Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XX

[Vitruviansquid]

Had an idea for if they discovered gunpowder in the early bronze age. Anyone have much ideas for what that would be like?

My thoughts were grenades, for starters. I wasn't sure if the metallurgy would be good enough to get the real bronze cannons from later. If it was, you can have some cannon. You could make some fire lances out of bamboo or wood or something. Or maybe even some bronze ones. Not sure if you'll get many uses out of an early bronze gun, except maybe with a heavy barrel and small charge and calibre bullet.

Besides these things, not sure what you would do with gunpowder. You can say, pile it underneath a castle wall while sapping, or use it to blow up stuff like supplies the enemy might've captured.

Even if you just took the existence of grenades, there would be far-reaching effects for how war is conducted by a bronze age army.

[Mr. Mask]

Yeah, I'm not sure how much the original grenadiers effects warfare, but it ought to make a difference. Castle walls would be well stocked with them, a step up from jars of oil.

[eru001]

Also I can imagine them being highly effective at disrupting an enemy's phalanx.

[JustSomeGuy]

Ah, OK, thanks.

I have another question, which, however, has more to do with war history. Has sending trainers to an ally ever had a meaningful effect in achieving its target? I currently can't think of a time in which it worked out well.

Off the top of my head, this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daulat_Scindia (he was the leader of the maharatha confederate armies of india in their wars with the british armyand east india company army) was supplied with several french officers as advisors and trainers, and he also 'bought out' any deserting enemy officers to bolster, lead and control his own native battalions. Of course he lost so their value may be argued, but he was a significant thorn at the least, given i think it took 3 wars to put the issue to bed.

[Mr. Mask]

Also I can imagine them being highly effective at disrupting an enemy's phalanx.

Yeah, you would think so. The odd thing is, massed formations seemed to stick around a while even with grenadiers. Of course, by that point combat ranges will've gone up a lot with bows and crossbows, and guns were getting better and more common. Ranged weapons may, at least, need to get more common in formations, so you can try to shoot a grenadiers and cause his units to get blown up instead of you.

[Carl]

Note that all of the above is for armies - individuals and small groups could move much faster.

About individuals. How fast could 3 individuals move over rolling grassland, (unoccupied), assuming one horse per person. You can assume very good horses and two of them are in the 14 or so range so probably lighter loads than a full adult.

[VoxRationis]

As you've surmised, it depends very much on the terrain (good roads especially), size of the force, how they're being supplied and how forced the march is. The general rule of thumb is 15-18 miles a day, but less disciplined armies could only manage 5-10 miles a day.

According to Vegetius, a fully fledged Roman legionary was expected to march 24 Roman miles (~22 modern miles) in 5 summer hours (between 6.25 and 5 hours depending on the time of year) while carrying ~45lbs worth of equipment. This also includes breaking and setting up of a fortified camp at the beginning and end of each day.
Various campaign journals report Roman armies performing such prolonged forced marches out-pacing their baggage trains (who also picked up the inevitable injured and stragglers), subsisting from various settlements they passed when possible.

During the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart marched his army intentionally by the coast so that they could be re-supplied daily by sea. Values vary as to his progress, but I remember reading 20 miles a day as a midpoint number.

The Mongols with their almost exclusively cavalry armies managed 40-60 miles daily (during the Hungarian campaign, they are reputed to have managed 100 miles a day). Note that each soldier had 3-4 horses each and unlike the infantry based armies above, this meant a massive amount of fodder/grazing land required.

Note that all of the above is for armies - individuals and small groups could move much faster.

How much faster? If you've got a pony express kind of setup, I can see that going quite quickly, but what if you don't have that kind of infrastructure? What if you just have roads and have to travel along them?

[rrgg]

This isn't really relevant to any discussion but I found it interesting. It's a passage from Humfrey Barwick illustrating the effectiveness of early firearms at providing suppressing fire all the way back in the 16th century.

Also on the very first day of the siege of Bouvigne-sur-Meuse; when the Spanish sallied forth to reinforce their skirmishers, the French gunmen counter-attacked and stuck so close to the retreating Spaniards that they reached the walls of the city. There the French gunmen stayed, and without trench, basket, or gabions remained there from eight in the morning to four in the afternoon. During this time there was no one within the city, whether soldier or townsman, who dared to look over the walls. And so the sappers and pioneers were able to place their ordinance without needing any further defence than the gunmen at the foot of the walls.

