Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VII

[Psyx]

Para is mainly for jungle drops

Tree-jumping is a very specialised and *very* dangerous job. You wouldn't make anything other than a small-scale drop of specialists [ie special forces, rather than paratroops] into jungle terrain. And in that case a heli-insertion is normally a better option. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where it would be a good idea.

Para-drops are mainly for insertion onto decent, flat terrain, with no trees! Otherwise the casualty rate will soar and it is a nightmare to establish cohesion and C3.


In that sense speed and logistics are the main advantages right?

para-deployment is rather wasted in defence. Although dropping into your own territory is far safer than an air assault, paratroops are typically light infantry and are not equipped for blunting an armoured assault.

The real advantages of para-assault are the possibilities of vertical envelopment and interdiction on a strategically meaningful scale. Where as helicopter insertion can put a relatively small number of troops down in an area, a full-scale air assault with paratroops can get an awful lot of men right where the foe does not expect them, or wants them to be.

A large-scale air assault can get your forces on the foes' flanks or in rear areas in order to cut off the front-line forces. They can be used to capture transport nexuses or choke points in order to prevent reinforcement to the front as well as logistical supply and cutting off a path of retreat.
Additionally, para-drops can be used to seize high-value targets such as airfields and isolated industrial facilities.

[Stephen_E]

I can't think of any significant use of parachute drops in history apart from D-Day. Although I know for a fact that there was a large para drop regiment on standby in a base in Ukraine, back when the cold war was on. This particular one was responsible for the soviet resonance to any Turkish/Greek agression that crosses the Bulgarian border. Our (the Bulgarian) military was assured that they could be here within the hour.

In that sense speed and logistics are the main advantages right?

The Germans used paradrops to take a major belgium fort in WW2.
And of course Crete was the last significant german use of paras in WW2.

Vs the New Zealand Division.
They won but were so gutted that I don't beleive they were ever used as a significant unit for the rest of the war.

I vaguely recall the US did somemoderate sized drops in the pacific, but won;t swear to it.

Stephen E

[Tankadin]

Operation Market Garden also featured a pretty massive use of airborne infantry--more than even D-Day, if I'm remembering correctly.

To build on what Psyx said, consider that a C-17 or a C-130 has a lot more range and a lot more capacity than even the largest helicopters.

In the US at least, I think it has been the airborne rather than the air assault divisions that are typically (or at least were, before the whole Mess'o'potamia) on 24 or 48 hour alerts for deployment.

[Storm Bringer]

Airborne infantry question.

Firstly what role of paratroopers played in recent conflicts? What where they able to do that air assault troops couldn't?

Secondly, I recently read and article that claimed that in the US Army paratroopers were just light infantry who could jump out of airplanes and that they were not in fact that elite. Does anybody know how true this is?

Finally how do paratroopers in other militaries (British, Israeli, etc.) compare to American paratroopers? Are they more elite? More like the Rangers?

Speaking, like Psyx, as british military (you ARE/WERE british army, weren't you, Psyx? or am i getting you mixed up with someone else), to me, Paras are hard as nails light infantry. they have stupidly high morale, and a proven willingness to do stupid things, but they are not Special forces. though many do try out for the SAS. they are not unstoppable supermen.


I can't think of any significant use of parachute drops in history apart from D-Day.

thiers a few more, all form WW2, obviously. most obvious is Operation Market Garden, AKA "A Bridge Too Far", where the paratroops were used to "lay down a carpet" of freindly forces and secure a series of bridges for a armoured spearhead. this was a bigger drop than D-day, but the british 6th airboune division, dropped around Arnhem, was cut off and suffered heavy casulties.

paratroops were also employed in the Rhine Crossings. I don't know much about them or that battle, but apprantly it worked better that time.

before D Day, thier were drops in support of the Italian landings, which were obly moderatly sucessful

the german paratroopers, known as Fallschirmjäger, made a large scale drop on Crete eariler in the war, which was sucessful, but cost so many lives the germans made no more large scale drops

in the 1939 and 1940 blitzs, Fallschirmjägers were used in a small scale, spec ops role, with units parachuting onto the belgian forts, for example, at company or platoon strenght, which was very sucessful.

russains only made two large scale dorps, both of which failed due to poor planning and execution.

[Yora]

I think the first paratroops combat mission were german Falschirmjäger capturing airfields in Denmark. But since the entire war between Germany and Denmark was over in 6 hours, that doesn't say too much about the efficiency of the paratroopers.

Or it shows how amazingly effective they were. :smallbiggrin:

And it's Fallschirmjäger. Nouns that end in -er are always the same in singular and plural without any added letters.

[Psyx]

But since the entire war between Germany and Denmark was over in 6 hours, that doesn't say too much about the efficiency of the paratroopers. Or it shows how amazingly effective they were. :smallbiggrin:

The occupation of Denmark didn't really see any contested airborne assaults though. I don't think it would be at all fair to attribute the operational success to airborne troops in any way.

There have been quite a large number of successful and important attacks by paratroops, often seizing key objectives, but there's also been a lot of screw-ups as well.

Airborne deployment works fine when uncontested. When it's opposed, it's historically been a coin-toss. There's a lot to go wrong.
Air assaults have traditionally worked brilliantly (though seldom without unforeseen casualties or mistakes) when they weren't expected and targeted poorly defended yet important strategic locations. When there's bad intelligence and a sizeable force present that's capable of defending against them, they go horribly wrong.

Historically, the best target for paratroops are airfields. They're flat, easy to find and strategically important. Crucially; once taken reinforcements and supplies can then be easily flown in or dropped in.


Yes, SB; that was me.

British paratroops had (back in my day anyhow) the highest acceptance rate of any Regiment into the SAS. They traditionally see a lot of action.
We don't train them for brains or good looks, though!

[Galloglaich]

In the US Army, the 82nd Airborne Division is considered probably the elite infantry division, more reliable, disiciplined and competent than other units, whith higher morale. They are used in almost all the tough deployments around the world. 101st Airborne Division is a close second. They are at least on par with British Paras.

The parachute training though is really more for morale than anything else. It is an effective way to boost morale and also to weed out less competent soldiers.

The other elite US division I know of is the 1st infantry or Big Red One, and the 2nd Armored. I think they were trying to build up 10th Mountain division and the Stryker brigade to elite status but I don't think they are there yet.

There are also some other airborne regiments and the Marine Amphibious Brigades. I think the latter are roughly equivalent to 82nd or 101st airborne in quality of personnel and NCOs etc.

G.

[Matthew]

From a variety of sources, mostly books and academic articles which are not online, but here is a website which has a lot of prices especially for armor:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/medievalprices.html

There is also a great Medieval currency converter here:

http://www.pierre-marteau.com/currency/converter/rei-fra.html

G.

That Fordham link drives me crazy, as it doesn't seem to distinguish between the vasly inflated French versus the more stable English coinages. There is an RPG supplement called Fief, which has more thorough lists of various medieval prices from what I recall. There is some interesting information buried in this [AD&D] Campaign Economics (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=29651) thread.



I think another reason to ditch the shield ultimately is mobility and utility. But it is also true that armor got better, cheaper, and more ubiquitous at the same time that shields declined somewhat, and good armor made shields less critical.

My feeling is that an increasing frequency of armour on the battlefield is what drove the shift to two-handed weapons, rather than armour reducing the need for shields, if you see what I mean.



So there seems to be *some* historical evidence for carrying a sword on the back -- although not for typical battle purposes. The very last entry does show a photograph of a samurai with a back mounted sword. (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5792&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=160)

without looking at the thread in question, I think swords carried on the back are basically baldric slung, rather than intended for drawing from that position. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

A new question: I often read things like "sabres were used only by mounted warriors" and that curved blades were not used by people on foot. Is that actually true? The only curved blades I'm completely sure had been used on foot are the katana and the dao, and possibly große messer.
But were all other curved blades exclusively used mounted?

[Spiryt]

A new question: I often read things like "sabres were used only by mounted warriors" and that curved blades were not used by people on foot. Is that actually true? The only curved blades I'm completely sure had been used on foot are the katana and the dao, and possibly große messer.
But were all other curved blades exclusively used mounted?

Not at all....

In Poland, Lithuania and Hungary, famously, szabla as nobleman (and not only) weapon was used on every occasion, mounted, on feet, duels, everyday weapon.

In the Western Europe, curved blades used like that weren't unknown at all, in Scotland for example, I'm pretty sure we have few examples of baskethilts with curved blades.

And in the Islamic world, I'm not too good at, I'm pretty sure that all kinds of weapons we would just call "saber" "scimitar" or other rather horrible generic term, was used in many ways.

[Spiryt]

Thinking just a bit more about it, you have plenty of dussacks or cutlasses, and other stereotypically "piratey" weapons.

Two handed sabers like that (http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=40&pos=57) popular in Hungary and Switzerland in 16th century.

Then you have falcatas, machairas, and similar ancient stuff, which isn't definitely "typical" sword, but it's curved blade, without a doubt, it's visible from a mile.

Those are just few examples, one could go on and on, but statement that curved blades were used only mounted, is obviously completely untrue.

