>What if the Potsam Giants where never disbanded
they would have remained a ceremonial unit basically incapable of combat due to horrific congenital conditions which would likely exacerbate over time as the recruitment pool dwindles
Imagine these guys in the tremches each armed with a Tankgewehr
To answer your question, OP, they'd probably be issued special oversized weapons and gear; heavy body armor, MG08/15's, anti-tank rifles. Basically spacemarines of the western front. Who knows, they might have even been deployed from zeppelins in rudimentary drop pods.
>they would have remained a ceremonial unit
Probably.
>incapable of combat due to horrific congenital conditions which would likely exacerbate over time
You realize that tall people occur naturally, right?
replying to myself because i cba
just noticed this thread is still seething at me, idc. i'm 6'. i'm also not part of a population with an average height of 5' 5" so i don't see how it matters. that the potsdam giants had a lot of disease and poor readiness is just a fact. this is nothing personal to lanklets so please cool your jets, you have a reduced lifespan without getting high blood pressure over the internet
ps 6' to 6' 2" is optimal in my opinion, 6' 3" and over you are deformed, 5' 9" and under you exist for the cock, 5' 10 - 5' 11" well that's just a disappointment to everyone. this however is an opinion about the modern world. it cannot be projected onto malnourished peasants or imbred nobility.
There wouldn't be a reason for them to be tall anymore. Grenadiers were chosen amongst the tallest because they had to throw grenades the farthest. Nobody needed that in ww1
>Get in trench, get shot because too tall >Crawl everywhere to avoid getting shot at, everybody is angry at you for being slow and getting stuck all the time >Get sick because you're crawling through mud on your hands and knees every day >Completely useless in trench warfare because you have to hold your rifle in your hands and squat-walking your way through trenches is extremely slow and is exploding your knees. >Fuck this infantry shit! Get in a tank/IFV >You can't, too tall. >Become a REMF >Finally, you can contribute!
Modern war just isn't built for people who deviate too far from the norms.
The king, in addition to collecting tall soldiers, liked to play matchmaker and recommend them tall brides, so they'd have tall kids. A little weird but I can get behind this.
Eugenics should have been more popular back then when there were no moral preoccupations about the subject. Imagine just breeding an entire town of tall men and women, make it some sort of national symbol, giving anyone above 6"3 immediate citizenship. How far would we go?
You're telling me that even in the day where monarchs had absolute power not a single one was slightly interested in genetics and tried to experiment on his people?
>You're telling me that even in the day where monarchs had absolute power not a single one was slightly interested in genetics and tried to experiment on his people?
Yes.
>Eugenics should have been more popular back then when there were no moral preoccupations about the subject.
Ironically, the reason nobody gave a shit about eugenics back then was because people were more in touch with nature and recognised that humans are the size that they are for a reason.
In species like ours, where males compete to mate with females, what happens is that the female tends to be the "right size" for the environment and the male ends up being just a little bit too big, because the competitive pressure for mating pushes up size to win fights until it butts up against the limit imposed by the environment. This is part of the reason why men die earlier than women - our bodies are a bit overclocked.
Anyway, the point is that in the absence of industrialisation and specialisation it's just not practical to have a town of giants because if that actually conferred an advantage we would all be giants. And then in the era of industrialisation and specialisation if you're not big enough you just build a big machine.
An enormous sexual premium is placed on height because it confers such a significant physical advantage in human vs human fights (i.e. bigger men can better protect their women from other men, which is the primary risk to women) but this enormous sexual premium is out of all proportion to the actual importance of height. Height confers a relatively small advantage, but in a very competitive and important area.
>it's just not practical to have a town of giants because if that actually conferred an advantage we would all be giants
What I mean by this is
1 big man vs 1 small man = big man has the advantage
100 big men vs 100 small men = organisation, tactics, equipment, leadership, morale etc. etc. are so much more important than raw physique that the height confers effectively no advantage, and certainly far less of an advantage than having a short man who is a good leader or good engineer or whatever on your team.
That's why a tall man has an advantage but a tall tribe does not, which is why there were no tall villages. Or, to put it another way, we're ALL living in tall villages - that's why humans are 5'9" instead of 4'2" on average. We're already as tall as it's practical to be in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
Tall soldiers hadn't had an advantage over small or medium sized ones since ca. 1500 (advent of pike and shot). The Potsdam Giants were fetishism, that's all.
skinny manlets are superior for modern combat >can operate any vehicle, comfortably >can live in a bakhmut outskirts foxhole, comfortably >can live in the Aleppo ruins, comfortably >harder to detect >harder to detect by a drone >standard issue rifles are short and ergonomic >armor plate covers most of your torso >government uses less money for your uniform
also, forgot to mention that a manlet needs way less food, which is important both for personal survival and military logistics.
i think militaries should stop accepting people over 5'8
are we back?
>What if the Potsam Giants where never disbanded
they would have remained a ceremonial unit basically incapable of combat due to horrific congenital conditions which would likely exacerbate over time as the recruitment pool dwindles
>[seething manlet noises]
Poor little fella.
To answer your question, OP, they'd probably be issued special oversized weapons and gear; heavy body armor, MG08/15's, anti-tank rifles. Basically spacemarines of the western front. Who knows, they might have even been deployed from zeppelins in rudimentary drop pods.
>dead at 62, alive at 76, dead at 47
yeah.
>dead at 18, dead at 20, dead at 16, dead at 29, dead at 30, dead at 18, dead at 19, dead at 21
take a guess what we're talking about.
The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long
>For the Emprah--Uh I mean.. For the Kaiser!
Someone send this to PrepHole
this seems like a terrible idea, but another part of me thinks it might actually save you
>being over 6'2"
>leading to "horrific congential conditions"
How tiny?