I've always wondered if part of the reason military commanders preferred to have musket armed troops line up in the open up until the advent of breech loading rifles was psychological. If troops are exposed they would be more focused on loading and firing their weapon as fast as possible, while soldiers behind cover might be more inclined to keep their heads down instead of actually fighting.

[Gnoman]

I've always wondered if part of the reason military commanders preferred to have musket armed troops line up in the open up until the advent of breech loading rifles was psychological. If troops are exposed they would be more focused on loading and firing their weapon as fast as possible, while soldiers behind cover might be more inclined to keep their heads down instead of actually fighting.

Military commanders put their musketeers behind cover when they could, but this was rarely possible. As a musket is all but impossible to load from any position except standing straight up you either need a wall that's at least four to five feet tall or a wall with lower ground (a trench or hill, for example) to have the cover do you any good whatsoever. Any barrier shorter than this won't stop bullets (the entire point of the exercise) at all, and makes it harder for you to advance if the tactical situation requires it. Open field linear tactics were the main focus of the musket age because that's the best way for an army to use muskets, period.

[fusilier]

I've always wondered if part of the reason military commanders preferred to have musket armed troops line up in the open up until the advent of breech loading rifles was psychological. If troops are exposed they would be more focused on loading and firing their weapon as fast as possible, while soldiers behind cover might be more inclined to keep their heads down instead of actually fighting.

The first thing to remember is that the linear tactics worked. Skirmishers (light infantry) existed and were often considered to be an important part of fighting. They were encouraged to take cover and to practice loading and firing their muskets in a variety of positions (standing, kneeling, lying down, sitting). But, outside of very rare circumstances, skirmishers couldn't defeat infantry formed in close formations, standing in the open.

Concentrated fire was basically the key to tactical victory: if you allowed your troops to take cover they would have to spread out a bit, which both reduces the concentration of fire, and put a greater burden on command and control. The exception would be something like a fortress wall or breastwork where the troops would have very good cover, and be able to fire and load in close ranks. Such fortifications were used, but they were only useful in the defense, and only if they had been prepared ahead of time.

[Brother Oni]

About individuals. How fast could 3 individuals move over rolling grassland, (unoccupied), assuming one horse per person. You can assume very good horses and two of them are in the 14 or so range so probably lighter loads than a full adult.

How much faster? If you've got a pony express kind of setup, I can see that going quite quickly, but what if you don't have that kind of infrastructure? What if you just have roads and have to travel along them?

Depends on how many horses they have with them and how willing you are to ride them to injury or death.

Endurance riding is an event these days and pushing your horse hard, you can clear over 100 miles in day (for example, the Telvis Cup is 100 miles over rough terrain, with the typical first place finish in just under 14 hours), but the horse would need a long rest afterwards. Nursing your horse (ie alternately riding and walking yourself) would net you less than that - typical relaxed travelling (trotting at 8-10 mph) for an hour or two riding with an equal rest period on a single horse, you could probably expect 50-60 miles a day with good roads, although 20-30 miles a day would be considered a good day's travel.
While you can travel at a faster gait, anything faster than a trot is also tiring on the rider as anybody who's ridden a horse will testify to.

You have to bear in mind how adapted humans are to endurance running - very few things can keep up with us over long distances. For a small group of travellers on foot, it's however long and hard they want to walk for - rule of thumb is 4 mph on level ground and ~2/3 for rough ground or uphill. During the Falklands conflict, Royal Marines and Paras tabbed around 56 miles in 3 days carrying full gear (80lbs).

While these values for individuals and small groups seem low in comparison to the Romans and Mongols, you have to remember that these were regarded as the elite (the Mongols had manoeuvrability that wasn't matched until the introduction of mechanised infantry) and should be compared against the more typical 15-18 miles a day.
For the average rider, you have to remember that they typically didn't have the discipline or endurance of soldiers - the two 14 year olds would generally find such prolonged forced travelling very tiring.

[Carl]

For the average rider, you have to remember that they typically didn't have the discipline or endurance of soldiers - the two 14 year olds would generally find such prolonged forced travelling very tiring.

Thats a given but they're running from major badness so it's not quite as important as it might sound. They're only going to be moving for a day at a time between recharges for the handmaiden accompanying them and with her magic they can move for a couple of days at full gallop without tiring the horses or riders or needing to stop to eat or sleep. I just wanted a ballpark for the day or so they'd need without her each time for her to recharge her power.