[DrewID]

It's also a fact that the actual in-combat hit percentage was better with the Brown Bess musket than the M16.

Then again, the Brown Bess was frequently fired at men in formation and standing upright.

DrewID

[Galloglaich]

Curved blades were not exclusively used by cavalry but they were mostly developed for cavalry especially light cavalry*. A curved blade is specifically very useful for the ride-by attack, both due to the enhanced slicing or draw cut potential and for weapon retention.

But cavalry couldn't always be on their horses and they would carry around the weapon they knew best. The popularity of sabers in Hungary and Poland was directly related to the popularity (and status) of cavalry.

Later, infantry officers adapted sabers as representative of their 'equestrian' status and this gradually filtered down to NCOs etc.

Katanas also evolved from sabers (originally from the Chinese Dao)

Shorter curved weapons like dussacks and cutlasses had a different purpose and design theme. They were basically adaptations of peasant cutting tools like machetes.

The Messer isn't normally curved, it's just single-edged. Same for the Scottish backswords although there were exceptions in both cases. Both of these were indeed used by infantry, they were basically adaptations of the shorter machete-like weapons or simply arming swords with basket-hilts (sacrificing some of the false edge cutting ability for the enhanced hand protection which is enormously valuable).


* European heavy cavalry (cavalry intended to hold ground and continue to fight rather than to hit and run) generally preferred long, straight swords, at least in Europe, including over the centuries the spatha, the arming or riding sword, the longsword, pallsach, the schiavona, the backsword.

G.

[Mike_G]

Then again, the Brown Bess was frequently fired at men in formation and standing upright.

DrewID


Never said the Brown Bess was a better gun. I just said the guys who theorized that rapid fire weapons would encourage wasted ammo were right.

There's a good reason that from the M16A2 on, there's a burst limiter.

[J.Gellert]

Quick question. Maybe it's been asked before in one of these topics.

How long does it take to reload a crossbow? And an arbalest?

***

And a more complicated question, if anyone would know.

What was the main function of foot archers in war - particularly between 300-800AD? Long before situations like Agincourt, were they as important? After the first skirmish, can a force of archers meaningully contribute once the battle lines have engaged in melee?

[Incanur]

How long does it take to reload a crossbow? And an arbalest?

As much as a minute to a little as a few seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs), depending on the style.

[Spiryt]

Both questions are complicated.

Answer for first depends on the construction of crossbow, draw lenght, draw weight, lenght of the limbs, later most importantly way in which you reload it....

Generally, in case of low powered, long limbed example, shooting every 5 seconds is not out of question. You put it down, you draw it with both hands, place bolt, up, loose. Repeat.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-0-RK3cjk) - not very great stuff, lacks any details about bows, but shows simple mechanics of firing as often as possible. With belt hook spanned crossbow in this case.

In case of really hard, siege arbalests, the process of operating the windlass could take a lot of time, but still, putting effort into it, people achieve 2 shots per minute.

Here (http://crossbows.net/ifboc.php) is some free summary about crossbows.

[Norsesmithy]

Quick question. Maybe it's been asked before in one of these topics.

How long does it take to reload a crossbow? And an arbalest?

***

And a more complicated question, if anyone would know.

What was the main function of foot archers in war - particularly between 300-800AD? Long before situations like Agincourt, were they as important? After the first skirmish, can a force of archers meaningully contribute once the battle lines have engaged in melee?

Archers contribute to battles by harassing well equipped heavy infantry, posing a serious threat to light infantry or poorly equipped infantry, they also are a threat to horses, and can force well armored men to "button up" which will make them less comfortable, reduce their endurance, reduce their visibility, and reduce their ability to direct their allies, never mind the deaths you will cause via random chance or poor decisions regarding keeping armored up.

All in all, archers are a important part of a pregunpowder combined arms force.

[Spiryt]

Do you know if those shields were metal as they appear to be or wood?

G.

In very scarce mentions I managed to find, they were described as from wood and parchment.

And since they were generally rhomboidal, around 50 - 60 cm wide, they would have to weigh at least 10 kg with those high corners, being less than 0.5 cm thick, and that's "just" surface without consideration of handling it.

So I suppose more usual wooden construction sounds more probable.

[Galloglaich]

Quick question. Maybe it's been asked before in one of these topics.

How long does it take to reload a crossbow? And an arbalest?

***

And a more complicated question, if anyone would know.

What was the main function of foot archers in war - particularly between 300-800AD? Long before situations like Agincourt, were they as important? After the first skirmish, can a force of archers meaningully contribute once the battle lines have engaged in melee?

Other people have shown you evidence of how quickly you can span a light hunting crossbow (the type you can span without mechanical devices), and a light military grade crossbow with a stirrup and a belt- hook. Not very long about 5-10 seconds.

A lower powered arbalest would require at least a goats-foot to span, something like this

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/1536292902_2f7d95ef24.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/1536318616_31b5c688b5.jpg

The weapon in the image is a 235 lb crossbow which is very heavy in terms of a modern hunting crossbow but quite light by the standards of military crossbows in Medieval Europe.

I don't know how long it would take to span a weapon using that device but I don't think much longer than using a belt-hook. Maybe (just guessing) 10-15 seconds.

The heavy siege crossbows (so called "English Winders") used either pullies and a windlass or a winch, which would take quite a bit longer to set up I would think.

http://www.gotscha.nl/crossbow-3.jpg

Again, I don't really know (would like to see some data) but I would guess something like a minute to set-up and span one of these, maybe less for an experienced marksman. Most people using these would in fact be experienced specialists since they are dangerous to span, being in the 600 - 1500 lbs draw weight range.

Finally the true, heavy military and hunting arbalests required the use of a cranequin, a reduction gear something like a jack you use to lift up your car.

http://www.henrykrank.com/Website%20Images/Antique%20Pictures/ACS%20pics/acs139.jpg

http://www.amoskeag-auction.com/77/thumbs/3578-11SILO.jpg

I don't know how long it took to span these either (would really love to see someone using on in a video or something if anybody can find that!) but I'm going to guess it's a little simpler to deal with than the windlass, since we know they were used on horseback. I will make a wild guess and say 30 seconds.

G.

[Incanur]

Yeah, there's so much we don't know about crossbows. Some scholar needs to get one the ball and test a set of proper reconstructions.

[Spiryt]

Actually I saw it few times ( Mike Loades stuff, the same show in which "crossbow vs. bow shooting is in - as one easily available example) and it generally doesn't really take 30 seconds to do that.

Although shooting at highest rate would be very tiring, so good estimation is that people were generally shooting ~ twice a minute or slightly slower, to keep accuracy etc. optimal, if there was no dire need.

Obviously, windlass would be generally slowest (that's at least what people keep saying in works about it I saw), it gives huge mechanical advantage, but one also would have to keep spinning it frantically too reload quickly.

[J.Gellert]

I see... I have been DMing a player whose character is using a crossbow and am trying to figure a few things. I know a bunch sword moves, but how can you give a good description of what the crossbowman is doing? I didn't even know all these ways to load a crossbow, so I'm definitely learning a lot :smallredface:

I'm also trying to understand any "hidden" advantages that he'd have over using a bow; obviously he doesn't need as much room, can fire while prone, and I assume he can hide his crossbow behind a cloak or whatever for surprise attacks... But I really, I haven't even held one, so even that is guesswork.

[Spiryt]

I see... I have been DMing a player whose character is using a crossbow and am trying to figure a few things. I know a bunch sword moves, but how can you give a good description of what the crossbowman is doing? I didn't even know all these ways to load a crossbow, so I'm definitely learning a lot :smallredface:

I'm also trying to understand any "hidden" advantages that he'd have over using a bow; obviously he doesn't need as much room, can fire while prone, and I assume he can hide his crossbow behind a cloak or whatever for surprise attacks... But I really, I haven't even held one, so even that is guesswork.

Pretty good guess, except the cloak thing... Pretty much any crossbow is going to be too big and cumbersome for hiding it anywhere.

As for what crossbowman is doing... There's a lot of this stuff to be seen even in better movies:

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8uxn_0--eM&feature=related) showing all most popular ways, belt hook, goats foot, windlass and cranequin.

[J.Gellert]

Pretty good guess, except the cloak thing... Pretty much any crossbow is going to be too big and cumbersome for hiding it anywhere.

As for what crossbowman is doing... There's a lot of this stuff to be seen even in better movies:

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8uxn_0--eM&feature=related) showing all most popular ways, belt hook, goats foot, windlass and cranequin.

How about shooting under a table? Is that more plausible?

And yeah, once I saw links to YouTube, I already started jumping from video to video :smallbiggrin: Some great stuff there.

[fusilier]

* European heavy cavalry (cavalry intended to hold ground and continue to fight rather than to hit and run) generally preferred long, straight swords, at least in Europe, including over the centuries the spatha, the arming or riding sword, the longsword, pallsach, the schiavona, the backsword.

G.

We are getting into an issue of semantics here. During the 19th century, a saber was a sword intended for mounted use -- if for foot use, it was a sword. This was a technical definition that had nothing to do with sword shape, but intended use. As G. pointed out there were "straight" sabers.

[fusilier]

Never said the Brown Bess was a better gun. I just said the guys who theorized that rapid fire weapons would encourage wasted ammo were right.

