the overturned chariots, he trampled them at the same time with the horses and corpses of the drivers; trampling other elephants, he crushed them like the Wheel of Time or the planet Ketu, the most terrible between any other planets, the crusher-face of the earth’s firmament.
      Men in iron armor, horse and foot, made under his weight a sound similar to the crunch of thick bamboo trunks.
      Moving without a rider, not needing a chain blanket, that armored elephant slowly pushed from side to side with a powerful trunk resembling a copper karnay, and instead of a ringing buzz, fiery naked snakes burst out of the vent, streaming the firmament from west to east. A crimson cloud hung above the top of the elephant, resembling a boil of a fierce flame, and flaming fireballs ejected from the womb, humming horribly, as if thousands of drums were rattling ...
    3. Sweles
      Sweles 17 November 2015 12: 00 New
      +3
      As for the war elephants, here the process of myth-making is the highest, from the same Kostylev.
      Elephants are animals that are nervous and sensitive to pain and, moreover, animals that are public and highly excitable, one animal should be injured, and this can be done with ONE ARROW so that the elephant starts yelling with good obscenities and ceases to obey its counselor, while the elephant can not only start to run away towards the enemies, but also crushing their own side, their own army, but it is the VICTORY, the whole herd of elephants on the battlefield also goes berserk and becomes UNREAD. In short, fables about war elephants are a myth.
      Another old question that traditional historians cannot answer is, "What elephants did Hanibal have? Are India far from Africa and African ones are not tamed?" Question.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 November 2015 12: 35 New
        0
        Another old question that traditional historians cannot answer is, "What elephants did Hanibal have? Are India far from Africa and African ones are not tamed?" Question.
        This is a question solely for your level of education.
        Sugar in North Africa has not always been a desert. And the elephants in North Africa came from the same place where crocodiles came from and still live in several oases of the Sahara. Once ALL Sahara was a huge savannah. And it was by historical (not even geological) standards recently.
        And it’s difficult to tame only the modern African elephant in TWO existing subspecies: African forest and African savannah.
        For the disappearance of the North African shroud, say thanks to the ancient Romans and climate change.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 17 November 2015 13: 17 New
          +2
          Quote: abrakadabre


          Quote: abrakadabre
          Another old question that traditional historians cannot answer is, "What elephants did Hanibal have? Are India far from Africa and African ones are not tamed?" Question.
          This is a question solely for your level of education.
          Sugar in North Africa has not always been a desert. And the elephants in North Africa came from the same place where crocodiles came from and still live in several oases of the Sahara. Once ALL Sahara was a huge savannah. And it was by historical (not even geological) standards recently.
          And it’s difficult to tame only the modern African elephant in TWO existing subspecies: African forest and African savannah.



          Cool, so your education allows you to conclude that the elephants were not only there, but also were tameable? but disappeared, but what did they look like? like mammoths or another species? In general, how did it happen that the "tame" disappeared, but not the tame remained? The question is serious - scientific, naked chatter is not accepted, give evidence. For example, the abundance of mammoth remains in the north of Siberia does not say at all that the mammoths were tame and that our ancestors went to fight with them.

          Quote: abrakadabre
          For the disappearance of the North African shroud, say thanks to the ancient Romans and climate change.


          Why did the Romans destroy elephants in Africa? Because they fought for Ganibal? Does your level of education tell you that? But the Persians had such a bird RUH in fairy tales, now it also doesn’t seem to you, it turns out that the Persians destroyed the bird, or the Russians had a firebird, but now it isn’t there either, are the Russians to blame too? but historians certainly do not insist on this.
          1. Riv
            Riv 17 November 2015 13: 23 New
            +1
            Everything is simpler: ivory was already a very popular ornamental material even then.
          2. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 17 November 2015 14: 04 New
            +2
            Why did the Romans destroy elephants in Africa? Because they fought for Ganibal? Does your level of education tell you that?
            I explain for stupid and trolls:
            1. Elephants were destroyed for two reasons: the extraction of very valuable ivory and the completely unimaginable needs of representations with bullying animals. Such representations were not only in the Coliseum, but everywhere. For example, the best preserved circus of the Roman Empire is in Africa. And this provincial circus is not particularly inferior to the Coliseum in the size and scope of work. Despite the fact that in the heyday of such spectacles, games were announced for 100-200 or more days in a row. There, blood flowed from sunrise to sunset to envy even the frostbitten later Aztecs. For centuries.
            In order to catch one living elephant in those days, one must not only twist it with its own bonds before loading, but also neutralize the whole herd. Elephants are herd animals and are extremely attached within the family group and will fight back together to anyone. This means that it will not be possible to repel one animal without destroying ALL the flock. Captivate the whole herd at once with their strength and mutual assistance ... Um ... And how many captured animals died during delivery ...
            That is, the norms for the extraction of animals were unimaginable. And this is against the background of low fecundity and slow growth of elephants.
            In exactly the same way, almost all the large predators of North Africa were exterminated (caught). After the number of large animals was exhausted in the place, south of the Sahara many and many expeditions were sent for animals to the needs of crowd entertainment.

            2. All this natural genocide of large animals of North Africa occurred against the background of desertification of savannahs in this territory. The growth of the Sahara as a desert is at a frantic pace throughout the postglacial period.