[Brother Oni]

Thats a given but they're running from major badness so it's not quite as important as it might sound. They're only going to be moving for a day at a time between recharges for the handmaiden accompanying them and with her magic they can move for a couple of days at full gallop without tiring the horses or riders or needing to stop to eat or sleep. I just wanted a ballpark for the day or so they'd need without her each time for her to recharge her power.

For the handmaiden's 'on' days, the speeds achieved by the Pony Express mentioned by VoxRationis would be a good ballpark: they managed the 1900 mile journey from St Joseph Missouri to Sacramento California in 10 days, so about 190 miles a day on average. If you're treating the horses like aircraft (no need to worry about throwing a shoe, terrain hazards like tripping into a rabbit hole and getting injured or going lame, etc), then anywhere between 480 - 720 miles in a day (galloping gait is between 20-30 mph, multiplied by 24 hours).

On her 'off' days, 20-30 miles a day would be better; it depends on how much resting she needs to recharge - does she need actual proper bed rest or can she get away with light duties?

Edit: While running away from the enemy is the greater concern, tired riders are still a bad thing as it only takes a moment's inattention to fall off the horse, with potentially fatal results. Being able to sleep in the saddle safely was a learned skill despite the human innate hypnic jerk (supposedly a leftover instinct from our arboreal days).

[Carl]

Rest just means time spent not casting, even fairly heavy duties wouldn't interfere with that casting isn't a fatiguing action beyond whatever physical exertion is involved, (so one projecting a shield over a city is going to feel the effects of hunger, dehydration and lack of sleep plus the simple strain of standing in place if those aren't dealt with normally or via magic, this is actually what handmaidens are for, to see to those basic needs magically during an attack on a city, in this case said ruler only had one handmaiden at this point for various reasons). As far as speed during "on" days. Basically the only limits are the terrain and/or the horse's physical maximum "burst" speed, whichever is lower, (probably terrain limit), as the magic effectively eliminates exhaustion or normal aerobic limitations. In effect subject to adequately good ground it can maintain racehorse, (or as close as a horse breed not bred specifically for racing anyway can come), speeds for as long as the magic lasts.

The more powerful types can use a similar effect to push plant growth to extreme levels by allowing their plants to grow at the limits of the physical instead of at the limits of available sunlight and nutrients. I'd have to dig into specifics a bit more but based on some literature i've read that should allow a full years worth of crops for a given area of land to be grown in a matter of a week or two and without nutrient depleting the soil.

It's even possibble they can go beyond normal metabolic limits, it's probably inherent in most forms of healing magic, but i don't want to push it that far for horse drawn transport, (mass transport is another matter, but again that tends to require a lot of high power types. Like the building of the capital 10,000 years previously did. The outer walls alone required the mining and transport of 15 trillion tons of granite The central spire is probably as much again. It spawned 3 entire new cities over the next few thousand years as the towns frokm the mining in the artificial valleys created in 3 mountain ranges by the mining grew into cities in their own right.

[Incanur]

Note that using gunners in conjunction with cover, specifically fortifications of various kinds, was extremely common in 16th-century Central/Western Europe. That's exactly what Humphrey Barwick was talking about. Particularly in the late 16th century in places like the Low Countries, defending entrenched positions was so important. That's one of the reasons why English bows seemed so poor in that context. Guns have a lot of advantages for assaulting and defending fortifications, especially when many troops wore armor or at least helmets. Sir Roger Williams specifically complained that archers had to discover themselves to shoot, that they couldn't use cover as well as gunners could. Trying to use a bow to fight against a gunner (with arquebus, caliver, or musket) who had a helmet and a hide to hid behind must have been a frustrating experience. Because of how slow arrows move, the gunner would have had a decent chance of being able to duck down a few inches so that an arrow aimed at the face would just strike the helmet. An archer, by contrast, had to be more uncovered and upright to shoot and couldn't hope to dodge a bullet. And the bullet might well pierce any armor, including the helmet, the archer was wearing.

[Yora]

What makes stealing horses such a worse crime than stealing cars?

Today we treat stealing cars as a rather minor crimes, but there are often stories of horse theft being punished by death. Was it just the monetary value of horses that made people so particularly angry about them being stolen, or was there a much deeper reason to that?

[Vinyadan]

What makes stealing horses such a worse crime than stealing cars?