There's a good reason that from the M16A2 on, there's a burst limiter.

Well, the Brown Bess was a fast loading weapon in it's day, compared to a more accurate rifle. Military discussions about wasting ammo have *typically* given way to faster firing weapons -- perhaps reaching a logical limit with assault rifles?

[Galloglaich]

I see... I have been DMing a player whose character is using a crossbow and am trying to figure a few things. I know a bunch sword moves, but how can you give a good description of what the crossbowman is doing? I didn't even know all these ways to load a crossbow, so I'm definitely learning a lot :smallredface:

I'm also trying to understand any "hidden" advantages that he'd have over using a bow; obviously he doesn't need as much room, can fire while prone, and I assume he can hide his crossbow behind a cloak or whatever for surprise attacks... But I really, I haven't even held one, so even that is guesswork.

We had a big discussion / debate about crossbows on this thread, or maybe the previous incarnation of it, with a whole lot of good information. Basically though, the crossbow can be held in readiness indefinitely, it's more accurate at short to medium range (up to about 80 meters for the heavy ones) it can be rested on something when shooting which helps the accuracy even more, and with the mechanical spanning aids, especially the windlass and the cranequin, can be used indefinitely without getting tired.

On the downside, lower rate of 'fire', can't do plunging fire the way bows can (arrows coming down) and doesn't have the volley fire or area-attack capabilities that a bow does, or anywhere near the maximum range for area-fire attacks.

(substitute 'shot' for fire I just can't bring myself to do it it sounds funny)

G.

[Mike_G]

Well, the Brown Bess was a fast loading weapon in it's day, compared to a more accurate rifle. Military discussions about wasting ammo have *typically* given way to faster firing weapons -- perhaps reaching a logical limit with assault rifles?

Going from a muzzle loader to a breechloader or a magazine rifle makes a lot of sense, and changed warfare. Pickett's charge wouldn't have reached the Union lines if the defenders had bolt action or lever action, or even trapdoor Springfields. Repeating arms changed warfare.

But the "let's give everybody a machine gun" theory went too far. An assault rifle was intended to be used in the assault. Like a submachine gun. On automatic, it's too light to counter the recoil, and you aren't going to hit any more enemy firing a 30 round burst than a three round burst.

Real machine guns are heavy enough to compensate, and are usually fired from the support of at least a bipod. Submachine guns aren't much lighter than assault rifles, (the Thompson is heavier than the M16, actually) and only shoot pistol ammo, which has much less recoil, so you can control them better, and they are intended for close quarters.

Facing a squad newly armed with the M16, your average VC could fire one shot from cover, or even toss a rock into the bushes and wait while the whole unit emptied their magazines.

A sniper tasked with training troops in Vietnam with marksmanship would pull one guy out of a squad and have him fire a magazine semi auto, prone, using his sights at a target, then have the whole rest of the squad fire full auto at target at the same range, and invariably the single soldier would get more hits.

Sometimes, you want a short burst to create a beaten zone, although you can pretty much do that semi auto. For the times you want automatic fire, light machine guns at the squad or fireteam level, or SMGs for close quarters do the job far better.

I think the M16A2 was the first time in history that the military adopted a weapon that shot slower than what they were using. That says a lot.

[fusilier]

Going from a muzzle loader to a breechloader or a magazine rifle makes a lot of sense, and changed warfare. Pickett's charge wouldn't have reached the Union lines if the defenders had bolt action or lever action, or even trapdoor Springfields. Repeating arms changed warfare.

But the "let's give everybody a machine gun" theory went too far. An assault rifle was intended to be used in the assault. Like a submachine gun. On automatic, it's too light to counter the recoil, and you aren't going to hit any more enemy firing a 30 round burst than a three round burst.

Real machine guns are heavy enough to compensate, and are usually fired from the support of at least a bipod. Submachine guns aren't much lighter than assault rifles, (the Thompson is heavier than the M16, actually) and only shoot pistol ammo, which has much less recoil, so you can control them better, and they are intended for close quarters.

Facing a squad newly armed with the M16, your average VC could fire one shot from cover, or even toss a rock into the bushes and wait while the whole unit emptied their magazines.

A sniper tasked with training troops in Vietnam with marksmanship would pull one guy out of a squad and have him fire a magazine semi auto, prone, using his sights at a target, then have the whole rest of the squad fire full auto at target at the same range, and invariably the single soldier would get more hits.

Sometimes, you want a short burst to create a beaten zone, although you can pretty much do that semi auto. For the times you want automatic fire, light machine guns at the squad or fireteam level, or SMGs for close quarters do the job far better.

I think the M16A2 was the first time in history that the military adopted a weapon that shot slower than what they were using. That says a lot.

I see what you are saying, but may I play devil's advocate for a little while?

Is an M16 an assault rifle? It doesn't use an "intermediate cartridge" -- although it uses a very small rifle cartridge.

I'm not aware (and this may just be ignorance), of any of the AK line of assault rifles having disabled full-auto. Instead I view the M16's removal of a full-auto setting as the outgrowth of the insistence of using rifle ammo rather than accepting a compromise between rate of fire and accuracy. They tried for both, decided it didn't work, and have decided in favor of accuracy over volume of fire. Not sure if this will work out in the long run. It's not actually the first time it has happened: at the end of the American Civil War the regular cavalry were equipped with repeating Spencer carbines, these would be replaced by single-shot trapdoor springfields.

Nevertheless, even if it does turn out to be a good model for the future, there is probably still a "limit" to how far rate of fire can be increased, before it is really just a waste. Whether or not that is full-auto, semi-auto, or three-round burst, is open for debate -- and I would say, the jury is still out. But, assault rifles are probably somewhere near that limit, and this vacillation between full-auto and burst-fire, is most likely an indication that theorists are attempting to determine where the limit is.

[Matthew]

We are getting into an issue of semantics here. During the 19th century, a saber was a sword intended for mounted use -- if for foot use, it was a sword. This was a technical definition that had nothing to do with sword shape, but intended use. As G. pointed out there were "straight" sabers.

While we are on this subject, the straight versus curved debate is as old as the hills. Apparently, Xenophon back in the fourth century BC was advocating curved swords as preferable for use by cavalry. Looks like Wikipedia says that detail can be found in chapter XII of On Horsemanship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Horsemanship_%28Xenophon%29#Part_XII:_The_Equip ment_for_Battle), but I have a feeling that the word actualy used implies a falcata type sword. If I can find the time I will look it up.



(substitute 'shot' for fire I just can't bring myself to do it it sounds funny)

Heh, heh; consider using "shooting rate" or "slower shooting rate". Still sounds a bit clumsy, but certainly better than rate of shot". :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Is an M16 an assault rifle? It doesn't use an "intermediate cartridge" -- although it uses a very small rifle cartridge.
Today almost everyone uses 5.56mm ammunition in rifles or something similar sized. But when assault rifles were introduced in the 40's and 50's, this was a rather small size for a rifle.
The G3 and FAL are the only rifle that come to my mind that use 7.62mm rounds and are still commonly used.

[Psyx]

Curved blades have been popular with cavalry since at least Greek times. Slashing blows are easy to deliver on horseback, especially against the PBI down below.



* European heavy cavalry (cavalry intended to hold ground and continue to fight rather than to hit and run) generally preferred long, straight swords, at least in Europe, including over the centuries the spatha, the arming or riding sword, the longsword, pallsach, the schiavona, the backsword.


Indeed. Heavy cavalry's job in the era was (theoretically) primarily to kill other cavalry, after all. Whereas light cavalry was much more likely to be deployed against infantry and in pursuit.
I understand that the heavy cavalry's preference for straight thrusting blades was so that targets were very much killed or incapacitated *right now*, rather than be given wounding slashes. It was deemed that straight blades were simply a better tool for this, and hence taking down enemy cavalry. I've heard them referred to as 'killing swords'. They were of course still called sabres, as they were employed by horseman.


The only curved blades I'm completely sure had been used on foot are the katana and the dao, and possibly große messer.

And of course the katana was a cavalry weapon, too...



Well, the Brown Bess was a fast loading weapon in it's day, compared to a more accurate rifle. Military discussions about wasting ammo have *typically* given way to faster firing weapons -- perhaps reaching a logical limit with assault rifles?

Kind of amusingly, we've come full-circle here. Despite the Brown Bess being seen as slow by our standards, it was essentially the assault rifle with full-auto of the era in some ways, rather than the bolt-action military rifle which discouraged wasteful use of ammunition. Rifles were available in the era, but muskets were fielded by line infantry instead because they were considerably faster to reload!

There's no point to that statement, it's just an observation that amused me.

[Psyx]

I think the M16A2 was the first time in history that the military adopted a weapon that shot slower than what they were using. That says a lot.

Moving from bows to muskets is the only exception that springs to mind.



Is an M16 an assault rifle?

Very much so. If it's not, then 95% of military rifles aren't assault rifles either, as they use similar ammunition. In the modern era, the M-16 in many ways typifies what an AR is.
As a rule of thumb; if it's 5.56mm NATO or Soviet or thereabouts, it's an Assault Rifle. If it's 7.62mm, then it's a Battle Rifle.