            That is, along with the extermination was the disappearance of the food supply.

            And if the lions in Morocco survived, it was only because it was not enough, but they had something to eat. But elephants did not learn to eat sand and stones.
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 17 November 2015 14: 48 New
              0
              Quote: abrakadabre
              1. Elephants were destroyed for two reasons: the extraction of very valuable ivory and the completely unimaginable needs of representations with bullying animals.


              abrashvabrakadabra should not be so excited about trifles
              your “explanations” are not worth much, give evidence about the elephants that they were there at all and that they were tame, but you don’t need to fill in about the coliseums.

              Quote: abrakadabre
              . All this natural genocide of large animals of North Africa occurred against the background of desertification of savannahs in this territory. The growth of the Sahara as a desert is at a frantic pace throughout the postglacial period.

              That is, along with the extermination was the disappearance of the food supply.

              And if the lions in Morocco survived, it was only because it was not enough, but they had something to eat. But elephants did not learn to eat sand and stones.


              But Saharan antelopes, of course, they eat stones? You were too carried away by mythologisms, then, someone wrote somewhere, that elephants fought in Europe
              this doesn’t mean that it really was. The story is faked, the dates are rearranged, the names of cities, events, battles and the names of rulers often do not correspond to time or place, so now EVERY FACT needs to be dealt with objectively, and not like you - " elephants were but gone
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 18 November 2015 08: 59 New
                +2
                Saharan antelopes do not need daily 100-200 liters of water and almost the same amount of food. I see in geography, zoology (the level of the Discovery channel, and not the zoological scientist) you understand no more than in history. And by the style of writing posts - flaunt it. Therefore, my tone in your direction is quite sharp. For I do not see a craving for real knowledge and constructiveness, but only aggressive tabloid amateurism.
                1. Sweles
                  Sweles 18 November 2015 12: 17 New
                  -4
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  Saharan antelopes do not need daily 100-200 liters of water and almost the same amount of food. I see in geography, zoology (the level of the Discovery channel, and not the zoological scientist) you understand no more than in history. And by the style of writing posts - flaunt it. Therefore, my tone in your direction is quite sharp. For I do not see a craving for real knowledge and constructiveness, but only aggressive tabloid amateurism.


                  Apart from empty words, there will be no evidence? This is to be expected; your words are worthless.
            2. kalibr
              17 November 2015 21: 27 New
              0
              The funny thing is two minuses. Everything is written correctly, but the cons ... One for the word troll, the other for the dumb?
          3. Glot
            Glot 17 November 2015 14: 10 New
            -1
            Cool, so your education allows you to conclude that the elephants were not only there, but were tame? but disappeared, but what did they look like?


            And you buy a ticket to the circus, where the elephants are of course, and look at trained and tamed elephants, if you have not seen them in your life.
            No circus nearby?
            It does not matter, that is, the Internet. Google one of the circus performances with elephants and enjoy. And you don’t have to buy a ticket.
            Also google video using elephants at various works in Asia, India.
            Also see trained and tamed elephants.
            Good luck.
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 17 November 2015 14: 52 New
              +2
              Quote: Glot
              And you buy a ticket to the circus, where the elephants are of course, and look at trained and tamed elephants, if you have not seen them in your life.


              The conversation is not about circus elephants, but about carthage elephants, the opponent insists on the African origin of the elephants, but they are not taken to the circus because of non-tameness, do you understand that?
          4. The comment was deleted.
          5. kalibr
            17 November 2015 21: 26 New
            +1
            The Romans killed a huge amount of every beast in their circuses during the "persecution". So the point was to destroy. And nature added ...
      2. Stilet
        Stilet 17 November 2015 20: 23 New
        +2
        Hannibal had numidian elephants that were 2,2-2,4 meters tall - smaller than African ones, and not so evil. Now this species of elephants is not.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 17 November 2015 21: 18 New
          -3
          Quote: Stilet
          Hannibal had numidian elephants that were 2,2-2,4 meters tall - smaller than African ones, and not so evil. Now this species of elephants is not.


          How do you know that "not so evil," give the link.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 17 November 2015 08: 03 New
    0
    Thank you ... very interesting about the armor for elephants ...
  3. dvg79
    dvg79 17 November 2015 09: 16 New
    +3
    There are no elephants with rockets in the total var, it’s a shame! Thanks for the article and look forward to continuing !!
    1. Riv
      Riv 17 November 2015 09: 28 New
      -3
      Missile elephant? And where did the rockets put him in?
      Oh mine Gott! .. I am ashamed to even think about what I’m thinking now.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Riv
    Riv 17 November 2015 09: 28 New
    +3
    Elephant rockets with rockets from bamboo pipes? Smiled. The Mongols, I believe, responded by using cluster bombs made of clay pots. At one time, I gave a lot of time and effort, studying rocketry at home. Thank God - nothing burned. I guarantee: a rocket with a bamboo shell will be dangerous only to the one who launched it.
    And of course, if launching such a rocket from the back of an elephant does not scare the animal, then an atomic explosion will not scare it either. :)))

