PDA

View Full Version : Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Gorbash Kazdar
2006-06-02, 04:56 AM
Comrade Gorby: This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

The original thread (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1119641664 ) was started by Eric the Mad, and included contributions from many posters for both questions and answers. Once that thread hit critical mass, Version II (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1132964821 ) began, followed by Version III (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1140621716 ;start=0), and naturally and [url=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863]Version V (]Version IV[/url). Welcome to Mk. VI.

A few rules for this thread:
This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it. :smallwink:
Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)
No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.

With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!

The first six posts that follow were copied over from Mk IV.

Stephen_E
2009-09-12, 07:04 AM
I can't see amy posts from the previous thread.

Stephen E

Matthew
2009-09-12, 07:50 AM
Heh; that will be because the text indicating that there are some refers to Thread IV, and we would want posts from Thread V. :smallbiggrin:

Thane of Fife
2009-09-12, 08:02 AM
To start this one off, I am aware that in medieval combat, taking enemy knights captive was a big part of the fight. I usually see references to people being pulled from their horses. So I am curious how one would force somebody in a suit of plate armor to surrender, and how pulling them from their horse would be so helpful (I assume that such prevents them from escaping).

SaiphSDC
2009-09-12, 08:42 AM
Shouldn't be to hard to force an armored knight to surrender. They aren't tanks afterall. They are likely to be quite beat up after a fight, and if their horse is dead they'll be on foot. Knights are far more mobile than typically portrayed in fiction, but they do have problems.

First is a limited field of vision, unless they take of the helmet. This means they can either be blindsided and knocked down, then you can sit on them (as well as you can anybody really). Or they take the helmet off and you can brain them. Or you find one wounded and weak and pin him that way.

The advantage the footman has is numbers usually, which is mitigated by the knight being mounted and mobile..remove that, and they're still dangerous, but can be overwhelmed.

As for unhorsing them, that was one of the main purposes of many infantry pole arms IIRC, along with being can openers on the end of a ten foot pole :) so the typical footman could actually do something to them.

Fortinbras
2009-09-12, 09:38 AM
I read somewhere that when Cromwell started equipping his troops with weapons paid for by the Government this was a major advance. But didn't the Romans and Eygptions others do this before?

Also how were Seljuk armies organized.

Yora
2009-09-12, 09:52 AM
The roman empire was about as advanced as people in the 19th century, except that they didn't have steam power.
But I'd say in society and politics, they were on an equal level.
Though there are lots of problems with the term, it's called "Dark Ages" for a reason.

Spiryt
2009-09-12, 09:55 AM
First is a limited field of vision, unless they take of the helmet. This means they can either be blindsided and knocked down, then you can sit on them (as well as you can anybody really). Or they take the helmet off and you can brain them. Or you find one wounded and weak and pin him that way.



One should remember, that knights really often were wearing perfectly open helmets from IX to XV century EDIT: XVI century too, I guess. Maciejowski Bible shows us a lot of knight in open normans, or even mail hoods.

In earlier ages there weren't any closed options really. And from about half of the XIV century, neat bascinets with visors begin to appear, which allow you to "switch" between open and fully protecting helmet with hand motion.

Later closed helmets are usually well adjusted (particullary armets) and one have nice static visor to look trough.

Barrel helmets would be probably worst, since they're a bit "loose" on the head, but some better adjusted examples weren't probably so bad either.


To start this one off, I am aware that in medieval combat, taking enemy knights captive was a big part of the fight. I usually see references to people being pulled from their horses. So I am curious how one would force somebody in a suit of plate armor to surrender, and how pulling them from their horse would be so helpful (I assume that such prevents them from escaping).

If someone's laying on the ground, dropped violently from horse, and you stand above him with something "convincing", he would better surrender, armor or not.

Or your man at arms just grab him, tie him and take him. People are always wonder about strikes etc, forgetting that armor doesn't help THAT much, when few people want to just drop you and immobilize you.

I would certainly assume that taking prisoner was NOT happening in the middle of biggest bashing.

Theodoric
2009-09-12, 09:55 AM
I read somewhere that when Cromwell started equipping his troops with weapons paid for by the Government this was a major advance. But didn't the Romans and Eygptions others do this before?
Yes, but like democracy, concrete and so many other things, it wasn't applied in Europe again untill more modern times. Heck, regularly paying a standing army was only re-invented not to long before that.

FeAnPi
2009-09-12, 09:56 AM
The idea of troops equipped by the country is very old: for example, Sparta's soldiers were equipped by the city.

But, during the middle ages, the factories that once produced weapons for the Roman soldiers were lost and closed.

Actually, even in the late middle agese there were Italian troops equipped by the city.

Spiryt
2009-09-12, 10:09 AM
I read somewhere that when Cromwell started equipping his troops with weapons paid for by the Government this was a major advance. But didn't the Romans and Eygptions others do this before?

Also how were Seljuk armies organized.

Depends what do you meean about "paid by goverment".

Roman soldiers in "classic" times ( I BC ~ 3 AD) were buying their equipment from their own money (though of course, most of this money came from their their pay, at least until some loot wasn't involved). So goverment wasn't really paying for arms itself.

FeAnPi
2009-09-12, 10:13 AM
Depends what do you meean about "paid by goverment".

Roman soldiers in "classic" times ( I BC ~ 3 AD) were buying their equipment from their own money (though of course, most of this money came from their their pay, at least until some loot wasn't involved). So goverment wasn't really paying for arms itself.
But the late empire did. ;)

Spiryt
2009-09-12, 10:18 AM
But the late empire did. ;)

Well, I don't really know, all I heard is that there are rather few cluess about scale of production " in mass fabricae".

Yora
2009-09-12, 10:22 AM
It'd be like saying that the world government supplied all PC owners with microsoft software. ;)

Thane of Fife
2009-09-12, 10:37 AM
Also how were Seljuk armies organized.

Perhaps take a look at this (http://books.google.com/books?id=5mEiD4Vlk70C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=seljuk+turks+armies+organization&source=bl&ots=sswqt3Qf3I&sig=eI8A-EdVmNUvUAnhpiBMaasY7MA&hl=en&ei=CsCrSvSrPMrUlAfz891a&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=seljuk%20turks%20armies%20organization&f=false)?

FeAnPi
2009-09-12, 10:49 AM
Well, I don't really know, all I heard is that there are rather few cluess about scale of production " in mass fabricae".
Well, I've just finished two books about the subject and belive me, there are clues, and the production lasted -according to some sources- till the early Ostrogoths years.

Dervag
2009-09-12, 01:07 PM
The roman empire was about as advanced as people in the 19th century, except that they didn't have steam power.
But I'd say in society and politics, they were on an equal level.
Though there are lots of problems with the term, it's called "Dark Ages" for a reason.Hmm. Me, I disagree, I'd say 18th century. By the middle of the 19th century, I'd say that people had come up with some social and political innovations that genuinely worked better than their Roman counterparts, at least for certain specialized purposes. The Roman system left a lot to be desired in some ways; among other things it stank at civilian control of the military.

Also, even if you remove steam engines, by the 19th century things like water power had advanced to the point where mechanical technology and manufacturing were beyond what the Romans had...


I read somewhere that when Cromwell started equipping his troops with weapons paid for by the Government this was a major advance. But didn't the Romans and Eygptions others do this before?...but yeah, Cromwell's establishment of a national arsenal with government-funded weapons was a major advance by the standards of England at the time, not by global standards. And England was relatively backwards at the time- not by a large margin, but enough that they were less organized than, say, France or Sweden. This was before the English became the prosperous powerhouse they were in the 1700s.

Rasilak
2009-09-12, 02:41 PM
Nitpick: Steam power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile) was already known at roman times - they just didn't put much effort in developing it, because they had lots of slaves doing their work. Besides, they probably didn't have the skill in metallurgy and precision manufacturing to build industrialisation-style engines anyway.
If you just look at it in terms of "good ideas", very little happened after the end of the ancient greek up until industrialisation. But they got a lot better in doing the stuff they already knew, allowing all those good ideas to be useful.

Shademan
2009-09-12, 03:24 PM
me and a friend is arguing about sword sizes.

What is the biggest sword a big, strong and healthy soldier can effectively use in different combat situations?
(think REALLY big here)

prove me right here, guys. ;P

Right, and now we apparently need PROOF to whatever claim you make.

Matthew
2009-09-12, 04:09 PM
I read somewhere that when Cromwell started equipping his troops with weapons paid for by the Government this was a major advance. But didn't the Romans and Egyptians others do this before?

It is a matter of scale, really. Even in decentralised polities war leaders tend to supply their troops with equipment, and on a varying scale. What happened in Cromwell's England is that the New Model Army was being entirely equipped by a central authority, which says more about the changing power and character of government than it really does about military reform.



Though there are lots of problems with the term, it's called "Dark Ages" for a reason.

Mainly because of a distinct lack of historical written sources describing it.



me and a friend is arguing about sword sizes.

What is the biggest sword a big, strong and healthy soldier can effectively use in different combat situations?
(think REALLY big here)

prove me right here, guys. ;P

Right, and now we apparently need PROOF to whatever claim you make.

if you have not already, see The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Great Swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html).

Shademan
2009-09-12, 04:25 PM
thank you, matthew. I think this will be sufficient.

Dervag
2009-09-13, 10:41 AM
For reference, I really think this thread should be stickied.


Nitpick: Steam power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile) was already known at roman times - they just didn't put much effort in developing it, because they had lots of slaves doing their work. Besides, they probably didn't have the skill in metallurgy and precision manufacturing to build industrialisation-style engines anyway.I'd hesitate to call an aeolipile a 'real' steam engine, because "engine" implies a machine that can do and does useful work. Aeolipiles are difficult to harness. However, this may be a No True Scotsman thing.

In any event the key point is that the kind of steam power that made the nineteenth century so weird by historical standards was not known in classical times, even if devices that employed steam for power existed. There's a difference between a locomotive and an aeolipile, and I think it's big enough to be a difference in kind and not of degree.
________


If you just look at it in terms of "good ideas", very little happened after the end of the ancient greek up until industrialisation. But they got a lot better in doing the stuff they already knew, allowing all those good ideas to be useful.I feel that in many cases, getting better at stuff you already know requires good ideas. Inventing the camshaft or tool steel good enough to be used to turn metal on a lathe is as much a good idea as "Hey, what if I stick a couple of nozzles on a boiler to show how powerful wind can be?"

valadil
2009-09-14, 10:13 AM
The original thread (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1119641664 ) was started by Eric the Mad, and included contributions from many posters for both questions and answers. Once that thread hit critical mass, Version II (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1132964821 ) began, followed by Version III (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1140621716 ;start=0), and naturally and [url=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863]Version V (]Version IV[/url). Welcome to Mk. VI.



The links for versions I - IV aren't working for me. It looks like the first three are linking to the old board (YaBB.pl) and the fourth has a blank url. Are these available anymore, or have they been lost to the ages?

Matthew
2009-09-14, 11:04 AM
The links for versions I - IV aren't working for me. It looks like the first three are linking to the old board (YaBB.pl) and the fourth has a blank url. Are these available anymore, or have they been lost to the ages?

Most are available, one fell victim to the thread purge, but an html copy was saved. Thread V contains links to threads I-IV somewhere... [edit] Ah, try here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5703163&postcount=19).

TheBibliophile
2009-09-15, 04:25 AM
Hi, I have a sword question. Now, I like to think that I'm pretty good on swords, and I know my falchions from my tulwars, but this (http://www.zeldauniverse.net/images/games/tp/items/ordonsword.png) has forever puzzled me. Can anyone help?

Note: It's longer than it looks in that pic; definitely not a shortsword.

Stephen_E
2009-09-15, 04:39 AM
Can you give diemensions.

Stephen E

Mr White
2009-09-15, 05:56 AM
On another forum I'm roleplaying as the wãli (viceroi) of Egypt around 1840. I'm looking to improve my navy but I'm rather ignorant on the matter in real life and my limited research hasn't been very succesful.

What were the most important naval advancements in the mid 19th century?

Thanks in advance

Adlan
2009-09-15, 06:06 AM
Steam Power
Steel Cladding
All Steel construction
The Propeller
Breech loading cannon
Explosive Shells.

Spiryt
2009-09-15, 06:31 AM
Hi, I have a sword question. Now, I like to think that I'm pretty good on swords, and I know my falchions from my tulwars, but this (http://www.zeldauniverse.net/images/games/tp/items/ordonsword.png) has forever puzzled me. Can anyone help?

Note: It's longer than it looks in that pic; definitely not a shortsword.

Never have seen anything like, that, especially fuller like that or such "guard".

However, from what I can see, it's from Zelda, so it's most certainly not based on anything.

If character wields it in one hand, just call it "sword", if in two,longsword or bastard sword can be pretty OK too.

Whammydill
2009-09-15, 09:53 AM
English Longbow vs. French armor during the Hundred years war.

Terrain and longbow were hideously effective for the English of course. However given the three most known battles where it played a big factor: Crecy, Poiters, and Agincort, what kinds of armor were the French using, and how effective was it vs. the Longbow.

The knights obviously had some different armor than the footmen. As of Agincort the French were able to make to the English lines but were pretty much useless due to terrain and pounding by arrows. Accounts say they got there pretty much intact whereas from my understanding from Crecy accounts it was pretty much wholesale pincushioning.

Even with well made plate armor, the sheer amount of arrows is going to likely put some in the mail areas or even the visor. Also, at what range if any could a longbow punch through the plate providing it landed square enough to not be deflected?

Deadmeat.GW
2009-09-15, 10:59 AM
For a longbow punching through plate...

Not likely at anything but the shortest of ranges.

I have seen 'demonstrations' where they shot 'through plate' at 30 feet.

30 feet is an awfully short distance for a knight who is supposedly attacking you.

When I checked the plate it turned out to be iron...and the arrows to be steel tipped.
A serious difference there alone.
Also the plate was incapable of moving so you could not shunt the target slightly on impact, making the shot a lot more likely to do a straight impact.

Take most of these with a serious grain of salt. Most people in armour killed by arrows are described as having been hit in a vulnerable spot.
People who are shooting 'through' armour are usually suitably heroic characters whom also do things like wield oversized, superheavy weapons that only they can wield. Or string bows that two full-grown men together cannot string.

At the time of the hundred year war most armour is mail with partial plate, a whole different idea from the full-plate that people seem to refer to.
Even so most people tend to be killed after the fight and only be injured by massed archery or trapped when their mounts collapse.

Proper full-plate of equal material quality as the arrows will defeat almost all straight hits.
Shooting at rather poorly shaped plate chest pieces when you use steel bodkins and you are at point-blank range against an immobile target made of poorly made iron will of course get results...

Keep in mind that the arrows did not as such cause the majority of casualties. The trapped, demoralised and poorly led French quite often got butchered when they were trapped in melee where they could not defend themselves but where the English could almost pick them off at will.

It was not just superior firepower but far superior tactics which gained the English their victories.

MickJay
2009-09-15, 11:10 AM
Use of the steam power (and other labour-saving devices) in antiquity - there was simply no need for them. Workers needed the pay, and the slaves also had to do something. There are stories of inventors whose inventions were rejected by rulers for these reasons. Perhaps some sort of steam water pumps would be useful in mines, but first of all, the mines weren't that deep yet for pumps to be commonly needed, and in any case, slaves did almost all of the work there.

As for development and democracy - ancient democracy would be much more difficult to sustain if it wasn't for the slave (and hired, non-citizen) workforce; comparing it with modern democracies (which are representative, not direct, anyway) doesn't work very well.

From what I've read, the piercing power of longbow arrows is generally overestimated, but I'm fuzzy about the details. (ninja'd) ps. it's the late crossbow and crossbow-like weapons that could actually pierce armor with any degree of effectiveness. Another advantage over longbows was the ease with which soldiers could learn to use them - on the field of battle, however, crossbowmen needed extra protection, due to relatively slow reloading time.

Adlan
2009-09-15, 11:36 AM
Also, at what range if any could a longbow punch through the plate providing it landed square enough to not be deflected?

What era plate? Because you get armour eventually sufficiant to stop bullets. Blued Milanese plate was described as practically arrowproof, and it's use by a group of italian mercenaries resulted in a large massacre of english archers in one battle.

I've only ever seen Plate Armour penetrated by Warbows at ranges of less than 50 yards, and even at 50 yards, I'd say the loss of power makes it a chancey thing. The Plate I saw penetrated was good steel, of the correct historical thickness, and stuffed with clay to stick it to the base, and give it a little give.

Were I an Archer, facing plate armour I would save a final volley till the last moment, then retreat behind my good friends, the men at arms, drop my bow and use what weapons I had.

I don't think much research has been done into the power an arrow has comming down from an arcing flight, Warbow arrows are very heavy (for arrows), but I don't reckon they'd be brilliant at peircing plate.

Matthew
2009-09-15, 01:12 PM
The old "arrow versus plate" debate definitely needs to be stickied or FAQ'd or something (though, as a wise man once pointed out, questions are frequently asked for a reason...)

Spiryt
2009-09-15, 01:39 PM
Yeah, those questions have been asked 7398 times, in the milions of worlds, in thousands of galaxies... :smallwink:

Ok, but seriously, question is unanswerable. Too many variables, styles of armor, materials, quality of armor, bow, arrows, factors like skill of archer are all extremaly important. No simple answers, I'm afraid, it's reality, and it is complicated.

Here are some of the countless threads on the topic:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1321&highlight=arrow+musket

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5824&highlight=mail+arrow

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1062&highlight=arrow+musket

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15454&highlight=armor+arrow

With quite a few opinions of people who have got quite a knowledge about many different things.

My opinion after seeing many such test etc, is that any heavier metal or linen/soft armor was rather good against arrows. It's obvious, arrows or more penetrative weapons like javelins or spears were main weapons or war trough much of the medieval.

It's most probably (that's what we can say) possible to pierce armor with good arrow but it's hard to do with mail or plate, and possibly even harder with coat of plates or brigandine (armors from small plates) (I recall someone from period calling brigandine most "Arrow proof" armor, maybe will find it later).

Transitional stuff like plates with mail was probably was pretty impenetrable.

Off course, I'm talking about "straight" penetration, not even wondering about:

hiting the joints, face, previously damaged maill links/plate surface, hitting at big angle, wind and all other countless things that could happen in actual reality.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk) is some sample test with quite good breastplate.

And one last notion - tests - they're another problem - there's not one that even comes close to being perfect. This one ^ tells us that arrow goes 62 meters per second (which is fast for war arrow) but doesn't tell us arrows mass, or armor thickness, so data is rather... incomplete. Also such clay isn't probably as good support as actual meat.

Still, it's almost perfect compared to shooting to rubbish butted mail, concrete or whatever, that often pass as a "test".

That's my view.

fusilier
2009-09-15, 05:25 PM
On another forum I'm roleplaying as the wãli (viceroi) of Egypt around 1840. I'm looking to improve my navy but I'm rather ignorant on the matter in real life and my limited research hasn't been very succesful.

What were the most important naval advancements in the mid 19th century?

Thanks in advance

In 1840 steam power was just being introduced to navies. The screw propeller had not yet been established (it existed, but just wasn't popular), that meant that steam propelled warships had to rely on paddle wheels, which could very easily be destroyed by gunfire (and storms). So I would say that in 1840 most warships were of the sailing variety possibly with a few sidewheeler frigates. All ocean-going steamships of this period were equipped with sails, so they could be sailed when necessary. Although paddle wheels greatly interfere with the sailing qualities. It looks like screw propellers started to be used on warships in the 1840s, they seem to have been fairly common by the early 1850s.

There were two major classes of warship at the time "Ship of the line" and the Frigate. The wikipedia entry goes into the early steam period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line

Ships-of-the-Line are probably too expensive, although I don't know that much about the Egyptian navy at the time. Frigates are probably more likely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate

Ironclad armor wasn't introduced until the Crimean War in the 1850s (on "floating batteries"). "Shell guns" were introduced in the 1840s, so ships could now fire explosive shells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paixhans_gun . Cannons were still smoothbore and muzzle-loading but were somewhat bigger than their Napoleonic predecessors.

EleventhHour
2009-09-15, 07:01 PM
Question!

In layman's terms (So I don't get the "/pressure/kph formulas popping up that I'll stare at confusedly), is it possible for the average person to actually sever a limb or head with a arming sword... Actually, I'm going to split this into six senarios, assuming the best cutting angle possible that isn't straight down. So, like a direct fore/backhand slash. And if it isn't possible for the average person, about how strong would they have to be?

Ziewhander vs Bare flesh
Ziewhander vs Leather
Ziewhander vs Chain

---

Arming Sword vs Bare Flesh
Arming Sword vs Leather
Arming Sword vs Chain

---

Small Sword vs Bare Flesh
Small Sword vs Leather
Small Sword vs Chain

Norsesmithy
2009-09-15, 07:51 PM
Its going to depend on the blade, cutter, and cuttee, but basically yes, a clean hit can sever a limb or head, even with a small blade (against pig carcases, I can sever a limb with a single blow from a Ka-Bar, a 7 inch knife, but then again, I split 3-4 cords of wood a year, and have a job that includes heavy lifting, so my arm strength is pretty well above average).

A larger blade SHOULD probably do it no problem with leather coverings, but mail is kinda a different story.

Because with good mail, the mail may resist cutting better than the person can stand up, so a blow that might have taken off a leg or even rent him in twain might end up just bowling him over (though he would probably have a heck of a cut, and secondary damage from the mail digging into his flesh).

Not to say that the mail wouldn't split or cut, or that the guy wouldn't be deader than a stone, but he might become a fairly whole corpse.

Of course, he might not, but I haven't heard of any tests that used fairly accurate mail (riveted, and old fashioned steels). I don't know whether there are any reliable period accounts either.

Fhaolan
2009-09-16, 01:17 AM
Varies a lot, as Norsesmithy says.

Using what I thought was a dulled arming sword, I was able to sever an 1 1/4" dia. oak rod. It was a bit of a lucky shot, as I hit the pole at about a 45 degree angle with a backswing and basically pull-cut right through it. It wasn't the cleanest cut ever, but it surprised the heck out of me and the person holding the rod.

Turns out the blade *hadn't* been dulled properly, and there had been a sharp section that had caught on the grain of the wood.

I made her a pair of ironwood jo sticks to make up for it. :smallbiggrin:

Mr White
2009-09-16, 02:22 AM
In 1840 steam power was just being introduced to navies. The screw propeller had not yet been established (it existed, but just wasn't popular), that meant that steam propelled warships had to rely on paddle wheels, which could very easily be destroyed by gunfire (and storms). So I would say that in 1840 most warships were of the sailing variety possibly with a few sidewheeler frigates. All ocean-going steamships of this period were equipped with sails, so they could be sailed when necessary. Although paddle wheels greatly interfere with the sailing qualities. It looks like screw propellers started to be used on warships in the 1840s, they seem to have been fairly common by the early 1850s.

There were two major classes of warship at the time "Ship of the line" and the Frigate. The wikipedia entry goes into the early steam period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line

Ships-of-the-Line are probably too expensive, although I don't know that much about the Egyptian navy at the time. Frigates are probably more likely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate

Ironclad armor wasn't introduced until the Crimean War in the 1850s (on "floating batteries"). "Shell guns" were introduced in the 1840s, so ships could now fire explosive shells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paixhans_gun . Cannons were still smoothbore and muzzle-loading but were somewhat bigger than their Napoleonic predecessors.

:smallredface:It turns out the year was of by 2 deccenia.:smallredface: It's actually 1820.

I'll probably be researching breech loading canons as this technology seems the most cost-effective as well as seemingly easiest within the my reach.

Iron clad ships would probably not be as popular with sailing ships I presume as the extra weight would slow them down significantly. Am I right?

Thanks

MickJay
2009-09-16, 04:27 AM
It would, especially if you're not fitting your ships with steam engines yet. In the 1820s, you'd basically be inventing the ironclad ships and most shipbuilders would be highly sceptical about the whole idea of putting tons of extra weight on the ships.

You might try (re?)-introducing hand-thrown incendiary grenades for sea combat at closest range.

NeoVid
2009-09-16, 05:40 AM
Reading a bit about the variety of traditional Japanese weapons, I got to wondering: When would a warrior be likely to wield an odachi or nodachi (I know they're not the same thing, but not exactly how) over the usual katana/wakizashi?

Also, I've heard that both samurai and knights were highly trained in close combat with knives, since with the way a medieval battlefield could turn out, a lot of the time all the combatants could do was move an arm enough to stab. True?

MickJay
2009-09-16, 08:38 AM
Knife combat: true, once the knight would be off his horse, it would be very difficult (in a crowd) to use larger weapons with any efficiency, while a well-placed dagger could get rid of an enemy immediately. Well-made armours have few weak points, aiming at them with a long sword would be quite difficult as well - it would often be more effective to get in stabbing range and insert a dagger under the arm or some other weak spot. A mace or a pick would be better against armour, but again, they require some free space to be used effectively.

blackseven
2009-09-16, 09:09 AM
I've often read that plate armor distributed weight better than mail, since mail just hangs from the shoulders, but I've yet to find a good account of how it does so.

I can see solid plate splitting its weight between the shoulders and the waist, some of the weight "hanging" and some of it "resting" on the belt, but between the shoulders and waist I don't see where any load can be borne. I'm not particularly muscled, so I might not be the best subject, but looking at myself, from armpits to waistline my torso is more or less parallel, if not slightly tapering (narrow end toward) to the the waist.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense.

Dienekes
2009-09-16, 09:17 AM
Also, I've heard that both samurai and knights were highly trained in close combat with knives

I'm not very knowledgable on samurai but the knights were.


since with the way a medieval battlefield could turn out, a lot of the time all the combatants could do was move an arm enough to stab. True?

Not exactly. You have to remember that knights were generally on horseback in pitched battles which does give more room to swing a sword. While I wouldn't doubt that this situation could crop up the knife was actually used to pierce through the chinks of armor. It's small, easier to aim, and can fit into the little holes (or be designed to pierce through) in a way that swords cannot be and still be practical. As far as I'm aware this would generally occur when a knight becomes engaged in a form of duel (I'm going to assume whether official or if he gets locked into fighting one other knight in the middle of a battlefield) where the general pattern seems to be attack them with your sword until they're wounded or fall down, grapple them a bit to get them in a good killing position, and then take out the knife and finish them off.

Norsesmithy
2009-09-16, 10:23 AM
I've often read that plate armor distributed weight better than mail, since mail just hangs from the shoulders, but I've yet to find a good account of how it does so.

I can see solid plate splitting its weight between the shoulders and the waist, some of the weight "hanging" and some of it "resting" on the belt, but between the shoulders and waist I don't see where any load can be borne. I'm not particularly muscled, so I might not be the best subject, but looking at myself, from armpits to waistline my torso is more or less parallel, if not slightly tapering (narrow end toward) to the the waist.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense.
The biggest way the weight distribution is better is in your limbs.

A knee length coat of mail that protects your arms to your wrists is going to put all that weight on your shoulders.

With a plate harness, the armor for your arms and legs is supported by your arms and legs.

The torso pieces are supported by a belt and your shoulders (via leather straps), but that's it for your shoulders.

Philistine
2009-09-16, 12:27 PM
Reading a bit about the variety of traditional Japanese weapons, I got to wondering: When would a warrior be likely to wield an odachi or nodachi (I know they're not the same thing, but not exactly how) over the usual katana/wakizashi?

According to my (admittedly quite limited) understanding of the topic, the wakizashi was never really a combat weapon at all, and the katana was quickly outclassed by developments in armor and relegated to primarily ceremonial use. So the answer to your question would be "more often than not," though my understanding is that the primary weapons of the samurai were actually bows and spears.