[Matthew]

And of course the katana was a cavalry weapon, too...

Interestingly, and along the same lines, the katana proper may have been a response to a rise in the frequency of foot combat during the sengokujidai period, with many longer and more curved tachi being cut down to serve as such. So, perhaps not a cavalry weapon exactly, but descended from a weapon that was more specialised for mounted combat.

[Spiryt]

Interestingly, and along the same lines, the katana proper may have been a response to a rise in the frequency of foot combat during the sengokujidai period, with many longer and more curved tachi being cut down to serve as such. So, perhaps not a cavalry weapon exactly, but descended from a weapon that was more specialised for mounted combat.

Actually as far as I know, difference between tachi and katana since ~1400 is in method of bearing it, and general mounting. And it would differentiate between mounted and foot use, usually.

It seems that since around 987 general shape and qualities of blades remained relatively unchanged?

[Matthew]

Actually as far as I know, difference between tachi and katana since ~1400 is in method of bearing it, and general mounting. And it would differentiate between mounted and foot use, usually.

That would not really contradict what I am saying; whilst it is true that the way in which the swords are worn is different (and wearing them in different manners can change the terminology) it is apparently not the only difference between the two sword types. As we know, weapon nomenclature is a bit of a nightmare (katana is just "sword" (刀), tachi is literally "long sword"(太刀)), but basically katana as they are familiar to us were preceded by tachi, which were still worn by higher ranking Samurai in the old style and with a tanto, rather than a wakizashi. Of course, if you just wear a katana in the style of a tachi it is usually termed a tachi, but that does not change the fact that there was a shift in the actual characteristics of the blade desired to the extent that many longer tachi were cut down to serve as katana. This has supposedly been attributed to a shift in the style of warfare.



It seems that since around 987 general shape and qualities of blades remained relatively unchanged?

Sure, especially as compared to the variations in medieval Europe, but there was still a differentiation, even if only aesthetic in the end. :smallwink:

[Psyx]

Actually as far as I know, difference between tachi and katana since ~1400 is in method of bearing it, and general mounting. And it would differentiate between mounted and foot use, usually.

It seems that since around 987 general shape and qualities of blades remained relatively unchanged?


There is a trivial difference in the blade. A blade designed to be a taishi is of course drawn earth-to-sky and would -if you stripped off the furniture- display the smith's mark on the outside and be visible. Although the katana is drawn sky-to-earth, the same holds true. Thus, the difference is on which side of the blade and way up the mark is engraved.

The curvature remained essentially unchanged as it ensures the maximum length of blade is used throughout the cutting motion. Although some blades were straighter. However, there were small changes. The blades became shorter for use on foot in pitched battle, and then longer again after the Sengoku period so as to provide superior reach in duels. The length of hilt also varied: Shorter in peace, and longer for more leverage in times of war.

[Mike_G]

I see what you are saying, but may I play devil's advocate for a little while?

Is an M16 an assault rifle? It doesn't use an "intermediate cartridge" -- although it uses a very small rifle cartridge.

I'm not aware (and this may just be ignorance), of any of the AK line of assault rifles having disabled full-auto. Instead I view the M16's removal of a full-auto setting as the outgrowth of the insistence of using rifle ammo rather than accepting a compromise between rate of fire and accuracy. They tried for both, decided it didn't work, and have decided in favor of accuracy over volume of fire. Not sure if this will work out in the long run. It's not actually the first time it has happened: at the end of the American Civil War the regular cavalry were equipped with repeating Spencer carbines, these would be replaced by single-shot trapdoor springfields.

Nevertheless, even if it does turn out to be a good model for the future, there is probably still a "limit" to how far rate of fire can be increased, before it is really just a waste. Whether or not that is full-auto, semi-auto, or three-round burst, is open for debate -- and I would say, the jury is still out. But, assault rifles are probably somewhere near that limit, and this vacillation between full-auto and burst-fire, is most likely an indication that theorists are attempting to determine where the limit is.

I think the jury is back on the full auto rifle for everyone as a bad idea.

The general trend for 500 years was to increase rate of fire. This reached its height in the 1960's when every infantryman had an automatic weapon.

A mere twenty years later, the US switched to a version of the weapon with a burst limiter.

A rifle is a bad platform for full auto. LMGs or SMGs do this well, for different purposes, to provide a long range beaten zone or for CQB when you don't have time to take careful aim. The rifle round is too heavy and the weapon too light so it dances too much when you;'re trying for fire at any kind of range, and the gun is too long for good CQB.

The light, semi automatic, high magazine capacity rifle is about as good an all purpose weapon for the infantryman as you can get. Quick shots semi auto can create an accurate beaten zone better than full auto or a burst, IMO and experience. Carefully aimed slow fire is very accurate and has a chance to hit your enemy at up to 500 yards. Now with the addition of scopes, we are getting real decent hit percentage.

The point of shooting at somebody is to take him out of action. Not scare the birds out of the tree he's hiding behind.

[Psyx]

and the gun is too long for good CQB.

That's because it's not a bullpup... :smallwink:

Although it doesn't matter if it's too long for CQB: The average grunt still has to use it for that purpose, lacking any other weapon.
CWB though is the only situation where auto-fire is useful on a rifle.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Very much so. If it's not, then 95% of military rifles aren't assault rifles either, as they use similar ammunition. In the modern era, the M-16 in many ways typifies what an AR is.
As a rule of thumb; if it's 5.56mm NATO or Soviet or thereabouts, it's an Assault Rifle. If it's 7.62mm, then it's a Battle Rifle.

The exception being, of course, the 7.62 Soviet thereabouts. That is to say, the 7.62x39mm is definitely an intermediate cartridge, fired typically by Assault Rifles.

Yeah, I'm being a bit nit-picky, but somebody's got to do it :smallbiggrin:.

[Construct]

Youtube video on the subject. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IocQ_DZVAU0) Take it for what it's worth.Riposte! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_eKksZCrg) :smalltongue: Note particularly that the lower end of the cord is tied towards the scabbard throat rather than towards the tip.

To add to the list of historical swords-on-backs we can add Japanese soldiers of WWII. Sorry I don't have a link but there are photographs showing the sword slung across the back to keep it out of the way whilst they held the rifle. There was only a single suspension ring on most army scabbards and use of the regain hook wasn't viable whilst running and crouching and stuff, so if you insisted on carrying the sword on your person it was either rig a new suspension system (fiddly and still likely to be a nuisance) or strap it tightly across your back (idiot proof).

[J.Gellert]

Riposte! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_eKksZCrg) :smalltongue: Note particularly that the lower end of the cord is tied towards the scabbard throat rather than towards the tip.

ChosonNinja is awesome.

And on the sword-on-the-back subject, I tried it only yesterday and had no trouble drawing the katana that way. Maybe I am just taller than the guy on the previous video? :smalltongue:

[Construct]

Sure, especially as compared to the variations in medieval Europe, but there was still a differentiation, even if only aesthetic in the end. :smallwink:*removes glove, slaps Matthew* I demand satisfaction, sir! Extant Japanese swords tending to be either atrophied Meiji abominations or modern replicas of such gives a false impression of uniformity. Length, curvature, location of curvature, thickness, pointiness, cross-section, composition, etc. all varied over time - and that's without getting into the furniture.

The tachi/katana business is pretty simple: Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away samurai were mounted soldiers. They carried curved swords suspended edge down so they could be drawn easily from horseback. These swords were called tachi. There were also lower-ranking soldiers who carried swords. These soldiers fought on foot and their sword were simply tucked edge-up through a waist-sash. These swords, which were similar to tachi but shorter and with simpler furniture, were called uchigatana. As samurai shifted from being mounted soldiers to foot soldiers to unarmoured layabouts they found the shorter uchigatana to be more convenient than the tachi and accordingly bought new uchigatana or had their old tachi blades cut down and remounted in uchigatana furniture. Of course, calling their new sharp stabby things uchigatana wouldn't do since that was the name the rabble used for their sharp stabby things. Thus, katana. The end. Don't forget to visit the lobby during intermission.

[Yora]

"Katana" seems actually to be a shortened form of the wort "uchigatana". When you combine words and the second word beginns with a hard consonant, it's modified into a soft one. So I'm 99% sure uchigatana is the contraction of "uchi-katana".
However "uchi" appears as part of many words with very different meanings. I assume it's related to "to deafeat" and "negation" in some way.

Edit: Okay, I looked up the Kanji and by itself it means "to strike". So it's a "striking sword", not that this is really a useful information. :smallbiggrin:

[fusilier]

I think the jury is back on the full auto rifle for everyone as a bad idea.

The general trend for 500 years was to increase rate of fire. This reached its height in the 1960's when every infantryman had an automatic weapon.

A mere twenty years later, the US switched to a version of the weapon with a burst limiter.

A rifle is a bad platform for full auto. LMGs or SMGs do this well, for different purposes, to provide a long range beaten zone or for CQB when you don't have time to take careful aim. The rifle round is too heavy and the weapon too light so it dances too much when you;'re trying for fire at any kind of range, and the gun is too long for good CQB.