    But in general - informative. Especially about the chisel, which had to hammer an elephant into the skull. I imagined this process ... I smoked for a long time ...
    1. kalibr
      17 November 2015 10: 21 New
      +5
      You know, I’m not making anything up. Everything in the article is written in books of various English authors and all have links to pages. I can be blamed for the inaccuracy of the translation, but the term "rocket tube" is not difficult to translate, is it? Razin had bann throwers. I would give footnotes, but paginated ones do not pass here. And the end with square brackets in the text very difficult to read. And as experience shows, no one looks at the originals anyway. So why take up space?
      1. Riv
        Riv 17 November 2015 12: 05 New
        -1
        Well, you have to have your own head on your shoulders. The first effective combat use of missiles - the nineteenth century. Ballistics and almost modern chemistry and materials science were required. A decent range of missiles reached already in the 20th century and are used in their production of heat-resistant steel, not bamboo tubes.
        Generally discussing an elephant-propelled grenade launcher is about how to think about flying to the moon using a bunch of balloons.
        1. kalibr
          17 November 2015 12: 23 New
          +4
          In 1248, the English philosopher and naturalist Roger Bacon published a paper on the use of rockets. In India, at the end of the 18th century, rocket weapons were used very widely, and, in particular, there were special missile squads, the total number of which reached about 5000 people. Missile-arrows-shells, which were tubes with a charge of combustible matter, were used by the Indians in battles with British troops. Then, at the beginning of 19, on the basis of them, the Englishman Congreve made his missiles ... It's not my fault that you do not know this.
          1. Riv
            Riv 17 November 2015 17: 16 New
            -1
            Speaking of Congreve ... There is a version that he did not compromise the design of his missiles among the Indians, but just the Russians.
            Another nuance: in the 18th century in India, the British very seriously opposed France. Everything is as it is now: arms supplies, money support, instructors. It’s not my fault either that you don’t know this ... Are you completely sure that the missiles that flew into the British were not made in the same Europe?

            The trouble is that you give numbers and do not think about them. You see: the number of units in 5000 people (a third of a full-blooded division) implies that they seem to have something to shoot. Everyone is busy. Well, let's say 10 people. Well, there’s still headquarters, convoy ... Anyway, no less than two hundred launchers are obtained. Even if each gives a single salvo - how many missiles do you need? Exactly in India at that time there was a corresponding industrial capacity for their production? And why then did the Indians not conquer the whole world? With such a production base - nothing complicated.
            1. kalibr
              17 November 2015 21: 34 New
              +1
              Indian missiles looked like bamboo pipes attached to arrows. There were two rockets. One pulled, another set fire, caught fire, fired an arrow. Flew on and hit harder. When hit, they exploded and burned. This is all described in Babur-name and ... by many. I was not the first to write about this, and I know about the confrontation of France, believe me. I have already said that the information was taken from the book of D. Nicolas "The Mughal Warriors of India." It is on the Web, you can see everything for yourself. There, Angus McBride's drawings are very beautiful.
              1. Riv
                Riv 17 November 2015 21: 43 New
                0
                So, a second ... Once again: bamboo is not a very suitable material for making a shell. Well, the gander does not spawn. The wood of pressure of powder gases will not sustain. Why the method of launching missile arrows described in this book is futile - I have already said. Finally have your head on your shoulders. Drawings can be of any beauty, but this is an artist, he sees it that way. By the way: the process of hammering a nail into an elephant’s head is not depicted there? :)

                Note: today I am not trying to find inconsistencies in the images that are drawn on the basis of ancient miniatures. For example, about the fact that two of them depict fighters in heavy armor, but again: barefoot. This is because it was. They really climbed an elephant without shoes, because the elephant was controlled by pressing the big toes.
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 18 November 2015 09: 26 New
                  +3
                  The pressure of the powder gases in a primitive home rocket can withstand even a cardboard tube with a wall thickness of 2-3 mm. It burns from the inside - yes, but it does not fly apart with a fragmentation grenade. If you were so eccentric in your childhood that you put powder in your rockets with grain, and did not press a powder checker out of wet powder, then this is your problem. My powder rockets as a child flew, but did not explode. Because before you do something with your hands, you must first ask how this is done correctly. Powder in bulk detonates with an explosion. The powder bomb burns with the release of the gases necessary for the flight of the rocket. Very violently and enchantingly, but it burns, but does not explode.
                  The fat minuscule to you for ignorance and unwillingness to know topics about which you are trying to broadcast to others with such aplomb.
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 18 November 2015 11: 38 New
                    0
                    Did you also set yourself the task of providing me with a good mood for the day? Thank. I appreciate your concern. :))) So the powder detonates in bulk Ayda, we are waiting for new pearls.