>they would have remained a ceremonial unit
They've always been a ceremonial unit made to treat 5'3 king's complex
>manlet cope
Manlets are the best killers Anon.
>Romans
>Audie Murphy
>Simo Hayha
>Ball turret gunners
>Armor crews
Even manlets get the squad MG duty because they are low to the ground and less joint stress from carrying the pig.
Post height
t. GNOME
>they would have remained a ceremonial unit
Probably.
>incapable of combat due to horrific congenital conditions which would likely exacerbate over time
You realize that tall people occur naturally, right?
replying to myself because i cba
just noticed this thread is still seething at me, idc. i'm 6'. i'm also not part of a population with an average height of 5' 5" so i don't see how it matters. that the potsdam giants had a lot of disease and poor readiness is just a fact. this is nothing personal to lanklets so please cool your jets, you have a reduced lifespan without getting high blood pressure over the internet
ps 6' to 6' 2" is optimal in my opinion, 6' 3" and over you are deformed, 5' 9" and under you exist for the cock, 5' 10 - 5' 11" well that's just a disappointment to everyone. this however is an opinion about the modern world. it cannot be projected onto malnourished peasants or imbred nobility.
>5' 9" and under you exist for the cock
Uh...
There wouldn't be a reason for them to be tall anymore. Grenadiers were chosen amongst the tallest because they had to throw grenades the farthest. Nobody needed that in ww1
>Nobody threw grenades in ww1
Trench catapults could throw further.
Reminds me of Randel Oland from Pumpkin Scissors.
>Get in trench, get shot because too tall
>Crawl everywhere to avoid getting shot at, everybody is angry at you for being slow and getting stuck all the time
>Get sick because you're crawling through mud on your hands and knees every day
>Completely useless in trench warfare because you have to hold your rifle in your hands and squat-walking your way through trenches is extremely slow and is exploding your knees.
>Fuck this infantry shit! Get in a tank/IFV
>You can't, too tall.
>Become a REMF
>Finally, you can contribute!
Modern war just isn't built for people who deviate too far from the norms.
tall women on bottom left!?
DEATH BY SNU SNU
ywn defend against a bayonet charge of 6'6" infantry women
The king, in addition to collecting tall soldiers, liked to play matchmaker and recommend them tall brides, so they'd have tall kids. A little weird but I can get behind this.
If you're not strict about race, you could recruit from NBA rejects
Eugenics should have been more popular back then when there were no moral preoccupations about the subject. Imagine just breeding an entire town of tall men and women, make it some sort of national symbol, giving anyone above 6"3 immediate citizenship. How far would we go?
You're telling me that even in the day where monarchs had absolute power not a single one was slightly interested in genetics and tried to experiment on his people?
>You're telling me that even in the day where monarchs had absolute power not a single one was slightly interested in genetics and tried to experiment on his people?
Yes.
But that's exactly what was tried with the Giants
>Eugenics should have been more popular back then when there were no moral preoccupations about the subject.
Ironically, the reason nobody gave a shit about eugenics back then was because people were more in touch with nature and recognised that humans are the size that they are for a reason.
In species like ours, where males compete to mate with females, what happens is that the female tends to be the "right size" for the environment and the male ends up being just a little bit too big, because the competitive pressure for mating pushes up size to win fights until it butts up against the limit imposed by the environment. This is part of the reason why men die earlier than women - our bodies are a bit overclocked.
Anyway, the point is that in the absence of industrialisation and specialisation it's just not practical to have a town of giants because if that actually conferred an advantage we would all be giants. And then in the era of industrialisation and specialisation if you're not big enough you just build a big machine.
An enormous sexual premium is placed on height because it confers such a significant physical advantage in human vs human fights (i.e. bigger men can better protect their women from other men, which is the primary risk to women) but this enormous sexual premium is out of all proportion to the actual importance of height. Height confers a relatively small advantage, but in a very competitive and important area.
>it's just not practical to have a town of giants because if that actually conferred an advantage we would all be giants
What I mean by this is
1 big man vs 1 small man = big man has the advantage
100 big men vs 100 small men = organisation, tactics, equipment, leadership, morale etc. etc. are so much more important than raw physique that the height confers effectively no advantage, and certainly far less of an advantage than having a short man who is a good leader or good engineer or whatever on your team.
That's why a tall man has an advantage but a tall tribe does not, which is why there were no tall villages. Or, to put it another way, we're ALL living in tall villages - that's why humans are 5'9" instead of 4'2" on average. We're already as tall as it's practical to be in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
Looks like /fit9k/ is leaking again. Should just make a general at this point.
>t. coping 5'11 127/128"
Am I doing it right?
I feel they'd be of more practical use manning an artillery unit where their size and strength would be of advantage.
Partially why I mentioned the use of the Tankgewehr M1918 by a 'Gaint' (2 man crew otherwise)
>The most beautiful girl or woman in the world would be a matter of indifference to me, but tall soldiers—they are my weakness.
Uhuh,
Tall soldiers hadn't had an advantage over small or medium sized ones since ca. 1500 (advent of pike and shot). The Potsdam Giants were fetishism, that's all.
skinny manlets are superior for modern combat
>can operate any vehicle, comfortably
>can live in a bakhmut outskirts foxhole, comfortably
>can live in the Aleppo ruins, comfortably
>harder to detect
>harder to detect by a drone
>standard issue rifles are short and ergonomic
>armor plate covers most of your torso
>government uses less money for your uniform
also, forgot to mention that a manlet needs way less food, which is important both for personal survival and military logistics.
i think militaries should stop accepting people over 5'8
>a bunch of men with crippling back problems that cant fit in any vehicle