Around the same time they realize breaking formation and running a half marathon charge against the enemy, while screaming at the top.ofnyour lungs, is a bad battlefield tactic.
FWiW the Australian light horse charged flat out across four miles of open ground (ie. broken formation) into machine gun nests and snipers to take the Battle of Beersheba, the charge was with rifles slung across backs while holding reins and bayonets.
As methods go, they took the town with the loss of 31 of their men .. earlier the same day British troops failed to take the town using conventional tactics at the cost of some 171 lives.
There are no absolutes, are there? A pity the Australian light horse wasn't in the field during the great emu wars!
That being said, the Battle of Beersheba was a brilliant use of cavalery, because walking in close formation against entreched machine guns is just as stupid as charging an enemy in tight formation. Sometimes, there simply isn't a lot of choice, WW1 showed that problem every day.
Oddly enough there would have been a fair number of Beersheba survivors present.
The 1932 "Emu War" took place in the Campion region of Western Australia .. a town (and farming surrounds) cleared and created as Soldier Settlement lots and farms given to discharged veterans.
Never forget that the Coolgardie Miner (23 August 1935) reported that although the use of machine guns had been "criticised in many quarters, the method proved effective and saved what remained of the wheat" [1].
Everybody tends to laugh at the Emu Wars, but nobody ever comes up with a better idea, myself included. Heck, we constantly fail to get rid of crows at certain places. Smart buggers, those crows... I do love them!
It is decent tactic against a breaking enemy. And when your troops keep some cohesion. The risk is, that the enemy doesn't break completely and you find yourself in loose formation, without cover and exposed, facing a tight enemy force.
Totally agree! I think it was there that I saw the analysis of the orc's campaign, logistics and travel time, during the siege of Minas Thirith. Loved it!
A genuine smile shows in the eyes, which may be what many mammals pick up, as discussed a bit in the paper (cats and dogs certainly learn to associate the mouth shape with friendliness too). Bared teeth is a sign of aggression in many species though, smiling or not.
When I first learned English I was extremely confused that people kept referring to grinning as smiling, given that "smiling" refers to a wider range of expressions than just that. Smiling "with teeth" doesn't come to me naturally in the situations the word is typically associated with.
Given that the "American smile" is not universal (despite the changes in most cultures over the past centuries - there was an article posted on HN a few weeks ago about how AI generated "selfies" of people from certain cultures look wrong because they wouldn't smile like that), I wonder if the association between a toothy smile and friendliness is entirely recent, evolutionarily speaking.
I also wonder if the "don't smile at dogs because bared teeth are a sign of aggression" has more to do with dogs picking up on the mismatch between the "friendly" facial expression and the emotional state of the human or if they would be equally distressed when seeing a human genuinely grinning out of sheer overwhelming joy and happiness. I find exaggerated displays of friendliness as is common in US hospitality and retail extremely unnerving personally.