                    A corton tube rocket with a wall three millimeters thick and flies away from the force of about fifty meters. Admit: you still have not come out of the age when they indulge in them.
                    But Congrave still made the cases of their devices from steel. I didn’t find cardboard, or what? Or because bamboo does not grow in England?
                    1. abrakadabre
                      abrakadabre 24 November 2015 07: 55 New
                      0
                      By all means detonates. In a closed volume. Heaped up by a bunch in the open air burns out.
                      But in essence of our discussion, gunpowder is inside a rocket, in a closed volume. So your comment is by.
                      Therefore, the powder for missiles is pressed into large pieces - powder bombs. And not filled in bulk, as in cartridges.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
            2. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 18 November 2015 09: 21 New
              0
              What makes you think that a bamboo rocket bolted to a dart needs a calculation of 10 people, as if it was an FAU-2 or ICBM? Where does such a fantastic assumption come from? ONE person is able to take dozens of such missiles from the wagon at a time, push them into the launch guide and sequentially set fire to the wicks of all for a minute. There is nothing to breed rubbish in the division. And the modern industry does not need to make such missiles. There are no multi-ton powder bombs pressed.
              1. Riv
                Riv 18 November 2015 11: 43 New
                0
                Your problem is what you write first and then think.
                Good. Suppose that for one machine (although there was already mentioned above that it was not a machine, but you still didn’t read it), one person was needed for shooting. Suppose that one machine launches ten missiles each. 5000 x 10 = 50000. Fifty THOUSAND missiles in a salvo. I repeat the question: why the Indians, with such firepower, did not conquer the whole world?
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 24 November 2015 07: 58 New
                  0
                  Your problem is what you write first and then think.
                  Do not ascribe to me your own deeds.
                  smile
              2. The comment was deleted.
        2. marline
          marline 17 November 2015 12: 25 New
          +2
          Quote: Riv
          The first effective combat use of missiles - the nineteenth century.

          The Chinese apparently didn’t know this ... Of course, Zasyadko was the first to use missiles “effectively” wink
          And what is considered an "effective" use?
          I, therefore, believe that the "effective" use of missiles began only during WWII.
          1. Riv
            Riv 17 November 2015 12: 43 New
            0
            Well, what other Chinese? Don't make me laugh like that. :))) They chronicles describe rockets that flew for fifty li. Purely for information: it's twenty-five kilometers. Do you really believe that a bamboo pipe filled with gunpowder will fly away at least a kilometer ???

            Same thing with Bacon. He could describe everything that he wanted, but not a single death was recorded either before or in the next half-century, from the use of a missile shell. Apparently it worked primarily for those who tried to apply it. There was another Pole (I don’t remember my last name, but I wasn’t able to google laziness), who in the sixteenth century described a completely modern storm of a nozzle of a rocket engine. Only since then no one has heard for a long time about Polish cosmonauts, and Poland itself was pretty soon divided by neighbors.
            1. marline
              marline 17 November 2015 12: 58 New
              +2
              Do not distort.
              What did Congreve missiles fly at 25km? Zasyadko also calculated how much gunpowder was needed to fly to the moon, and how was he better than Bacon? Than fundamentally 19th century. it's better?
              Here is the Chinese image of the launcher, at 300-400 m. It completely penetrated, but they didn’t need more.
              1. Riv
                Riv 17 November 2015 13: 39 New
                -3
                Yeah. I saw a similar rocket launcher in a history textbook. Even in the Soviet. Well, there’s still a brutal Mongol standing on his shoulder basket and missiles fly out of it. It was still funny to me then, and I see that someone still takes these pictures seriously. In fact, such a launcher with a 100% probability will destroy its calculation.

                Please note: the picture you see shows an ARROW attached to it ... I don’t know what to call it. Well let it be a firecracker. If a powder accelerator is attached to an arrow, it will really fly further and strike harder. Here are just a shooter who fired such an arrow, will receive a sheaf of sparks right in the eye. It is not possible to adjust the quality of the wick. It can burn out instantly. Or vice versa, the accelerator will work when the arrow is already stuck in the ground. Add problems with aiming (weight on the boom). The game is not worth the candle.

                And to launch the arrow with the help of such a rocket is nonsense. Fifty meters will not fly.
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 17 November 2015 14: 07 New
                  +1
                  Do not try to spread your own curvature in children's hobbies with firecrackers, to others. Not everyone’s hands grow from jo ...
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 17 November 2015 14: 38 New
                    -1
                    The fact of the matter is that I do not consider myself an idiot. All that the ancient Chinese could do, I can do. And you think in vain about yourself that you are dumber than them.
                    1. abrakadabre
                      abrakadabre 18 November 2015 09: 38 New
                      +1
                      All that the ancient Chinese could do, I can do.
                      Oh oh I doubt it very much. Empty chatter. A seamless forged helmet in gold, silver and enamel can you? What about a finger-sized jade figurine? You have never even, in the discussions of any of the articles, been able to cite intelligible sources from which these or other views were gleaned. Unlike your opponents.
                      Besides the sacred phrase "turn on the brain" for you.

                      You, to prove the idle talk, at least master something simpler, without patterns. For example, a completely unadorned utilitarian helmet, such as that depicted on my profile picture. The work is trifling. I know that. Because he did it.
                      And the ancient Chinese did much more complex things. And they made them thousands.
                      1. Riv
                        Riv 18 November 2015 11: 47 New
                        0
                        Still, you think that the ancient Chinese were smarter than you. Well ... I have to agree. The ancient Chinese, in comparison with you, is a lamp of the mind. But, I’m sorry, I don’t understand one thing: why does a person need such a helmet if he is not threatened with concussion?
                2. marline
                  marline 17 November 2015 16: 08 New
                  0
                  The same can be said of 19th-century rockets:
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 17 November 2015 17: 04 New
                    -1
                    However, there are several nuances. The shells of such missiles were made of sheet steel. Even then, the concept of a “warhead” existed, missiles were equipped with either a powder-based incendiary mixture, or even something more powerful. Yes, trinitrophenol has been known since the 18th century, and in the 19th was already produced in fairly large quantities. Gunpowder was also different. Let's just say this: not of Chinese quality. And finally: the missiles themselves were much larger in caliber than in your previous drawing.
                    Can you imagine how an elephant will react to the launch of such from his back?
                    1. marline
                      marline 17 November 2015 17: 15 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Riv
                      The shells of such missiles were made of sheet steel.