The light, semi automatic, high magazine capacity rifle is about as good an all purpose weapon for the infantryman as you can get. Quick shots semi auto can create an accurate beaten zone better than full auto or a burst, IMO and experience. Carefully aimed slow fire is very accurate and has a chance to hit your enemy at up to 500 yards. Now with the addition of scopes, we are getting real decent hit percentage.

The point of shooting at somebody is to take him out of action. Not scare the birds out of the tree he's hiding behind.

The first real "assault rifle" was the German MP-43 later renamed Sturmgewehr. It was the result of years of experimenting with an intermediate round, the 7.92mm Kurz. The AK-47 also used an intermediate round. The british developed a 7mm intermediate round -- but the US insisted upon using a full rifle round, which became the 7.62mm NATO. They went to a really small rifle round for the M16, but proportionally it's a rifle cartridge and not an intermediate cartridge.

When I asked whether or not the M16 was an assault rifle, that was an entirely serious question. A submachinegun is defined by pistol ammo -- likewise, originally, an assault rifle was defined by the use of "intermediate" cartridges. Why exactly, the term "assault rifle" was applied to a series of full-auto rifles isn't entirely clear to me, but it makes it very difficult to make a quick distinction between what are in essence two different weapons.

I agree with you, when you say a full-auto rifle is a bad idea -- the FG42 was an example that failed in this regard. Of course, that's why intermediate cartridges were used in the first place -- a fact that seemed to have been ignored by American weapon designers.

Calling the M16, the M14 or the AK-47 fundamentally the same kind of gun is misleading. They are, theoretically, designed to fill similar roles, but there are significant design approach differences. Frustratingly, one must distinguish between an "assault rifle" and an "assault rifle". ;-)

There are rumors of the US going to an intermediate 6.8mm round, although that may just be a chimera as they claim that increases in the power of propellant, allow for a smaller cartridge case without a decrease in muzzle velocity.

[Eorran]

What US forces typically use the M4 vs the M16? Is there a move towards carbines in other NATO forces, or in former Soviet forces?

What's the advantage of a carbine such as the M4 over an SMG like the MP-5? I imagine uniformity of ammo is nice, but it seems like the carbine would have no advantage over an assault rifle except in CQB.

[Matthew]

*removes glove, slaps Matthew* I demand satisfaction, sir! Extant Japanese swords tending to be either atrophied Meiji abominations or modern replicas of such gives a false impression of uniformity. Length, curvature, location of curvature, thickness, pointiness, cross-section, composition, etc. all varied over time - and that's without getting into the furniture.

Heh, heh. I knew that would get somebody's goat.:smallwink:

I did actually get the opportunity to view quite a few Sengokujidai period katana in the National Museum of Japan and in a smaller sword museum near Nagoya that I think continues to produce katana (this was about six years ago and my memory of the exact circumstances is getting a bit vague), and I can attest that you could certainly tell the difference between the tachi and katana (the way they were displayed not withstanding of course!). The ones in the national museum were detached from their hilt furniture, so that the blades could be fully displayed, allowing further observation of the differences between individual blades (whether katana or tachi).



The tachi/katana business is pretty simple: Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away samurai were mounted soldiers. They carried curved swords suspended edge down so they could be drawn easily from horseback. These swords were called tachi. There were also lower-ranking soldiers who carried swords. These soldiers fought on foot and their sword were simply tucked edge-up through a waist-sash. These swords, which were similar to tachi but shorter and with simpler furniture, were called uchigatana. As samurai shifted from being mounted soldiers to foot soldiers to unarmoured layabouts they found the shorter uchigatana to be more convenient than the tachi and accordingly bought new uchigatana or had their old tachi blades cut down and remounted in uchigatana furniture. Of course, calling their new sharp stabby things uchigatana wouldn't do since that was the name the rabble used for their sharp stabby things. Thus, katana. The end. Don't forget to visit the lobby during intermission.

That pretty much accords with my understanding, and now to the lobby for an ice cream... it costs how much!? :smallbiggrin:

[Psyx]

Frustratingly, one must distinguish between an "assault rifle" and an "assault rifle". ;-)

Err... not really. As stated earlier: Heavy calibre assault rifles using full-sized 7.62mm rounds are commonly called Battle Rifles.



Is there a move towards carbines in other NATO forces, or in former Soviet forces?

Most other NATO nations don't need carbines because they have been using bullpup designs for years, which give the barrel-length and accuracy of a full-length carbine, with the compactness of a carbine.
It's America that is being conservative and is behind the times. Welcome to the 21st century guys.

Some bullpups have carbine versions where the barrel terminates at the front of the front grip, but these are not normally used by infantry, and are weapons for vehicle crews et cetera. Personally, I don't like my hand that near the muzzle!




What's the advantage of a carbine such as the M4 over an SMG like the MP-5? I imagine uniformity of ammo is nice, but it seems like the carbine would have no advantage over an assault rifle except in CQB.

You can reliably hit something more than 100m away.
You can reliably get a one-shot stop at more than 50m away
You can reliably defeat soft cover and light armour. Both of which any target in a protracted firefight WILL be using.
You can defeat body armour, which is increasingly common.
You can fit decent night vision optics without utterly destroying the balance.

SMGs offer *nothing* to regular infantry equipped with decent ARs. They trade range, penetration and stopping power for more accurate autofire (which nobody actually uses outside of Hollywood), lighter ammunition (which is much less effective) and compactness (which is moot 95% of the time). SMGs are for police, paramilitary and special forces to conduct urban warfare and police operations with, and don't really have a place in the infantryman's armoury.

Additionally: MP5s are NOT a weapon for infantry or the field. They need a lot of care and don't like dirt. They are fine for SF urban and police operations, but not the battlefield.

Carbines have typically been used for non-infantry, who might need a compact weapon in extreme circumstances: Artillery and vehicle crews and the like. And for paratroops, of course.
Carbines started looking like a good idea for infantry as the range of confrontation dropped to around 200m in modern warfare. Someone decided that being able to slot someone reliably at 600m was no longer required, based on low-intensity urban combat of recent years. This turns out to have been a dumb idea.

[Myth]

Riposte! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_eKksZCrg) :smalltongue: Note particularly that the lower end of the cord is tied towards the scabbard throat rather than towards the tip.

To add to the list of historical swords-on-backs we can add Japanese soldiers of WWII. Sorry I don't have a link but there are photographs showing the sword slung across the back to keep it out of the way whilst they held the rifle. There was only a single suspension ring on most army scabbards and use of the regain hook wasn't viable whilst running and crouching and stuff, so if you insisted on carrying the sword on your person it was either rig a new suspension system (fiddly and still likely to be a nuisance) or strap it tightly across your back (idiot proof).


ChosonNinja is awesome.

And on the sword-on-the-back subject, I tried it only yesterday and had no trouble drawing the katana that way. Maybe I am just taller than the guy on the previous video? :smalltongue:

You guys aren't seriously admiring this arseclown are you :smallconfused: Because he's regarded as a poser and a joke in the martial arts circles. Both WMA and EMA.

[Yora]

There are rumors of the US going to an intermediate 6.8mm round, although that may just be a chimera as they claim that increases in the power of propellant, allow for a smaller cartridge case without a decrease in muzzle velocity.
This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm)?
...

[Mike_G]

Err... not really. As stated earlier: Heavy calibre assault rifles using full-sized 7.62mm rounds are commonly called Battle Rifles.




Most other NATO nations don't need carbines because they have been using bullpup designs for years, which give the barrel-length and accuracy of a full-length carbine, with the compactness of a carbine.
It's America that is being conservative and is behind the times. Welcome to the 21st century guys.

Some bullpups have carbine versions where the barrel terminates at the front of the front grip, but these are not normally used by infantry, and are weapons for vehicle crews et cetera. Personally, I don't like my hand that near the muzzle!




You can reliably hit something more than 100m away.
You can reliably get a one-shot stop at more than 50m away
You can reliably defeat soft cover and light armour. Both of which any target in a protracted firefight WILL be using.
You can defeat body armour, which is increasingly common.
You can fit decent night vision optics without utterly destroying the balance.

SMGs offer *nothing* to regular infantry equipped with decent ARs. They trade range, penetration and stopping power for more accurate autofire (which nobody actually uses outside of Hollywood), lighter ammunition (which is much less effective) and compactness (which is moot 95% of the time). SMGs are for police, paramilitary and special forces to conduct urban warfare and police operations with, and don't really have a place in the infantryman's armoury.

Additionally: MP5s are NOT a weapon for infantry or the field. They need a lot of care and don't like dirt. They are fine for SF urban and police operations, but not the battlefield.

Carbines have typically been used for non-infantry, who might need a compact weapon in extreme circumstances: Artillery and vehicle crews and the like. And for paratroops, of course.
Carbines started looking like a good idea for infantry as the range of confrontation dropped to around 200m in modern warfare. Someone decided that being able to slot someone reliably at 600m was no longer required, based on low-intensity urban combat of recent years. This turns out to have been a dumb idea.

Beat me to it.

Yeah, what he said.

[Soylent Dave]

Is there a move towards carbines in other NATO forces, or in former Soviet forces?