Brainfart
2009-09-16, 01:01 PM
Longbows VS armour is a contentious topic, and it isn't helped because many of the existing tests are heavily biased (use of incorrect equipment, inappropriate ranges, modifications e.g. hardening of the arrowheads).




NOTE: I'm assuming that the mail is worn in conjuction with a padded garment underneath.

Zweihander vs Bare flesh

Under optimal conditions, you'll likely sever the limb or leave it hanging by a bit of flesh.

Zwiehander vs Leather

Not sure on this one. Leather is very grainy and cut-resistant, and the thickness of the material plays a big role too. If it's cuir boulli or the like, it'll present even greater resistance. I'd hazard a guess at a deep wound (again, under optimal conditions).

Zwiehander vs Chain

It's unlikely to penetrate. Riveted mail is extremely bloody resistant, and it takes a good solid wallop from a big scary weapon like a halberd or poleaxe to breach it. You'd nick and bend some rings and beat up the person under the armour though, and depending on strike location this could be incapacitating/fatal in itself.

---

Arming Sword vs Bare Flesh

It depends on the type of sword used, but generally you'll end up with a nice biiig gash. A cavalry weapon with an emphasis on the cut (like the Ritter or the Sword of St Maurice from Albion Swords) could inflict a much deeper wound if used right. Amputating strikes could happen much more often under completely optimal conditions.

Arming Sword vs Leather

Again, as above. The arming sword may have trouble penetrating leather with a cut, though.

Arming Sword vs Chain

Very unlikely to penetrate. A very hard strike could nick and bend a few rings, but the fellow underneath wouldn't be scratched. He may be very sore and purple in spots the next day though, and you can probably break limbs if you strike in the right places.

---

NOTE: I assume you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_sword).

Small Sword vs Bare Flesh

Probably a significant gash. Small swords are generally not constructed to cut, though in this case I'm assuming that you want the thing to have an edge.

Small Sword vs Leather

Even worse.

Small Sword vs Chain

No bloody chance.

Spiryt
2009-09-16, 01:44 PM
Reading a bit about the variety of traditional Japanese weapons, I got to wondering: When would a warrior be likely to wield an odachi or nodachi (I know they're not the same thing, but not exactly how) over the usual katana/wakizashi?


Katanas were certainly battle weapons, (not sure about wakizashi) but, as had been already pointed out, main battle weapons of samurai in medieval period were bow and spear.

And katana and wakizashi at the same time, if that's what you mean are actually only mentioned by Musashi, and not much is known about such use. Katana is two handed sword in 'normal' use.

Big swords were very often bearing, ceremonial/temple swords. It seems that some of them were used in battle, although for one thing, it would be certainly very... costly, becuse even normal lenght katana was very expensive, and two times or more longer blade would require huge amount of steel, and would be extremaly hard to make. So would probably cost small fortune.

Fhaolan
2009-09-16, 03:01 PM
I've often read that plate armor distributed weight better than mail, since mail just hangs from the shoulders, but I've yet to find a good account of how it does so.

I can see solid plate splitting its weight between the shoulders and the waist, some of the weight "hanging" and some of it "resting" on the belt, but between the shoulders and waist I don't see where any load can be borne. I'm not particularly muscled, so I might not be the best subject, but looking at myself, from armpits to waistline my torso is more or less parallel, if not slightly tapering (narrow end toward) to the the waist.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense.

It depends a lot on how many cinch points you have in the maille hauberk. Most of the time, the bulk of the weight is on the shoulders. If you cinch the belt enough you can transfer the weight below that belt to your waist. Some hauberk styles are shorter, with maille leggings (chauces) that are strapped to your waist via braces. I've seen people add additional strapping to cinch the arms and legs up, so those weights are distributed across their limbs better.

In addition, part of the trick to plate harnesses is that as the plates are all solid, they can be made of varying thickness depending on the exact amount of protection needed at any point. Plates can be made thinner where they overlap, for one example. This changes the weight distribution considerably.

While technically possible to do that with maille, using thinner wire for the rings at certain points, etc. it's tricker to do that. Mainly because the thinner the rings, the more likely the rings will deform and pull apart under the strain of carrying the weight of all the rings around them (or in the case of riveted maille, simple break at the rivet point because there isn't enough metal surrounding the rivet to hold).

fusilier
2009-09-16, 05:25 PM
:smallredface:It turns out the year was of by 2 deccenia.:smallredface: It's actually 1820.

I'll probably be researching breech loading canons as this technology seems the most cost-effective as well as seemingly easiest within the my reach.

Iron clad ships would probably not be as popular with sailing ships I presume as the extra weight would slow them down significantly. Am I right?

Thanks

Breachloading cannon didn't start showing up until the late 1850s, and weren't very common until the 1870s. You might want to simply be experimenting with steam powered warships. Steamboats had existed since the early 1800s, and ocean-going versions were starting to show up. The first steamship crossed the Atlantic in 1819, although it had to sail most of the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship

I know there had been experiments with steam powered gunboats by at least 1815, see the USS Demologos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demologos

Ironclad sailing ships would probably be asking too much of the technology of the times. Making the ships heavy and slow, and probably very difficult to maneuver.

I don't think grenades ever fell out of favor for ship boarding parties. However, if you wanted to set fire to an enemy ship, hot shot usually sufficed (heat solid shot in a furnace until it is red hot, then shoot it at the enemy).

Paulus
2009-09-17, 01:01 AM
I've always wondered which would precisely serve better in combat, Chain/ring mail or scale mail?

Say we created suits, full body, which distribute the weight via belting and such as to put torso weight on the shoulders, arms on the arms, legs on the legs and waist and so forth. Full suits, complete coverage; Which then offers better protection, Scale or Chain/ring?

How about against Blades?
Arrows?
gunfire?

Mr White
2009-09-17, 01:57 AM
Breachloading cannon didn't start showing up until the late 1850s, and weren't very common until the 1870s. You might want to simply be experimenting with steam powered warships. Steamboats had existed since the early 1800s, and ocean-going versions were starting to show up. The first steamship crossed the Atlantic in 1819, although it had to sail most of the way.


Breech loading technology for canons seems to be available in 1837.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifled_breech_loader
That isn't that far of in game even if it's far from perfect yet. Besides I'm researching it (aided by European experts), I'm not just getting it.

I know there were steamships used as warships at the time. However, as the wiki entries probably mention, their paddle wheels were a liability in a fire fight. Easy to disable resulting in loss of mobility and the wheels took precious broadside space resulting in the ship sporting lesser guns than a sail ship of equal size.

Brainfart
2009-09-17, 04:50 AM
I've always wondered which would precisely serve better in combat, Chain/ring mail or scale mail?

Say we created suits, full body, which distribute the weight via belting and such as to put torso weight on the shoulders, arms on the arms, legs on the legs and waist and so forth. Full suits, complete coverage; Which then offers better protection, Scale or Chain/ring?

How about against Blades?
Arrows?
gunfire?

Scale and mail are both practically impervious to strikes from a sword. Both tend to be more vulnerable to thrusts from pointier swords, since those have a habit of forcing the rings open or sliding through gaps.

Against (rifle) gunfire, either would probably exacerbate the wound. The projectile would likely drive the metal links or scales into the wound. Not pretty. Even if you had some phlebotinum armour, the blunt trauma would be quite inconvenient. The British army tried to issue mail masks to protect against shrapnel (forget if it was WW1 or 2) and they did fairly well in that regard, though.

The protective value of mail against arrows has been debated to death, and the general consensus is that it does very well against lower poundage bows. It's contentious when the English war bows come in, since everybody and their dog likes to play partisan on this issue.

FYI, ring armour is something like this:
http://www.merctailor.com/catalog/popup_image.php?pID=39

Mail is completely different. :smallwink:

MickJay
2009-09-17, 05:04 AM
If it was against shrapnel, it was WWI, it was one of the biggest killers until armies introduced actual helmets (which were designed specifically to protect from shrapnel; bullets pierced them quite easily).

Deadmeat.GW
2009-09-17, 05:14 AM
As for breech loaders, there were some experiments if I remember correctly earlier then the 1812, Napoleonic's era, because Napoleon liked his artillery but I don't think it was ever really seriously used or tested in combat.

(Sadly enough it seems French traditionalists stopped the research dead in its tracks.)

So you could start 'earlier' technically by having the lighter (generally) land based cannons with Breech loading capability being tested/trials.

As for armoured ships...there were partially armoured ships at the time which were just marginally slower but very unlikely to be used as there was a lot of opposition from traditionalists.

Ah, here we go...

It was the Brittish it seems who went for Breech loading first.

Breech Loading

The breech loading gun, dates as far back as the discovery of cannon itself, and fourteen guns of that description were used by the English army at the siege of Orleans, in the year 1428. In the mid-19th century, the breech-loading rifle cannon began to replace the far less efficient muzzle loader. The breechloader represented a revolution in armaments technology. A muzzleloader is only loaded from the front, and has a solid breech plug. The breech is the part of a gun barrel at the end opposite the muzzle.

William Henson was born in 1812 in Somerset, England. He had many interests. Although he joined his father in the lacemaking industry, he also worked at developing a breech-loading cannon, an ice-making machine, and a method for waterproofing fabrics. He had patents for a safety razor, lacemaking machinery, and improvements to steam engines. He is best known for the design of his Aerial Steam Carriage, which he patented in 1843.

It was in the year 1828 that Capt. Delvigne fired for the first time his breech loading gun with cylindro conic bullets. This trial was the signal of a complete revolution in the manufacture of firearms.

In 1846 M. Cavalli, a Major in the Piedmontese army, renewed the experiment made in 1816 by Reichenbach; but his cannon, instead of being loaded at the muzzle, was loaded by the breech. The results obtained by these inventors induced the French government, which, since 1851, had been actively engaged in experimenting with the rifled cannon, combined with the conical ball, at the arsenal of Vincennes, to introduce considerable change in the material of artillery.

All the ordnance in the French army had been brought down to two calibers: the twelve-pounders for the besieging of strongholds, and the four pounders for field pieces. These changes had not been confined to the cannons alone; plain projectiles had been given up, and hollow and explosive one substituted in their stead.

The French four pounder was loaded by the muzzle, a method criticised by the German inventors, who believed that breech loading cannon are the best. The French, on the other side, entirely deprecate the breech loading gun, pretending that they are of no value whatever, whenever the bullet weighs over sixteen pounds.

1828 the first proper test for breech loading cannon, tests and usage started as early as the 15th century.

fusilier
2009-09-17, 10:37 AM
Breech loading technology for canons seems to be available in 1837.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifled_breech_loader
That isn't that far of in game even if it's far from perfect yet. Besides I'm researching it (aided by European experts), I'm not just getting it.

I know there were steamships used as warships at the time. However, as the wiki entries probably mention, their paddle wheels were a liability in a fire fight. Easy to disable resulting in loss of mobility and the wheels took precious broadside space resulting in the ship sporting lesser guns than a sail ship of equal size.

Good find Deadmeat:
The history of breechloading cannon in the early 19th century is confused. Not until the 1850s do they actually show up. Paixhans guns (shell guns) were being experimented with in the 1820s. As Deadmeat referenced, breechloading cannon existed prior to the 1500s. They fell out of favor though. Early breechloaders of the 19th century were not designed specifically for naval use, their development (as far as I know) was independent, and related to the development of rifled artillery. It was not really an area of "direct" naval research.

The problems with paddle-wheel steamers were overcome in the Demologos although that had plenty of other problems. However, even with the drawbacks inherent in a sidewheeler, it didn't stop most navies from employing paddle wheel frigates in large numbers.

Another interesting area is submarines. Fulton tried unsuccessfully to interest European powers during the Napoleonic Wars in his submarine designs, which were actually quite advanced for the time.

Daremonai
2009-09-17, 11:35 AM
As far as I'm aware, from reading and from various people who've looked into it more than I have, bows and spears were very much the weapons of choice during the Sengoku Jidai (Warring States period), but a few Odachi did see use, serving a similar purpose to two-handed swords in European warfare - breaking up formations, etc..

The bastard sword-sized katana (and wakizashi) that the movies have made famous is actually from the Edo period, and was not a weapon of war. Like the rapier, it was far more likely to be used in a duel, and was a badge of status for the noble classes (in this case, samurai).

The wakizashi was, as far as I've been told, primarily intended for indoor use, where the length of a katana would render it unusable. I've seen no proof of this, however, so I wouldn't take it as gospel.

Again, most of this is what I've heard from people I train with who have looked into the history of Japanese weapons, so I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Paulus
2009-09-17, 01:01 PM
Scale and mail are both practically impervious to strikes from a sword. Both tend to be more vulnerable to thrusts from pointier swords, since those have a habit of forcing the rings open or sliding through gaps.

Against (rifle) gunfire, either would probably exacerbate the wound. The projectile would likely drive the metal links or scales into the wound. Not pretty. Even if you had some phlebotinum armour, the blunt trauma would be quite inconvenient. The British army tried to issue mail masks to protect against shrapnel (forget if it was WW1 or 2) and they did fairly well in that regard, though.

The protective value of mail against arrows has been debated to death, and the general consensus is that it does very well against lower poundage bows. It's contentious when the English war bows come in, since everybody and their dog likes to play partisan on this issue.

FYI, ring armour is something like this:
http://www.merctailor.com/catalog/popup_image.php?pID=39

Mail is completely different. :smallwink:

Interesting, I wonder what the pound threshold would be and if one could in fact train to recognize sed type by bow size in battle... in any case. It makes you wonder then which modern day armor, influenced by the older types, is more protective. Ceramic disks, ala Dragon Scales vs. Ceramic plates?

also, ah well I've heard Chain called ring interchangeably to reference any mail with linked loops, but have heard of the lesser Ring mail that is basically studded leather with rings embedded. Which is just about as protective as chain shirts and scale skirts. oh the humanity! ;3

and yes I'm aware of their true superior protective power but the joke was fashionable. In that it made fun of fashion.

Brainfart
2009-09-17, 02:49 PM
It would protect fairly well against cuts, but it just appears as a series of large holes to most pointy objects. :smallbiggrin:


On the battlefield, you can generally recognise the buggers because they've got really long bowstaves.

The draw weight of the English war bows has been known to go up to 165 lb. They recovered quite a number from the Mary Rose, and the average was significantly lower (about 120-140 IIRC, can't recall offhand).

It's been argued that most examples that were actually used in war are generally of slightly lower poundage than the theoretical maximum that a bowman could draw (to allow the bowman to shoot more without being fatigued), though there's also a camp that says that archers would be shooting the heaviest bow they could comfortably pull.

Most of the tests conducted on this are not very reliable, since the people responsible usually go into it with a set of preconceived notions and bias the experimental conditions. Reading between the lines can yield quite a bit of information, though.

Da Pwnzlord
2009-09-17, 02:59 PM
Why did Germany declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor? I understand the US navy was giving U-boats trouble, but it seems like the *smart* thing to do would be sit back and keep doing it's thing in Europe, while the USA was distracted in the Pacific. Messing with the Soviet Union before Britian was dealt with wasn't exactly a stroke of brilliance, but declaring war on the seems downright silly. Germany wouldn't be able to take any American territory with the declaration of war, and allying with Japan presented no economic opportunities, since Japan was on the other side of the world and Germany was under siege. Speaking of Japan, Japan didn't aid Germany against the USSR under similar circumstances.


And just for kicks, how do you think this would have changed the outcome of WWII? Would Japan get it's butt kicked much faster? Would the Soviet Union have been able to do it without US industrial assistance and the opening of a second European front with D-day? What about North Africa?

Tavar
2009-09-17, 03:12 PM
The USSR definitely could have handled Germany. Opening the second front at D-Day didn't allow them to start wining, it simply relieved some pressure and actually kept them in the war(before we opened up the front they were threatening to stop and negotiate a ceasefire once they reached Germany).

Also, the Axis treaty specifically demanded that the Axis powers declare war on any nation that declared war on one of the members with the exception of the USSR. True, the treaty could be broken, but breaking treaties isn't the best way to keep friends.

As to whether Japan would have lost sooner, yes. Japan knew it couldn't take the US in a war when they started, and the only reason they held out so long is that the Pacific Theater was give second priority to the European theater.

Also, keep in mind that while the US was officially neutral, we showed heavy pro-Britain tendencies, and were even engaged in an unoffical naval war with Germany before hand.

Fhaolan
2009-09-17, 03:35 PM
Interesting, I wonder what the pound threshold would be and if one could in fact train to recognize sed type by bow size in battle.

Bow 'size' is awfully hard to use for judging, as there are a *lot* of variables other than simple stave length to judge pull. Especially since you're going to be a significant distance from the archers when you need to know that info.

If you're an expert, however, it is possible to ballpark poundage by watching the flight of the arrow. At least, I know a couple of people who are eeriely accurate at doing so. :smallsmile:

Da Pwnzlord
2009-09-17, 03:50 PM
Also, the Axis treaty specifically demanded that the Axis powers declare war on any nation that declared war on one of the members with the exception of the USSR. True, the treaty could be broken, but breaking treaties isn't the best way to keep friends.


My confusion arises from the fact that I've heard that the treaty was only if a nation attacked one of the Axis first. Japan started Pearl Harbor, and Germany was under no obligations to assist it because Japan was the aggressor.


And anyway, it's not like anybody thought that making treaties with Germany was a brilliant idea after the invasion of the USSR. It trampled over other treaties all the time, why stop with Pearl Harbor, when it would be least advantagious?

Stephen_E
2009-09-17, 04:01 PM
Re: Germany DoWing on the US.
Thre treaty with Japan didn't oblige them to do so because it was a defensive treaty, and Japan attacked the US.

Basically the US was escorting convoys in a quite aggressive manner. Roosevelt was a big supporter of the British and wanted to join the war, but congress wasn't (they're often incorrectly portrayed as isolantionist, but in fact they were really just "leave europe to euope") and Roosevelt wasn't sure enough of his backing from the US public to push it beyond aggresively supporting convoys and similiar such stuff.

Hitler appears to have taken the view that Dowing in support of Japan would win him political points, remove ROE limitations on attacks on US guarded convoys, and the US couldn't be much worse than they already were. It should be noted that Hitler had already shown a marked tendancy to seriously underestimate the willingness and capability of other nations to fight.

As for the effect on the war. Without his DoW it is unlikely the US would've attacked Germany. The Soviets still would've stopped Germany and driven them back in all probability, but the cost would've been far higher and they would've almost certainly made peace somewhere around the initial USSR border (probably without regaining Poland).
Unclear what would've happened in Nth Africa with the USA not joining in. To many varioables.

Japan would most likely have fallen slightly sooner, but not hugely so. The variables in the speed of advance weren't really dependant on extra troop numbers.

Stephen E

Adlan
2009-09-17, 04:01 PM
And, once you pull an arrow out of a corpse, you can, if you know what you are doing, tell it's spine, and estimate the draw weight of the bow.

Wish I'd saved the debates from earlier threads, as we've gone over the various arguments for bow weight and the scanty evidence we have. English Warbows were not uber killing machines of plate clad knights, but they arn't vastly over rated propaganda weapons that were only useful against an enemy stuck in the mud (though the French being tactically stuck in the mud did help).

In my Opinion, the Maximum Draw weight of a Warbow was more than 200lb. But this wasn't common. I'd estimate an average of around 120lb, with 80-90lb being the lowest end, but about as rare as those beasts of men who shot 200lb. I base this evidence on the one Medieval arrow found, recreations of mary rose bows, and my own experiances.


Thats scary Fhaloan, with all the variables, bow type, draw weight, arrow weight, thats a scary skill.

Dervag
2009-09-17, 04:04 PM
Steam Power
Steel Cladding
All Steel construction
The Propeller
Breech loading cannon
Explosive Shells.Most of these were not practical for Egypt circa 1840, though; the industrial capacity just wasn't there. Even serious industrial powerhouses had to work at it to start building screw-propelled ironclads in the 1860s, and that was twenty years later.


Use of the steam power (and other labour-saving devices) in antiquity - there was simply no need for them. Workers needed the pay, and the slaves also had to do something. There are stories of inventors whose inventions were rejected by rulers for these reasons. Perhaps some sort of steam water pumps would be useful in mines, but first of all, the mines weren't that deep yet for pumps to be commonly needed, and in any case, slaves did almost all of the work there.

As for development and democracy - ancient democracy would be much more difficult to sustain if it wasn't for the slave (and hired, non-citizen) workforce; comparing it with modern democracies (which are representative, not direct, anyway) doesn't work very well.I think the impact of slavery on retarding technological growth is overestimated sometimes. It has an effect, yes, but it isn't a complete killer. Slave labor wasn't necessarily cheaper than the kind of desperately poor laborers available in early Steam Age Britain.

I think it's more a question of the requisite technologies to make it practical simply not existing. Aeolipiles really aren't practical steam engines for a number of reasons. Making more efficient cylinder-based designs requires very precise metal casting and boring (which wasn't invented until the cannon-makers needed it). Likewise the pump designs that made it worthwhile to have a mechanical power source driving the pump.


:smallredface:It turns out the year was of by 2 deccenia.:smallredface: It's actually 1820.

I'll probably be researching breech loading canons as this technology seems the most cost-effective as well as seemingly easiest within the my reach.In 1820, you're still very much in the Napoleonic model; steam engines are little more than toys and exploding shells do not exist. You'd be better advised to just concentrate on building more Napoleonic-type ships, securing supplies of coal and iron ore, and trying to cultivate at least a limited domestic metalworking industry than trying to create a few "advanced" prototypes that 1820s Egypt can't possibly hope to supply or duplicate.

Realistically, anyone trying to do a good job of pulling a Muhammad Ali in Egypt is going to be working not on the tools of (19th century style) modern warfare, but on the tools to make the tools. Often on the tools to make those.


Iron clad ships would probably not be as popular with sailing ships I presume as the extra weight would slow them down significantly. Am I right?

ThanksIt's not just the weight. It's that there's no way to armor masts, sails, or the men who have to climb up and handle them. A sailing ship with armor can still be dismasted as easily as any other sailing ship, and historically that was the only kind of really significant damage sailing ships firing solid shot did each other on a regular basis. You can't sink a wooden hull by punching holes in it above the waterline with small diameter cannonballs; it just doesn't work. But you can leave a ship dead in the water, outmaneuver it and rake it from where its guns can't reach, and then board it. And iron armor for your hull won't protect you from that kind of attack.

So for the iron armor to be worth the massive expense and weight penalty, you really need screw propulsion with a propellor so that your ship's propulsion can be protected by the armor.


Breech loading technology for canons seems to be available in 1837.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifled_breech_loader
That isn't that far of in game even if it's far from perfect yet. Besides I'm researching it (aided by European experts), I'm not just getting it.You've got to remember the difference between "someone, somewhere, built one" and "the things are reliable and effective enough to arm my military with." If your Egypt is even remotely like the real one, trying to be a world leader in clever advanced weapons that take lots of precision machining to manufacture is not a good idea. And breechloaders do; if they're not made very precisely, they tend to explode. A lot.


My confusion arises from the fact that I've heard that the treaty was only if a nation attacked one of the Axis first. Japan started Pearl Harbor, and Germany was under no obligations to assist it because Japan was the aggressor.Hitler wanted Japan's support against Russia, and wanted them to be a distraction against Britain. At the time, Germany looked like an all-dominant continental juggernaut; things didn't start to go badly wrong in Russia until the weeks immediately after Hitler declared war on the US, and things were still OK enough to stay in denial about for another year.

What it comes down to is that Hitler wanted an ally outside the European continental system, with good reason: it helped weaken his enemies' greatest advantage, their ability to draw resources from anywhere they chose over the world oceans. Moreover, Hitler (again, with reason) was confident that the US would not be a major factor in a European war, and that he would be ready to face any significant US intervention by the time that intervention could arrive in the face of the German U-boat force.

MickJay
2009-09-17, 04:35 PM
I think the impact of slavery on retarding technological growth is overestimated sometimes. It has an effect, yes, but it isn't a complete killer. Slave labor wasn't necessarily cheaper than the kind of desperately poor laborers available in early Steam Age Britain.

I think it's more a question of the requisite technologies to make it practical simply not existing. Aeolipiles really aren't practical steam engines for a number of reasons. Making more efficient cylinder-based designs requires very precise metal casting and boring (which wasn't invented until the cannon-makers needed it). Likewise the pump designs that made it worthwhile to have a mechanical power source driving the pump.

It's not just the slaves, the needs of free workers also were seriously considered (something you don't see coming up much during the early industrial revolution). The point of view of an absolute ruler is going to be significantly different from that of a private enterpreneur; if he actually cares about his subjects (and surprisingly many did), then saving resources on increased efficiency and impoverishment of the people would just be considered immoral, and avoided; even more so if the ruler could have been targeted by angry subjects.

Now, very precise metalworking was existent in antiquity (e.g. the workshops on Rhodos and the Antykithera mechanism - which, by the way, shows marks that suggest items like that were made by the dozen), and in any case, if a technology is really required, then it eventually gets invented; the point you are making about cannon making just shows that. During the antiquity the steam-powered machines were simply not needed, for one reason or another, otherwise they would have been made sooner or later, when the necessary technology was perfected (like the precise metalworking for cannons). Whether the reason was existence of slave labour (which was not very cheap, but not too expensive either), concern for the labourers or something else, is a different question.

Dervag
2009-09-17, 08:09 PM
It's not just the slaves, the needs of free workers also were seriously considered (something you don't see coming up much during the early industrial revolution). The point of view of an absolute ruler is going to be significantly different from that of a private enterpreneur; if he actually cares about his subjects (and surprisingly many did), then saving resources on increased efficiency and impoverishment of the people would just be considered immoral, and avoided; even more so if the ruler could have been targeted by angry subjects.True, but in many cases a steam engine or watermill wouldn't obviously hurt the free workers. Today we have the context to judge that the Luddites had a point; machinery tends to displace skilled workers. But you'd think that more people would have been in a position to try, and to reap the benefits of trying, in the past if that were the main factor going on.


Now, very precise metalworking was existent in antiquity (e.g. the workshops on Rhodos and the Antykithera mechanism - which, by the way, shows marks that suggest items like that were made by the dozen),Yes it existed, but it didn't exist in the sense that I'm talking about. For industrial steam engines you don't just need precise metalwork. You need large metal pieces, big heavy stuff; that requires a very different set of tools (and relatively cheap metal).


and in any case, if a technology is really required, then it eventually gets invented; the point you are making about cannon making just shows that. During the antiquity the steam-powered machines were simply not needed, for one reason or another, otherwise they would have been made sooner or later, when the necessary technology was perfected (like the precise metalworking for cannons).Thing is, steam-powered machines weren't even practical until the necessary technology was perfected; there are limits. And people didn't sit down and think "ah, yes, we need steam-powered engines," either; that was a concept they didn't have a reference point for. So they weren't going to invent the necessary technology because they didn't realize they "needed" it... and nobody else needed it because gunpowder hadn't been invented yet, either.

I think the really crucial thing that explains the lack of steam power in classical times is that until very recently, no one made a conscious effort to develop technology as such, thinking "we need better technology!" Individuals might or might not come up with better methods, but there was no overarching idea that civilization as a whole was doing so systematically. Therefore, things that were useful or even necessary for what would have been extremely helpful in hindsight didn't get invented, because no one knew they'd be helpful ahead of time and they didn't grab attention simply because they were new.

Thiel
2009-09-18, 04:18 AM
Gunboats comes to mind. They gave the Brits a nasty surprise in 1807 when they found out that the Danish ones drew less water and carried heavier guns than their own.
If the technology is sufficiently advanced build some steam powered tug boats as well. Navigating sail powered ships through the Nile Delta is tthe next best thing to impossible, so a couple of tugs should increase your navy's mobility significantly. They'll also increase trade up and down the Nile significantly

valadil
2009-09-18, 03:15 PM
Archery question. How different are modern and medieval archery styles?