                      Yes, this is of course a significant addition ... but how did it affect rocket flight?
                      Quote: Riv
                      Gunpowder was also different. Let's put it this way: not of Chinese quality.

                      The rocket flew a little further ... given its large mass due to the steel body is not much
                      Quote: Riv
                      And finally: the missiles themselves were much larger in caliber than in your previous drawing.

                      Do you have eyes? In the picture that I quoted, it is clearly visible that the calibers were different, however, like the Chinese.
                      Quote: Riv
                      Can you imagine how an elephant will react to the launch of such from his back?

                      It’s much calmer than from a gun’s shot, but they were also installed on their backs.
                      1. Riv
                        Riv 17 November 2015 17: 40 New
                        +1
                        No, not a little further. The flight range of the rocket, as it were, directly depends on the mass of fuel. Different calibers and flew at different distances. The steel shell will not only affect the flight of the rocket. Without it, "nipaletit".

                        Elephant cannons ... Do you know what the funniest thing is? The fact that you post a photo, but do not think at all about what is depicted on it. Meanwhile, the cannon on the back of the elephant WHEEL. What for??? Trivial: so that the cannon removed from the back of an elephant could be rolled on the ground. Did it get there? The elephant in this case is designed to transport the gun, just. Well, turn on the brain already. If the gun fires, where will the drover fly?
                      2. marline
                        marline 17 November 2015 17: 51 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Riv
                        The flight range of the rocket, as it were, directly depends on the mass of fuel.

                        As if indirectly dependent, teach physics.

                        Quote: Riv
                        Different calibers and flew at different distances.

                        Captain obvious?
                        Quote: Riv
                        The steel shell will not only affect the flight of the rocket. Without it, "nipaletit".

                        Prove it.
                        Quote: Riv
                        Cannons on elephants ... Meanwhile, the cannon on the back of the elephant WHEELS. What for??? Trivial: so that the cannon removed from the back of an elephant could be rolled on the ground. Did it get there? The elephant in this case is designed to transport the gun, just. Well, turn on the brain already. If the gun fires, where will the drover fly?

                        Well, turn on your brain already ... Why, for a cannon or machine gun in case of transportation, also put an artilleryman on an elephant?
                      3. Riv
                        Riv 17 November 2015 17: 58 New
                        0
                        What do you mean why? He wanted to be photographed - so he climbed.
                        Dude, I understand: you want me to provide a good mood for the evening. Thank you, you did it.
                      4. marline
                        marline 17 November 2015 19: 58 New
                        +1
                        Ok You merged again, I understand wink
                      5. Riv
                        Riv 17 November 2015 21: 33 New
                        -1
                        You have nothing more to say? Go bainki. Let you dream of a rocket elephant.
                  2. Chiropractor
                    Chiropractor 17 November 2015 19: 06 New
                    +1
                    the problem of the recoil of the gun on the elephant is not disclosed! smile
                  3. marline
                    marline 17 November 2015 20: 08 New
                    0
                    For small caliber guns it can be neglected smile
                  4. Riv
                    Riv 17 November 2015 21: 36 New
                    -1
                    What is the rollback? What are you talking about? Look at the wheels! And if the elephant begins to wave its ears, it will turn out an eroplan.
                  5. marline
                    marline 17 November 2015 21: 51 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Riv
                    And if the elephant begins to wave its ears, it will turn out an eroplan.

                    You should not watch cartoons about Dumbo at night, especially in the case of your unbalanced psyche laughing
                  6. Riv
                    Riv 18 November 2015 11: 57 New
                    +1
                    Here's what I tell you: flying cows are complete garbage compared to a rocket-propelled elephant with a cannon on its back. And if he still puts on his helmet a helmet from abracadaber, then it will be possible to insert this elephant into the Il-2 simulator as an Indian attack aircraft model.
                    Do you agree with the radio operator?
                  7. marline
                    marline 18 November 2015 12: 38 New
                    -1
                    Tell Riv, and who do you work with? Case is not a technologist or representative of the Quality Department?
                    In my opinion, only people who have crooked hands and overestimated ChSV are taken there as a specialist ... Although there is no opener you cannot be - with your carelessness, you would be kicked out in a week, and in a month you would be sent to court ...
                    So - technologist. Guessed?
                  8. Riv
                    Riv 18 November 2015 18: 38 New
                    0
                    Have you read my previous posts? What a fellow you are! I love it when they read me.
                    Is there anything else on the topic of rocket elephants? Well, if not, it’s time for you to fame. Tomorrow is Thursday. Your school has a control. :)
                  9. marline
                    marline 18 November 2015 21: 19 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Riv
                    Have you read my previous posts?