Some British frontline forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have started using the carbine L85 (L22) - I think this has more to do with the vehicles they're using (i.e. Landrovers & Snatches), where even the bullpup L85 takes up a bit too much space.

It's worth noting that Military Police (who are trained in the use & care of MP5s) were issued L22s; which also tallies with everything Psyx was saying about carbines being a generally better option than SMGs.

[Xuc Xac]

As we know, weapon nomenclature is a bit of a nightmare (katana is just "sword" (刀), tachi is literally "long sword"(太刀))

Almost every term referring to a specific kind of sword just means "sword" in the language that term was taken from.

[Psyx]

It's worth noting that Military Police (who are trained in the use & care of MP5s) were issued L22s; which also tallies with everything Psyx was saying about carbines being a generally better option than SMGs.

And it says a lot for a weapon's reliability in-field that a L85 variant is issued instead... :smallwink:

[Matthew]

Almost every term referring to a specific kind of sword just means "sword" in the language that term was taken from.

Let us just say that is not news to me (but also that you are overstating the case somewhat). :smallwink:

[Theodoric]

Let us just say that is not news to me (but also that you are overstating the case somewhat). :smallwink:
Indeed. Some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fes_Messer) mean 'knife' instead.

[J.Gellert]

It doesn't really mean much, because, for example, in Greek, Spathi, Spatha, Xiphos, Makhaira, and so on, all mean "sword". And yet they are still used to denote different objects to someone who cares, apparently.

From there, it gets more confusing if you want to translate "katana" or "saber". It's always interesting reading what translators come up with. Sometimes they just give up. I mean, you can get away with calling the katana "samurai's sword" but what are you going to call a morningstar? A guisarme? :smalltongue:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm)?
...

Oh dear I hope not. I'm a proponent of a Medium Velocity, Low Drag bullet myself, similar to the 6.5x39mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_Grendel). It seems to me to give optimal trajectory, range, and energy, but of course I am no expert.

[fusilier]

Err... not really. As stated earlier: Heavy calibre assault rifles using full-sized 7.62mm rounds are commonly called Battle Rifles.

Ooh, I missed that earlier. I like the term "Battle Rifle" -- unfortunately, it doesn't stop people from lumping FN-FALs, M16s and AK-47 together by referring to all of them as "assault rifles", but at least it provides some terminology to make a distinction.

[fusilier]

This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm)?
...

I think that's it. A friend who is collector of French military rifles says it's ballistics are identical to an experimental 6.5mm French rifle round from the 1890s, so it's probably not an intermediate cartridge.

[Autolykos]

Riposte! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_eKksZCrg) :smalltongue: Note particularly that the lower end of the cord is tied towards the scabbard throat rather than towards the tip.
Counter-Riposte! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8yUjG1nXQ&feature=related). It's actually from the same guy who made the first video, and presumably on exactly the video you linked (not to say that your guy was completely wrong, I think both do have a point).

[J.Gellert]

Counter-Riposte! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8yUjG1nXQ&feature=related). It's actually from the same guy who made the first video, and presumably on exactly the video you linked (not to say that your guy was completely wrong, I think both do have a point).

He started with a point, but the second half about ninjas in general was over the top... :smalltongue: Obviously you don't expect to talk your way out of anything if you are caught sneaking about fully armed, whether or not you have a black uniform (and I don't think anyone serious is advocating these black suits anyway) and a katana. Or covert weapons like farmer's tools. Or explosives. Or poison. And in general, poison is among the least obvious of assassin's weapons.

As for when they were training, well, no one said ninjas were great at their job. If they were, we wouldn't know about them today :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

I really like the new subsonic Russian 9mm x 39mm round and all of the associated weapons.

Seems to be very effective at short to medium ranges, at least for certain applications.

G.

[fusilier]

I really like the new subsonic Russian 9mm x 39mm round and all of the associated weapons.

Seems to be very effective at short to medium ranges, at least for certain applications.

G.

Interesting. Some submachine guns actually had decent "mid-range" performance. I'm thinking specifically of the Beretta Modello 1938, which, when using a special more powerful cartridge, was reported to have an effective range of 250 m. Big and old-fashioned for a submachine gun, compared to something like an MP-40, it was still a very desirable weapon. It looks like it had a relatively long barrel for a submachine gun, and I wonder if that helped with it's long effective range.

[Mike_G]

The MP5 is reasonably accurate on semi auto out to 200 yards, but a pistol round doesn't punch through much at that range.

SMGs are very, very good for close quarters. They aren't very good past 50 yards, in practical use. So if you want to clear rooms and rescue hostages, the MP5 is a fine gun. If you want to carry something through the desert, where you might see and engage an enemy at 500 yards, you really, really want a rifle.

The carbine is mostly a good weapon for non riflemen, and is a better choice, mostly, than a SMG in the military, with the more powerful round.

I'm a dinosaur, but I like a full length rifle on semi auto for 95% of everything. Hell, for house clearing just stick a bayonet on it. That'll keep Hajji from grabbing the barrel

[Exarch]

Ooh, I missed that earlier. I like the term "Battle Rifle" -- unfortunately, it doesn't stop people from lumping FN-FALs, M16s and AK-47 together by referring to all of them as "assault rifles", but at least it provides some terminology to make a distinction.

Wouldn't those three be considered assault rifles though? Unless the FAL was one of the 7.62x56mm variants anyway. I'm of the opinion that the shorter 7.62mm that the older AK's chambered would still fall into the "assault rifle" distinction. Of course, M14's and European 7.62x56mm calibers I can't think of right now would definitely be "battle rifles."

Edit: Also, to go back a couple posts and revisit paratroops. My brother is in the USArmy, and he's been doing training missions with other American and foreign troops lately that mimic the conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, where you never know who to trust and whatnot. Well, a couple have been full combat missions where they as OpFor would have to defend against various forces, and he's told me that the most difficulty he's had was the 82nd Airborne. In his own words "They dropped EVERYTHING down, infrastructure, soldiers, everything. And then they just swarmed our mountain like ants. We just couldn't hold them off." So, there you go. Airborne are light infantry that rely heavily on numbers, surprise and violence of action. And it works!

[fusilier]

Wouldn't those three be considered assault rifles though? Unless the FAL was one of the 7.62x56mm variants anyway. I'm of the opinion that the shorter 7.62mm that the older AK's chambered would still fall into the "assault rifle" distinction. Of course, M14's and European 7.62x56mm calibers I can't think of right now would definitely be "battle rifles."

I'm pretty sure the original FN-FAL was 7.62 NATO (7.62x51?), AK-47s and some in the AK-100 series are 7.62x39mm.

The M16 5.56x45mm is apparently considered an intermediate cartridge -- I'm not sure why, I would have called it a small rifle round. Maybe it's the low energy?? The AK line seems bewilderingly complex. Basically you can pick a cartridge and there's probably some AK-X that can fire it. ;-)

[DisgruntledDM]

As for when they were training, well, no one said ninjas were great at their job. If they were, we wouldn't know about them today :smalltongue:

Yeah but we don't know a whole lot about 'em.

But to prove your point, there was one instance where someone basically tried to snipe Nobunaga Oda, and the bullet was deflected off the pauldrons.

Also, don't know if this has been brought up but the ninja-to, the straight bladed sword ninjas supposedly used is a myth. there's no record of one existing before modern times.

[Fhaolan]

Well, today I had an interesting experience. For a 'morale event' at work, the boss took us out to an indoor shooting range, and I had my first experience shooting modern guns. (all my previous 'gun' experiences were with matchlock or older blackpowder guns).

Shot several revolver and semi-automatics, 9mm, .38, and .45 calibers. I didn't catch all the makes, but there was a Walther, a Glock, and a few others I didn't recognize the names of. Pretty much went as I expected, but I did learn a few things that I should have realized but just didn't think about it.

I prefered the revolvers for two reasons. One, the semi-automatic ejection of the brasses was... disconcerting as they bounced off the sides of the range booths and went all over the place. Off the top of my head, off my ear, etc. Second, the revolvers seemed to be considerably more massive on average, and so reduced the amount the gun was 'thrown' up by the recoil, at least for me as an inexperienced handgun person.

Also, because the specific revolvers that we were firing had 6-8" barrels, the weight of the weapon was more forward than the shorter semi's, which seemed to make a difference in my ability to control the gun.

My accuracy was... reasonable I guess for a first time shooter. In the group of 10 of us, I was told I had the second-best groupings. I'd put the actual stats, but I don't have them because the girls and guys running us through the range put the targets out a random distances, and only switched the targets out after three-four people had goes at them. I had difficulty figuring out which holes were mine, because I found that the gun rose enough after a shot to obscure my vision of the center circle I was targeting. But they said I was doing very well. I just wish I knew what that meant.

In any case, it was an interesting experience. I would do it again, by myself so I can actually try to get some idea of my accuracy, but the prices for using the range, renting a gun, and *especially* the cost of the ammunition being bandied about by the experienced gun people in the group made it feel like something I have to be relatively serious about before attempting it again.

[Psyx]

Wouldn't those three be considered assault rifles though? Unless the FAL was one of the 7.62x56mm variants anyway.