I've done a lot of shooting, but it's modern. To be specific I did JOAD between middle school and finishing college. Got my level 1 certification a couple times so I could run archery at the camp I worked at. Spent a week at lake placid's Olympic training center. I know my modern archery.

And I get pissed off whenever I see archers shooting badly in fantasy movies. What irritates me the most though is the anchor point. I started off drawing to the corner of my mouth and later moved it to under my chin. This was consistent with what I saw taught in the SCA (although I didn't spend a lot of time there and my coach shot there too, so it shouldn't be surprising that I didn't see a lot of other styles). In the movies, characters often draw to the shoulder. They also use a finger instead of an arrow rest. Speaking from experience, this hurts like a bitch (I once had a feather rip off and lodge itself in my hand when the arrow slid off the rest).

Anyway, the more I read of the real-world weapon and armor threads, the more I realize how little I know. How different medieval archery from modern? Does hollywood get period archery right, leaving me just a fool for assuming my style was The Right Way?

Adlan
2009-09-18, 04:07 PM
Generally, Yes.

Yes the Films have Got it wrong, and Yes, you are a fool for assuming your way is the right way.

In almost every film depicting medieval warbows, I've seen them get it wrong. I'm sure I must of seem a film do it right once, but I can't recall it. Horse Archery too, I'm not expert on, but I'm pretty sure, most films don't get it right.

Before the introduction of welsh Warbows, archers speak of drawing to the chest, and being taught to draw to the ear.


Shooting off the Hand? Lots of people still do that (Me for one). That is historically accurate for Lots of archery styles. And Yeah, I've had feather splinters as well.


If when you are talking about Medieval Archery and mean warbows, I can explain some of the differences between it and modern archery.

valadil
2009-09-18, 11:47 PM
If when you are talking about Medieval Archery and mean warbows, I can explain some of the differences between it and modern archery.

I don't mean anything in particular. I know the difference between a recurve and a long bow. And I've read up on composite bows (yay for this series of threads). But I haven't a clue what a warbow is.

Da Pwnzlord
2009-09-19, 09:01 PM
What size/weight of a projectile of a 15th century siege cannon? How far could I expect the range to be?

Brainfart
2009-09-20, 01:24 AM
I don't mean anything in particular. I know the difference between a recurve and a long bow. And I've read up on composite bows (yay for this series of threads). But I haven't a clue what a warbow is.

Generally, there's an 'English' in front of the 'warbow'. I'm not sure how it came about, but it may be to differentiate an ordinary hunting or utility bow from a bow that was exclusively used in war. In that context it usually refers to longbows.

Speaking of archers, just go watch any bloody movie after you've studied swordsmanship a little. NERDRAGE :smallfurious:

Tiktakkat
2009-09-20, 02:12 AM
And just for kicks, how do you think this would have changed the outcome of WWII? Would Japan get it's butt kicked much faster? Would the Soviet Union have been able to do it without US industrial assistance and the opening of a second European front with D-day? What about North Africa?

Significantly, because there are a lot of secondary factors.

For Japan, the U.S. and U.K. agreed to a "Europe first" strategy very early on. With the U.S. not at war with Germany, that means a "Japan only" strategy for the U.S. That invites several questions and subsequent possibilities:
1. The U.K. changes to a Japan first strategy. Japan falls faster, but Germany gets still more breathing space.
2. The U.K. does not change to a Japan first strategy. Japan still falls faster, but virtually all of the burden falls on the U.S. This will dramatically reduce the desire to get involved with Germany afterwards, as well as likely significantly reducing the amount of Lend-Lease available to both the U.S.S.R. and the U.K. See below for those.
3. This is the kicker in many ways: Japan falls faster either of the above ways; so fast in fact it is well before the U.S. has the atomic bomb. That means the U.S. must decide on either Operation Olympic (invading Japan), a negotiated peace (instead of unconditional surrender), or they wind up invading the Asian mainland (both China and Korea). You get ridiculously wild results from almost any of those.

For Germany:
1. The U.S. now has an active war. That means more resources there, and a possible significant drop in resources available for Lend-Lease. For the U.K. this means possible starvation. War materials will manage, but food will get very tight, very fast. Could this force the U.K. out of the war? Probably not, but it would make things very unpleasant, and could contribute.
2. For the U.S.S.R. a drop in Lend-Lease would be much, much worse. While foreign combat vehicles and aircraft were not that signficant, foreign trucks were. No U.S. Lend-Lease means the Soviet army remains un-motorized. That means less mobility along the fron, and much less mobility on the offensive. Is that enough to make them surrender? Maybe not, but it would definitely contribute. This would be enhanced if you consider that by the end of the war the U.S.S.R. was running short of troops. They had millions under arms, but the reserve pool was empty, and they were taking people from the factories to keep units up to strength. A slower advance leading to the war lasting even 1 year longer and THAT could have forced the U.S.S.R. to a negotiated peace.
3. No U.S. means no strategic bombing campaign in Germany. At this point we start hitting force multiplier effects. Less food in the U.K., no motorization in the U.S.S.R., and vastly reduced strategic bombing losses with concommittant reduction in defensive resources means a vastly empowered Germany able to prolong the war. To make that worse;
4. No U.S. means no Torch (invasion of Morocco), no Avalanche (invasion of Sicilly), and no Overlord (D-Day), at least nowhere near on the historical dates or with the historical strengths. Again, that amplifies the previous force multipliers, as now all of those troops are focusing on the U.S.S.R., or continually threatening to actually take Egypt. (Add a Third through Sixth Alamein or the like.) Now you are moving from the U.S.S.R. having to let Germany off with a conditional surrender to the U.S.S.R. looking for a conditional surrender, and the U.K. hoping to get a status quo ante bellum before things get too hairy.

Possible end result?
Japan reduced to the home islands.
The U.S. annexing the Pacific Island possessions of Japan, along with Taiwan, Manchukuo, Korea, and Okinawa, and facing off against Mao in China via the Nationalists as proxy but on a much larger scale than happened in the real world.
The U.S. possibly ends up occupying the trans-Ural elements of the U.S.S.R., otherwise a small Soviet rump state holds out there.
The U.K survives - barely. If they went to an "Italy first" strategy early enough they may wind up owning all of Africa except for the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Otherwise they will be desperately holding onto Egypt and hoping the other shoe never drops and Germany annexes the Vichy rump, or seizes any of its colonies. The U.K. likely also winds up with the Dutch East Indies, taking it over after the U.S. drives the Japanese back unless a significant colonial drive takes over in the U.S. Congress and convinces Roosevelt to annex everything and then some.
Germany survives. They likely do not thrive, despite how good the above may sound for them, as they still lose millions winning in the U.S.S.R. They have all the room they want, but they will be desperately short of people for a generation or more. That means continued partisan warfare will continue to drain resources, and Germany may wind up unable to prosecute another war to finish off the U.K. or the U.S.S.R. before everyone has nukes.

Norsesmithy
2009-09-20, 02:52 AM
2. For the U.S.S.R. a drop in Lend-Lease would be much, much worse. While foreign combat vehicles and aircraft were not that signficant, foreign trucks were. No U.S. Lend-Lease means the Soviet army remains un-motorized. That means less mobility along the fron, and much less mobility on the offensive. Is that enough to make them surrender? Maybe not, but it would definitely contribute. This would be enhanced if you consider that by the end of the war the U.S.S.R. was running short of troops. They had millions under arms, but the reserve pool was empty, and they were taking people from the factories to keep units up to strength. A slower advance leading to the war lasting even 1 year longer and THAT could have forced the U.S.S.R. to a negotiated peace.
It gets worse than that for the Sovs. They trains that carried the tooling to make the T-34 east of the Urals were American. Most of Russia's domestic rolling stock was captured running grain west when Germany launched Barbarossa. Further, until they got their industry established properly in the east, they almost ran out of cartridges for their infantry rifles. The cartridges used in the defense of Stalingrad were made by Federal.

And we sent them more food than we did the British, the most common and effective aircraft in their airforce were all made in America, the majority of the steel they used for war production was American, and most of the boots they issued to their soldiers were made in America.

If Lend Lease gets cut off prematurely, the Soviets are in terrible material shape come the end of 1942.


What size/weight of a projectile of a 15th century siege cannon? How far could I expect the range to be?
That's gonna vary from cannon to cannon, but the 15th century was a popular time for massive guns.

Notable examples include a bombard constructed and owned by the Knights of St John of Jerusalem. It fired 260 kg granite balls and had an effective range of about 200 yards. It almost certainly was capable of being fired to greater distances, but accuracy would have been very poor, and the tremendous power of such a weapon would rapidly fall off.

Mons Meg, another 15th century supergun reportedly could fire a 180 kg ball two miles, but effective range probably would have been closer to 500 yards. (you can fire a .22 2 miles, too, but you would never do so and expect to accomplish anything. All the moreso with a 15th century supergun, because you are typically limited to less than 10-15 shots a day because of heat considerations).

The largest of this class was called Pumhart von Steyr, and it had a bore diameter of 88 CENTIMETERS, and fired a shot weighing 690 kilos. It was supposed to be best used at a range of 600 meters or so.

Smaller cannon types like the Culverin and the Falconet fired further, but had much smaller shot, between half a kilo and 10 kilos depending on the precise size of the gun.

Fortinbras
2009-09-20, 03:32 AM
What exactly does "every Marine is a rifelman" mean?

What makes this unique to the Marines?

Mystic Muse
2009-09-20, 03:40 AM
I have a weapon question. specifically what type of sword do I have? It has more than enough room on it's hand for two hands so I'd assume some form of two handed sword. maybe a greatsword? however I don't know the exact dimensions of a greatsword's blade. maybe somebody here can help me out? The blade looks to be somewhere from a 36-40 inches long. I can't make exact measurements since I don't have a ruler or a measuring tape and no access to one for now. Also it's single edged if that affects what type of sword it is.

Yora
2009-09-20, 03:54 AM
Hard to say what it is exactly without seeing the shape of the blade and the handle.
But in D&D terms, I'd say it's a scimitar if the blade has a curve, or a ninja-to, if it does not.

What exactly does "every Marine is a rifelman" mean?

What makes this unique to the Marines?
It means that every soldier in the Marines has to have the skills to fill the role of a rifleman, even vehicle drivers, paramedics, or mechanics. Don't really know for support staff, but everyone who goes into the field with a marine unit has to have the basic training of fighting with a rifle.

I'm neither american nor in any armed forces, so I might have one or two details or names wrong, but that's essentially what it's about.

This focus on the infantry is matched with the doctrine that "Every Marine is a rifleman", a focus of Commandant Alfred M. Gray, Jr., emphasizing the infantry combat abilities of every Marine. All enlisted Marines, regardless of military specialization, receive training as a rifleman; all officers receive training as infantry platoon commanders. Marines have demonstrated the value of this culture many times throughout history. For example, at Wake Island, when all of the Marine aircraft were shot down, pilots continued the fight as ground officers, leading supply clerks and cooks in a final defensive effort.
Yes, apparently this even applies to support staff.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-20, 03:56 AM
the handle is made of plastic, completely straight and has spaces on it meant for fingers. (my sister got it at a pawn shop and I bought it from her.) the Blade is completely straight except for at the end where there's a sudden curve. the hilt is a dragon claw and a dragon wing. (like I said. flea market.)

does that help or is picture uploading necesarry?

MickJay
2009-09-20, 03:58 AM
True, but in many cases a steam engine or watermill wouldn't obviously hurt the free workers. Today we have the context to judge that the Luddites had a point; machinery tends to displace skilled workers. But you'd think that more people would have been in a position to try, and to reap the benefits of trying, in the past if that were the main factor going on.

Yes it existed, but it didn't exist in the sense that I'm talking about. For industrial steam engines you don't just need precise metalwork. You need large metal pieces, big heavy stuff; that requires a very different set of tools (and relatively cheap metal).

Thing is, steam-powered machines weren't even practical until the necessary technology was perfected; there are limits. And people didn't sit down and think "ah, yes, we need steam-powered engines," either; that was a concept they didn't have a reference point for. So they weren't going to invent the necessary technology because they didn't realize they "needed" it... and nobody else needed it because gunpowder hadn't been invented yet, either.

I think the really crucial thing that explains the lack of steam power in classical times is that until very recently, no one made a conscious effort to develop technology as such, thinking "we need better technology!" Individuals might or might not come up with better methods, but there was no overarching idea that civilization as a whole was doing so systematically. Therefore, things that were useful or even necessary for what would have been extremely helpful in hindsight didn't get invented, because no one knew they'd be helpful ahead of time and they didn't grab attention simply because they were new.

Watermills were used, at least by the Romans, and they seem to have been sufficient; they replaced animal power, rather than human labour. Still, the mentality was much more conservative, and the concept of "progress" was practically non-existent. "New" (idea) meant "bad", most of the time, so while people might have been in a position to try something, they'd be much more careful in considering the implications of the new solution.

Despite the lack of gunpowder, technologies for casting metal were quite developed, and prototypes, at least, of bronze or brass engines would have been possible to make; we do agree that there was no perceived need for that, or for "improvement" or "development". Looks like we fully agree on most points, but we're arguing from slightly different perspectives :smallwink:

Mike_G
2009-09-20, 07:36 AM
What exactly does "every Marine is a rifelman" mean?

What makes this unique to the Marines?


The Marine Corps recruits, regardless of their eventual specialty, spend far more time on the rifle range than those of other services, and marksmanship is pretty much a religion to the Corps. Two full weeks of known-distance, slow and rapid fire, scientific shooting out to 500 yards, followed by trainfire and combat-simulation firing for a guy who is going to spend his enlistment as a cook or mechanic doesn't happen anywhere else. Basic training is longest of any US armed service, and a lot of that extra time is rifle range time.

Not sure if it still works that way, but they used to send every Marine to Infantry school after basic then to their specialty school.

Since my specialty was infantry, it didn't much matter to me. I do know friends who went into the Army at the same time who got much, much less trigger time than I did, and Navy or Air Force range time is far less than either Army or Marines.

The Rifleman's Creed-"This is my rifle. There are many like it..." was written by a Marine general is is drilled into us like "Our Father"s and "hail Mary"'s to Catholic schoolchildren.

Matthew
2009-09-20, 07:44 AM
I don't mean anything in particular. I know the difference between a re-curve and a long bow. And I've read up on composite bows (yay for this series of threads). But I haven't a clue what a warbow is.



Generally, there's an 'English' in front of the 'warbow'. I'm not sure how it came about, but it may be to differentiate an ordinary hunting or utility bow from a bow that was exclusively used in war. In that context it usually refers to longbows.

It is a term analogous to "war-sword", likely intended to differentiate one sort of bow from another by function. I am pretty sure it is medieval in origin, but I cannot think of a document offhand.



I have a weapon question. specifically what type of sword do I have? It has more than enough room on it's hand for two hands so I'd assume some form of two handed sword. maybe a greatsword? however I don't know the exact dimensions of a greatsword's blade. maybe somebody here can help me out? The blade looks to be somewhere from a 36-40 inches long. I can't make exact measurements since I don't have a ruler or a measuring tape and no access to one for now. Also it's single edged if that affects what type of sword it is.

There is no universally accepted sword classification system. It sounds like it might pass as a Großes Messer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fes_Messer) (literally "big knife"), but things are more complicated than that. For an overview of the problems in sword nomenclature see this article: Sword Forms (http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm)

GM.Casper
2009-09-20, 09:03 AM
Hypothetical space warfare question here:
Late XXI century, two superpowers control Earth, both have a large number of space stations and weapons platforms in orbit. If a war starts, could a stalemate occur, when each side has a number of weapons platforms in geosynchronous orbit above their territories, capable of taking down most if not all missiles launched at them, but unable to hit each other with energy weapons because Earth is in the way.

Stephen_E
2009-09-20, 09:25 AM
If Lend Lease gets cut off prematurely, the Soviets are in terrible material shape come the end of 1942.


Prematurely?
Lend Lease to Russia didn't start until around Dec 41, and was minscule. It didn't kick into full gear until well through 42.

If Germany doesn't go to war with the US there is NO lend-lease to the Soviets. That said the Soviets had stopped the 1st push without land-lease. Given time it taks stuff to get to the front I'm dubious if no Lend-lease would've done much more than increase the territory the Germans took before they were stopped for effectively good (I consider 43 simply germany blowing away their frontline and consequently speeding up their fallback).

It should be kept in mind that the figures I've seen indicate that US lend-lease was only about 5% of the soviets WW2 war materials. Although you do make a good point that the loss of trucks would make offensives harder. Re: Soviet manpower. Much as the Soviet manpower was tapped out by war's end, the German manpower was tapped out worse. Also note that the bombing campaign didn't make any significant headway until 44. A Negotiated peace somewhere around the original pre-39 border, with some give or take based on exactly how badly Germany was screwed when Hitler forced the final overextension (note: I say WHEN, not IF).

Re: British Lean-lease. IIRC in 41/42 Britain was still paying hard cash for what they got from the US. I don't see the US stopping selling for cash. And even later when they ran out of cash I can't see Roosevelt cutting them off in any way, and I don't think Congress would've been able to do it without his support.


Stephen E

Raum
2009-09-20, 10:24 AM
What exactly does "every Marine is a rifelman" mean?

What makes this unique to the Marines?The US Marines have a much larger front line fighter to support ratio than the other services. While much of is due to Navy personnel acting as support, some is directly due to the attitude that all Marines are expected to be capable of fighting.

And, as MikeG mentions, training hammers that in to all Marines. Compare that to the Air Force with the lowest fighter to support ratio - many enlisted USAF will only fire a weapon once a year or less. Even that isn't really infantry training, it's just how to fire a rifle.

For the record, I'm not knocking the USAF. The USAF and USMC have significantly different missions.

Fhaolan
2009-09-20, 10:52 AM
the handle is made of plastic, completely straight and has spaces on it meant for fingers. (my sister got it at a pawn shop and I bought it from her.) the Blade is completely straight except for at the end where there's a sudden curve. the hilt is a dragon claw and a dragon wing. (like I said. flea market.)

does that help or is picture uploading necesarry?

Claw and wing? That sounds familiar. I swear I've seen that in one of the older wall-hanger catalogues like Bud K or something. I can't seem to find it now, though, sorry. Given the plastic grip, and from your description a fancy pewter hilt, it's likely to be one of the mass-produced fantasy swords that are very common now-a-days.

Does the blade have any writing on it, right above the hilt? It likely says something like 'China' or 'Stainless', but it's possible that it has a symbol or something else that might narrow the manufacturer down.

Philistine
2009-09-20, 12:52 PM
Prematurely?
Lend Lease to Russia didn't start until around Dec 41, and was minscule. It didn't kick into full gear until well through 42.

If Germany doesn't go to war with the US there is NO lend-lease to the Soviets. That said the Soviets had stopped the 1st push without land-lease. Given time it taks stuff to get to the front I'm dubious if no Lend-lease would've done much more than increase the territory the Germans took before they were stopped for effectively good (I consider 43 simply germany blowing away their frontline and consequently speeding up their fallback).

It should be kept in mind that the figures I've seen indicate that US lend-lease was only about 5% of the soviets WW2 war materials. Although you do make a good point that the loss of trucks would make offensives harder. Re: Soviet manpower. Much as the Soviet manpower was tapped out by war's end, the German manpower was tapped out worse. Also note that the bombing campaign didn't make any significant headway until 44. A Negotiated peace somewhere around the original pre-39 border, with some give or take based on exactly how badly Germany was screwed when Hitler forced the final overextension (note: I say WHEN, not IF).

Re: British Lean-lease. IIRC in 41/42 Britain was still paying hard cash for what they got from the US. I don't see the US stopping selling for cash. And even later when they ran out of cash I can't see Roosevelt cutting them off in any way, and I don't think Congress would've been able to do it without his support.


Stephen E

While it took a little longer for shipments of supplies to start, Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was approved in October 1941. For various political reasons, there was no chance of Lend-Lease to the USSR not happening while they were fighting Nazi Germany.

And in most categories of materiel, the figure was a lot higher than 5% - that sounds about right for armored vehicles, but it's low for aircraft (which was more like 20%), and very low for many other things the US was supplying. Food was a big one, as Norsesmithy pointed out. Another "low-profile" item we shipped in vast quantities were uniforms. Pull a million or so men off the front to run those two industries, and suddenly the late-war Soviet counteroffensives are looking a little thin on the ground. Plus iron, aluminum, copper... not nearly as sexy as tanks or planes, it's true; but without the raw materials, the tanks and planes don't get made.

Then there are things like trucks (~2/3 of which were produced by US automakers, and easily more reliable and efficient than their Soviet-built contemporaries), and locomotives (2000 supplied by the US vs <100 built in the USSR during the war), rolling stock, and rails; the Red Army's logistics net was, overwhelmingly, stamped "Made in the USA," which freed up their own factories to crank out T-34s and Il-2s in record numbers. Divert a few factories to meeting the Red Army's transport needs, and the reduced numbers of infantry are also looking at reduced levels of armor and air support.

Finally, there are some things the Soviets simply weren't able to produce for themselves, and no amount of re-juggling manpower or factory floorspace was going to change that in the time they had. The initial German advance overran a large portion of the USSR's chemical industry before it could be moved east of the Urals; as a consequence, the Soviets were dependent on Lend-Lease supplies for upwards of 30% of the high explosive used in Soviet artillery shells, aircraft bombs, etc., and about 90% of the high-octane aviation gasoline used by the Red Air Force (without which the late-war fighters from Yakolev and Lavochkin would be swept from the skies as easily as the biplane Polikarpovs in 1941). And virtually all their vehicle radios that actually worked came from the US as well, as Soviet industrial technique at that time could not achieve the required tolerances.

On British Lend-Lease: Britain was out of hard cash by early 1941. That's the reason Lend-Lease started in the first place, and the Lend-Lease program was specifically cited as a reason for war in Hitler's DoW that December.


On a non-Lend-Lease note, while the strategic bombing campaign carried out by the US and Britain may have done little to impede German production until late in the war, one thing it certainly achieved was the diversion of resources. Take away the bombing campaign, and suddenly Germany has a very large number of large-caliber guns (and their crews) that can be shipped East, where they will kill tanks quite effectively. At that point, Germany could also reinforce the Luftwaffe on the East Front to the tune of half a dozen or so fighter wings (some of which were twin-engined night fighter groups, which would actually make better attack aircraft than fighters in daylight operations - filling a more pressing need). Nazi Germany can't conquer the USSR - it's too big, and the front keeps getting wider the farther east you get, and they tended to take logistics a little too much for granted (see the plans for Sealion for a good laugh) - but barring US entry, they could very well have forced a stalemate that gained them Byelorussia, the Baltic states, and most of Ukraine.

Tiktakkat
2009-09-20, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE=Stephen_E;6963629]Prematurely?
Lend Lease to Russia didn't start until around Dec 41, and was minscule. It didn't kick into full gear until well through 42.[/QUOTES]

Convoys had started as early as August 41. The first were not Lend-Lease, I was conflating the early Cash and Carry sales, but the supply would have effectively been interrupted early.

Norsesmithy and Phillistine have addressed pretty much everything else in rebuttal.

And thus, as I said, it defaults to the synergies and consequences, which can go in any number of ways depending on additional factors and just where you want to go with this particular foray into alternative history. (Turtledove rules! :smalltongue:)

Philistine
2009-09-20, 04:42 PM
Some more general notes: If anything, the "No German DoW scenario" would increase the amount of aid provided to the UK and USSR via Lend-Lease. In a one-ocean war, US production capacity is going to be even more excessive compared to "own needs." We simply wouldn't be able to use that much materiel in the Pacific.

Which leads to the next thing: "Germany First" delayed V-J Day by at most six months, because there's just no place where additional troops could have weighed in (and been supported) before mid-1944 or so; by that point, the forces historically in the PTO were already sufficiently overwhelming, and delays between operations were due to the need to build up each newly captured island as a staging area to take the next island in sequence, etc. Adding more troops wouldn't speed the process much.

Additionally, there's no way Olympic was going through as planned; intelligence reports of a massive Japanese buildup in Kyushu - estimated to be sufficient to repel the planned US landings with massive casualties - caused Nimitz and King to withdraw their support for the plan in early August 1945. So assuming that the Pacific War goes more or less as historically, but a few months faster, in the Spring of 1945 the US would almost certainly have stuck with pre-war plans for blockade and bombardment; that means more firebombing of cities, mining of waterways, and destruction of inter-island rail and shipping links. My expectation then would be massive famine all across the Home Islands, with tens of millions dead - historically such an event was only just averted by emergency shipments of food from the US after the end of hostilities; in this scenario, the disruption to Japan's internal transport routes would certainly be even more extensive and severe.

Finally, in the ETO/MTO, no German DoW means no Torch, which means the Med remains a contested area, which means no Husky, which means Italy remains in the war, freeing up more resources for Germany (although they have the same limitation on the Eastern Front that the US does in the Southwest Pacific: they can't really support any more troops than they had historically, the logistics net just isn't there).

Tiktakkat
2009-09-20, 05:25 PM
Some more general notes: If anything, the "No German DoW scenario" would increase the amount of aid provided to the UK and USSR via Lend-Lease. In a one-ocean war, US production capacity is going to be even more excessive compared to "own needs." We simply wouldn't be able to use that much materiel in the Pacific.

Which leads to the next thing: "Germany First" delayed V-J Day by at most six months, because there's just no place where additional troops could have weighed in (and been supported) before mid-1944 or so; by that point, the forces historically in the PTO were already sufficiently overwhelming, and delays between operations were due to the need to build up each newly captured island as a staging area to take the next island in sequence, etc. Adding more troops wouldn't speed the process much.

I disagree. Not because the U.S. would not be producing so much, but because of the political effects I noted. The thought of running a war in one ocean while sending convoys and equipment into danger to support someone else's war is a political disaster waiting to happen, and the isolationist feelings at start would just make it worse. Perhaps some equipment could still be sold, but carrying and escorting it would have been increasingly difficult, and as time progressed it was U.S. hulls carrying the burden there.
And as it goes, transferring those merchant hulls to the Pacific would have made it easier to advance the logistical support, enabling the whole process to go faster.


Additionally, there's no way Olympic was going through as planned; intelligence reports of a massive Japanese buildup in Kyushu - estimated to be sufficient to repel the planned US landings with massive casualties - caused Nimitz and King to withdraw their support for the plan in early August 1945.

That is what I suspect as well, possibly with invasions of Manchuria or Korea depending on how the political will to endure casualties remained. It would have been the blockade with massive starvation as you suggest.


Finally, in the ETO/MTO, no German DoW means no Torch, which means the Med remains a contested area, which means no Husky, which means Italy remains in the war, freeing up more resources for Germany (although they have the same limitation on the Eastern Front that the US does in the Southwest Pacific: they can't really support any more troops than they had historically, the logistics net just isn't there).

Yes and no.
First, the U.K. needed to win in the Med to support their own supply lines. Even without an invasion of Italy, it still would have been difficult for the U.K. to muster both the troops and the transports to carry out Overlord without the U.S. That ultimately forces the U.K. to try and secure the convoy routes in other ways, occupying the rest of the French African possessions, and eventually trying to take out Italy on their own while attempting to bomb the sub pens on the French Atlantic coast into oblivion before they run out of merchant ships and escorts. From there, the invasion of France would come from the Med, rather than across the Channel.