                    Too much honor ...
                    As for the rest, I will answer with a phrase from my favorite movie:
                    - Peter, tell me what distinguishes a donkey?
                    - ears
                    - This is donkey reasoning.
                    I'm tired of reading your reasoning, if you do not understand, see below
                  10. Riv
                    Riv 19 November 2015 09: 49 New
                    0
                    Petrosyan again? The people did not appreciate.
                  11. The comment was deleted.
          2. Riv
            Riv 18 November 2015 11: 57 New
            0
            Here's what I tell you: flying cows are complete garbage compared to a rocket-propelled elephant with a cannon on its back. And if he still puts on his helmet a helmet from abracadaber, then it will be possible to insert this elephant into the Il-2 simulator as an Indian attack aircraft model.
            Do you agree with the radio operator?
  • War and Peace
    War and Peace 17 November 2015 14: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: merlin
    Here is the Chinese image of the launcher, at 300-400 m. It completely penetrated, but they didn’t need more.


    from Schweik- "the battle patterns of the cadet Bigler were terribly primitive and resembled a football field with arrows, but below the diagrams it was listed, compiled by the historian historian Imperial Royal Officer Adolf Bigle" laughing
  • marline
    marline 17 November 2015 13: 05 New
    0
    I don’t really like Amer’s program Varior, devoted to other wars (there are a lot of mistakes), but nevertheless, in one of the programs the Americans collected and tested a Chinese launcher at 400m, it’s completely nothing, it’s no worse than a volley of English long bows, on the contrary, because archers have to be taught since childhood.
    Draw conclusions, if any.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 17 November 2015 13: 09 New
      0
      I agree. And about missiles, and about this program ...
    2. Riv
      Riv 17 November 2015 14: 40 New
      0
      So what? Did she launch rockets?
      1. marline
        marline 17 November 2015 15: 58 New
        0
        Yes, she did launch rockets ... wink
        Google and admit that your hands from ... grow.
        1. Riv
          Riv 17 November 2015 16: 43 New
          0
          Googling for the sake of interest. Have not found. This film is definitely not shown to you alone?
          1. marline
            marline 17 November 2015 17: 07 New
            -2
            http://dokonlin.ru/video/nepobedimyi-voin-deadliest-warrior-s02e1-13-30.html
            from 16:00 ... You are also not able to use the Internet ...
            Did Mock atrophy?
            1. Riv
              Riv 17 November 2015 17: 56 New
              0
              You have some kind of childish expression. I will try to express myself in the same way.

              Dude, are you from Ukraine, by any chance? Not? You are somehow very gullible. You were shown a show. Spectacle. And you seduced. An arrow of three hundred meters was fired from a pipe, you rejoice. But from smoke powder, the exhaust does not look like that at all. They beat a smokeless tube. And the tube is not bamboo, I guarantee. And this Chinese shooter - well, improvised rockets don’t fly like that. The devil knows that they stuffed it there, but I insistently ask you, dude: do not try to repeat it. Pity your eyes.
            2. marline
              marline 17 November 2015 19: 59 New
              -1
              The drain is counted again wink
            3. Riv
              Riv 17 November 2015 21: 34 New
              0
              And in my opinion the people just counted you. Go sleep already. Tomorrow to school.
            4. marline
              marline 17 November 2015 21: 40 New
              -2
              Quote: Riv
              And in my opinion the people just counted you.

              This is you about those advantages that your friends have set for you - Fomenoid hamsters ...
              PRIDE THIS !!!
              You can print and hang a frame in the toilet
            5. Riv
              Riv 18 November 2015 15: 04 New
              0
              I already have a pearl hanging about detonating gunpowder.
              But it seems your petrosianism is not appreciated again?
  • kalibr
    17 November 2015 21: 36 New
    0
    Kazimierz Semenovich. Here was my material about him, everything is detailed there.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 17 November 2015 12: 37 New
    -1
    Less to you for such rude ignorance of the history of the issue.
  • marinier
    marinier 17 November 2015 10: 03 New
    +2
    Good time of the day!
    Thank you very much. Author, I received some non-personal satisfaction. Thought spent
    association with modernity. The triad of elephants resembles armored 4 arms,
    modernity. And the arrows and warriors placed on the backs of elephants accompanied
    elephants in battle, the armor of the grenadiers. In the fourth installment, IA is not the ultimate truth.
    With respect! And once again sincerely to the blogger!
    1. kalibr
      17 November 2015 10: 30 New
      +1
      Thanks Anthony!
  • Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 17 November 2015 10: 23 New
    +3
    Whoever, but I liked the material.
    Especially the last picture, with a soldier cut in half.
    It’s very vital and reliable, such a look is interested in the main cutter - where is it, Nightmare on Elm Street - it turns out primitive.
    .
    But in general, but in general - really exotic. War elephants with ancient Solnecks on their backs, chakras that need to be twisted on the index finger (damn it, well, they couldn’t get rid of magicians), multi-beam swords with clearly disturbed balance, crooked dagger knives (to more difficultly torture the dead, like someone said).
    Of all this, only the masterful work and decoration impressed. Possession of the material is commendable.
    .
    And what is the result?
    An ordinary, motivated army with standard weapons, without any hops and exotics, gained, as a rule, a victory.
    The lesson is “you wouldn’t chase, pop, for exotism” (alteration from Pushkin).
    .
    Thank you, Vyacheslav.
    It was interesting to read.
    1. marline
      marline 17 November 2015 11: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Whoever, but I liked the material.
      Thank you, Vyacheslav.
      It was interesting to read.