Err... no. 7.62mm NATO = Battle rifle. It's mainly used as a specific distinction between 7.62 and 5.56 NATO rifles (and the Soviet-chambered equivalents: '47 = BR '74=AR).

[HenryHankovitch]

As for when they were training, well, no one said ninjas were great at their job. If they were, we wouldn't know about them today :smalltongue:

If there is any real evidence that all the ninjitsu/ninpo/ninwhatever out there is anything but an anachronistic, modern invention, I would be interested in seeing it.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Err... no. 7.62mm NATO = Battle rifle. It's mainly used as a specific distinction between 7.62 and 5.56 NATO rifles (and the Soviet-chambered equivalents: '47 = BR '74=AR).

I must disagree, at least about that last bit. The 7.62x39mm M43/M67 is indisputably an intermediate cartridge, with a powder charge greater than that of an average pistol round, but lesser than that of a full rifle round - and therefore it follows that the AK-47 is an Assault Rifle, just as the AK-74 is. The difference, primarily, between the M43/M67 and the 5N7 cartridges is that the 5N7 subscribes to the later "Small Caliber, High Velocity" design philosophy. Both are intermediate cartridges, fired primarily from assault rifles.

[Psyx]

Fair cop guv'.

[Exarch]

Err... no. 7.62mm NATO = Battle rifle. It's mainly used as a specific distinction between 7.62 and 5.56 NATO rifles (and the Soviet-chambered equivalents: '47 = BR '74=AR).

Which is what I said, as there are FALs that are chambered to the 5.56mm round. My point was also that an AK-47 and similar rifles' 7.62x39mm cartridge would qualify as assault rifle rounds, as opposed the longer 7.62x51 that the M14's fire (and is basically a .308).


I'm pretty sure the original FN-FAL was 7.62 NATO (7.62x51?), AK-47s and some in the AK-100 series are 7.62x39mm.

The M16 5.56x45mm is apparently considered an intermediate cartridge -- I'm not sure why, I would have called it a small rifle round. Maybe it's the low energy?? The AK line seems bewilderingly complex. Basically you can pick a cartridge and there's probably some AK-X that can fire it. ;-)

Agreed, Russians like to be weird and all over the place in terms of their weapons. It does seem like the newer rifles (AK-107) are being chambered to 5.56mm due to the lighter weight, easy of carry, and because it tumbles upon hitting the body...so it doesn't expand, which is illegal, but it still does all sorts of fun stuff to people. As to it the 5.56mm being intermediate...I really don't think it is, as it is a high powered cartridge, just the bullet itself is small. I think they're just comparing it to the traditional .30 calibers/7.62x51mm rounds, in which case it is definitely smaller and less powerful.

I agree, the original FN FAL was likely 7.62x51 or x52 (which do the Euros use?), but there are 5.56mm variants. Not sure which is more commonly used.

[Norsesmithy]

Which is what I said, as there are FALs that are chambered to the 5.56mm round. My point was also that an AK-47 and similar rifles' 7.62x39mm cartridge would qualify as assault rifle rounds, as opposed the longer 7.62x51 that the M14's fire (and is basically a .308).

Agreed, Russians like to be weird and all over the place in terms of their weapons. It does seem like the newer rifles (AK-107) are being chambered to 5.56mm due to the lighter weight, easy of carry, and because it tumbles upon hitting the body...so it doesn't expand, which is illegal, but it still does all sorts of fun stuff to people. As to it the 5.56mm being intermediate...I really don't think it is, as it is a high powered cartridge, just the bullet itself is small. I think they're just comparing it to the traditional .30 calibers/7.62x51mm rounds, in which case it is definitely smaller and less powerful.

I agree, the original FN FAL was likely 7.62x51 or x52 (which do the Euros use?), but there are 5.56mm variants. Not sure which is more commonly used.

The FAL was only ever made in 7.92x33 Kurz, .280 Enfield, and 7.62x51 Nato. There is a FAL like weapon called the FNC that is in 5.56x45, but it is not quite the same thing, and is rather rare.

The reason the AK is being chambered in all kinds of different cartridges these days is that Russia is seeking export markets, and a wide variety of chamberings is an asset when trying to export weapons.

And 5.56 actually has less muzzle energy than 7.62x39, though when it comes to military ball ammo, both 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 (two cartridges of very similar exterior ballistics and energy levels) outperform 7.62x39 in terms of terminal performance (IE how it affects the target/victim).

If anything, 5.56 is less powerful, in terms of muzzle energy, than the genre defining cartridges like 7.92x33 and 7.62x39, though most of the intermediate rifle cartridges adopted in the last 30 years have been in the ballpark defined by 5.56x45, rather than the ballpark defined by 7.92x33 or 7.62x39.

6.5x39 and 6.8x43 break this trend, but they have a very poor chance of being adopted, because the performance goals that the cartridges were designed to meet in terms of terminal effect and exterior ballistics are currently met by newer 5.56 loadings like the Mk262 Open Tip Match round, M855A1 Enhanced performance round, and the M318 Barrier Blind round.

Because of that, I do not see a new conventional cartridge chambering being adopted.

Whatever replaces the current cartridge will have to represent a significant technological advance over the current round, and will likely be something in a cased telescopic configuration, something that would allow the use of very low drag profile bullets, giving a cased telescopic round superior exterior and terminal ballistics over a conventional round in a more compact form factor.




Most other NATO nations don't need carbines because they have been using bullpup designs for years, which give the barrel-length and accuracy of a full-length carbine, with the compactness of a carbine.

Carbines started looking like a good idea for infantry as the range of confrontation dropped to around 200m in modern warfare. Someone decided that being able to slot someone reliably at 600m was no longer required, based on low-intensity urban combat of recent years. This turns out to have been a dumb idea.
Actually, the majority of NATO nations do not have bullpup weapons. The British, the French, the Austrians, and the Australians are really the only ones. The rest of the coalition uses conventional layout rifles. Nations and militaries that choose a conventional layout arm over a bullpup layout arm do so because the manual of arms requires less training to become proficient, and rewards training effort with faster and more sure actions are worth the ballistic disadvantages of using a shorter barrel conventional layout rifle vs as longer barrel bullpup layout rifle.

From a non-military enthusiast perspective, I have to say that I agree, especially since newer loadings can significantly reduce the ballistic disadvantages.

Edit to add, in the past few years, we've seen a number of nations (China in particular) invest a lot of money and effort into fielding bullpup weapons that were then abandoned before they reached full adaptation, because it was determined that it would not lead to an increase in combat effectiveness for a given unit.

[Fortinbras]

The MP5 is reasonably accurate on semi auto out to 200 yards, but a pistol round doesn't punch through much at that range.

SMGs are very, very good for close quarters. They aren't very good past 50 yards, in practical use. So if you want to clear rooms and rescue hostages, the MP5 is a fine gun. If you want to carry something through the desert, where you might see and engage an enemy at 500 yards, you really, really want a rifle.

The carbine is mostly a good weapon for non riflemen, and is a better choice, mostly, than a SMG in the military, with the more powerful round.

I'm a dinosaur, but I like a full length rifle on semi auto for 95% of everything. Hell, for house clearing just stick a bayonet on it. That'll keep Hajji from grabbing the barrel

Just out of curiosity, what exactly was your experience. I know you mentioned U.S.M.C. but...

[Yora]

Also, don't know if this has been brought up but the ninja-to, the straight bladed sword ninjas supposedly used is a myth. there's no record of one existing before modern times.
It's also usless for the assumed preffered tactics of the ninja, as you can't just run around and seem insuspicious with an arm long sword tucked into your belt.

[Exarch]

The FAL was only ever made in 7.92x33 Kurz, .280 Enfield, and 7.62x51 Nato. There is a FAL like weapon called the FNC that is in 5.56x45, but it is not quite the same thing, and is rather rare.

Truly? I stand corrected about the FAL then. I stand beside my AK-47/74 being assault rifle statement just like the M16 though.


And 5.56 actually has less muzzle energy than 7.62x39, though when it comes to military ball ammo, both 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 (two cartridges of very similar exterior ballistics and energy levels) outperform 7.62x39 in terms of terminal performance (IE how it affects the target/victim).

If anything, 5.56 is less powerful, in terms of muzzle energy, than the genre defining cartridges like 7.92x33 and 7.62x39, though most of the intermediate rifle cartridges adopted in the last 30 years have been in the ballpark defined by 5.56x45, rather than the ballpark defined by 7.92x33 or 7.62x39.

Indeed. As I mentioned before, the 5.56 has a wonderful, or horrible depending how you look at it, habit of tumbling upon entering a person. Although what the 7.62x39 does excel over the 5.56 is is defeating cover such as bricks and houses in Afganistan and then continuing to injure people on the other side. According to a few friends and relatives who have been in the recent Wars at least. But yeah, there's a reason our forces continue to use M16's and M4's in the current engagements, and it's not (just) because they're not supposed to.

[Autolykos]

Note: 5.56x45mm tends to not only tumble, but also fragment, but it is usually argued that this is OK since it does not *intentionally* fragment (WTF?!?)...