Today we treat stealing cars as a rather minor crimes, but there are often stories of horse theft being punished by death. Was it just the monetary value of horses that made people so particularly angry about them being stolen, or was there a much deeper reason to that?

I think it's a problem of mobility. You can't steal more than a car at a time, but a few thieves could steal all the horses in a pen. To add to that, horses could also be used for raiding, although I don't know if horse thieves were handled worse than cow thieves.

There also is the fact that, today, a stolen car will often have been left alone, while horses would have had a guardian, which the thieves were ready to kill, if needed, so horse thieves were more dangerous. There are some who steal cars with drivers inside by waiting for them to get home and menacing them, but it is very rare.

[warty goblin]

What makes stealing horses such a worse crime than stealing cars?

Today we treat stealing cars as a rather minor crimes, but there are often stories of horse theft being punished by death. Was it just the monetary value of horses that made people so particularly angry about them being stolen, or was there a much deeper reason to that?

We're also generally a bit more hesitant to sentence people to death these days.

[Berenger]

What makes stealing horses such a worse crime than stealing cars?

It isn't, or is there any western country left that punishes horse theft by execution?

But back in the day, a horse tended to be much more important than a car is today. Most people today use their car for mobility and maybe transportation of goods and nothing else. If it is stolen, they can call a taxi or ride the bus, unless they are stuck in an extremely remote location. It's expensive, it's inconvenient, but it's bearable - or at the very least not life-threatening. Also, today there are insurances that cover car theft. Not so long ago a horse, on the other hand, may have been your only option for mobility, communication (especially in the case of emergencies) and work (especially if you are a farmer or herder). In the worst case, its loss can wreck your entire business and threaten the livelihood of your whole family in a way that modern car theft usually doesn't.

I may also be important when and where you steal somebodies means of transportation. If you manage to steal a car in a remote location and maroon the former owner in a dangerous situation (e.g. in the desert, in the wilderness at night, during extremely harsh weather conditions) this may be cause for additional charges and a harsher punishment. Such aggravating circumstances may already be expected and factored into the standard penalty in a setting where poor communication, sparse population, harsh environmental conditions are the norm.

[Storm Bringer]

What makes stealing horses such a worse crime than stealing cars?

Today we treat stealing cars as a rather minor crimes, but there are often stories of horse theft being punished by death. Was it just the monetary value of horses that made people so particularly angry about them being stolen, or was there a much deeper reason to that?

While their are the points mentioned above, its important to understand just how valuable a good horse was, relatively speaking. A mounted warriors horse generally cost more than the rest of his war-gear combined, often several times more, and even a cart horse was likely to be the very valuable and portable, compared to most other things on a farm or estate. They also brought social status to those who owned them, as they implied a certain amount of wealth.

another factor was the comparatively high resale value. A horse thief could take his stolen horse a few days ride away, and sell it on at full price and above board, with a fair degree of safety, whereas a modern car thief has to worry about things like VRNs, Databases, and the simple devaluation of cars, all of which means he isn't getting as much for his efforts.

As warty goblin mentioned. people place a higher value on life these days, but a second factor a change in perspective on methods of deterrence. The availability of a death penalty was intended to deter thieves, on the theory they don't want to die. In practice, it kinda only deters a small subset of potential horse thieves. A lot of horse thieves would either be people so desperate that the death penalty just means they will be killed by a axe instead of starvation, or "professional" types who are running a calculated risk.

[cucchulainnn]

What makes stealing horses such a worse crime than stealing cars?

Today we treat stealing cars as a rather minor crimes, but there are often stories of horse theft being punished by death. Was it just the monetary value of horses that made people so particularly angry about them being stolen, or was there a much deeper reason to that?

Did it actually happen or is it something that get said in western movies? On the American frontier a case can be made that stealing someone horse could leave then stranded with hundreds of miles to walk which they may or may not survive. I could also see the same issue with central Asia. Horses were also often tied to someones lively hood so stealing it could prevent them from earning a living. With out insurance that could be a major problem. On a frontier for farmers or homesteaders the possession of a horse could be the difference between success and death. Either you have grown enough food to survive the winter or not. For a homesteader a horse is more then transportation it is also a tractor.

In the case of Europe was the punishment the same for stealing a peasant's horse as say a noble's? That could be the difference.