Philistine
2009-09-20, 07:13 PM
Speaking of politics, there's no way the Roosevelt Administration would cut the UK and USSR loose to fend for themselves while they were fighting Nazi Germany. None. Lend-Lease would most certainly continue - and keep in mind that Lend-Lease to the USSR, at least, can go via the Pacific where there's not such a U-Boat threat. Furthermore, the political difficulties of escorting convoys of war materiel under fire in the Atlantic were exactly what FDR wanted; since at least mid-1940 he'd been pushing Germany as hard as Congress would allow (and sometimes harder), trying to provoke either a German DoW or some incident splashy enough to get Congress to DoW first. In the event, he got both - though the "splashy event" came from Japan, who he specifically did not want to fight.

And the logistical problems of operations in the South Pacific go well beyond availability of shipping. Basing and support facilities also have to be constructed in-theater, so more troops would mean more demand for engineers and construction equipment. But those were already going disproportionately to the PTO, because England had quite a bit of existing infrastructure to begin with - as well as local ability to construct more. For another example, it does very little good to send troops into malarial zones if you can't provide anti-malaria medicines. But since there wasn't much demand for quinine in the ETO and MTO (to say the least!), all the US could lay hands on was already going to the Pacific. Having more warm bodies on Guadalcanal doesn't do much good if they're all laid up with shakes and fever, as the Japanese found out to their cost. So yeah, you can put additional troops into the Pacific, but they'll just end up cooling their heels in Brisbane and Honolulu.

In the Med, the question isn't what the British need to do so much as what they can do. The RN in particular was badly over-stretched by the end of 1942, with wartime losses matching or even exceeding replacement building rates and no decrease in commitments. It's highly doubtful that they could have managed a Torch-equivalent on their own hook, because they couldn't have covered the landings without leaving themselves critically exposed somewhere else. Too, the Vichy forces would almost certainly have resisted an all-British landing much more fiercely than they did the American-led forces that historically landed - meaning the landings would need more support which the RN would be unable to provide.

Tiktakkat
2009-09-20, 08:13 PM
Speaking of politics, there's no way the Roosevelt Administration would cut the UK and USSR loose to fend for themselves while they were fighting Nazi Germany. None. Lend-Lease would most certainly continue - and keep in mind that Lend-Lease to the USSR, at least, can go via the Pacific where there's not such a U-Boat threat. Furthermore, the political difficulties of escorting convoys of war materiel under fire in the Atlantic were exactly what FDR wanted; since at least mid-1940 he'd been pushing Germany as hard as Congress would allow (and sometimes harder), trying to provoke either a German DoW or some incident splashy enough to get Congress to DoW first. In the event, he got both - though the "splashy event" came from Japan, who he specifically did not want to fight.

Exactly.
Roosevelt wanted the war in Europe, the Congress at the time absolutely did not. With a war in the Pacific, the Congress would make it clear they would not tolerate Roosevelt provoking a "two-front" war by continuing to "provoke" a confrontation the way Wilson had done during WW I.
And while the North Pacific route was reasonably safe, it also would leave all the supplies at the far end of the Trans-Siberian railroad. Not exactly the best place for them.


And the logistical problems of operations in the South Pacific go well beyond availability of shipping. . . .

And you can manufacture all that equipment if you are not spending time and effort arming the U.K. and U.S.S.R.
Likewise you can allocate more resources to producing anti-malarial medications.


In the Med, the question isn't what the British need to do so much as what they can do.

Leaving the British to try and make the offensive through Egypt work, which is why I suggested Alameins Three through Six, or equivalents thereof.
That is of course assuming they do not just punt, negotiate a settlement, and be happy absorbing Italian East Africa and what they can snatch of the French overseas possessions.

Okay, that's it . . .
We need a game designer to settle this, and we need one now! :smallbiggrin:

Stephen_E
2009-09-20, 08:50 PM
In the event, he got both - though the "splashy event" came from Japan, who he specifically did not want to fight.



I think you overstate Roosevelts unwillingness to fight Japan somewhat. The US govt was supplying the plane ands paying the slaries for a mercnary flight wing, the Flying Tigers, before Japan had even attacked. That's a pretty agressive move for someone who doesn't want to fight.

As a general note people shouldn't use the term "isolationist" for US politics of the time. There were very few actual isolationsits in the US political scene. The correct term would be "non-euros", they wanted nothing to do with europe. They felt no such reluctance with the rest of the world, specifically the Pacific and Asia.

Stephen E

Philistine
2009-09-20, 09:33 PM
I think you overstate Roosevelts unwillingness to fight Japan somewhat. The US govt was supplying the plane ands paying the slaries for a mercnary flight wing, the Flying Tigers, before Japan had even attacked. That's a pretty agressive move for someone who doesn't want to fight.

As a general note people shouldn't use the term "isolationist" for US politics of the time. There were very few actual isolationsits in the US political scene. The correct term would be "non-euros", they wanted nothing to do with europe. They felt no such reluctance with the rest of the world, specifically the Pacific and Asia.

Stephen E
Actually, I see the formation of the AVG as an attempt to limit and contain the Asian war without the US becoming formally involved, just as building up the USAAF in the Philippines and moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor were intended to discourage Japan from attacking US possessions in the Pacific. FDR certainly did want war, but not with Japan - not until Germany had been safely dealt with, at least. There was no question in Washington but that Germany posed the greater threat, being larger, richer, and more thoroughly industrialized, which is why the "Germany First" policy was actually adopted by the US war plans bureau before Pearl Harbor.

Raum
2009-09-20, 09:53 PM
Actually, I see the formation of the AVG as an attempt to limit and contain the Asian war without the US becoming formally involved, just as building up the USAAF in the Philippines and moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor were intended to discourage Japan from attacking US possessions in the Pacific. FDR certainly did want war, but not with Japan - not until Germany had been safely dealt with, at least. The US embargo on raw material (particularly steel and oil) to Japan wasn't exactly friendly. It became one of Japan's declared causes for war.


There was no question in Washington but that Germany posed the greater threat, being larger, richer, and more thoroughly industrialized, which is why the "Germany First" policy was actually adopted by the US war plans bureau before Pearl Harbor.Do you have any evidence for this? Many of the documents from initial meetings seem to say otherwise.

Dervag
2009-09-20, 10:06 PM
Hypothetical space warfare question here:
Late XXI century, two superpowers control Earth, both have a large number of space stations and weapons platforms in orbit. If a war starts, could a stalemate occur, when each side has a number of weapons platforms in geosynchronous orbit above their territories, capable of taking down most if not all missiles launched at them, but unable to hit each other with energy weapons because Earth is in the way.Hmm... I wouldn't expect it. Among other things:

Either side can effectively deny geosynchronous orbit to both sides; it would not be difficult to set off a bomb in geosynch that would fill the entire donut-shaped region around it with bits of debris on criss-crossing paths that would wreck almost anything in the orbit itself.

Geosynchronous orbit can only exist above the equator, and directly above the equator. Since most of the world's landmass is a good distance from the equator, you get suboptimal coverage over large and important areas (like the poles, so missiles fired from Russia to the US would be hard to intercept effectively). Moreover, there are few places on Earth where large, valuable patches of land are directly opposite each other, so the two superpowers are likely to be mismatched in terms of resources, population, and industrial capability.

Energy weapons capable of destroying ballistic missiles or high altitude aircraft from geosynchronous orbit imply weapons that can be used in a surface-to-space role quite effectively. If either side can get any significant forces onto the opposing side's hemisphere, including mobile forces such as a carrier group, it should be able to start potting their space stations.

Talakeal
2009-09-21, 02:26 AM
Technically not a weapons and armor question, but close.

In a sword fight, how much of a disadvantage are you at, if any, if you fight with your back to a wall.

Follow up question, if you are outnumbered, is it preferable to fight with your back to a wall or in a corner to avoid the possibility of being surrounded?

Fhaolan
2009-09-21, 09:15 AM
Technically not a weapons and armor question, but close.

In a sword fight, how much of a disadvantage are you at, if any, if you fight with your back to a wall.

Follow up question, if you are outnumbered, is it preferable to fight with your back to a wall or in a corner to avoid the possibility of being surrounded?

Based on personal experience, quite a lot of disadvantage, actually. If it's as simple as just a wall behind you, it limits the number of opponents that can reach you but that's usually still an untenable number of opponents (3-4 or so). If there's other pieces of terrain, such as tables, posts, archways, whatever, that can reduce that number further, to about 1 or 2, then it becomes more viable.

When you're dealing with a many-on-one, I find the best way to avoid being surrounded is to keep moving. The key is to control the flow of the fight, and constantly limiting their options so that only 1 or 2 can engage you at any point in time. It's very, very difficult to do this in RL, which is why many-on-one fights usually end up with the one being taken down. Movies aside, an advantage of numbers really means a lot.

Rasilak
2009-09-21, 09:42 AM
When you're dealing with a many-on-one, I find the best way to avoid being surrounded is to keep moving.Word. This is pretty much what Musashi suggests. However, he also advocates using walls and doorways to avoid being flanked when fighting inside buildings (but still keeping enough distance so the wall doesn't hinder movement or blocks escape, and always keeping on moving). IMHO, the Book of the Five Rings is a nice source for tactics in one-on-one and many-on-one swordfights (if taken with a grain of salt).

FeAnPi
2009-09-21, 10:34 AM
And it is a really ancient trick: according to the Roman legend, it was running away and defeating his three opponents one by one as they reached him separately that the surviving Horatius defeated the Curiatii.

Simple and effective.:smallbiggrin:

Fhaolan
2009-09-21, 11:51 AM
Word. This is pretty much what Musashi suggests. However, he also advocates using walls and doorways to avoid being flanked when fighting inside buildings (but still keeping enough distance so the wall doesn't hinder movement or blocks escape, and always keeping on moving). IMHO, the Book of the Five Rings is a nice source for tactics in one-on-one and many-on-one swordfights (if taken with a grain of salt).

Yeah, I made an assumption there that I didn't state. I assumed that the phrase 'back up against the wall' meant the combatant had become static, fixed in place, and effectively trapped.

Subotei
2009-09-21, 05:27 PM
And just for kicks, how do you think this would have changed the outcome of WWII? Would Japan get it's butt kicked much faster? Would the Soviet Union have been able to do it without US industrial assistance and the opening of a second European front with D-day? What about North Africa?

It may have taken longer to beat Japan without Germany's DoW - as has already been said the actual military power deployed in the Pacific was already overwhelming for the task at hand, until you come to invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. This wasn't needed in 45 due to the atomic bomb's dramatic use.

Nuclear research (the Manhatton Project) didn't really start to get into high gear until after Japan and Germany's Dow on the US, and was really driven by the fear of a nuclear armed Nazi Germany. Without Germay's DoW would the research have been pushed forward as fast as it actually was? Also, would the US have risked using the Bomb on an already beaten Japan, whilst Germany and its nuclear arms programme was still under Nazi control - it would've resulted in a massive increase in the effort to produce a Nazi Bomb.

Most likely scenario would be a mass blockade and further conventional bombing of Japan, adding many months to the Pacific war, in my opinion.

EleventhHour
2009-09-21, 05:53 PM
Alright, I've seen the whole mess of the warbow/longbow vs. Plate. (I think plate wins, personally) But what about crossbows? They were made to defeat plate with heavy-headed bolts, but did they really do it well?

Philistine
2009-09-21, 05:58 PM
The US embargo on raw material (particularly steel and oil) to Japan wasn't exactly friendly. It became one of Japan's declared causes for war.
I agree it wasn't "friendly," but the intent (as is usual with trade sanctions) was to discourage Japanese aggression in Asia without starting a shooting war.


Do you have any evidence for this? Many of the documents from initial meetings seem to say otherwise.
Are you familiar with the color-coded inter-war plans at all? Rainbow Five is the one to look for here: drawn up by the Joint Planning Committee in 1940, it laid out strategic options in case the US was drawn into both the European and Asian wars, and recommended that the campaign against Japan should be primarily defensive until Germany and Italy were taken out of the picture.

Now, this doesn't mean that people didn't panic in the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack. But when they started to come back to their senses, they realized that the earlier analysis was still correct and returned to "Germany First."

Mike_G
2009-09-21, 06:24 PM
Alright, I've seen the whole mess of the warbow/longbow vs. Plate. (I think plate wins, personally) But what about crossbows? They were made to defeat plate with heavy-headed bolts, but did they really do it well?


The big advantage to crossbows wasn't more power, it was greater ease of use.

It takes very little effort to get competent with a crossbow. It takes years of constant practice to get good with a longbow.

In fact, a crossbow is less efficient than a longbow in that it exerts its force over a much shorter distance traveled before the projectile leaves the strong, so a crossbow with a similar draw weight will produce less power. You need to almost triple the draw weight to get similar results. That said, the heaviest crossbows, spanned with a windlass, could throw a bolt with a great deal of power.

But I haven't seen tests against plate, so I can't really asnwer you question.

Adlan
2009-09-21, 06:38 PM
Alright, I've seen the whole mess of the warbow/longbow vs. Plate. (I think plate wins, personally) But what about crossbows? They were made to defeat plate with heavy-headed bolts, but did they really do it well?

I agree, plate won, it got to the point at which it could beat both Arrows and Bolts and Bullets. It just also got too heavy and expensive, and was replaced by armies of cheaper professional mercenaries.

Raum
2009-09-21, 07:31 PM
I agree it wasn't "friendly," but the intent (as is usual with trade sanctions) was to discourage Japanese aggression in Asia without starting a shooting war. Perhaps, but it's hard to say 'We don't intend war." when we're cutting off trade to you and supplying your enemies and enemies of your allies. All while ordering a military buildup in the Philippines and transferring Pacific Fleet headquarters to a forward base at Hawaii from San Diego.

Whatever American citizens wanted, it's hard to argue our leadership didn't want war.


Are you familiar with the color-coded inter-war plans at all? Rainbow Five is the one to look for here: drawn up by the Joint Planning Committee in 1940, it laid out strategic options in case the US was drawn into both the European and Asian wars, and recommended that the campaign against Japan should be primarily defensive until Germany and Italy were taken out of the picture.

Now, this doesn't mean that people didn't panic in the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack. But when they started to come back to their senses, they realized that the earlier analysis was still correct and returned to "Germany First."Sure, Rainbow Five is closest to what actually happened - but it was one of several plans. It was also preceded by 'War Plan Orange' which envisioned a Pacific war against Japan alone. In spite of all the different plans, US military leadership couldn't agree* with British military leadership on a Euro-centric campaign until after the political leadership stepped in and made the decision.

*I suspect politics of prestige and decisions of who would lead had as much to do with this as a desire to concentrate on Japan first. Particularly since the Army was pro Europe first when writing Rainbow Five contingency plans. (Navy wanted a Pacific campaign even then.)

Fortinbras
2009-09-21, 10:48 PM
Do 5.56 rounds tumble.

Also m16 vs. AK46 strengths and weaknesses.

Philistine
2009-09-21, 11:19 PM
Perhaps, but it's hard to say 'We don't intend war." when we're cutting off trade to you and supplying your enemies and enemies of your allies. All while ordering a military buildup in the Philippines and transferring Pacific Fleet headquarters to a forward base at Hawaii from San Diego.

Whatever American citizens wanted, it's hard to argue our leadership didn't want war.
Yes, but not with Japan. Not right away, at least. As I've said, those actions were intended to deter Japan from widening the war. The idea was that, as diplomacy had proven so utterly ineffective, the embargo would starve the Japanese Army out of China and French Indochina; the military buildups in Hawaii and the PI were meant to persuade Japan that they wouldn't be able to seize the materials they needed by force, either. It just didn't work out that way.

The problem was that prior to the Japanese occupation of French Indochina, the Japanese Naval General Staff had predicted that the most likely Western response to such a move would be a US-led embargo on oil, and possibly iron as well. They also estimated that unless Japan backed down, they would be forced to go to war in roughly a year as stockpiles of strategic materials dwindled. The Japanese government chose to move forward despite that estimation, because they were trying to provoke a war. They believed that such a conflict was inevitable, but they also knew that they had no hope of competing in a flat-out arms race; so they wanted to get the war over with before the US rearmament programs* really kicked in, while they still had some chance of victory. The error of the US government was not that they wanted war with Japan, it was that they failed to understand that the Japanese government did want war the US.


* Never mind the way the floodgates opened after Pearl Harbor: even the prewar rearmament programs threatened to leave Japan's armed forces hopelessly outnumbered within two to three years.


Sure, Rainbow Five is closest to what actually happened - but it was one of several plans. It was also preceded by 'War Plan Orange' which envisioned a Pacific war against Japan alone. In spite of all the different plans, US military leadership couldn't agree* with British military leadership on a Euro-centric campaign until after the political leadership stepped in and made the decision.

*I suspect politics of prestige and decisions of who would lead had as much to do with this as a desire to concentrate on Japan first. Particularly since the Army was pro Europe first when writing Rainbow Five contingency plans. (Navy wanted a Pacific campaign even then.)
Actually, the last version of Orange was retired in the late 1930s along with the rest of the "color" plans; thoguht it's true that quite a bit of Orange was eventually incorporated into the Rainbow plans.

Rainbow Five, for its part, included several different options - including "Japan First" and "50:50 Split." But it was the "Germany First" option that was endorsed by the heads of both services and delivered to Roosevelt (along with a strongly-worded memo supporting this choice from CNO Stark) in November 1940.

Stephen_E
2009-09-22, 12:35 AM
The problem was that prior to the Japanese occupation of French Indochina, the Japanese Naval General Staff had predicted that the most likely Western response to such a move would be a US-led embargo on oil, and possibly iron as well. They also estimated that unless Japan backed down, they would be forced to go to war in roughly a year as stockpiles of strategic materials dwindled. The Japanese government chose to move forward despite that estimation, because they were trying to provoke a war. They believed that such a conflict was inevitable, but they also knew that they had no hope of competing in a flat-out arms race; so they wanted to get the war over with before the US rearmament programs* really kicked in, while they still had some chance of victory. The error of the US government was not that they wanted war with Japan, it was that they failed to understand that the Japanese government did want war the US.



Nothing I've ever read supported that view of Japan. My readings are that Japan basically wanted to carve out an asian empire like the other powers had carved out empires. They felt they were a major power like the western powers were, and should be treated as such. Now whether you agree with their perception of themselves it's fairly clear that the western nations didn't see them as equals, not just in terms of power, but in terms of race. Keep in mind everyone (in terms of countries) was thourghly racist by todays standards at that time. The Japanese saw themselves as in the same race category as the europeans and white americans (call it category 1), while they in turn put the Japanese in with the rest of the asians, category 2 (Blacks were category 3, roughly speaking).

Add in that while there were individual Japanese writing reports with the actual facts, the evidence is that the people at the top simply weren't beleiving the realistic analysis and instead beleived what suited them. By the way the US was no better. Thus you have reports indicating the possible Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, and the Oil Embargos on Japan, and yet both sides ignored them because they simply didn't match the world views of the people making the decisions.

Even so by the time Japan had decided they had to attack the US (and there was a significant push just to hit the neutral oil supliers) they were well aware they couldn't actually defeat the US in terms of unconditional surrender (I don't think they ever thought it was on the cards) but thry thought they could get a negotiatated peace if they hit the US hard enough at start. Keep in mind that wars followed by negotiated peaces had been the norm over the last couple of centuries for conflicts between powers of roughly equal ranking, which is how Japan saw the situation.

Stephen E

Dervag
2009-09-22, 02:27 AM
Nothing I've ever read supported that view of Japan. My readings are that Japan basically wanted to carve out an asian empire like the other powers had carved out empires. They felt they were a major power like the western powers were, and should be treated as such. Now whether you agree with their perception of themselves it's fairly clear that the western nations didn't see them as equals, not just in terms of power, but in terms of race.The Japanese saw themselves as not only equal, but quite often better than the whites; Japan was a very nationalistic country back then. But at the same time they were painfully aware that the British and Americans had more battleships, more aircraft carriers, and more factories, many of them hopelessly far beyond Japan's strategic reach.

Believing that you are someone's racial equal or superior, and that you have a right to an empire, does not prevent you from realizing that you cannot win an arms race against a bigger rival. So Japan embraced a strategy of trying to preempt any Anglo/American retaliation by overrunning their forces in the region and establishing an unattackable position... and lost the gamble.

The problem the Americans faced is that they underestimated just how committed Japan was to a strategy of imperial conquest. If Japan had been only weakly committed in the first place, US moves in the Pacific might have deterred them by making them fear the outcome of a war with a much larger power that they were not physically able to defeat permanently. But because Japan was strongly committed, when the US made its moves Japan simply revised its strategy to take the new threat into account, rather than reconsidering the basic goal of strength through conquest.

Yora
2009-09-22, 02:57 AM
I think the similarities between Japan and Germany in the first half of the 20th century are amazing. And though you can't analyze countries from two different cultures the same way, I think many things are matching.

Like Germany, Japan had been a major military power for centuries. But in the late 19th century, both realized that they had stagnated for far too long and had missed the fact, that the times were changing during industrializaton. Both had societies obsessed with duty, that were highly hierarchical with strong military cultures. Brittain and France had these huge colonial empires, and germany had Namibia and two isolated islands in the Pacific. And Japan was still stuck in the middle ages while the Brittish, French, and Americans brought industrialization to their colonies in South-East Asia.
So both countries came up with the same solution to show everyone else that they are still superior powers, and decided to be a total **** to everyone! Even the times match pretty close. Unfortunally for everyone they DID still got it, and you gnow the genocidal attrocities that followed.

Interestingly, the similarities didn't stop there. Both countries were badly beaten by the Americans with help of the British, and competely conquered. Both turned highly pacifistic and kept out of every armed conflict for 50 to 60 years. Both had to rebuild their countries and became the world second and third largest economies. (And both are suffering from rapidly declining birth rates today, which might probably be related.)

But the Japanese didn't herd up people and build factories to slauhter them, so we Germans have still the worst history of all time. ^^

blackseven
2009-09-22, 04:22 AM
Like Germany, Japan had been a major military power for centuries. But in the late 19th century, both realized that they had stagnated for far too long...

Germany, yes, even though a united "Germany" (as a single formal state) didn't exist until 1871 (yes I realize Yora is posting from Germany, so I'm pointing this out for people who might not know this). Prior to that, German military power was primarily famous for the Prussian state troops, IIRC. OTOH, German military power was well known and displayed even in the later half of the 1800s thanks to the Franco-Prussia War, and the earlier (and arguably "internal") Austro-Prussian War.

Japan, not so much. Japan's last foreign war was Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea back in 1592. I would argue that although Japan soundly trounced Korea, it spoke more of Korea's lack of military preparedness than to the prowess of Japanese troops. Most of Japan's military mystique comes from long periods of civil wars, and relatively little of it is from foreign conquests.

Basically, my point is that Japan was a "military power" that primarily fought itself, whereas Germany was a military power that did a lot of fighting of other nations/states.

Zincorium
2009-09-22, 04:51 AM
Do 5.56 rounds tumble.

Also m16 vs. AK46 strengths and weaknesses.

5.56mm NATO rounds tumble if you get a good hit, they're going at a high enough velocity, and the guy you shot isn't very lucky.

Velocity is the only factor that the issuer of the weapon has control over; a short barreled gun like the M4 carbine can't provide enough velocity to tumble at anything except room-clearing range, but it will still put a hole in someone farther out.

Non-FMJ rounds or headshots make it far less of an issue.

Weapon comparison of strengths:

M-16 strengths:
-Much lighter
-Lighter/smaller ammunition
-Less recoil
-*potentially* more accurate due to tighter tolerances
-Better ergonomics

AK-47 strengths:
-Better penetration
-Looser tolerances, better able to deal with dirt, contaminants
-More resistant to trauma
-cheaper to manufacture
-better for hitting people with (heavier, solid wood furniture)


There are a lot of opinions out about both, I've only shot either recreationally.

Rasilak
2009-09-22, 08:29 AM
Also, 5.56 NATO has a tendency to fragment under some circumstances. Of course, we argue that this does not violate Genava Convention since we didn't design it that way on purpose...

Raum
2009-09-22, 10:23 AM
Yes, but not with Japan. Not right away, at least. As I've said, those actions were intended to deter Japan from widening the war. Perhaps. The majority of histories I've read tend to fall in the other camp, but intent is nebulous and difficult to nail down. In many cases you can't even trust an individual's own description of intent when given after the fact.


Actually, the last version of Orange was retired in the late 1930s along with the rest of the "color" plans; thoguht it's true that quite a bit of Orange was eventually incorporated into the Rainbow plans. To a point you're correct (I think the individual colors were still used to designate individual countries and potential plans for dealing with them even under Rainbow.) but you brought up precedence... :smallwink:


Rainbow Five, for its part, included several different options - including "Japan First" and "50:50 Split." But it was the "Germany First" option that was endorsed by the heads of both services and delivered to Roosevelt (along with a strongly-worded memo supporting this choice from CNO Stark) in November 1940.Hmm, it sounds like you're combining all the Rainbow plans into Rainbow Five.


Rainbow 1 was a plan for a defensive war to protect the United States and the Western Hemisphere north of ten degrees S latitude. In such a war, the United States was assumed to be without major allies.
Rainbow 2 assumed that the United States would be allied with Britain and France. This would permit an immediate American offensive in the Pacific.
Rainbow 3 was a repetition of the Orange Plan, with the proviso that hemispheric defense would first be secured, as provided in Rainbow 1.
Rainbow 4 was based on the same assumptions as Rainbow 1 but extended the American mission to include the defense of the entire Western Hemisphere.
Rainbow 5, destined to become the basis for American strategy in World War II, assumed that the United States was allied with Britain and France and provided for offensive operations by American forces in Europe, Africa or both. The variety of situations and strategies envisioned in the Rainbow plans epitomized American leaders' confusion and uncertainty as Europe drifted into war. As I understand it, the entire set was endorsed.

EleventhHour
2009-09-22, 10:58 AM
...The World War stuff, while really interesting... is slightly off topic, since it's not a comparison of weapons...

On that note ;

The whole 'hammerstrike' with Cruciform sword hilts, myth or reality?

Spiryt
2009-09-22, 11:22 AM
Talhoffer (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web_files/image014.jpg) describes plenty of strikes with pommel and guard.

I'm sure that other master do so too, but I'm too lazy to search it up at the moment.

In some more "live" reenacting fights, pommel strike is often considered very effective in close quarters, for example.

So strikes with pommel and guard on 154 % could have been used, and quite probably they were indeed in use in the past.

They don't necessarily have to be performed with grabbing the blade, in halfsword and normal grip also allows for solid attack.

HenryHankovitch
2009-09-22, 12:49 PM
The big advantage to crossbows wasn't more power, it was greater ease of use.

It takes very little effort to get competent with a crossbow. It takes years of constant practice to get good with a longbow.

In fact, a crossbow is less efficient than a longbow in that it exerts its force over a much shorter distance traveled before the projectile leaves the strong, so a crossbow with a similar draw weight will produce less power. You need to almost triple the draw weight to get similar results. That said, the heaviest crossbows, spanned with a windlass, could throw a bolt with a great deal of power.

But I haven't seen tests against plate, so I can't really asnwer you question.

Another advantage for the crossbow is one of the major reasons for the eventual adoption of the musket: the ability of bowmen to shoot at range is dependent not only on their skill, but on their physical strength and health. As your bowman tires, his range drops, which is a concern when you're marching an army around on short rations.

Your crossbowmen, in addition to being more plentiful and cheaper to obtain, don't lose effectiveness so quickly, since they use levers, cranks, or belt-hooks (allowing them to draw the bow with their legs) instead of brute strength.

HenryHankovitch
2009-09-22, 01:07 PM
Do 5.56 rounds tumble.

Also m16 vs. AK46 strengths and weaknesses.

Already somewhat answered; I will elaborate.