      Join us!
      And about the exotic ... Hindus in those days were famous for their solitary fighters, but the army, as a rule, was not very good with them.
      As for the elephants, it was a very serious force in the skillful hands of Hannibal or Pyrrhus, although the article may give the feeling that the army with elephants will surely merge.
  • Glot
    Glot 17 November 2015 10: 29 New
    +2
    Rocket elephants or not laughing but in the battlefields of ancient battles it was power.
    Under the Gidasp, the local king of Por almost put to flight the Alexander’s army with his elephants. And then they were afraid to go on the same way because of the elephants. Since they not only wandered off and didn’t reach the “ends of the earth” as they wanted, they decided (and correctly) that other armies with even more elephants were waiting for them ahead. And turned back to Persia.
    True, later we learned that they are not afraid of elephants and successfully resist them, but in the beginning, elephants were strength.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 17 November 2015 11: 05 New
      0
      In most descriptions of battles where elephants were involved ... they showed low efficiency and this "almost ..." is constantly found. The main part of victories is the first collision when the enemy simply never saw an elephant at all.
      Unfortunately for the then military, despite the incredible strength and potential, the elephants did not become a superweapon. And more often, those who panicked crushed their own ranks than the enemy.
      The objective costs of excessive intelligence and psychology of this animal.
      You can of course blame the same Wikipedia for inaccuracies in a particular issue, but the article on the ambiguity of fighting elephants there is very, very justified. Those interested can familiarize themselves.
      1. Glot
        Glot 17 November 2015 14: 06 New
        +1
        In most descriptions of battles where elephants were involved ... they showed low efficiency and this "almost ..." is constantly found. The main part of victories is the first collision when the enemy simply never saw an elephant at all.


        I agree that if the army was trained, disciplined and had good experience, then the attack by the elephants did not bring success. And that the elephants "deafening" acted only on those who first saw them, is also true.
        But still they fought with them. So the effect was.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 17 November 2015 14: 12 New
          0
          It was. But not as much as one would expect if elephants were as manageable as horses. It required a very competent interaction of elephants and their own infantry. And at the then level of discipline of the troops, this was a problem. Especially during the battle.
          1. Glot
            Glot 17 November 2015 14: 41 New
            +1
            It was. But not as much as one would expect if elephants were as manageable as horses. It required a very competent interaction of elephants and their own infantry. And at the then level of discipline of the troops, this was a problem. Especially during the battle.


            No, with discipline, many were fine.
            You can at least offhand recall the episode of the invasion of Antiochus III in Bactria.
            When the ferry across the Arius River began at night, to bring down and overturn the crossing, Eutidem sent 10 horsemen.
            In general, about 500 foot soldiers of Antiochus came ashore, but, it was his guard, so to speak - trained and hardened. These five hundred, only due to their training, coherence and preparation, repelled the attack after the attack of the ten thousandth cavalry, until the main part of the army crossed and drove the horsemen to the very Bactra.
            Here is just a striking indicator when a well-coordinated and disciplined minority successfully confronts a large but not disciplined and unassembled unit. Since these 10 were beaten without any tactics, but simply with lava.
            But it is clear that it is difficult to link a large mass of infantry, cavalry, and even elephants into a clear command.
            1. parusnik
              parusnik 17 November 2015 15: 25 New
              +2
              The Battle of Rafia, which was attended by Asian and African elephants, took place in 218 BC. e. between the forces of Antiochus III the Great and Ptolemy IV Philopator during the Fourth Syrian War for the possession of Celesiria. Polybius indicates that Ptolemy had about 70 thousand infantry, 5 thousand cavalry, 73 elephants, and the army of Antioch was approximately equal in number and numbered 62 thousand infantry, 6 thousand cavalry and 103 elephants. The battle began with a battle of elephants on the front line of the army in which the Indian elephants of Antiochus defeated the Libyan (African) elephants of Ptolemy on the right wing of the army. In the continuation of the battle on the same wing, the Greek mercenaries of Antiochus defeated the Ptolemy Peltasts, who were crushed by their own elephants. On the left flank, Greek mercenaries and Egyptian cavalry fled the Syrian army infantry. Then the Egyptian phalanx overturned the Syrian phalanx and the Egyptian cavalry completed the rout of the retreating Syrians. Antiochus lost about 10 thousand infantry and more than 300 cavalry killed, 4 thousand prisoners. Ptolemy lost 1,5 thousand infantry and up to 700 cavalry.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • 0255
    0255 17 November 2015 10: 42 New
    +1
    I can imagine what it was like to see such a beast on the battlefield ...
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 17 November 2015 11: 20 New
      +3
      A huge and, in principle, a very peaceful animal (with the exception of males during the musa period). It’s the same as forcing an exceptional educated intellectual, albeit one who is endowed with powerful heroes, to go on the attack. To really bring it to the brutality, we must try. Otherwise, he will simply score on the surrounding disgrace.
      With a general, rather low efficiency in battle, cases of even even heroic behavior of elephants in battle were recorded in history. For example, I don’t remember in what battle when I saw that his friend, the driver, was either wounded or killed, the elephant became furious and built a big arctic fox in the ranks of the enemy, not paying attention to his own injuries. Also recorded are cases when elephants showed stamina and the desire to actively fight when their leader is wounded, protecting him. That is, an elephant whom they themselves (and not people) considered a leader. This is all a manifestation of the normal instincts of the elephant herd, where absolute mutual assistance and warm friendship reign.
      But these examples are not numerous. More often, it was not so rosy for the party that owned the elephants. Typically, elephants could be strong only in the first brief onslaught, after which, if the enemy resisted, then the elephants preferred not to rush to be heroes.
      Horses in this sense are more obedient and controllable.
      1. Riv
        Riv 17 November 2015 14: 26 New
        +2
        In fact, nobody ever threw elephants into the infantry system. In India, the tactics of their combat employment came down to the fact that the line of elephants in the first line launched an attack on the enemy. Archers from the backs of elephants dispersed the light infantry of the enemy. They didn’t bring the elephant close to the enemy, but infantrymen, “guardians of the feet,” advanced forward. They started melee, meanwhile arrows on close elephants continue to shoot. Their armor can withstand the return fire. Then the elephants chase the fleeing. So did Pyrrhus and Hanniball. In such a battle, everything depended on the stamina of the infantry.