I could easily see an horseman (say a cavalry trooper or a cowboy) wanting to kill the thief since they often develop an emotional bond but again I question how often it really did happen. And where it was a capitol offense was it out of line with other high value crimes?

[Yora]

Completely different question:

What are the legal consequences when a deployed American soldier declares that he will no longer perform his duties or take any orders? Basically going on strike?

In any other job you just would get fired, but as an army during war, you can't afford letting the soldiers quit when they feel like. But it also would be different from "regular" desertion as you don't run away.
More like shoting yourself in the foot without pretending it wasn't deliberate.

[Storm Bringer]

another thing to remember is that prisons were a not a form of punishment in those times, but a means of holding someone temporarily until their trail and/or hanging. incarceration as a punishment in and of itself was a 19th century thing, previously judges had only corporal punishment (lashings, brandings, amputation of limbs, etc) as a option for crimes too big for a mere fine and too small for a death penalty.

Did it actually happen or is it something that get said in western movies?

yes, it happened, in Europe and in America. In England, death by hanging occurred on a semi-regular basis right up until the 20th century.

[snowblizz]

Completely different question:

What are the legal consequences when a deployed American soldier declares that he will no longer perform his duties or take any orders? Basically going on strike?

In any other job you just would get fired, but as an army during war, you can't afford letting the soldiers quit when they feel like. But it also would be different from "regular" desertion as you don't run away.
More like shoting yourself in the foot without pretending it wasn't deliberate.

Severe I expect. Armies don't look kindly upon refusing orders. Be a courtmartial, with various results depending on circumstances from fines, imprisonment to capital punishment. Also a soldier who has purposefully injured himself is also facing repercussions.

E.g. in Finland refusing to do military service would lead to prison time. Usually much longer than your military service would have been, say 6-9 months basic training compared to 12+ months of jailtime. And that's for contientious objecters in peacetime with no overt military threat. There was a group of peopel who would never do military service (or a civil equivalent) for moral reasons, yet the state kept on throwing them in jail wasting everyone's time and money for decades. Just to prove a point. Though laws have been "mellowed" a bit lately.

The French army in WW1 basically went on strike. Ended with executions of the suppsoed ringleaders as an example, but also to changes since the mutiny had been so widespread. Basically making changes while pretending it had nothing to do with the strikes.

[Vinyadan]

Completely different question:

What are the legal consequences when a deployed American soldier declares that he will no longer perform his duties or take any orders? Basically going on strike?

In any other job you just would get fired, but as an army during war, you can't afford letting the soldiers quit when they feel like. But it also would be different from "regular" desertion as you don't run away.
More like shoting yourself in the foot without pretending it wasn't deliberate.

You probably should give more detail: deployed where? And what does he do? Where does he go to live? What about his equipment? As it is, it sounds like insubordination or mutiny.

[Yora]

Say a soldier in a base in Afghanistan goes to his commander's office and tells him, "I won't do this anymore. Do what the rules say you have to do, but I won't continue to be part of this."
Basically conscious objection of a non-conscript soldier during wartime.

I suspect it won't be pretty, but I am sure much better than to simply walk out and into the mountains to catch a ride to America.

[Vinyadan]

I tried looking for it, but all I can find are ways to get out of the US Military. So the question is what you explain to your superior as a reason to end your contract. You can become a conscientious objector even if you already are in the military, if you can show something for it. Or you can get yourself discharged not honourable ways, which may hamper your ability to get a job, if your prospected employer asks for it listed in your résumé. Discharge can be a punishment, or the final step of a punishment within the military that could have effects in the civilian world: loss of rights, for example. This is for desertion, however.

The grounds you give are probably the most important factors. "I now object" can work and is legal. "I'm scared" or "I miss my family", however, would likely have other effects. It could also be a multi-layered situation. Maybe you can say that to your superior, but, until someone has made a choice about you, you need to act like a normal soldier. If you don't, you could find yourself in trouble because of every time you haven't followed an order.

Maybe someone who has been in the army can answer. Mine is just speculation.

[Storm Bringer]

Say a soldier in a base in Afghanistan goes to his commander's office and tells him, "I won't do this anymore. Do what the rules say you have to do, but I won't continue to be part of this."
Basically conscious objection of a non-conscript soldier during wartime.