Any modern, ballistic round, when it hits a semi-fluid object, like your chest cavity, will tend to flip end-for-end. The center of gravity is nearer the back end of the bullet than the front, so the tendence is for it to "flip" forward. So most rounds will start tumbling when they enter a body. The number of times they tumble, and where they end up, is a vastly more complex interaction of bullet velocity, weight, design (ballistic tip versus jacketed solid lead versus whatever else), angle of impact, and the nature of what it's going through.

Generally speaking, a lighter round will tend to have more "tumbles" than a heavier one, and is more likely to end up taking a 'curved' path through its target than one with more inertia. And a higher-velocity round will tumble more than a slower one.

All the discussion of tumbling and such has led to the occasional misconception that 5.56 rounds tumble through the air, which is completely untrue.

Asking about M16 versus AK47 is like asking about Christianity versus Islam. Religious fanaticism ensues. I will attempt to lay out a few of the most mundane and inarguable differences:

The 5.56 round fired by the M16 is somewhat smaller and lighter round than the 7.62 round of the AK47; but both of them are considered "intermediate cartridges," less powerful than full-size rifle rounds fired from, say, the Garand, M14, Mosin-Nagant, et al. All arguments on this subject past this point are prone to religious fanaticism.

The AK47 was designed to looser tolerances than the M16, and is commonly thought to be more rugged under unfavorable conditions. This does not make it immune to jamming or malfunction. It will be less precise than most M16-style rifles over range. All arguments on this subject past this point are prone to religious fanaticism.

The M16 has the full weight of the American consumer market behind it, thus resulting in a mind-bogglingly-broad amount of variants, accessories, and modifications. Similar products are available for the AK47, of course, but the availability is much smaller. This means that there is an extremely broad range of "builds" for the M16/AR15 platform, with everything from long-barreled, high-accuracy competition shooting rifles, to stubby little assault carbines, all to varying degrees of expense and quality.

Both of them will kill you very, very easily.

lsfreak
2009-09-22, 01:24 PM
From what I remember of reading through information on the subject, the current-production 5.56 rounds (I don't believe the first types of rounds made during the Vietnam era fragmented reliably, but feel free to correct me) tend to fragment during the tumbling at the point where the casing is crimped to the bullet. The fragmentation is highly dependent on impact velocity and therefore range. I want to say that I remember reading that you generally only get fragmentation under 100 meters with the current-production rounds (and again, this is going from memory of several years ago, so feel free to correct me).

As pointed out, we've justified continued use of the round because it was not intended to fragment but intended to provide better armor penetration.

Obviously, the smaller/lighter bullets of the 5.56 round are also more affected by things such as wind, rain, leaves on brush, and so forth.

I'd be interested in hearing a very brief overview of 5.56 versus 5.45. From what I remember, 5.45 tends to yaw/tumble more rapidly (being smaller) but doesn't fragment nearly as easily.

Thiel
2009-09-22, 03:31 PM
It should also be noted that a good deal of the ammunition for the AK 47 is outright dangerous. In Kosovo, the Danish contingent of the KFOR confiscated a large amount of Soviet made cartridges where up to two thirds of the brass had been replaced by injection moulded clay. This made the cartridges very likely to crack and jam when fired.

fusilier
2009-09-22, 05:48 PM
In 1820, you're still very much in the Napoleonic model; steam engines are little more than toys and exploding shells do not exist. You'd be better advised to just concentrate on building more Napoleonic-type ships, securing supplies of coal and iron ore, and trying to cultivate at least a limited domestic metalworking industry than trying to create a few "advanced" prototypes that 1820s Egypt can't possibly hope to supply or duplicate.

I agree with most of what you say, but I would like to clarify the state of explosive shells at the time. Shells definitely existed in the 1820s. Exploding shells go back to the 1500s. However, the metallurgy was such that they tended to explode in the cannon, if fired from a normal gun. Therefore a reduced charge was used, and cannons specifically designed to fire shells came into being in the 18th century--howitzers (although mortars were actually the original shell throwers). On the battlefield, howitzers had the benefit of being more mobile (use of a smaller charge meant the barrel could be lighter), however their range was limited.

I should point out that all these shells use a timed fuze, which by the 18th century was usually lit by the firing of the cannon itself (prior to that, it was common to light the fuze, then quickly "attempt" to fire the cannon). Percussion (impact) fuzes really only became feasible with rifled artillery.

By the early 19th century people were starting to realize that metallurgy had improved enough that shells could withstand being fired out of gun with a full charge. This lead to the development of "shell-guns" or "gun-howitzers" -- fundamentally these are no different than early gun designs (i.e. there was no danger in firing a new shell out of an old pattern gun). However, the attitude of the times was generally that these "new" guns were needed if you wanted to be able to fire both shell and shot. The new guns did tend to have better "lines" and as a result could be significantly lighter, while retaining roughly the same performance as an earlier pattern gun.

To the best of my knowledge, shell-firing cannons were not used on naval warships though until the 1840s or so, when Paixhans guns became more common.

fusilier
2009-09-22, 05:56 PM
Bombards:


That's gonna vary from cannon to cannon, but the 15th century was a popular time for massive guns.

Notable examples include a bombard constructed and owned by the Knights of St John of Jerusalem. It fired 260 kg granite balls and had an effective range of about 200 yards. It almost certainly was capable of being fired to greater distances, but accuracy would have been very poor, and the tremendous power of such a weapon would rapidly fall off.

Mons Meg, another 15th century supergun reportedly could fire a 180 kg ball two miles, but effective range probably would have been closer to 500 yards. (you can fire a .22 2 miles, too, but you would never do so and expect to accomplish anything. All the moreso with a 15th century supergun, because you are typically limited to less than 10-15 shots a day because of heat considerations).

The largest of this class was called Pumhart von Steyr, and it had a bore diameter of 88 CENTIMETERS, and fired a shot weighing 690 kilos. It was supposed to be best used at a range of 600 meters or so.

Smaller cannon types like the Culverin and the Falconet fired further, but had much smaller shot, between half a kilo and 10 kilos depending on the precise size of the gun.

Most of those maximum ranges are probably theoretical, I doubt they bothered elevating those bombards to a 45 degree angle to see how far they actually fired. The effective ranges are about what you would expect, but they probably tried to (and did) get them closer. I think the turks used some big guns at the fall of Constantinople.

It's important to remember that they usually used stone cannon balls, which were lighter than iron ones, and that the powder was very poor. By the 16th century improvements in gunpowder, iron shot, and just better cannon designs, meant that more efficient siege artillery could be much smaller.

Dervag
2009-09-23, 03:19 PM
Basically, my point is that Japan was a "military power" that primarily fought itself, whereas Germany was a military power that did a lot of fighting of other nations/states.Before German unification (which occured at roughly the same time as the Meiji restoration in Japan), Germans spent most of their time fighting other Germans, too. Remember the Thirty Years' War? Lots of German mercenaries on all sides.

valadil
2009-09-24, 12:55 PM
Still reading through older threads. I'm mid-way through III. I've come up with a few questions.

Is unarmed combat appropriate for discussion here? It seems like it would be, except that the title is specific to weapons and armor. I don't have any unarmed questions at the moment, just curious.

Quite a few posts mention that a curved blade is better for slashing. Less of the blade hits the target, so the parts that do go deeper than a straight blade. The problem with these blades (if I'm reading everything correctly) is that it's harder to thrust. Why not have a leaf shaped blade that's curved at the edge, but runs straight through from tip to hilt? This seems like it would cut better without gimping your thrust. The only downside I can see is that it would use more material and end up heavier. Is there anything else wrong with this design?

How much does a maul weigh? I remember reading 30lbs in a source that I thought was trustworthy (can't remember which source though, as it was in early high school and I'm 5 years out of college now). But all the reading I've done here makes 30lbs sound ridiculous. I think the context was that a maul was a popular backup weapon for archers if they got charged and needed to melee. I realize there is no one quintessential maul, but was 30lbs ever a reasonable weight?

Are there any movies that depict realistic sword fighting? I can tell when it's god awful (ie people are aiming for the other person's sword instead of the other person) but beyond that I'm not so sure.

Spiryt
2009-09-24, 01:05 PM
The best theory is that archers indeed used wooden mauls as a weapons, beacuse there where avaiable for them - they used them to drive stakes to the ground, which (stakes) played important role in quite many battles.

Can't see much more reasons why flat wooden hammers should be used as a weapons, though.

And 30 pounds is of course, completely ridiculous, not only such weight would make it unusable for combat or even work, but it's just literally hard to make maul that heavy.

Here (http://www.manningimperial.com/item.php?item_id=480&g_id=1&c_id=58) is Manning Imperial reconstruction of some probably plebian weapon - maul enchanced with simple spikes to pose more danger.

It weights 4 pounds - and it's 91 inches long.

Mike_G
2009-09-24, 07:23 PM
Still reading through older threads. I'm mid-way through III. I've come up with a few questions.

Is unarmed combat appropriate for discussion here? It seems like it would be, except that the title is specific to weapons and armor. I don't have any unarmed questions at the moment, just curious.

Quite a few posts mention that a curved blade is better for slashing. Less of the blade hits the target, so the parts that do go deeper than a straight blade. The problem with these blades (if I'm reading everything correctly) is that it's harder to thrust. Why not have a leaf shaped blade that's curved at the edge, but runs straight through from tip to hilt? This seems like it would cut better without gimping your thrust. The only downside I can see is that it would use more material and end up heavier. Is there anything else wrong with this design?


It is not harder to thrust with a curved blade. Done lots of it.

This is a confused lie perpetuated by people who have never stuck a sword in anything. It's not harder to aim, it's not producing less force, it works fine. Thrusting with a sabre was the preferred method of piercing heavy uniform coats.

A curved blade will be shorter for the same weight than a straight blade. It is harder to forge, but it works just fine.





Are there any movies that depict realistic sword fighting? I can tell when it's god awful (ie people are aiming for the other person's sword instead of the other person) but beyond that I'm not so sure.

The Duelists does a decent job. Two Napoloeonic officers fight a series of duels with smallswords, sabres and pistols. Well researched, not just flashy.

For better than average renaissance fighting, the 1974 Three Musketeers and Four Musketeers (the version with Michael York, Richard Chamberlain, and Oliver Reed) were decent. Well researched, well choreographed, period fighting, not Olympic fencing with some gymnastics.

That said, there much more bad swordfighting out there than good.

Fhaolan
2009-09-24, 10:31 PM
Is unarmed combat appropriate for discussion here? It seems like it would be, except that the title is specific to weapons and armor. I don't have any unarmed questions at the moment, just curious.

Nah, I think it would be fine. Given the amount of strategy stuff that gets bandied about, the broadness of the topic can be assumed. :)


Quite a few posts mention that a curved blade is better for slashing. Less of the blade hits the target, so the parts that do go deeper than a straight blade. The problem with these blades (if I'm reading everything correctly) is that it's harder to thrust. Why not have a leaf shaped blade that's curved at the edge, but runs straight through from tip to hilt? This seems like it would cut better without gimping your thrust. The only downside I can see is that it would use more material and end up heavier. Is there anything else wrong with this design?

Nope, except for a two things:

1) Curved blades are only harder the thrust with if you're not used to them. They do tend to torque the wrist a bit when you do, but then with the style of fighting common to curved blades you need a stronger wrist anyway.

2) You can slash or chop with any bladed weapon, but the more the balance weight of the weapon is towards the hilt, the easier it is to do the slashy bits, and the more the balance weight of the weapon is towards the point, the easier it is to do the choppy bits. Leaf blades, due to their wide blades near the point, are a lot more choppy than slashy.


How much does a maul weigh? I remember reading 30lbs in a source that I thought was trustworthy (can't remember which source though, as it was in early high school and I'm 5 years out of college now). But all the reading I've done here makes 30lbs sound ridiculous. I think the context was that a maul was a popular backup weapon for archers if they got charged and needed to melee. I realize there is no one quintessential maul, but was 30lbs ever a reasonable weight?

Typically the word 'maul' has been attached to two similar, but not quite the same tools. Some sources use 'maul' to mean 'sledgehammer', a two-handed hammer with a large metal head. Some sources use 'maul' to mean a two-handed wooden mallet, as seen in movies about old-time sideshows and circuses for doing tent pegs and the 'strongman' bellringing. As far as I'm aware, the 'normal' top end for maul weights is about 15lbs. More than that, and they just get silly. Remember though, these are *tools*, not weapons. They're not balanced for combat, and will be quite slow to recover after a swing.


Are there any movies that depict realistic sword fighting? I can tell when it's god awful (ie people are aiming for the other person's sword instead of the other person) but beyond that I'm not so sure.

The problem is that even when the fighting is actually reasonably accurate, it tends to get choppy camera work in an annoying attempt at being 'exciting'. The best sword work I've seen in a movie were some older English productions doing smallsword stuff. Which, unfortunately, were extremely brief as real smallsword fights *are* that fast. I can't remember the precise movies though, sorry.

Mike_G
2009-09-24, 10:42 PM
Oh, another thing. The center of balance on a leaf shaped blade will be further from the hilt, closer to the widest part of the blade. This will make thrusting accuratly harder.

It will make it chop better, as Fhaolan says, but it will make the weapon seem heavier. The closer to the hilt the balance point is, the easier a blade is to wield. Putting a heavier pommel on my fencing weapons made my parries faster, and my tip control better, despite making the total weight more. It felt lighter.

Subotei
2009-09-25, 02:10 PM
Hi,

Anyone with an interest in Anglo-saxon swords, arms or metalwork should check out the find thats just been publicised in the last couple of days - check out the BBC website for links. Seems to be a 7th Century hoard of sword and arms fittings mainly in gold and silver. No blades though - they seem to think it was either stripped spoils from a battle or some sort of trophy collection or offering. Over 5kg of gold artifacts - more than the Sutton Hoo finds.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 04:02 PM
Yeah, I heard about that recently. Sounds like an amazing discovery!

I was thinking it might be worth assembling a bibliography for this thread, so here is a start:

In Anglo-Norman Warfare, ed. M. J. Strickland (Boydell: Woodbridge, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2000).

N. Hooper, "The Housecarls in England in the Eleventh Century", pp. 1-16.
N. Hooper, "Some Observations on the Navy in Late Anglo-Saxon England", pp. 17-27.
M. Chibnall, "Military Service in Normandy Before 1066", pp. 28-40.
J. C. Holt, "The Introduction of Knight Service in England", pp. 41-58.
J. O. Prestwich, "War and Finance in the Anglo Norman State", pp. 59-83.
M. Chibnall, "Mercenaries and the Familia Regis Under Henry I", pp. 84-92.
J. O. Prestwich, "The Military Household of the Norman Kings", pp. 93-127.
R. A. Brown, "The Status of the Norman Knight", pp. 128-142.
J. Gillingham, "William the Bastard at War", pp. 143-160.
R. A. Brown, "The Battle of Hastings", pp. 161-181.
J. Bradbury, "Battles in England and Normandy, 1066-1154", pp. 182-193.
J. Gillingham, "Richard I and the Science of War in the Middle Ages", pp. 194-207.
M. J. Strickland, "Securing the North: Invasion and the Strategy of Defence in Twelfth-Century Anglo-Scottish Warfare", pp. 208-229.
M. Bennett, "Wace and Warfare", pp. 230-250.
J. Gillingham, "War and Chivalry in the History of William the Marshal", pp. 251-264.

The above were all originally published elsewhere before being collected into this volume; some are available to read online at De Re Militari (http://www.deremilitari.org/).

J. H. Beeler, "The Composition of Anglo-Norman Armies", Speculum xl (1965), pp. 398-414.
J. Bradbury, The Medieval Archer (Woodbridge, 1985)
J. Manley, "The Archer and the Army in the Late Saxon Period", Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, iv (1985), pp. 223-35.

Jack S. Levy, ‘The Offensive and Defensive Balance of Military Technology: A Theoretical and Historical Analysis’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2. (Jun., 1984), pp. 219-238. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-8833%28198406%2928%3A2%3C219%3ATOBOMT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1)

George Raudzens, ‘War-Winning Weapons: The Measurement of Technological Determinism in Military History’, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 54, No. 4. (Oct., 1990), pp. 403-434. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28199010%2954%3A4%3C403%3AWWTMOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L)

Alex Roland, ‘Theories and Models of Technological Change: Semantics and Substance’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Winter, 1992), pp. 79-100. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2439%28199224%2917%3A1%3C79%3ATAMOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8)

Clifford J. Rogers, ‘The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years' War’, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 2. (Apr., 1993), pp. 241-278. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28199304%2957%3A2%3C241%3ATMROTH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F)

Dennis E. Showalter, ‘Caste, Skill, and Training: The Evolution of Cohesion in European Armies from the Middle Ages to the Sixteenth Century’, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 3. (Jul., 1993), pp. 407-430. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28199307%2957%3A3%3C407%3ACSATTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J)

Clifford J. Rogers, ‘Edward III and the Dialectics of Strategy, 1327-1360: The Alexander Prize Essay,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 4. (1994), pp. 83-102. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4401%281994%296%3A4%3C83%3AEIATDO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E)

John France, ‘Recent Writing on Medieval Warfare: From the Fall of Rome to c. 1300’, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 65, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 441-473. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28200104%2965%3A2%3C441%3ARWOMWF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0)

John Stone, Technology, Society, and the Infantry Revolution of the Fourteenth Century
The Journal of Military History, Vol. 68, No. 2. (Apr., 2004), pp. 361-380. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28200404%2968%3A2%3C361%3ATSATIR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1)

Chris Philo, ‘The Chaotic Spaces’ of Medieval Madness: Thoughts on the English and Welsh Experience, Nature and Society in Historical Context, ed. Mikulas Teich, Roy Porter and Bo Gustafsson (Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 51-90.

Dienekes
2009-09-25, 04:23 PM
Are there any movies that depict realistic sword fighting? I can tell when it's god awful (ie people are aiming for the other person's sword instead of the other person) but beyond that I'm not so sure.

Sort of a small bit off this question. How accurate was the fighting in Rob Roy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaslN1NiT0

I've heard it's very accurate as well as not accurate at all, and was hoping for some of your expert opinion.

Mike_G
2009-09-26, 12:27 PM
As far as I remember, the fighting in Rob Roy wasn't too bad. The broadsword vs smallsword duels highlighted the advantages of both, ie, it's easy to score a hit with a smallsword, but unless you hit a vital organ, chances are it won't be immediately fatal or disabling, while a broadsword is a but slower, harder to change direction in mid attack, but on an unarmored foe, one hit should pretty much do the job.

While this is a bit of an oversimplification, there's a certain amount of truth to it. The economy of motion of smallsword fighting also shows in how Tim Roth is still going strong while Liam Neeson is running on fumes by the end of it. A broadsword isn't all that heavy, per se, but it takes more energy to wield it, especially when facing a quick opponent.

Edited Kus Eye spel gud.

Ravens_cry
2009-09-26, 03:38 PM
I am working on superheroine (http://ravens-cry.deviantart.com/art/Exemplar-137117244) who I plan to wield tonfa. Since she is a former cop, it seemed logical. Anyway, how were they wielded? What kind of moves were used? I hope to draw this someday, so pictorial references would be more than welcome.

Tiktakkat
2009-09-26, 04:01 PM
I am working on superheroine (http://ravens-cry.deviantart.com/art/Exemplar-137117244) who I plan to wield tonfa. Since she is a former cop, it seemed logical. Anyway, how were they wielded? What kind of moves were used? I hope to draw this someday, so pictorial references would be more than welcome.

Search YouTube for "Hamahiga no Tonfa", a common Okinawan kata. That should give you a reasonable idea of most of the strikes. Primary targets would be the collarbones, forearm/wrist, and elbow/floating ribs.
Not shown is that the the tonfa can be "flipped" and the handle used for focused strikes and tripping, and that the tonfa can be used to enhance certain locks. (If you brace a locked joint against a piece of hardwood it is significantly more painful than if braced against an arm.) I expect there are videos of such maneuvers on YouTube as well.

Ravens_cry
2009-09-26, 05:29 PM
Tiktakkat, thank you, I will look for that.

Fortinbras
2009-09-26, 07:39 PM
Bayonets in the second word war to the present day. What can people tell me about them?

Mike_G
2009-09-26, 09:20 PM
Bayonets in the second word war to the present day. What can people tell me about them?

If you need to use it, things have gone very, very wrong.

Norsesmithy
2009-09-26, 09:38 PM
Mostly they have devolved to utility knives, BUT having a bayonet on the end of his rifle tends to make a soldier more aggressive, and tends to be rather intimidating to the enemy, because it is a signal that the bayonet equipped troops are willing to close despite risk of casualties, and brutally end their opponents.

Bayonet Charges have been seen in several of our modern wars, including a famous one carried out by British forces in Iraq.

I also have heard that some American troops, specifically National Guard and Marines, would mount bayonets when room cleaning, because it discourages unarmed people from deciding to try and fight (and grab the muzzle or whatever), and therefore saving lives.

Mike_G
2009-09-26, 09:59 PM
The bayonet is nice to have in close quarters, and in an urban combat scenario, especially a room clearing situation, you can encounter threats at very close quarters indeed. If you run out of ammo, if your weapon misfires, or if the enemy considers grabbing at your rifle, the ability to jab him is a nice threat.

Pre-WWII, it was considered more of an important part of the infantryman's arsenal. Since then, with everyone and his brother using rapid firing, high capacity weapons, it's more of an ace in the hole weapon than a significant part of his offense, like it was in the days of slow firing weapons and close order maneuver.

If one of Wellington's soldiers used his bayonet, that was the assumed end result of a charge where neither side broke. If a modern soldier uses one, that's the result of things going to crap.

Dervag
2009-09-27, 05:10 AM
Hi,

Anyone with an interest in Anglo-saxon swords, arms or metalwork should check out the find thats just been publicised in the last couple of days - check out the BBC website for links. Seems to be a 7th Century hoard of sword and arms fittings mainly in gold and silver. No blades though - they seem to think it was either stripped spoils from a battle or some sort of trophy collection or offering. Over 5kg of gold artifacts - more than the Sutton Hoo finds.That pops a question into my mind:

How common were gold and silver in various ancient cultures? In Anglo-Saxon England, 5 kg might be a small fortune; in Inca Peru, it might be a much smaller fortune for all I know.

D&D uses a very inflationary economy, one that implies that the total precious metal reserves of civilization are large on the order of many tons. How does that match up to reality?

Adlan
2009-09-27, 06:41 AM
Bayonet's are:
Good for Moral, It's quite comforting to a solider to have to what is, essentially a spear.
Good for training aggression. Spear use is pretty deep in the blood and bone of mankind, when training with a bayonet, it is an important part of training the mental preparedness to kill.

At the moment, it's being used quite often in the close quarter fighting in Afghanistan. The terrain is very dense, and combat often occurs at less than 20 yards. The latest case I recall is of a Subbie, who, with an empty mag, bayoneted several Taliban fighters in a machine gun post who were pinning down his troops.

Yora
2009-09-27, 07:05 AM
That pops a question into my mind:

How common were gold and silver in various ancient cultures? In Anglo-Saxon England, 5 kg might be a small fortune; in Inca Peru, it might be a much smaller fortune for all I know.

D&D uses a very inflationary economy, one that implies that the total precious metal reserves of civilization are large on the order of many tons. How does that match up to reality?
Gold coins were always rather rare, with silver coins being MUCH more common. There's an estimate that all gold that has ever been mined in the world, ammounts to about 160,000 tonnes. Being 160,000,000 kg and assuming 1 kg gold is worth 100 coins, that would be enough gold for 16 billion gp. That would be enough to pay for 320 longswords +5. :smallbiggrin:
But this number includes all the gold that has been mined on industrial scale in a world with 6 billion people. So in a common fantasy world, that amount would probably be much smaller.

I think the assumption that a common laborer makes 1 silver coin per day, is not too far of. (Though the prices for common item clearly are!) Given that, 5 kg of gold would be equal to his wage for 5000 days, or 14 years. And in an economy were most goods are food and clothing, or houses that you build yourself, that's a huge amount of monney.

GM.Casper
2009-09-27, 07:12 AM
How do you defend against grenades in urban combat? Is there much point in taking up defensive positions if a grenade lobed over the wall can take out half the squad?
And in the future, a drone could quickly fly trough a building, scan for any enemies and shoot them in a blink of an eye before continuing to the next building.

And about bayonets: Does having a bayonet mounted impede you in any way?

MickJay
2009-09-27, 07:24 AM
For Aztecs, gold was sacred and as such reserved for the gods - it had no real monetary value.

As for the worth of gold in Europe, for a long, long time the exchange ratio between gold and silver was between 1:12 and 1:20. An Athenian worker would earn about a drachma (4.3 gram) per day, while a talent (or 6000 drachmas) were just about enough to build a large warship (another talent would be needed to equip it). 5kg of gold would be enough to support a family on an acceptable level for perhaps 15-20 years. The value of gold wouldn't change drastically until Europe was flooded with the loot from America; depending on time and place, gold would be worth even more, as Europe tended to import more than export for much of the medieval period.

Dervag
2009-09-27, 07:37 AM
Gold coins were always rather rare, with silver coins being MUCH more common. There's an estimate that all gold that has ever been mined in the world, ammounts to about 160,000 tonnes. Being 160,000,000 kg and assuming 1 kg gold is worth 100 coins, that would be enough gold for 16 billion gp. That would be enough to pay for 320 longswords +5. :smallbiggrin:
But this number includes all the gold that has been mined on industrial scale in a world with 6 billion people. So in a common fantasy world, that amount would probably be much smaller.Au contraire; in a common fantasy world it seems pretty obvious that there is far more gold (and possibly silver) than there was in real preindustrial Earth. Maybe those metals are more common, maybe wizards make them out of nothing for giggles; I don't know. Which is why gold coins become a fairly common medium of exchange (say, like 50$ bills are in real-life America, valuable and inconvenient to make change for, but still common enough that most people will have seen them), instead of being the rare and exotic stuff the peasants virtually never see (the way 5000$ bills might be, if they were still around at all).

Which is why I'm so interested in the amount of gold and silver in REAL economies that actually existed, so that I have a standard of comparison.


How do you defend against grenades in urban combat? Is there much point in taking up defensive positions if a grenade lobed over the wall can take out half the squad?You train to dive for cover if someone throws a grenade. You wear body armor that makes you more resistant to shrapnel. You try to find positions where you have long lines of fire so that nobody can sneak into throwing range and obliterate you.


And in the future, a drone could quickly fly trough a building, scan for any enemies and shoot them in a blink of an eye before continuing to the next building.Maybe, but since we're not there yet, nobody has figured out tactics to counter it yet. There might honestly not be one if the drones are effective enough, of course, but we're probably going to go through several generations of close combat drones that aren't that fast and deadly before anyone invents one that is.


And about bayonets: Does having a bayonet mounted impede you in any way?Well, having a long pointy thing on the end of your rifle makes it more awkward in tight spaces, and slightly increases the risk of injuring a friend nearby. Generally, good soldiers are trained not to point their guns anywhere near a friend, but accidents happen... and accidents are a lot more serious when they happen with a knife than with a muzzle.


For Aztecs, gold was sacred and as such reserved for the gods - it had no real monetary value.True, but someone was still digging the stuff up. So the gold had a de facto value, in much the same sense that, say, marble blocks for building Greek temples did. You didn't use marble blocks as a medium of exchange, and the Aztecs presumably didn't use lumps of gold that way, either... but could still say "wow, one pound of gold, that's equivalent to X peasants working for T days!" And you could still talk about the total size of the Aztec gold reserves.


The value of gold wouldn't change drastically until Europe was flooded with the loot from America; depending on time and place, gold would be worth even more, as Europe tended to import more than export for much of the medieval period.Right. Broadly speaking, how much gold came in from the Americas as loot compared to the amount already in Europe? How did the situation in Europe compare to, say, China? Is there any way to get a rough idea of the total amount of gold floating around in medieval Europe at a given time?