        Sultan Lodi lost the battle to Babur, just relying on the "classic" tactics. The first puncture came out when it turned out that the Turkic bow was almost twice as long as the Indian one. The front of the advancing Indians was upset. The infantry was mixed. The elephants moved forward, their shelling from the bows was not so terrible. And then a second puncture happened: Babur also had guns. The Sultan was demolished with an buckshot and Babur founded the Mughal dynasty.

        There was another use for elephants. The most trivial: transport. The elephant drags a lot, off-road and even rushing through the jungle, like an all-terrain vehicle. It feeds on greens. That is how they lasted until the 20th century. No romance.
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 17 November 2015 12: 29 New
    +1
    Elephants --- wonderful animals! Power! Beauty! Wisdom! Greatness! I join the authors of the comments respectful to Elephants. Elephants --- in miniatures, on weapons, statues and reliefs in temples!
    According to legend, Queen Mahamaia, before the birth of the Buddha, dreamed of a White Elephant --- such an omen. According to legend, the Buddha was repeatedly embodied in a white elephant. If you wanted to portray Buddha, often portrayed a White Elephant. The Vedas list the names of 8 elephants supposedly carrying Earth, and the cardinal points along which They stand!
  • Balagan
    Balagan 17 November 2015 19: 28 New
    0
    Elephantheria was a very interesting military branch. It is clear that India gave life to the combat use of elephants, but Alexander the Great, and later the Seleucids and Ptolemaic Egypt made elephantiery, perhaps the most legendary, though not the most effective military force.
  • Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 19 November 2015 21: 31 New
    +1
    Such an interesting discussion! from elephants through rockets to battles of antiquity! But the post is on elephants!
    Quote: anodonta
    "The quality of Indian damask steel was so great that another warrior was already cut in half, and was still reaching for a saber!"

    Ohhh, well, there’s nothing to talk about ... The helmet was probably from a dried mud?!? In general, when Indian (or Pon) damask steel begin to be compared with the laser swords from Star Wars ...


    And so in general I’ll say a simple thing: when long-range composite bows and steel arrowheads appeared, and when horse breeding developed, and stirrups and horseshoes appeared, then the elephants came to an end, because the most effective weapon against them is the horse archer (shoots from afar and the elephant cannot catch him). By the way, this is exactly how the Mongols of Chingiz and Khubilai dealt with the Rajah armies in Hindustan and Burma ...
  • Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 20 November 2015 20: 16 New
    +1
    Quote: anodonta
    But further in ancient history we no longer find such impressive victories of the cavalry.
    Yah ?

    Quote: anodonta
    And the last battle of antiquity in which the cavalry covered itself with indelible disgrace is the battle of Tigranokert.

    There were UNFILTERED cataphracts, and apparently cataphract archers, whom the legionnaires attacked on the mountainous terrain.

    Yes, and there is still such a battle under Carrah, Harran neosnim, on the land of long-suffering Syria. There are 8-10 thousand simple horsemen only, and among them few cataphracts (though Parthian, not Armenian) destroyed 40 thousand Romans during the heyday of the empire, if it’s rude. And then this was done more than once - and the emperors in the East were captured from attacks by Parthian and Persian Lancers and cataphracts, and even died from armored cavalry (the same Adrianople and Gothic-Sarmatian cavalry).


    Quote: anodonta
    elephants of the Hellenistic era cannot be considered ineffective.
    But what happened in Antiquity - it quickly passed, as I said after a sharp qualitative leap in the Early Middle Ages in terms of cavalry and bows. And the elephants remained generally somewhere in India, nothing more. And although they were used by the British in the 19th century, they were no more than a good draft means for transporting the same artillery through the jungle.