I suspect it won't be pretty, but I am sure much better than to simply walk out and into the mountains to catch a ride to America.

depends on the why, I would say, and what he means by "part of this", and how much he is willing to work with the army to achieve his end goal.

if he means "I don't want to be a grunt, living in this FOB and eating these crappy MREs", then in general, the most likely immediate answer would be the national equivalent of "suck it up, buttercup", and then face the normal disciplinary chain as and when he starts disobeying direct orders. By, for example, refusing to go out on patrol or to do his shift on the gate, not only is he adding to the workload of his squadmates (who will have to work harder to cover the work he was supposed to be doing), but he is putting every other member of his squad at a greater risk, because they are a man down and missing that extra pair of hands, set of eyes, and rifle.

As such, the army takes a very dim view of a soldier sitting down and refusing to soldier. If a in his squad or platoon was killed, especially if that man was injured because the of the objector (was added to the patrol make up the numbers, was driving a vehicle that the objector normally drove, etc), their is every chance that the army might lay the blame at his feat and court martial him for manslaughter (or equivalent). Dishonourable discharge and/or prison time are quite likely.

If his objections are more specific, like say "i don't want to be part of this medical unit that is always dealing with wounded children", for example, the army might be willing to work with him, if he is willing to work with them. if he soldiered on long enough for a replacement to be brought in, they might move him into a role he finds more acceptable (say, treated walk in patients at a main base hospital).

If the thing he is objecting to is something flat out illegal ("I wont have any more part in these baby-killing raids!"), then once it gets established that he was in fact being given orders to commit illegal acts, then he would receive no real punishment, as the such orders are not binding.

edit:

if the reason he is objecting is essentially PTSD/combat stress (ie he has reached his limit and mentally breaking/broken), then assuming they realise this is the case, he will be casualty of war, and be treated as such.

[snowblizz]

Did it actually happen or is it something that get said in western movies? On the American frontier a case can be made that stealing someone horse could leave then stranded with hundreds of miles to walk which they may or may not survive. I could also see the same issue with central Asia. Horses were also often tied to someones lively hood so stealing it could prevent them from earning a living. With out insurance that could be a major problem. On a frontier for farmers or homesteaders the possession of a horse could be the difference between success and death. Either you have grown enough food to survive the winter or not. For a homesteader a horse is more then transportation it is also a tractor.

In the case of Europe was the punishment the same for stealing a peasant's horse as say a noble's? That could be the difference.

I could easily see an horseman (say a cavalry trooper or a cowboy) wanting to kill the thief since they often develop an emotional bond but again I question how often it really did happen. And where it was a capitol offense was it out of line with other high value crimes?

It definitely did happen. The severity of theft tends to vary, but it has always been considered bad, if nothing else stealing also deprives the state of income and the state does not like to be stolen from.
Eg from 1784 horse and cattlethieves in Sweden were hanged (1773 milking your neighbours cow might get you hanged). And in medieaval times death was common for high value thefts, and it was usually the value of theft not necessarily the specific item that mattered, though sometimes circumstances varied this. Eg stealing from a church could be considered aggravating the crime. But as mentioned horses were extremely valuable pieces of property normally so easily hit the higher punishment classes. Also cultural values matter. Stealing a horse in a horse culture is much worse a crime than in one that is not, most likely.
I'd say a yes and no to differences in whose horse you steal, basicaly not sure there was a listed difference but getting caught by the nobleman would likely mean you never got as far as the criminal justice system after all. In many places nobility came with the right to perform judicial duties.

Any comparison to modern crime and punishment is going to be very lopsided since the circumstances are so different, not to mention right now being on the right side of a divide between harsh punishment and more human liberal thinking. So yes, people were hanged as horsethieves, and probably for thievery in general provided the value of theft was high enough and/or did it often enoug.h.
Ye Olden Days were pretty brutal since the line between doing well and being screwed was much thinner. And societies' ability to impose law was much lesser so punishments tended to try and work premptively as well.

[Vinyadan]

I think it's also a problem of getting the value back. I remember a disgruntled employee wasting 62.000 litres of wine (16.000 US gallon, 13.000 imp gallon) which were meant to become Brunello. You can't find a bottle at less than 20 €, which means a minimum of 26 X 62.000 = 1.612.000 €, 1.845.256 $ damage. This wine came from five different years, which means that the loss was simply not recoverable: there was no way to make that wine again. I think it is similar with cattle. There is no way to get back the worth of the expense you put in raising it, and that single herd is the result of reasoned breeding which may have gone on for decades. Other industries can buy the low value raw material back with relative ease.