Adlan
2009-09-27, 07:38 AM
How do you defend against grenades in urban combat? Is there much point in taking up defensive positions if a grenade lobed over the wall can take out half the squad?

Just because a grenade can take you out dosn't mean you should expose your self to the bullets that might also take you down. Yes, there is alot of use in taking up defensive positions, in addition to protection, getting out of line of sight, and resting your weapon is a good idea.



And in the future, a drone could quickly fly trough a building, scan for any enemies and shoot them in a blink of an eye before continuing to the next building.
Yes, it's the future, anything could happen. How soon, and how effectivly? I don't know.



And about bayonets: Does having a bayonet mounted impede you in any way?

Yes, Bayonets make the weapon longer, nose heavy and more cumbersome in general, you have to be even more careful about which direction they are pointing, and in vehicles.

In historically it impeded reloading speed with muzzle loaders.

Yora
2009-09-27, 07:47 AM
Maybe, but since we're not there yet, nobody has figured out tactics to counter it yet. There might honestly not be one if the drones are effective enough, of course, but we're probably going to go through several generations of close combat drones that aren't that fast and deadly before anyone invents one that is.
If you can assume that you'll face such attacks and have the neccessary founds, electroic countermeasures would probably highly prevalent. If it is remote controlled, you could probably jam it in some way. If it would be fully autonomous, you'd probably able to trick the software. If you deploy small drones, you don't want them to shot everything that moves, so it would have to determine threats, and could be fooled.

Brainfart
2009-09-27, 11:01 AM
Having a bayonet also tends to impede accuracy on most guns.

Norsesmithy
2009-09-27, 08:08 PM
It will change the point of impact, but it generally doesn't make the rifle shoot larger groups.

And if you know in what way it changes your point of impact, it can be adjusted for easy.

My AR-15 shoots about half an inch high (at 100 yards) with an M7 bayonet mounted, my Mosin Nagant shoots about an inch low (at the same range), but it isn't like they shoot any less precisely than they do without a bayonet mounted.

Dervag
2009-09-27, 10:57 PM
It will change the point of impact, but it generally doesn't make the rifle shoot larger groups.

And if you know in what way it changes your point of impact, it can be adjusted for easy.

My AR-15 shoots about half an inch high (at 100 yards) with an M7 bayonet mounted, my Mosin Nagant shoots about an inch low (at the same range), but it isn't like they shoot any less precisely than they do without a bayonet mounted.Nitpick: the bayonet is impeding accuracy, then; it just isn't affecting precision. Accuracy is your ability to hit the target. Precision is your ability to hit the same spot over and over.

Imagine you have an extremely accurate long range rifle, rested in a very stable position, and then take the scope and bend it through a sixty degree angle. You won't hit what you're aiming at through that scope. But your groups will be REALLY small, even if they're several hundred yards away from where they're supposed to be.

That's precision (small groups) without accuracy (missed the target). As you note, it's usually possible to counteract poor accuracy as long as precision is still good.

Norsesmithy
2009-09-27, 11:13 PM
Except it doesn't impede accuracy, because I can still punch bullseyes. All it does is force me to change the settings on my sights.

Like any number of other factors (like ambient temp, humidity, barometric pressure, etc).

Kemper Boyd
2009-09-27, 11:14 PM
Most contemporary sources from WW2 don't have too much good to say about bayonets. They frequently were seen as useless extra weight for the soldier to carry.

The finnish army produced a new bayonet model before WW2, and most of them disappeared during the war. Practice showed that most soldiers didn't like them and instead used knives for hand-to-hand fighting.

firechicago
2009-09-28, 07:14 AM
Most contemporary sources from WW2 don't have too much good to say about bayonets. They frequently were seen as useless extra weight for the soldier to carry.

The finnish army produced a new bayonet model before WW2, and most of them disappeared during the war. Practice showed that most soldiers didn't like them and instead used knives for hand-to-hand fighting.

Or used the bayonets themselves like knives. (Most WWII and later "bayonets" were effectively knives with loops on the handguard to go over the barrel of a gun.)

I once saw a cartoon that was published in Stars and Stripes (the US Army newspaper) during the war where one cook said to the other "Hey! did you know this potato peeler fits over the end of a rifle?"

Diamondeye
2009-09-28, 09:10 AM
How do you defend against grenades in urban combat? Is there much point in taking up defensive positions if a grenade lobed over the wall can take out half the squad?

First, you keep the enemy back far enough that he can't easily throw grenades. Grenades are notably heavier and harder to throw than most people think. The longest throw a soldier is expected to make to qualify is 35 meters, and that's standing fully upright. By contrast, the shortest rifle qualification target is 50 meters. Grenades launched from launchers go a lot farther but they also tend to be less powerful

Then, you spread out. Grenades aren't artillery shells; they really don't have THAT much explosive power. If you managed to take out more than 2 guys with a grenade, someone made a major mistake.


And in the future, a drone could quickly fly trough a building, scan for any enemies and shoot them in a blink of an eye before continuing to the next building.

Maybe. How far in the future are we talking, and what else has changed? I'm sure if effective drones that small can be made in the future, effective countermeasures can be to.


And about bayonets: Does having a bayonet mounted impede you in any way?

It increases the length of the rifle and therefore makes it harder to swing around in tight spaces, especially if other soldiers are close.

alexi
2009-09-28, 10:32 AM
back onto mauls, another iten called a maul is the axe you use to split firewood with. It has a oval shaped poll as opposed to the more dramatic pie shape of a felling axe. The one I use on a regular basis has an 8 lbs head and a 4 foot haft. The 8 lbs is not that tireing to swing for up to about 45 minutes of constant use, BUT that 8 lbs make it extremely awkward to recover with anything but a slow and steady movement. I'm not saying that the mauls used by archers had an axe shaped poll, just that I can't picture swinging 8 lbs of weight on a 4 foot stick in combat.

Kemper Boyd
2009-09-28, 11:24 AM
Or used the bayonets themselves like knives. (Most WWII and later "bayonets" were effectively knives with loops on the handguard to go over the barrel of a gun.)


Most bayonets were not really used as knives in close combat, since at least according to the finnish experience, an ordinary knife could be used for all sorts of stuff and as a weapon, but a bayonet couldn't.

Zincorium
2009-09-28, 12:16 PM
Most bayonets were not really used as knives in close combat, since at least according to the finnish experience, an ordinary knife could be used for all sorts of stuff and as a weapon, but a bayonet couldn't.

So Finnish = most?

A modern bayonet IS a knife. It has a handle, blade, and so forth identical to what is usually issued as a combat or utility knife. However, it is different in that it has a way of mounting it to the barrel, generally a loop at the base of the blade which locks onto the barrel.

They can, and were, used as everything knives were.

Theodoric
2009-09-28, 12:36 PM
Well, knifes are primarily used for cutting, while bayonets are more used for stabbing. At l;east, I think that's what he's trying to say.

Fhaolan
2009-09-28, 12:47 PM
I believe the issue there is what exactly is being termed 'bayonet'. Many bayonets I've seen are basically knives with attachment points, however I've seen several that have a triangular cross-section making them a spike rather than a knife. Basically no useful edge. I assume the Finnish version is the spike rather than the knife.

Subotei
2009-09-28, 02:43 PM
And in the future, a drone could quickly fly trough a building, scan for any enemies and shoot them in a blink of an eye before continuing to the next building.



Not if my drone sees your drone first :smallwink:

EleventhHour
2009-09-28, 03:31 PM
Not if my drone sees your drone first :smallwink:

Not if my EMP grenade takes both out and the real soldiers have to go in and do the work the old fashioned way. ...Well, kinda modern way, unless the guns run on electricity, too...

---

Magnum/Solid Slug rounds - better at piercing body armour/kevlar/anything else bullet-proof than normal shots?

Dervag
2009-09-28, 09:54 PM
The French style of bayonet during the World Wars tended to be extremely long and spiky, but they were unusual in that regard, I gather. The Finns (like a number of other European armies) may have been copying from French patterns.

Fortinbras
2009-09-28, 11:25 PM
What exactly does the term 'lock and load' mean.

Also I hear a story about a soldier in Iraq who was clearing a block by going door to door and he opened one door and there was a insurgent who popped up right in front of him. The soldier pulled out a tomahawk and killed the insurgent. First of all, did anyone know that US soldiers carried tomahawks, and two does anyone know why he didn't use his rifle? If it was jammed why did he open the door?

Fhaolan
2009-09-28, 11:44 PM
What exactly does the term 'lock and load' mean.

Nobody's quite sure. I've heard several explanations. One, that it's an old phrase from WWII having to do with the way you load a clip into a M1 rifle. Two, that's an older WWI phrase having to do with how you load cartridges into a Spenser rifle. And three, that it's an even *older* phrase having to to do with how you had to load a round into a flintlock musket. Personally, I think it's something that's very old but had changed the precise wording over the years so it's unreconizable from the original now. Why? Because that seems to be the way things work. :)


Also I hear a story about a soldier in Iraq who was clearing a block by going door to door and he opened one door and there was a insurgent who popped up right in front of him. The soldier pulled out a tomahawk and killed the insurgent. First of all, did anyone know that US soldiers carried tomahawks, and two does anyone know why he didn't use his rifle? If it was jammed why did he open the door?

To my knowledge, tomahawks are being issued to several special forces teams, Stryker brigades, and lots of other places at the moment. Apparantly these weapons are very robust, and are used to break open locks, puncture steel barrels, and other such uses as well as for close-in combat. From what I've been told, they're getting pretty popular in the armed forces.

Very likely he didn't pull out his tomahawk after opening the door, but had it out already as part of the entry procedure, supposedly with other soldiers behind him with guns ready. Possibly he was blocking their shot, and just reacted faster than they did.

Raum
2009-09-29, 07:56 AM
What exactly does the term 'lock and load' mean.It usually means chamber a round and get ready to fire. However, in movies, it usually means "make a noisy and potentially repetitive cocking action with the slide". :smallwink: As for etymology, I think Fhaolan is correct...no one is certain.

Supposedly the M1 Garrand could discharge while loading unless you locked the bolt back first. But it may also be a simple transposition of "load and lock" where you load the ammo and then lock the bolt forward to chamber a round. Or it may be referring to locking a flintlock hammer at half-**** position prior to priming the pan.

Take your pick. :)

Deadmeat.GW
2009-09-29, 08:04 AM
Actually, I think the original is from flintlocks which you had to lock in place before you could load as you had to load the firingpan also before you could fire.

Hence Lock and Load.

Zincorium
2009-09-29, 08:25 AM
Magnum/Solid Slug rounds - better at piercing body armour/kevlar/anything else bullet-proof than normal shots?

Your terminology is your problem.

Magnum: Larger than normal rounds. Require a gun specifically built to use them, you cannot use .44 magnum rounds in any gun that fires .44 caliber, it must specifically be able to use .44 magnum. +P (high pressure rounds) are the same physical dimensions but again cannot be traded around.

'Slug' rounds are anything other than shot, which is why the terminology is never used except in regards to shotguns.

Magnum rounds are generally faster, which can improve penetration depending on how much faster than a non-magnum cartridge of that caliber, or can be heavier, which has the same caveat.

Slugs for shotguns will generally negate armor not through penetration but through massive energy transference- they can easily kill someone even if the kevlar is intact.

Fhaolan
2009-09-29, 08:37 AM
Actually, I think the original is from flintlocks which you had to lock in place before you could load as you had to load the firingpan also before you could fire.

Hence Lock and Load.

It's possible, but unfortunately nobody has found an evidence of that specific phrase in period literature. There are manual of arms dealing with flintlocks, wheellocks, and the like, and the instructions include something *similar* to that phrase as part of a longer list of how to arm the weapon. If it was from those arming instructions, it's interesting that it was that specific fragment that survived and not any of the rest. Instead of 'Lock and load, boys', it could have just easily been; 'Keep it lit, boys', 'Ram it home, boys', etc.

Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that last one didn't keep, given the way military-types work. :smallbiggrin:

fusilier
2009-09-29, 10:58 AM
Bayonets:

From personal experience, socket bayonets do not interfere with the loading of a muzzle loading weapon. The weight of the bayonet may disrupt aim slightly (it shifts the balance of the weapon), but in volley fire who cares? Also, 19th century manuals assume the soldier always has the bayonet attached in battle -- so if the troops practiced firing with the bayonet in place, they probably became accustomed to it (although whether or not they ever practiced live firing is an important consideration). There was a version of the Dreyse Needle Gun that had a permanently attached bayonet. Sword bayonets, can potentially interfere with loading, but you have to realize most of these bayonets were designed with the basic operation of the gun in mind. Sword bayonets were usually restricted to "short" muzzle loading rifles. Which were *usually* issued to special rifle regiments that weren't expected to see much hand-to-hand combat. Early plug bayonets of course make it impossible to load the weapon, when the bayonet is attached.

lsfreak
2009-09-29, 12:07 PM
Magnum/Solid Slug rounds - better at piercing body armour/kevlar/anything else bullet-proof than normal shots?

As said, there's a bit of problem with your terminology. For shotguns, you have "shot" and "slug" rounds. These terms are pretty much only used for shotguns.

For handguns, rifles, and the like:

Simple lead rounds. As far as I know unjacketed lead rounds are pretty much found only for low-caliber rifle and revolver practice rather than much of any practical application.

Hollow-points (which almost always have a metal jacket except on the exposed tip) are going to expand rapidly on contact, minimizing penetration. These are generally what are advocated for self-defense handguns for various reasons, not the least of which is a large wound cavity with low overpenetration.

Full-metal-jacket rounds are just that, lead wrapped in a metal jacket. They're going to penetrate more than hollowpoints. Military rounds are (or at least were) generally of this type. Instead of jacketed lead rounds, they may instead be harder metals (copper-nickel, steel), which increases penetration and decreases deformation (unless the bullet fragments).

Then you have various armor-piercing rounds. In infantry rifles this is often a full-metal-jacket, but at the base of the bullet is a small steel or tungsten rod. Even if the bullet as a whole is stopped by something, the rod will maintain enough velocity to punch through lighter armor. If I'm not mistaken, this is pretty much the standard infantry round.

In large-caliber weapons (.50 and greater) you get saboted kinetic penetrators - under-caliber tungsten (or depleted uranium) rods encased in a light sabot to get the round as a whole large enough to go down the barrel. These rods, being very light, can attain extremely high speeds and just punch through armor. Note that to my knowledge these are generally only used with aircraft- and tank-caliber guns (20mm and up) and not in infantry rifles, though such rounds do exist for weapons such as .50caliber and 14.5mm.

Also note that despite lack of penetration against a kevlar vest, you can still get some serious damage. Even at point-blank range a 12 gauge is unlikely to actually penetrate a good kevlar vest, but the internal damage will be... unpleasant at best. Reversely, there's some very low-caliber rounds (4.5mm) that will punch right through that kevlar vest, but there is opinion that the rounds are so small that the wounds they cause are too small to reliably stop a person (see earlier discussions on the subject of people still actively fighting after being shot 10+ times with significantly more powerful).

Tyndmyr
2009-09-29, 02:32 PM
me and a friend is arguing about sword sizes.

What is the biggest sword a big, strong and healthy soldier can effectively use in different combat situations?
(think REALLY big here)

prove me right here, guys. ;P

Right, and now we apparently need PROOF to whatever claim you make.

IMO, very, very large swords can be used...consider the size of the large two hander swords of history in comparison to the size of their wielders. Thanks to better nutrition, we get quite a bit larger today than we did historically. On the flip side, average phyiscal conditioning is probably lower. However, assuming a physically fit soldier from the modern era, a very large sword could probably be used. If we allowed the use of modern alloys for better strength/weight ratios, we could probably get even larger.

However, much of the use of those large swords was actually in a manner somewhat like a spear or polearm. Nobody would have used a large sword like say, Cloud's.

Frankly, even today, there isn't much need for longer swords. Once you're out of knife stabbing range, the only real use for huge swords is anti-cav. Against other melee types, speed is going to be more important than size.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-29, 03:01 PM
More modern day answers:

Air force riflery: I've shot for precisely one afternoon in six years of service. This was in basic training. Unless you're security forces, special ops, or being deployed, weapons training is minimal. Navy is similar. Army is heavier on weapons training, but Marines are definitely on top, by a significant degree.

Bayonets: The triangular stabbing style(which I've seen from several sources. I believe some of the Garands used them) is pretty much worthless nowadays. The knife style is useful as a knife. I cant imagine ever bothering to attach one to a gun, because making the gun heavier, especially at the front end, is annoying. The length is awkward too. Accuracy isn't really a major factor though.

Grenade defence: Sandbags help with this. Dug out positions typically include grenade sumps where you, in theory, kick the grenade. As previously mentioned, if you're in a fixed position, and they've gotten to grenade range, something has already gone poorly.

Chain mail and bullets: I actually make chain mail. I've seen specifically designed mail, typically very tightly woven, made of titanium, and rivetted, that will stop light caliber bullets. I'm not aware of any that will stop typical rifle rounds, and would not advise trying to use mail as bullet protection. Regular, historical chain mail would be essentially worthless against bullets. Might provide some protection against shrapnel, though. At least, more than my vietnam era flak jacket.

M-16 vs AK. I'm apathetic. People do take this ridiculously seriously, including people that have never fired either gun. I've used both, and would pick a number of commercially available firearms over either in a heartbeat.

Full-metal jacket is standard ammo, though the usual term is ball ammunition. Armor piercing typically has a hard metal core. Hollow point is strictly an anti-personel round, not typically used by military due to Geneva Convention restrictions. Ditto other fragmenting rounds. I wouldn't call the standard .223 rounds fragmenting...fire any round fast enough, and there's a chance of fragmenting, depending on what exactly it hits and how. Very few rounds tumble in the air...it's generally considered quite undesirable from an accuracy and range perspective.

In firearms and ammo, keep in mind that most things are generalization. There is such a huge variety of available weapons and ammo that there will probably be an exception somewhere to almost every rule.

Diamondeye
2009-09-29, 03:43 PM
More modern day answers:

Air force riflery: I've shot for precisely one afternoon in six years of service. This was in basic training. Unless you're security forces, special ops, or being deployed, weapons training is minimal. Navy is similar. Army is heavier on weapons training, but Marines are definitely on top, by a significant degree.

With regard to the Army, there is no consistent Army-wide level of weapons training. Infantry, Engineer, MP, Ranger and SF units will train heavily. Other combat arms units like armor and field artillery will be somewhat less well trained, but in many cases will make up that difference in training on vehicle weapons, especially the main gun of their system. Units that are non-combat arms will be less well trained.

Units deploying or near to deploying will be trained above the norm as well.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-29, 04:25 PM
Being heavier on weapons training than the air force is a pretty low bar. By weapons training prior to deploying, I mean typically one brief session at the range. May be skipped, definitely will be skipped if you've done it in the last three years. Most weapons training consists of an online class.

The above is only rifle training. Pistol training is rare, training in other small arms is non-existant for the vast majority of the force. Sure, we technically had "grenade training" in basic, it consisted of reading a couple pages in a book that told us what a grenade was, and how to use it. Not really rocket science. No hands-on portion.

Also keep in mind that your branches with training are significant in size. Infantry is pretty common. We don't have anywhere near that amount of combat personnel.

Diamondeye
2009-09-29, 05:38 PM
Being heavier on weapons training than the air force is a pretty low bar. By weapons training prior to deploying, I mean typically one brief session at the range. May be skipped, definitely will be skipped if you've done it in the last three years. Most weapons training consists of an online class.

By Army regulation all soldiers must qualify yearly with their assigned weapon, including proper zeroing, range fire prone supported, unsupported and/or kneeling, in NBC mask, and at night.

Prior to deploying additional training in the zeroing and use of the Clsoe Combat Optic and in close-quarters marksmanship, especially while moving, is done as well, and this is for ALL soldiers, on top of any crew-served weapons training. Soldiers in units like Infantry, MP, Ranger, SF, and some types of Engineer, as well as Armor or FA when deploying in an infantry roll, will get considerably more.


The above is only rifle training. Pistol training is rare, training in other small arms is non-existant for the vast majority of the force. Sure, we technically had "grenade training" in basic, it consisted of reading a couple pages in a book that told us what a grenade was, and how to use it. Not really rocket science. No hands-on portion.

Everyone in the Army qualifies with grenades during Basic Training or ROTC camp (presumably West Point cadets do at some point too.) Soldiers assigned a pistol must qualify with that annually in addition to other weapons. No one deploys without some sort of long gun in addition to a pistol, if they have one. Soldiers qualify again with grenades later on depending on whether they are expected to employ them. 40mm grenades launched from an M203 are qualified with as part of rifle qualification for those soldiers assigned an M203.

Mike_G
2009-09-29, 06:26 PM
Also I hear a story about a soldier in Iraq who was clearing a block by going door to door and he opened one door and there was a insurgent who popped up right in front of him. The soldier pulled out a tomahawk and killed the insurgent. First of all, did anyone know that US soldiers carried tomahawks, and two does anyone know why he didn't use his rifle? If it was jammed why did he open the door?

Some special forces units carried them, and may still.

Or the guy may just carry his own.

As far as "why not use the rifle," well, for one, it's awkward to fire a rifle one handed, and if he pulled the door open, a one handed weapon would have been handier. He may have used his off hand to grab or deflect the other guys weapon and been unable to use his rifle. It's awkward to use a three foot rifle at face to face range anyway. Secondarily, a 5.56 round may well fail to stop a man all that quickly, even if he bleeds out a minute down the road, and if he's within arms length, I'd want him stopped. A tomahawk to a vital area will stop you pretty much instantly, at least from the shock of "Holy Crap! That guy just tomahawked me!"

Third, he could just be a nutjob.

There's one in every platoon.

Matthew
2009-09-29, 08:58 PM
Nice little chat here about halberds and pole-arms (http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=16163&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). I was not aware that the bardiche arose from a combination musket rest pole-axe. Anybody able to confirm or deny this?

Fhaolan
2009-09-30, 12:54 AM
Nice little chat here about halberds and pole-arms (http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=16163&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). I was not aware that the bardiche arose from a combination musket rest pole-axe. Anybody able to confirm or deny this?

I've heard that one myself, but... it doesn't seem right to me. I thought bardiche-like weapons were around long before firearms, but I might be wrong.

Mr White
2009-09-30, 02:09 AM
I, also, thought that the bardiche was one of the first pole-arms in use. So way before muskets.


On the M16 vs. AK47:
As I remember from previous discussions on this (they seem to pop up regularly), you can't really compare the 2 as they were designed with a different doctrine behind them. M16 had to fit the one-shot-one kill doctrine while the AK47 had to be easy to manufacture and all purpose (or something like that).

Rion
2009-09-30, 03:36 AM
I'm not by any means as big a weapons or history expert as others in this thread, butfrom my understanding the Bardiche was used long before the musket, and the guys at Osprey Publishing seems to agree because IIRC they have pictures of medieval russian soldiers armed with bardiches.

Dervag
2009-09-30, 03:37 AM
The AK-47 was the successor to the WWII-era submachine guns; the Soviet assault doctrine involved large numbers of infantry blasting submachine gun fire at the enemy until they could get to point blank range, rather than having the infantry try to hang back and pick off defenders from long range. In their experience, most soldiers weren't hitting anything out past 100 meters or so anyway, so any long-range combat would fall on the artillery, the machine guns, and probably designated sharpshooters. Thus, the basic infantry rifle didn't have to be accurate under Soviet doctrine.

blackseven
2009-09-30, 05:13 AM
It depends a lot on how many cinch points you have in the maille hauberk. Most of the time, the bulk of the weight is on the shoulders. If you cinch the belt enough you can transfer the weight below that belt to your waist. Some hauberk styles are shorter, with maille leggings (chauces) that are strapped to your waist via braces. I've seen people add additional strapping to cinch the arms and legs up, so those weights are distributed across their limbs better.

In addition, part of the trick to plate harnesses is that as the plates are all solid, they can be made of varying thickness depending on the exact amount of protection needed at any point. Plates can be made thinner where they overlap, for one example. This changes the weight distribution considerably.


Thanks for that! I was thinking about this again the other day, and was wondering if there was a good resource (hopefully online, or relatively easy to purchase) for learning more about the basics of medieval European armor. I'd particularly like to see how later plate armors were actually strapped to the wearer to see how the weight was distributed, and how much (or little) it would appear to impede movement.

Thane of Fife
2009-09-30, 06:53 AM
I'm not by any means as big a weapons or history expert as others in this thread, butfrom my understanding the Bardiche was used long before the musket, and the guys at Osprey Publishing seems to agree because IIRC they have pictures of medieval russian soldiers armed with bardiches.

The Russian Streltzy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy) were around in the late Middle Ages, and are probably the individuals most famous for using their Bardiches as musket rests.

EDIT: Or, gun rests, rather.

Diamondeye
2009-09-30, 07:18 AM
The AK-47 was the successor to the WWII-era submachine guns; the Soviet assault doctrine involved large numbers of infantry blasting submachine gun fire at the enemy until they could get to point blank range, rather than having the infantry try to hang back and pick off defenders from long range. In their experience, most soldiers weren't hitting anything out past 100 meters or so anyway, so any long-range combat would fall on the artillery, the machine guns, and probably designated sharpshooters. Thus, the basic infantry rifle didn't have to be accurate under Soviet doctrine.

This proceeds a lot from the nature of the war for the 2 sides as well. Since the U.S. wasn't really at risk of land invasion of its industrial and population heartland, it could take the time to train every soldier reasonably well before committing them to battle. The Soviets couldn't, so their soldiers were generally poorer marksmen unless they already had experience shooting before the war or were naturally good at it or something; hence the submachinegun-swarm doctrine.

They also relied more on numbers in general than the U.S., and that continued post-war. The individual capability of any given soldier or piece of equipment wasn't that important, it was having a lot of them that was important sicne they couldn't keep up with the west technologically anyhow. NATO, on the other hand, both valued its soldiers lives more and realized that it couldn't keep up in numbers anyhow due to various reasons, so they went for making each person and piece of gear as effective and powerful as possible.

This shows up in all areas: tanks, aircraft, even submarines, and the gap in technology gets wider as we get closer to 1991 and the fall of the USSR. Granted, there's certain areas such as SAM systems that they basically keep up with us, but those are to make up deficiencies in areas where they don't (fighter and AEW aircraft) There's also areas where they close the gap in technology a bit, like the late 70's in ground combat gear, but that was because the U.S. missed an entire upgrade cycle on the ground due to Viet Nam, hence the sudden leap forward to the M1, M2, and related systems which are vastly superior to their predecessors as well as expected Soviet opponents at the time.

Brainfart
2009-10-01, 11:35 AM
Not directly related, but I found this fantastic thread on ENWorld while clearing out my bookmarks. It's got a heck of a lot of useful information for games where the casters don't excrete platinum ingots from the posterior.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/242110-history-mythology-art-rpgs.html

Rion
2009-10-01, 12:26 PM
The Russian Streltzy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy) were around in the late Middle Ages, and are probably the individuals most famous for using their Bardiches as musket rests.

EDIT: Or, gun rests, rather.
I know the Streltzy were around in the late Middle Ages, but I was referring to earlier soldiers. Seems like I remembered incorrectly though, the only bardiche in their medieval Russian books is an infantryman (F3 in the 1250-1500 one) from the late middle ages.
Still think what I've says they're earlier, but like I said I could be wrong.

Fhaolan
2009-10-01, 01:22 PM
Of course, we may be running into the standard issue of weapon terminology. As in weapons we would think of as earlier bardiches not being counted as bardiches by the relevant 'experts'. For example, the ones used by the Streltsy are cut down so to be the right length to use as gun rests. Does that mean the definition of bardiche is a chopper poleweapon short enough to use as a gun rest? If earlier bardiche-like weapons are longer, do they not count as bardiches?

Spiryt
2009-10-01, 01:28 PM
Here (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=1226) are photos of Bardiches from Witebsk dated as XIIth century.

Some source given :

Hetau W.W. (ed) (1993). Archeologija i numizmatyka Bjelarusi – encyklapedja. Minsk: Belaruskaja Encyklapedja

Matthew
2009-10-01, 03:30 PM
Not directly related, but I found this fantastic thread on ENWorld while clearing out my bookmarks. It's got a heck of a lot of useful information for games where the casters don't excrete platinum ingots from the posterior.

History, Mythology, Art and RPGs (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/242110-history-mythology-art-rpgs.html)

Interesting thread, though it perpetuates some problematic ideas. The preview for his Codex Martialis is not bad (unlike most RPG weapons compilation books); the writing could stand to be improved in style, and the scholar in me demands footnotes, but definitely seems to be one of the better offerings on the market. Without seeing the whole thing it is hard to know for sure, but it seems to lack any encumbrance values (not strictly necessary) and there does not seem to be much division by period (possibly this is more evident in the actual book). Still, I might fork out $6.00 for a copy at some point. Of course, we get the whole "a long sword isn't a long sword meme", which tends to get on my nerves, implying that there really is a universally accepted nomenclature of weapons surviving intact for a 1,000 years... yeah, I know, I am being overly critical and pet project-y....



Here (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=1226) are photos of Bardiches from Witebsk dated as XIIth century.

Some source given :

Hetau W.W. (ed) (1993). Archeologija i numizmatyka Bjelarusi – encyklapedja. Minsk: Belaruskaja Encyklapedja

That just about cinches it, then. The bardiche was already in existence before it was adapted for use as a combination musket rest and close combat weapon.

That reminds me, I wrote an essay on the use of the bayonet in the early modern period about twelve years ago. It was probably written by hand, but I seem to recall I cribbed most of it from a Cambridge Modern History (maybe a Cambridge Medieval History). Might be worth tracking down.

HenryHankovitch
2009-10-01, 06:09 PM
IMO, very, very large swords can be used...consider the size of the large two hander swords of history in comparison to the size of their wielders. Thanks to better nutrition, we get quite a bit larger today than we did historically. On the flip side, average phyiscal conditioning is probably lower. However, assuming a physically fit soldier from the modern era, a very large sword could probably be used. If we allowed the use of modern alloys for better strength/weight ratios, we could probably get even larger.

Historical two-handed greatswords were generally less than 8 lbs total, and the better, "fighting" swords were often no more than 4 lbs:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

The heavier versions are generally the highly ornamented, purely ceremonial type of swords.

As that article points out, "A practical explanation for the futility of especially heavy weapons is that they are slow. In physics terms, doubling the mass of a weapon can provide twice the strike energy, but doubling the velocity of a strike provides four times the energy."

Making a weapon heavier than it has to be, only hurts you in the end. You get less striking power than a lighter weapon, swung faster, and at the same time your weapon becomes more difficult to defend or maneuver with, and more fatiguing when used in a fight.

Matthew
2009-10-02, 08:29 AM
Good English Heritage video here: Arming a Fourteenth Century Knight (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.00100300900g001).

Tyndmyr
2009-10-02, 09:31 AM
Making a weapon heavier than it has to be, only hurts you in the end. You get less striking power than a lighter weapon, swung faster, and at the same time your weapon becomes more difficult to defend or maneuver with, and more fatiguing when used in a fight.

This is true, but size /= weight. Titanium, for example, has a vastly better strength/weight ratio than steel. (Pedantic note: Yes, Im aware that both come in a vast array of grades, and many alloys exist. It's a general statement.) This also applies to some exotic materials in D&D, I imagine.

Therefore, it's possible to make melee weapons with greater reach now for the same weight as older weapons. Also, humans are simply bigger, so scaling up proportionately results in somewhat larger weapons than historically used.

The question is...how useful is reach, and how does it scale in opposition to weight?

Matthew
2009-10-02, 09:52 AM
Also, humans are simply bigger, so scaling up proportionately results in somewhat larger weapons than historically used.

Technically, that is misleading, since modern day humans are in fact bigger on average, but that may not be an accurate reflection of who was employing large swords. It is really a none issue in any case, because what we would want to know is how big a sword can a person of height X and build Y effectively employ before it becomes inhibiting.

I suggest that we take the classic 180 lb, 72" human male as the basis for this discussion, if we are able to extend it from this point.

Dervag
2009-10-02, 12:46 PM
This is true, but size /= weight. Titanium, for example, has a vastly better strength/weight ratio than steel. (Pedantic note: Yes, Im aware that both come in a vast array of grades, and many alloys exist. It's a general statement.) This also applies to some exotic materials in D&D, I imagine.

Therefore, it's possible to make melee weapons with greater reach now for the same weight as older weapons...The catch is that increased reach also increases the moment of inertia of the weapon: it's harder to swing something when proportionately more of its weight is far from your body. It's harder just keeping the tip off the ground. And this problem increases rapidly when the weapon is already a lot longer than the section of it you're gripping, as is true for two-handed swords and polearms.

If I come up with a material that is as strong as medieval steel but has half the weight, and I try to build a double-size weapon out of the stuff, I'm still going to end up with a slower and more awkward weapon, because the section of it I can grip hasn't changed and the amount of torque I need to use to move it has.

The law of conservation of angular momentum plays no favorites.

Matthew
2009-10-02, 12:55 PM
Anybody know where the idea of a "lance" of 20 knights comes from? I have seen it bandied about occasionally, but I know many sources suggest rather more variable numbers.

Edmund
2009-10-02, 01:46 PM
As that article points out, "A practical explanation for the futility of especially heavy weapons is that they are slow. In physics terms, doubling the mass of a weapon can provide twice the strike energy, but doubling the velocity of a strike provides four times the energy."

Making a weapon heavier than it has to be, only hurts you in the end. You get less striking power than a lighter weapon, swung faster, and at the same time your weapon becomes more difficult to defend or maneuver with, and more fatiguing when used in a fight.

It is important to remember, though, that some weight is required to inflict harm, especially against an opponent with any sort of armor. It's a problem of shedding energy, which has been very well noted with bullets. A larger round like the .45 ACP will still penetrate deeper into a medium than the lighter, faster 9mm Parabellum.

This is because of the momentum of the larger round which, is calculated as P=mv and shows quite neatly that weight is rather more important than Clements gives it credit. Energy is a very inadequate metric to use when considering the effectiveness of weapons, especially those that rely on passing through their targets, like swords and spears, rather than dumping all their energy in the target themselves.

Adlan
2009-10-02, 02:26 PM
Anybody know where the idea of a "lance" of 20 knights comes from? I have seen it bandied about occasionally, but I know many sources suggest rather more variable numbers.

AFAIK a Lance consisted of a knight, or some such noble, and his retainers, his men at arms, archers, and foot soldiers.

A term from the 100 years war.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-02, 02:39 PM
I agree with Edmund, force = mass * speed. Yes, speed also has the virtue of manuverability, but weight also improves the strength of your blocks, as well as making your weapon harder to block. You don't really block so much with light weapons as you do deflect.

Center of balance on a weapon is certainly something else to consider, and extending length will most certainly affect that. Still, lets keep in mind that the swiss routinely used 18-20 foot pikes to excellent effect, and those will certainly have enough length, inertia, etc to provide some challenges.

For single-ended weapons, I suspect that the striking end(including handle) is probably hard capped at around the height of the wielder if you wish to use it in a slashing fashion. Any longer, and it simply becomes impossible to manuever without striking the ground in most angled cuts. Double ended weapons could be longer, but the same limitation will probably cap them at a shortly longer amount.

Fhaolan
2009-10-02, 03:18 PM
For purposes of weapon material also remember there's a lot more to a sword blade than just size & weight. You also have the issues of hardness, and spring (or ductility/elasticity to use less steel-orientated words).

If the material is not hard enough, it will be difficult to keep an edge on a blade. Also, the blade will tend to bend away from impact, lessening the energy transfer. This was the problem with the earliest iron swords.

If the material is too hard, the edge will fracture on impact, leading to it wearing away very fast. This was the problem with obsidian chips set in wooden blades like the Aztecs used. While very sharp, you had to replace the chips fairly often as they shattered away. Also, if the material is *really* hard, the entire blade will shatter when struck. This is why obsidian 'swords' were actually clubs with obsidan chips in it. Larger obsidian blades did exist, but they shattered too easily to be more than ceremonial.

And to top it off, if the material isn't springy enough, when it does deform it will simply stay bent. This was another issue with the early iron swords.

The modern materials like titanium, cobalt alloys, super-ceramics and the like are hard and take a very good edge. However, they are also brittle so that when they do 'give' they shatter rather than deform. This is why they make very good carving knives, but very poor cleavers. The edges of the cleavers tend to fracture when they hit harder things making it very difficult to maintain that edge.

Stainless steel and similar things also suffer from lesser forms of this issue which is why 'sword people' tend to poo-poo stainless steel blades. They're simply too brittle to make good swords.

This is not to say that there isn't a modern material that would make a lighter sword blade than good carbon steel to allow for super-sized swords, just that it's not as easy as simply saying 'Titanium' or 'Stellite'.

Basically a sword is not just a big knife, and by extension a super-sized sword is not just a big sword. While there are similarities, the differences in how they are used means more to the material needs than just strength/weight ratios.

Brainfart
2009-10-02, 03:31 PM
The catch is that increased reach also increases the moment of inertia of the weapon: it's harder to swing something when proportionately more of its weight is far from your body. It's harder just keeping the tip off the ground. And this problem increases rapidly when the weapon is already a lot longer than the section of it you're gripping, as is true for two-handed swords and polearms.

If I come up with a material that is as strong as medieval steel but has half the weight, and I try to build a double-size weapon out of the stuff, I'm still going to end up with a slower and more awkward weapon, because the section of it I can grip hasn't changed and the amount of torque I need to use to move it has.


This is where proper mass distribution comes in. Many modern replicas handle like dried donkey turds because they do not replicate the distal or profile taper of period originals accurately.

~

The 'Sword' episode of 'Weapons that Made Britain' shows the deformation that a sword blade undergoes on impact. Suffice to say, there's a reason why swords have to be flexible. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMwcSGauY8&feature=PlayList&p=550676A95BD67128&index=0

Dervag
2009-10-02, 04:07 PM
I agree with Edmund, force = mass * speed.Your choice of terminology makes a physicist weep somewhere (here), but that doesn't mean the idea you wish to convey is fundamentally wrong.


Center of balance on a weapon is certainly something else to consider, and extending length will most certainly affect that. Still, lets keep in mind that the swiss routinely used 18-20 foot pikes to excellent effect, and those will certainly have enough length, inertia, etc to provide some challenges.True, but they did so by fighting in a very specialized style. An individual pikeman would have been meat on the table for an equally trained and armored opponent with a shorter, handier weapon. For most purposes, taking your spear (an eminently practical weapon) and doubling it to the length of a short pike will put a major dent in your combat effectiveness.

HenryHankovitch
2009-10-02, 04:11 PM
It is important to remember, though, that some weight is required to inflict harm, especially against an opponent with any sort of armor. It's a problem of shedding energy, which has been very well noted with bullets. A larger round like the .45 ACP will still penetrate deeper into a medium than the lighter, faster 9mm Parabellum. This isn't a hard and fast rule at all. A smaller, harder round, going faster, is generally used for armor penetration. Such as the FN 5.7mm round. Regardless, ballistics is a drastically different subject than melee weapons.


This is because of the momentum of the larger round which, is calculated as P=mv and shows quite neatly that weight is rather more important than Clements gives it credit.
Actually, aside from the obvious point that you need some mass to accomplish anything, this really proves nothing. Increasing mass doesn't improve your momentum more than increasing velocity; and increasing mass has far more drawbacks.

The point is, I'm quite firmly convinced that if there were any real-world use in making significantly heavier weapons, a la the "fullblade," or fantasy-style greataxe, or what have you, then actual people who lived and died by such weapons would have used them. The fact that even the biggest swords we know of were still, historically, less than 10 lbs total and often less than 5 lbs, demonstrates the point quite adequately.

Admittedly, there is something to the concept of "make your weapon the same weight, but with more reach"--we call it the polearm. :p But even so, if you look at the situation holistically you have to realize that using polearms is a vastly different creature than using "close" melee weapons like swords. Basically, using a pike or other polearm longer than 6" or so usually precludes you from "defencing" with it. You're no longer actively engaging and defending against an opponent's weapon, you're depending on your armor, and the combined presence of all your friends' pike-points, to protect you, while you jab or chop at the enemy. The center of inertia is so far out in front of you that you really can execute only the simplest motions with it--to say nothing of jostling or fouling the other people in formation.

Frankly, I think what this discussion usually comes from is the fact that to most people, the idea of picking up something more than 5 lbs, and doing anything more than carrying it for a little bit and putting it down again, is a complete abstraction to them. A 15 lb chunk of metal is heavy, when you're talking about actually doing any sort of work involving complex motions with it. Pick up a 15-lb dumbbell some time (or pick up a gallon jug of water or milk, which weighs about 8.3 lbs), and hold it out from your body for a little while. Feel your arms begin to shake after about 30 seconds. At that point, try to imagine fencing with it. Or hitting an incoming tennis ball with it. This isn't a matter of "lol girly man can't hold 25 lbs," or "lol knights aren't fat, flabby office workers." Medieval people weren't stupid, even if they didn't actually know the formulas for force or momentum.

I feel quite comfortable in claiming that there never was a single knight who ever fought with a longsword and thought, "you know what? This isn't bad, but if it was like four inches wider and weighed three times as much, that would be totally kick-ass." :p

Matthew
2009-10-02, 04:23 PM
AFAIK a Lance consisted of a knight, or some such noble, and his retainers, his men at arms, archers, and foot soldiers.

A term from the 100 years war.

Yeah. Maybe I am thinking of "squadron"; anyway, the important thing is the number "20" for the purposes of this question. I was wondering if it might be to do with the very late medieval "standing/royal companies". I am pretty sure it is not related to the military orders, at any rate. Great article to read, by the way, if you have not already: How to Deliver a Cavalry Charge (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett1.htm).

Rasilak
2009-10-03, 03:41 AM
Your choice of terminology makes a physicist weep somewhere (here), but that doesn't mean the idea you wish to convey is fundamentally wrong.
Word. So here a little reminder for non-physicists:

momentum = mass * velocity
angular momentum = moment of inertia * angular velocity
(kinetic) energy = 1/2 * mass * speed^2 (velocity has a direction, speed does not)
force = mass * acceleration (at least if mass is constant, in general it's dp/dt)
power = energy / time

EDIT: Physicists i know use entirely non-technical terms when talking about martial arts if they're too lazy to think if they mean momentum, energy or something entirely else. The word "Schmackes" (pronounced "shmuggess") is quite popular in such cases - but it's probably pretty regional slang from around Frankfurt; someone from Berlin or Munich might not understand it. However, I don't know any english term with similiar meaning but neutral in any technical/scientific aspect.

Norsesmithy
2009-10-03, 10:42 PM
It is important to remember, though, that some weight is required to inflict harm, especially against an opponent with any sort of armor. It's a problem of shedding energy, which has been very well noted with bullets. A larger round like the .45 ACP will still penetrate deeper into a medium than the lighter, faster 9mm Parabellum.

This is because of the momentum of the larger round which, is calculated as P=mv and shows quite neatly that weight is rather more important than Clements gives it credit. Energy is a very inadequate metric to use when considering the effectiveness of weapons, especially those that rely on passing through their targets, like swords and spears, rather than dumping all their energy in the target themselves.
Not quite.

This isn't a hard and fast rule at all. A smaller, harder round, going faster, is generally used for armor penetration. Such as the FN 5.7mm round. Regardless, ballistics is a drastically different subject than melee weapons.


Actually, aside from the obvious point that you need some mass to accomplish anything, this really proves nothing. Increasing mass doesn't improve your momentum more than increasing velocity; and increasing mass has far more drawbacks.

Any drawback is going to be application specific. In firearms, for instance, it is almost always preferable to use the heaviest bullet you can get in a given caliber, because the benefits of increasing mass instead of velocity, with any given energy budget (since e=mv^2, and p=mv, increasing m, while keeping e constant gives you a good increase in p with little drawback)

And actually, because of the way that the pressure of the powder in a firearm acts at the bullet, you often get higher e values when you increase m without having to use more powder.

Even for armor peircing loads, like 5.7, a 55 grain 5.7 load will generally penetrate armor better than a 45 grain load.

The reason why 5.7 is a better armor piercer than 9mm has to do with the fact that the resistance encountered by the bullet is fairly proportional to the frontal area of the bullet (tip profile is also a factor), and that makes thinner better because radius is a squared value there too.

Which is why 147 grain 9x19mm penetrates better than 115 grain 9x19mm, but both penetrate better than 230 grain .45 ACP (aka 11.43x25mm).

Dervag
2009-10-04, 12:12 AM
EDIT: Physicists i know use entirely non-technical terms when talking about martial arts if they're too lazy to think if they mean momentum, energy or something entirely else. The word "Schmackes" (pronounced "shmuggess") is quite popular in such cases - but it's probably pretty regional slang from around Frankfurt; someone from Berlin or Munich might not understand it. However, I don't know any english term with similiar meaning but neutral in any technical/scientific aspect.In the US, suitable colloquial terms include "oomph" if you're being very informal, and "impact" if you're being slightly less so. Or you can make up your own on the spot; I'm partial to "whumpage."

Seriously, we just use the real words when they're appropriate and hardly ever need anything else. But never do we ever use a term with a physical definition and match it to the wrong definition. Momentum is well defined and equals mass times speed; force is well defined and means something rather different.

Matthew
2009-10-04, 06:49 AM
Ahah! As I thought, this seems likely to be related to fifteenth century French military organisation by royal companies:

Source (http://www.archive.org/stream/medievalcivilizamunr00rich/medievalcivilizamunr00rich_djvu.txt)


The next task was to organize the troops which had been retained. They were divided (May 26, 1445) into fifteen companies, and the captains of these were named by the king ; they were assigned to definite garrisons and subdivided into small groups of twenty to thirty lances, so that, as d'Escouchy remarks, they might not be able to use force against the burghers. Concerning the strength of the new "Companies of the Ordinance", as they were named because they had been established by royal ordinance, we have no statistics. According to the accounts of the chroniclers, they amounted to fifteen hundred lances, and on this basis the average strength of a company would be one hundred lances. It is uncertain how far this ratio was carried out at that time, for by the next year Charles was maintaining a much larger number of troops. In tactics and organization, the new company remained the same as the old, being reckoned by lances. According to rule the lance should consist, after 1445, of six men — a heavy-armed horseman, two mounted marksmen, and three mounted followers ; but certainly there must have been many variations.

Diamondeye
2009-10-04, 10:57 AM
In the US, suitable colloquial terms include "oomph" if you're being very informal, and "impact" if you're being slightly less so. Or you can make up your own on the spot; I'm partial to "whumpage."

Seriously, we just use the real words when they're appropriate and hardly ever need anything else. But never do we ever use a term with a physical definition and match it to the wrong definition. Momentum is well defined and equals mass times speed; force is well defined and means something rather different.

A common term that sounds more technical than it actually is, is "stopping power".

Norsesmithy
2009-10-04, 11:17 PM
"Stopping Power" and "Hydrostatic Shock" are two pet peeves of mine, because neither is actually a wounding mechanism, and actually both are psuedoscientific attempts to quantify the (highly variable, completely unpredictable, and utterly self inflicted) psychological effects of a gun shot wound as a physical property of the cartridge used.

Stopping power is the version claimed by the people who think a bigger slower bullet is better, and hydrostatic shock is the one made up by people who advocate a smaller, faster bullet.

Dervag
2009-10-05, 03:35 AM
However, those are fairly specialized firearms terms. There are other kinds of collisions in the universe, even if you'd never hear about them on this thread.

Edmund
2009-10-05, 06:47 AM
Actually, aside from the obvious point that you need some mass to accomplish anything, this really proves nothing. Increasing mass doesn't improve your momentum more than increasing velocity; and increasing mass has far more drawbacks.

The point is, I'm quite firmly convinced that if there were any real-world use in making significantly heavier weapons, a la the "fullblade," or fantasy-style greataxe, or what have you, then actual people who lived and died by such weapons would have used them. The fact that even the biggest swords we know of were still, historically, less than 10 lbs total and often less than 5 lbs, demonstrates the point quite adequately.

Admittedly, there is something to the concept of "make your weapon the same weight, but with more reach"--we call it the polearm. :p But even so, if you look at the situation holistically you have to realize that using polearms is a vastly different creature than using "close" melee weapons like swords. Basically, using a pike or other polearm longer than 6" or so usually precludes you from "defencing" with it. You're no longer actively engaging and defending against an opponent's weapon, you're depending on your armor, and the combined presence of all your friends' pike-points, to protect you, while you jab or chop at the enemy. The center of inertia is so far out in front of you that you really can execute only the simplest motions with it--to say nothing of jostling or fouling the other people in formation.

Frankly, I think what this discussion usually comes from is the fact that to most people, the idea of picking up something more than 5 lbs, and doing anything more than carrying it for a little bit and putting it down again, is a complete abstraction to them. A 15 lb chunk of metal is heavy, when you're talking about actually doing any sort of work involving complex motions with it. Pick up a 15-lb dumbbell some time (or pick up a gallon jug of water or milk, which weighs about 8.3 lbs), and hold it out from your body for a little while. Feel your arms begin to shake after about 30 seconds. At that point, try to imagine fencing with it. Or hitting an incoming tennis ball with it. This isn't a matter of "lol girly man can't hold 25 lbs," or "lol knights aren't fat, flabby office workers." Medieval people weren't stupid, even if they didn't actually know the formulas for force or momentum.

I feel quite comfortable in claiming that there never was a single knight who ever fought with a longsword and thought, "you know what? This isn't bad, but if it was like four inches wider and weighed three times as much, that would be totally kick-ass." :p

Man you are extrapolating things I did not say or even imply.

I was commenting on the advocacy for light swords because there are examples of swords that can certainly be considered heavy for their purpose, but were still put to good use by their wielders. If I had some measurements from the swords at the Kelvingrove I could provide some more exact explanations, but for now let's stick with some Albion examples. The Tritonia (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-tritonia.htm), with 33" of blade, about the same length of as the Hospitaller's (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-hospitaller-xa.htm), comes in at 330 grams heavier, which is pretty significant considering that we're dealing with measurements of less than 2 kg. The Tritonia could most definitely be considered especially heavy for a single-handed sword, but it still was put to good use. I was also pointing out that Clements was using unhelpful physics equations and taking things from them that were not necessarily the case. Basically, if Clements comments are taken to their logical conclusion one can determine that 'hey, these 4 lb two-handed swords were obviously flukes because there are 3 and 3/4 lb examples of equal length!' All I am saying, ultimately, is that his comments should be read with a bit of caution.

Norsesmithy put it better than I did, with the same rounds of different weight. (Don't know why I didn't think of that)

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 07:55 AM
The point is, I'm quite firmly convinced that if there were any real-world use in making significantly heavier weapons, a la the "fullblade," or fantasy-style greataxe, or what have you, then actual people who lived and died by such weapons would have used them. The fact that even the biggest swords we know of were still, historically, less than 10 lbs total and often less than 5 lbs, demonstrates the point quite adequately.

People were, on average, shorter in years past. Just since the mid nineteenth century, in the US(one of the taller average countries), our average has increased by about 9cm.

I don't know how much average height has increased since Medieval times, but it's certainly a very significant boost. A two foot blade is comparatively shorter in the hands of a 6ft man than a 4ft one.

Yeah, some fantasy styled weapons are ludicrously oversized, but if you look at the largest weapons used effectively, and scale them appropriately, you get some decent sized weapons.

Thane of Fife
2009-10-05, 08:07 AM
People were, on average, shorter in years past. Just since the mid nineteenth century, in the US(one of the taller average countries), our average has increased by about 9cm.

I don't know how true that is. Some research (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm), at least, suggests that medieval men were close to our modern height, and that people got shorter in the 17th and 18th centuries.

J.Gellert
2009-10-05, 08:18 AM
People were, on average, shorter in years past. Just since the mid nineteenth century, in the US(one of the taller average countries), our average has increased by about 9cm.

That's very misleading in so many ways.

First of all, you say that the US is one of the "taller" countries. If that's true, then you still don't know if average height a century ago was one of the tallest in the world. If it wasn't, then the 9cm increase isn't indicative of the difference between then and now around the globe. If it was, then 9cm is still a small increase as a percentage, and countries with a shorter average may not have gained as much as 9cm.

Second, it's an average, and it's common knowledge that the US are home to many people of varied ethnicities. Without knowledge of people's movements in recent years, we can't say that the average means anything. If a bunch of short people move into sweden, it will lower the average, but it doesn't tell you anything about genetics or lifestyle, so you can't use it to make a guess about how tall these people were 500 years ago.

Last, but by no means least, any changes to average height in the last century reflect a very, very drastic change in lifestyle for western countries. But this only happened in the last 100 years. If people in the 2000s are 5% taller than people in the 1800s, that doesn't mean that people in the 1800s were 5% taller than people in the 1600s, and people in the 1600s were 5% taller than people in the 1400s...

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 08:20 AM
Average height for a US adult male is currently over 176 cm, UK, over 177. Some other european heights are taller. Im ignoring female heights because for the purpose of routine weapon usage, they weren't historically very relevant.

English adult male average heights in mid 18th century were about 165 cm. I can't find much in the way of good data volume before this, and frankly, the wealthy are both more likely to be better preserved as well as healthier. Since nutrition has a known link to height, historical records will have a bias for greater height.

Also keep in mind that average lifespan is longer in modern times, and people tend to lose height in old age. This also helps make the difference appear less than it is.

Matthew
2009-10-05, 08:40 AM
It is pretty much irrelevant what the actual height of men were in years gone by, unless you can substantially equate a particular height to a particularly sized weapon and show that such is the optimum form.

For what it is worth, Vegetius recommended that all Roman soldiers in the 4th century AD be 6' tall (Roman feet, that is, so about 5' 10" in modern measurements). Poor nutrition and living conditions in the industrial period gives a very bad comparison for modern living versus pre industrial lifestyles.

I should add that, based on skeletal remains, it has been suggested that 5' 6" was the average Italian-Roman male height around AD 0 and 5' 8" for their Gallic neighbours. Mind, I cannot recall where I read that, nor guarantee that I am remembering it accurately.

Oslecamo
2009-10-05, 08:46 AM
Stopping power is the version claimed by the people who think a bigger slower bullet is better, and hydrostatic shock is the one made up by people who advocate a smaller, faster bullet.

Wait, wait, isn't stoping power just the probability of a bullet to stop the target from shooting bullets back at you if you hit them in a nonvital site?

Because I seem to remember stories about weapons whose bullets had so litle cinetic energy that you could empty your cartridge on the target and he wouldn't stop.

Sure, then some people claim that big is best, or that speed is best, but then the money starts talking and you want to spend both as little lead and gunpowder in the weapons as possible so you can make more weapons!:smalltongue:

HenryHankovitch
2009-10-05, 11:06 AM
Wait, wait, isn't stoping power just the probability of a bullet to stop the target from shooting bullets back at you if you hit them in a nonvital site?
That's exactly what it is, but there's nothing "just" about it. It's a completely nonquantifiable combination of physics, physiology and psychology, based mainly on rumor and anecdote.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 11:14 AM
Now, now, you could run a scientific study of this. You'd just need lots of people to shoot.

HenryHankovitch
2009-10-05, 11:26 AM
Man you are extrapolating things I did not say or even imply.

I was commenting on the advocacy for light swords because there are examples of swords that can certainly be considered heavy for their purpose, but were still put to good use by their wielders. If I had some measurements from the swords at the Kelvingrove I could provide some more exact explanations, but for now let's stick with some Albion examples. The Tritonia (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-tritonia.htm), with 33" of blade, about the same length of as the Hospitaller's (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-hospitaller-xa.htm), comes in at 330 grams heavier, which is pretty significant considering that we're dealing with measurements of less than 2 kg. The Tritonia could most definitely be considered especially heavy for a single-handed sword, but it still was put to good use. I was also pointing out that Clements was using unhelpful physics equations and taking things from them that were not necessarily the case. Basically, if Clements comments are taken to their logical conclusion one can determine that 'hey, these 4 lb two-handed swords were obviously flukes because there are 3 and 3/4 lb examples of equal length!' All I am saying, ultimately, is that his comments should be read with a bit of caution.

Norsesmithy put it better than I did, with the same rounds of different weight. (Don't know why I didn't think of that)
Well, one of the reasons that ballistics is a completely different creature than melee weapons, is the fact that a "heavier" bullet has no significant physical cost to the person using it. You can (theoretically) add "more bullet" and "more powder" right up to the point where your firearm explodes, but it doesn't make the trigger harder to pull, or make the weapon itself noticeably heavier to carry or use. Making a sword or axe heavier, on the other hand, directly impacts the ability of the weilder to use it.

I apologize if I make it sound like you're advocating something you're not. I'm simply trying to tie the abstract discussion of physics terms back to the relevant question at hand: "how big did/could real-world weapons get?" And my point is, all the historical examples we have seen are generally under a certain weight and size, so I think it reasonable to assume that is the realistic (albeit approximate) upper limit for useful weapons. Arguing over whether a 4.75 lb sword is better or worse than a 5 lb sword is silly; even the article I originally linked highights the fact that there is variety in weights and lengths.

Of course, one might look at the relatively short lifespan and narrow adoption of two-handed greatswords, and surmise that they may already have been too unweildy for anything more than an extremely narrow set of situations.

So it all comes down to what people are arguing for. Are we denying that similar weapons might be several inches longer or shorter, or (up to) a few pounds lighter or heavier? Of course not, that's a ridiculous stance. I'm pointing out that there's no reason to think that anything significantly larger or heavier than the historical norm--like, say, the six-inch-wide longsword or the thirty-pound greataxe that we see all over fantasy literature and RPGS--would be of use to anyone.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 11:39 AM
Im arguing that the upper limit might be, oh, 10-15% heavier than historical.

I don't think any of us are seriously arguing that Cloud's sword is practical.

stenver
2009-10-05, 11:44 AM
The usefulness of a weapons depends on the age it was used.

During medieval times, knights were heavily armored, so no light sword could hurt them effectively. You had to beat that tin can until your hands were hurting you and he still was standing. Thats why there were so many prisoners at that time as well. People just didnt die. They got exhausted and fell over from the blows, not from severe wounds.

BUT after the invention of gunpowder. Nobody worn a heavy armor anymore. Combat became fast and bloody. So obviously you didnt want to be the 2 handed sword wielding guy, who could make 1 attack in 6 seconds. You wanted to be fast and have a rapier of a saber, blocking and attacking fast and furiously. But if you go up against a heavy armored guy with saber or rapier, then you will probably break you sword and end up getting a strong unblockable blow in your way or just running away.

Usefulness of a weapons depends on the situation. I rest my case.

Lapak
2009-10-05, 01:37 PM
Also keep in mind that average lifespan is longer in modern times, and people tend to lose height in old age. This also helps make the difference appear less than it is.I don't know about that, but the bolded section IS one of the things that appears less of a difference than it is. The average life expectancy was much lower largely because infant and child mortality was much, much higher. We have increased how old someone who is already an adult can expect to get somewhat, but the natural lifespan of someone who avoids accidental or violent death wasn't massively different than it is today as far as I am aware.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 01:56 PM
True...but given that the source I was using had thousands of other sample skeletons of a given type from a given era, and only had a whopping 68 from the over 50 category...it's very relevant to the height data.

Also, I suspect the "avoids accidental or violent death" is probably not a terribly big concern for sword wielders.

Matthew
2009-10-05, 02:12 PM
True...but given that the source I was using had thousands of other sample skeletons of a given type from a given era, and only had a whopping 68 from the over 50 category...it's very relevant to the height data.

Also, I suspect the "avoids accidental or violent death" is probably not a terribly big concern for sword wielders.

What is the source?

J.Gellert
2009-10-05, 03:25 PM
The fact is, that throughout history, swords kept getting bigger and bigger.

From the Shortsword to the Spatha, to the Longsword, to the Zweihander.

A small weapon will cut your enemy just fine, and kill him. You don't need Zabuza's sword to do that job. But as armor kept getting stronger...

Evolution (heavier armors, better reach) forced weapons to go for size, but what I understand is that a warrior would still choose the lightest, "easiest" weapon he could "get away with" on the battlefield, under these circumstances.

Dienekes
2009-10-05, 03:35 PM
The usefulness of a weapons depends on the age it was used.

During medieval times, knights were heavily armored, so no light sword could hurt them effectively. You had to beat that tin can until your hands were hurting you and he still was standing. Thats why there were so many prisoners at that time as well. People just didnt die. They got exhausted and fell over from the blows, not from severe wounds.

BUT after the invention of gunpowder. Nobody worn a heavy armor anymore. Combat became fast and bloody. So obviously you didnt want to be the 2 handed sword wielding guy, who could make 1 attack in 6 seconds. You wanted to be fast and have a rapier of a saber, blocking and attacking fast and furiously. But if you go up against a heavy armored guy with saber or rapier, then you will probably break you sword and end up getting a strong unblockable blow in your way or just running away.

Usefulness of a weapons depends on the situation. I rest my case.

Except I'm fairly certain that the biggest of two-handed swords was actually used at the same time as the light rapier. Also, the bidenhander's were used by people not wearing armor (or at least not the heavy kind). The deference really is that rapier's were a gentleman's weapon, it is useful in single combat among duelists and is reasonable to be carried around in public and almost useless in a pitched battle. The bidenhander was pretty much the opposite, useful in pitched battles against formations, could not be reasonably carried in public, and was a sign of a mercenary.

Spiryt
2009-10-05, 03:44 PM
Except I'm fairly certain that the biggest of two-handed swords was actually used at the same time as the light rapier. Also, the bidenhander's were used by people not wearing armor (or at least not the heavy kind). The deference really is that rapier's were a gentleman's weapon, it is useful in single combat among duelists and is reasonable to be carried around in public and almost useless in a pitched battle. The bidenhander was pretty much the opposite, useful in pitched battles against formations, could not be reasonably carried in public, and was a sign of a mercenary.

And scottish claymores were used well into the end of XVIIth century, also against mostly unarmoured opponents.

And the end of XVIth/ beggining of XVIIth century is the time of the possibly heaviest personal armor in history (some curaissers half armors were sometimes close to 40 kg).

And no sword in medieval (or virtually EVER for that matter,) was used to "beat that tin can until your hands were hurting you and he still was standing"
(especially that that "tins" were far more common in renaissance :smallsigh:).

Most swords of medieval were far more " fast and furious" than, say rapiers, which were much more "frugal" in use.

And "1 attack in 6 seconds" is only good for D&D.

I generally didn't want to comment this post, but if you already started, let it be.:smallamused:

Matthew
2009-10-05, 03:51 PM
The fact is, that throughout history, swords kept getting bigger and bigger.

From the Shortsword to the Spatha, to the Longsword, to the Zweihander.

A small weapon will cut your enemy just fine, and kill him. You don't need Zabuza's sword to do that job. But as armor kept getting stronger...

Evolution (heavier armors, better reach) forced weapons to go for size, but what I understand is that a warrior would still choose the lightest, "easiest" weapon he could "get away with" on the battlefield, under these circumstances.

Sort of; short battlefield swords continued in use at the same time as larger ones, and it is demonstrable that the Roman "Spanish Sword" started out quite long, and got shorter, then got longer again. The Spartans were famous for using a very short sword, much shorter than those used by "part time" hoplites. It is a matter of function, and if you are fighting in very close ranks up close and personal you need a "main weapon" (usually a spear or some form of pole-arm) that lets you hit the enemy as he closes, fends him off, or discourages him from closing at all, but you also need a shorter weapon for fighting in close ranks when it all goes to hell.

Probably around the thirteenth or fourteenth century armour technology changed dramatically. Previously mail with a bit of plate here and there was utterly dominant (well, scale and laminate were also popular) and had been for 1,000 years. Full harness seems to have changed the way warriors fought, reducing the need for a shield and increasing the need for a two handed weapon that could penetrate (whether literally or by sheer blunt trauma) plate.

Looking at the history of weapons and armour up to that point you need to be aware that it is not a history of continuous development, but fits and starts. Armour didn't get better and better until gunpowder, it pretty much remained the same, then suddenly got amazing, then more or less disappeared.

HenryHankovitch
2009-10-05, 04:18 PM
Looking at the history of weapons and armour up to that point you need to be aware that it is not a history of continuous development, but fits and starts. Armour didn't get better and better until gunpowder, it pretty much remained the same, then suddenly got amazing, then more or less disappeared.

One more thing: it's an oft-repeated myth that gunpowder caused the 'disappearance' of armor, or at least the disappearance of suits of plate armor. There's no basis for this in fact.

The emergence of 'personal' firearms actually coincided with the height of plate armor, overlapping by at least a couple of centuries. Armor could be, and was, made with gun-shot in mind; and better armors were proofed against it. If you're going to be shot by a heavy, low-velocity 80-caliber musket ball, wouldn't you rather be wearing a heavy cuirass than nothing at all?

What actually happened was the rise of professionally-trained, classically inspired infantry formations. For much of the European medieval period, heavy cavalry (the armored knight or man-at-arms) could rout infantry, not because no one had heard of pikes, but because no one could field units of polearm infantry that had drilled to march and fight in close order, protecting themselves. The Scots famously used pikes against English cavalry; and then, not quite so famously, got butchered by English archers, because when they did so they were stuck in a fixed line. So, as a well-armored, well-trained professional knight, you had good reason to be confident in your ability to destroy infantry with a massed charge, butchering the peasant rabble before you. It was the heavy cavalry on the other side that posed a threat. [Or, if you were fighting in the East, the light, archer cavalry. But that's a different discussion.]

What eventually happened was the rise of prosperous, mercantile cities, with a wealthy burgeoisie who didn't see themselves as 'property' of noblemen. And the re-discovery of Classical texts on subjects like warfare. And the boom in population, and the subsequent available supply of disposable young men. And a whole lot of other social factors. But the end result is, you begin to see formations of professional halberd or pike-soldiers, often intermingled with crossbowmen, who could maneuver as a unit. They could hold their ground against heavy cavalry charges, and could inflict losses in return, either by dismounting the knights or (more likely) by crossbow-fire at close range.

That's what killed the fully-armored knight. More precisely, that's what killed heavy cavalry as an offensive force against heavy infantry. Heavy cavalry was relegated to using pistols or carbines to fire at infantry from a distance--usually ineffectually--or to attack other cavalry, or light infantry. And noblemen, facing the prospect of being skewered by filthy peasants instead of being honorably captured and ransomed by other noblemen, began to find better things to do than lead cavalry charges. So by the 17th century, you have cavalry who have given up on using steel armor except for helmet, cuirass, and maybe gauntlets; and who used pistols and sabers instead of the couched lance.

Spiryt
2009-10-05, 04:26 PM
Actually, polish hussars used very long effect with deadly effect up to the end of XVIIth century. And cavalary charge was still deadly effective even without lances (if used right, of course).

In XVIII century, there was generall downfall of cavalary, but in XIX century there was... renaissance? :smallwink: When infantry began to fight in thight, but not very deep formations, without armors and close combat weapons/tactics, with better, but still slow firing muskets, cavalary attack again posed much danger to such formation.

Pole weapons "side by side" blocks of determined infantry were gone then, followed by guys concentrated on shooting, with bayonets as rather poor equivalent of proper pole arm.

In XIX century, lance charge was quite often usefull, even though most charges were performed with sabre (but I know that Poles under Napoleon used some lances for sure).

So I wouldn't generalise.

MickJay
2009-10-05, 05:10 PM
During medieval times, knights were heavily armored, so no light sword could hurt them effectively. You had to beat that tin can until your hands were hurting you and he still was standing. Thats why there were so many prisoners at that time as well. People just didnt die. They got exhausted and fell over from the blows, not from severe wounds.

For actual killing of armored opponents, various types of picks and blunt weapons were far more practical than swords. That, or (broadly speaking) lances which were actually capable of either piercing the armor, or throwing the opponent to the ground. One of the main reasons (if not the main reason) for taking prisoners was profit, as each of the noble born combatants would be able to pay relatively high ransom for freedom (or, in the worst case, would leave his expensive equipment to the victor). There was the whole chivalry thing going on there as well. Still, in XVI century Italy, for example, where conflicts were resolved between mercenary soldiers on both sides, the honorary rules of engagement were designed to reduce casualties to a minimum: losers paid a ransom, while the actual dispute often remained unresolved (since the side whose mercenaries lost could simply hire another group of soldiers).

Anyway, generally speaking, it was the transition from warfare between individual soldiers called for war by their ruler to war between professional, national (in a broad sense of the word) standing armies that put an end to both highly expensive, individual equipment (like full plate armour) and the routine taking of masses of prisoners.

Diamondeye
2009-10-05, 06:37 PM
Wait, wait, isn't stoping power just the probability of a bullet to stop the target from shooting bullets back at you if you hit them in a nonvital site?

Because I seem to remember stories about weapons whose bullets had so litle cinetic energy that you could empty your cartridge on the target and he wouldn't stop.

Sure, then some people claim that big is best, or that speed is best, but then the money starts talking and you want to spend both as little lead and gunpowder in the weapons as possible so you can make more weapons!:smalltongue:

"Stopping Power" is a very vague way of saying more powerful weapons are more powerful. Where the target is hit is the biggest factor of all in stopping power, and there are lots of other factors such as psychology, target mass, as well as the physics of the bullet itself.

Ultimately the bullet with the most stopping power is one the user can most accurately place in a vital area.

Raum
2009-10-05, 06:45 PM
Actually, polish hussars used very long effect with deadly effect up to the end of XVIIth century. And cavalary charge was still deadly effective even without lances (if used right, of course).

In XVIII century, there was generall downfall of cavalary, but in XIX century there was... renaissance? :smallwink: When infantry began to fight in thight, but not very deep formations, without armors and close combat weapons/tactics, with better, but still slow firing muskets, cavalary attack again posed much danger to such formation.

Pole weapons "side by side" blocks of determined infantry were gone then, followed by guys concentrated on shooting, with bayonets as rather poor equivalent of proper pole arm.

In XIX century, lance charge was quite often usefull, even though most charges were performed with sabre (but I know that Poles under Napoleon used some lances for sure).

So I wouldn't generalise.An off-topic aside, why in the world are you using Roman numerals?!

On-topic: I question how useful cavalry was in the 19th century. Mounted infantry (dragoons) were fairly common, England maintained a 'House Guard' of heavy cavalry, and several national armies did maintain regiments of light cavalry and lancers. But were they useful as cavalry or simply as transportation for infantry? If they were useful, in what battles were they decisive?

Lord Cardigan's charge at the Battle of Balaclava shows how field artillery made cavalry charges obsolete. Many cavalry 'battles' of the century seemed to be irregular warfare such as that used by the Boers.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 07:00 PM
Most swords of medieval were far more " fast and furious" than, say rapiers, which were much more "frugal" in use.

And "1 attack in 6 seconds" is only good for D&D.

I generally didn't want to comment this post, but if you already started, let it be.:smallamused:

In fairness to D&D...that one hit in six seconds is a bit of an abstraction. All sorts of things from a high bab to attacks of opportunity can bump that number up.

Thane of Fife
2009-10-05, 07:11 PM
On-topic: I question how useful cavalry was in the 19th century. Mounted infantry (dragoons) were fairly common, England maintained a 'House Guard' of heavy cavalry, and several national armies did maintain regiments of light cavalry and lancers. But were they useful as cavalry or simply as transportation for infantry? If they were useful, in what battles were they decisive?

Early in the 19th century, cavalry charges could still shatter units of infantry which had not managed to form square. To some extent the threat of a cavalry charge was also effective, as infantry in square were very vulnerable to artillery fire.

For a good example of their use, see Eylau (http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_eylau.html).

While I can't think of any decisive uses of cavalry later in the century, it should be noted that even in early WWII, the Polish cavalry managed some successful cavalry charges (http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/cinema/rzepinski.html).

MickJay
2009-10-05, 08:04 PM
An off-topic aside, why in the world are you using Roman numerals?!

On-topic: I question how useful cavalry was in the 19th century. Mounted infantry (dragoons) were fairly common, England maintained a 'House Guard' of heavy cavalry, and several national armies did maintain regiments of light cavalry and lancers. But were they useful as cavalry or simply as transportation for infantry? If they were useful, in what battles were they decisive?

Lord Cardigan's charge at the Battle of Balaclava shows how field artillery made cavalry charges obsolete. Many cavalry 'battles' of the century seemed to be irregular warfare such as that used by the Boers.

In Poland, using Arabic numerals for centuries is not commonly accepted, especially in academic works. It's probably got something to do with snobism. :smalltongue: It took me some time to get used to the monstrosities like, e.g., "19th century", instead of "XIX century" as well.

As for Polish lancers, mentioned by Spiryt, they indeed made quite a reputation for themselves while serving under Napoleon. A particularly well-known episode comes from Napoleon's Spanish expedition: the uphill charge at Somosierra, during which less than 200 lancers cleared the artillery defences, positioned there to defend the main route to Madrid and considered by the French commanders to be unassailable (the casualties amounted to about 2/3 of the volunteers who participated in the charge, but the road was opened). Cavalry remained a useful tool for well-timed charges and pursuit throughout most of the century, though admittedly, improvements in the infantry rifle designs and field artillery did eventually make frontal charges (something that was still a viable, and often effective, option in Napoleonic times) more and more risky. Charge of the Light Brigade is a good example of that, but a frontal assault at a well-positioned artillery was generally considered insane even before 19th century.

While as the century progressed more and more of the mounted forces were such only for the mobility, actual cavalry skirmishes survived into the 20th century (less so in the Western Europe, where the onset of the trench warfare effectively eliminated opportunities for such engagements). Last major battles where cavalry was used are considered to have occured during the Polish-Bolshevik war of 1919-1921.

firechicago
2009-10-05, 10:42 PM
On-topic: I question how useful cavalry was in the 19th century. Mounted infantry (dragoons) were fairly common, England maintained a 'House Guard' of heavy cavalry, and several national armies did maintain regiments of light cavalry and lancers. But were they useful as cavalry or simply as transportation for infantry? If they were useful, in what battles were they decisive?

Lord Cardigan's charge at the Battle of Balaclava shows how field artillery made cavalry charges obsolete. Many cavalry 'battles' of the century seemed to be irregular warfare such as that used by the Boers.

First, it should be noted that the Battle of Balaclava proves very little, given that the charge of the Light Brigade was based on a horrible miscommunication which sent the English cavalry directly into the teeth of a fortified Russian position. One might just as easily argue that the battle of Falkirk proved that pike tactics were entirely ineffective against mounted knights. All that's really proved in either case is that any weapon system used poorly and without support will perform poorly against an opponent who is more skillful and has a more diversified force.

Secondly, I think your distinction between cavalry and dragoons becomes less relevant over the course of the 19th century, as cavalry are increasingly trained to do both. It's true that cavalry rarely met in head-on conflicts with infantry, but the tactical and strategic mobility granted by cavalry remained invaluable in any fluid campaign situation (i.e. anywhere that wasn't Northern France between 1914 and 1918) right up until they were replaced with motorized vehicles. It's true that artillery, rifling and bayonets reduced cavalry's shock value against well prepared infantry, but there were still critical roles for cavalry:

a) Reconnaissance (not terribly glamorous, but extremely important.)
b) Use as mounted infantry to occupy vital points in advance of the main army. (Think Buford's cavalry defending the approaches to Gettysburg long enough for the Army of the Potomac to start arriving.)
c) Raiding enemy supply lines and communications.
d) Falling on a retreating, disorganized or otherwise ill-prepared enemy (this is what the Light Brigade was supposed to be doing.)
e) Catching and driving off the other guy's cavalry to deny him a through d.

So these missions may or may not be "decisive" in your thinking, but they're the types of things that win campaigns. I know that if I were commanding in the Crimea or in the American Civil War I'd take 9 divisions of Infantry and a brigade or two of cavalry over 10 divisions of infantry any day.

Raum
2009-10-05, 11:12 PM
It's late so I'll simply point out a couple of items.

@Thane: Even at Eylau where the charges were effective and decisive enough to keep Napoleon from losing, they weren't enough to turn the battle itself into a decisive defeat. But you do have a point. Borodino did see heavy cavalry used decisively. Though casualties were heavy. I'm less impressed with the Polish cavalry charges you point out. Even on the page you linked, few were successful and those which were dismounted to attack or were successful at fleeing capture more often than they pushed home a successful cavalry charge.

@MickJay: Thanks for the info on Roman numeral usage! I did not know that. :)

@firechicago: If you'll look back you'll note I was responding to Spiryt's assertion that lance charges were still effective in the 19th century. Thane and MickJay pointed out a couple of examples. I did not question any of the other purposes you've asserted. :smallwink:
-----
Going back to the question, when was the latest battle where a cavalry charge was decisive? Are there any examples post Napoleon?

Norsesmithy
2009-10-05, 11:36 PM
Wait, wait, isn't stoping power just the probability of a bullet to stop the target from shooting bullets back at you if you hit them in a nonvital site?

Because I seem to remember stories about weapons whose bullets had so litle cinetic energy that you could empty your cartridge on the target and he wouldn't stop.

Sure, then some people claim that big is best, or that speed is best, but then the money starts talking and you want to spend both as little lead and gunpowder in the weapons as possible so you can make more weapons!:smalltongue:
Kinetic energy alone will not ever stop something from moving. A single atom moving a high fraction of C would have a tremendous amount of energy, but wouldn't have the momentum to affect your personal momentum hardly at all. And no cartridge fired from a man portable weapon has the momentum required to move a human body much more than an inch or so, if one did, the shooter would have an awfully rough time of firing the weapon (equal and opposite reaction and so on).

"Stopping Power" is a very vague way of saying more powerful weapons are more powerful. Where the target is hit is the biggest factor of all in stopping power, and there are lots of other factors such as psychology, target mass, as well as the physics of the bullet itself.

Ultimately the bullet with the most stopping power is one the user can most accurately place in a vital area.
The problem with using the term stopping power is that you are trying to measure the capacity to induce shock. And shock is not something controlled by measurable physical factors, it is a psychological effect. Further, shock is not more effectively induced by a larger bullet than a smaller one.

A person who chemically, or otherwise, isolates himself from the effects of shock can continue to fight as long as 30 seconds after his brain has been completely drained of blood.

If you want a man out of a fight RIGHT NOW, the only two things that you can to to instantaneously end a person's ability to fire at you with a firearm are to disrupt his Central Nervous system above the Brachial Plexus, or destroy the musculature and bone of both his arms.

Major destruction of the circulatory system pretty much guarantees that he will quit fighting within a minute or two, but never faster than 30 seconds or so.

Anything else is the target's mind causing him trouble, and there are enough ways to master/override those circuits that such effects cannot be considered dependable.

Except I'm fairly certain that the biggest of two-handed swords was actually used at the same time as the light rapier. Also, the bidenhander's were used by people not wearing armor (or at least not the heavy kind). The deference really is that rapier's were a gentleman's weapon, it is useful in single combat among duelists and is reasonable to be carried around in public and almost useless in a pitched battle. The bidenhander was pretty much the opposite, useful in pitched battles against formations, could not be reasonably carried in public, and was a sign of a mercenary.
It is a mistake to think that the Landesknects were not users of armor, because of all the the froofy outfits one sees in woodcuts or prints depicting them. Those fashionable outfits were designed to be worn over plate harnesses.

Storm Bringer
2009-10-06, 05:27 AM
while cav may not have been decisive on thier own, the threat of cav could change a battles progress. the standard Nepleonic responce to horsemen trying to close to sabers reach was to form square. These squares were effectivly invunable to mounted troops, barring a few freak incdents, but they were also very vunerable to cannon and musket fire, being a nice, big, deep formation that was relativly unmanuverable. One tactic used was to threaten a foot battlion with cav, then when it formed square, draw up cannon and infantry in line to blast the formation to pieces. as the men in the square couldn't leave it without being killed by the cav, you could move the guns right up to the edge of musket range, and then use canister shot to decimate the square.

as for the Dragoon/cavalry split, as time went on the differences in training and equipment grew a lot less. In the british army, they did away with non dragoons entirely, though they brought in hussars and lancers towards the end of the nepoleonic wars. I far as i know, the brits just used the dragoons as normal cav rather than mounted infantry. I can't comment on how the other armies of that time used them, but most likey they served in pitched battles as light cav.

Yora
2009-10-06, 05:43 AM
I think one very important aspect about cavalry is their speed and mobility. You can get them in position and attack very fast, while an infantry formation can be much easier seen in advance, which allows you to prepare for them.

Dienekes
2009-10-06, 07:05 AM
It is a mistake to think that the Landesknects were not users of armor, because of all the the froofy outfits one sees in woodcuts or prints depicting them. Those fashionable outfits were designed to be worn over plate harnesses.

Thanks, I suspected something like this, but I didn't actually know (though I did think the frilly outfits were immensely idiotic). But, I'm still fairly sure that they were not wearing the full plate armor that stenver was describing as necessary for larger weapons to be useful. Do you have any sources for good landsknect information? i always found them interesting.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 07:29 AM
Minor correction on the otherwise good summary of shock: Brain shutdown due to lack of oxygen would happen only six seconds after the flow of blood to the brain ceases. Yes, this isn't instant...but it's still pretty fast.

On cavalry, it's still used today, for mobility in areas where vehicles cannot go. Special ops stuff, mostly. Heck, horses played a huge role in ww2 still. At the invasion of poland, half the german artillery was still horse drawn. Everyone gives credit to the tanks, and while yes, they were awesome, a huge amount of stuff required to support them ran the old fashioned way.

Remember, no matter what the weapon, if it's not in position to fire at the required time and place, it's not much good. Cavalry is about maximizing the use of your best troops via mobility.

Brainfart
2009-10-06, 07:50 AM
Actually, two handed weapons are surprisingly fast. If you've ever seen two proficient longsword wielders go at it, you'll know this isn't hyperbole. Forget the nonsense the katana plonkers tell you, even a dirty great zweihander can be used with speed.

Another point on cavalry: they're very useful for screening. I believe the Roman light cavalry was primarily used for this function.

Matthew
2009-10-06, 08:19 AM
Another point on cavalry: they're very useful for screening. I believe the Roman light cavalry was primarily used for this function.

Roman cavalry were used exactly the same way as every other cavalry; it is something of a modern myth that has arisen around the Romans that their cavalry was poor quality or only used for skirmishing. Much has to do with the assumption that because ancient cavalry lacked stirrups they could not be used to deliver a "shock" charge, the belief being that a "pole vault" would be the result. In the last few decades this has been shown to completely wrong, and our ideas about ancient cavalry have been utterly reformed (along with our view of the "stirrup revolution"), largely through investigation of ancient cavalry saddles.