[J.Gellert]

Maybe a silly question, and not sure if it fits here, but you guys would know... I just read that in main battle tanks, for example an American M1 Abrams, you have a crew of 4; Commander, Gunner, Loader, and Driver. When you need to use the top machinegun, which one does it? Do you have to get an extra guy, or do they draw straws? Seems like the 3 crewmen really need to stay in their positions for the tank to work, but do you risk the commander outside? :smalltongue:

[Psyx]

Truly

Yes. The FN is a classic 7.62mm rifle. And we were quite happy with it too. /grumble.

Given the weight and length of the rifle, chamber to 5.56mm would seem pointless.


Actually, the majority of NATO nations do not have bullpup weapons.

Most of the useful ones, then... :smallwink:



Nations and militaries that choose a conventional layout arm over a bullpup layout arm do so because the manual of arms requires less training to become proficient, and rewards training effort with faster and more sure actions are worth the ballistic disadvantages of using a shorter barrel conventional layout rifle vs as longer barrel bullpup layout rifle.


Sorry... not following that. Are you saying that a Bullpup is harder to learn to use than a conventional rifle? Because if so, then I don't really see how I can agree with that: There is no special technique involved in working a bullpup. A rifle is a rifle. As regards which is superior, I'd say 'bullpup' every time. They are far easier to carry, use in confined areas (including trenches and woodland) and -in my experience- are more accurate. Now partly that's due to the barrel length, but of course the fact that armies that issue bullpups also standard-issue optics to infantry helps a lot, too.

[Theodoric]

Yes. The FN is a classic 7.62mm rifle. And we were quite happy with it too. /grumble.

Given the weight and length of the rifle, chamber to 5.56mm would seem pointless.
Rechambering wuld be pointless, but the Brazilians did base a 5.56mm weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMBEL_MD2) on it.

And yes, it's not just the 7.62mm calibre that matters. The abovementioned 9x39 mm round is, for example, not a bizarely lengthened 9mm pistol one, but a necked out 7.62x39 rifle round.

For further comparison: the M1 Garand was chambered in .30-06, which is also a 7.62 mm round, it's just 63mm long instead of 51mm. The fact that the 7.62mm NATO round is a shortened American round was basicly the reason it was used by the entirety of NATO (read: forced upon everyone by the USA).

(I might've confused round with cartridge or calibre somewhere in the above post, I'm not a native speaker :smallfrown:)

[Psyx]

(read: forced upon everyone by the USA).


A bit like 5.56mm. And I'll bet that by the time we're all happy with that we'll get dragged off to follow another new standard...

[fusilier]

Maybe a silly question, and not sure if it fits here, but you guys would know... I just read that in main battle tanks, for example an American M1 Abrams, you have a crew of 4; Commander, Gunner, Loader, and Driver. When you need to use the top machinegun, which one does it? Do you have to get an extra guy, or do they draw straws? Seems like the 3 crewmen really need to stay in their positions for the tank to work, but do you risk the commander outside? :smalltongue:

Historically it would have been the commander. When buttoned up the view from inside the tank would be horrible, so, in relatively "safe" conditions, he would sit up outside to direct the tank and only go down in when the fighting required it. However, tanks like the M1 Abrams have a couple of top hatches, so another crewman may use the external gun. If you are using the main gun on the tank, chances are you are in a situation where exposing someone outside the tank would be a bad idea. Most tanks have a "coaxial" machine gun (along side the main cannon), to deal with infantry when the tank is buttoned up.

--EDIT--
Actually the commander may still sit on top of the tank to observe fire from the main gun, although I would assume that's when they're not taking incoming fire.

[Soylent Dave]

Sorry... not following that. Are you saying that a Bullpup is harder to learn to use than a conventional rifle? Because if so, then I don't really see how I can agree with that: There is no special technique involved in working a bullpup.

Would you say that it's harder to make a bullpup rifle ambidextrous (or 'sinister-friendly')?

I know the British army has issues with it (which they solve by saying "don't be left-handed then", obviously), but is that just an L85 thing, or is it generally more difficult to produce an ambidextrous bullpup rifle?

(I know they exist and tend to have forward ejection, so it's clearly not impossible)

Oh and my brother has said a few times that he dramatically loses accuracy when firing a non-bullpup rifle (he was originally trained on the former though, so that might have something to do with it)

[Tankadin]

Historically it would have been the commander. When buttoned up the view from inside the tank would be horrible, so, in relatively "safe" conditions, he would sit up outside to direct the tank and only go down in when the fighting required it. However, tanks like the M1 Abrams have a couple of top hatches, so another crewman may use the external gun. If you are using the main gun on the tank, chances are you are in a situation where exposing someone outside the tank would be a bad idea. Most tanks have a "coaxial" machine gun (along side the main cannon), to deal with infantry when the tank is buttoned up.

--EDIT--
Actually the commander may still sit on top of the tank to observe fire from the main gun, although I would assume that's when they're not taking incoming fire.

It was my understanding that with the Abrams, the commander had a .50 machine gun at his hatch and that some have 7.62mm machine guns at the gunner's hatch in addition to the coaxial machine gun.

I can't imagine there is a lot of overlap between situations that would require using the main gun and situations that call for using those secondary machine guns. Though I think some Abrams have powered mounts for the .50 that can be aimed and fired while the commander is still buttoned up.

[Psyx]

I don't think so; no. It's just that the L85 isn't. There are plenty of others that are. It involves either engineering the weapon to eject to either the right or left via a conversion mechanism, or simply to eject downwards. I've never handled anything that ejects forwards, though.

To be fair: Japan did the same thing with blade training. Left handed? Tough!

I think it's just a familiarity issue. That and the fact that many bullpups are very accurate anyway. The weapon is balanced differently and pulls differently to conventional longarms, but no more lead is needed to hit a moving target or for windage et al: The techniques are all essentially the same.
I've never shot that well with Armalites or other conventional rifles compared to the IW, but I've always put it down to unfamiliarity, lack of optics and the IW being simply a lot more accurate.

[Psyx]

Though I think some Abrams have powered mounts for the .50 that can be aimed and fired while the commander is still buttoned up.

I believe they're a fairly new addition, in the wake of the US becoming involved in low-intensity warfare and MBTs being used in roles they are almost completely ill-suited for...

[Theodoric]

A bit like 5.56mm. And I'll bet that by the time we're all happy with that we'll get dragged off to follow another new standard...
Don't expect that to happen soon. Military procurement has become to 'economical' for it; they've got huge amounts of 5.56 ammo, and replacing that is deemed wasteful. Another example: the M16 family is still in use even though it's really not made for the places the US military goes these days.

[Storm Bringer]

Historically it would have been the commander. When buttoned up the view from inside the tank would be horrible, so, in relatively "safe" conditions, he would sit up outside to direct the tank and only go down in when the fighting required it. However, tanks like the M1 Abrams have a couple of top hatches, so another crewman may use the external gun. If you are using the main gun on the tank, chances are you are in a situation where exposing someone outside the tank would be a bad idea. Most tanks have a "coaxial" machine gun (along side the main cannon), to deal with infantry when the tank is buttoned up.

--EDIT--
Actually the commander may still sit on top of the tank to observe fire from the main gun, although I would assume that's when they're not taking incoming fire.

as i understand it, historical practice for tank commanders was to be "unbuttoned" (ie have the hatch open and be looking out of it) as much as he could, as the view blocks on his cupola (the rotating bit that the MG and periscopes are mounted on) only give him enough of a view to avoid running into something (maybe. the ones on a FV436, which i work with, have that sort of view. i would not want to try and command a 436 out of the garages though them, let alone in combat). So, in order to effectivly command the tank, the commander would try and keep his head out of the turret, using a piar of binoculars to observe the fall of shot and shearch for targets. it was common for MGs in range of hostile tanks to spray those tanks, as it would force the enemy to button up, which made them much less observant.


A bit like 5.56mm. And I'll bet that by the time we're all happy with that we'll get dragged off to follow another new standard...

Fun Fact For The Day:
after world war 2, the british looked at the combat data collected, and designed this rilfe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle) (which for some reason stars in the lastest Call of Duty...), which fired a round roughly in the 5.56mm ballpark. However the Americans forced NATO to standardise on thier 7.62 round, so we brought the FN FAL and used that instead (another Fun Fact: both armies in the Falklands were armed with different makes of the same rifle.)

a little time passes, And america decides that, on reflection, 7.62 is too powerful for full auto assualt rifles, so they design the M-16, in 5.56mm, a round not that different form the one the forced the british to stop using.

Thier NATO buddies are Not Best Pleased.

[fusilier]

as i understand it, historical practice for tank commanders was to be "unbuttoned" (ie have the hatch open and be looking out of it) as much as he could, as the view blocks on his cupola (the rotating bit that the MG and periscopes are mounted on) only give him enough of a view to avoid running into something (maybe. the ones on a FV436, which i work with, have that sort of view. i would not want to try and command a 436 out of the garages though them, let alone in combat). So, in order to effectivly command the tank, the commander would try and keep his head out of the turret, using a piar of binoculars to observe the fall of shot and shearch for targets. it was common for MGs in range of hostile tanks to spray those tanks, as it would force the enemy to button up, which made them much less observant.

That's what I was trying to say. The commander could still be expected to operate the top mounted machine gun, yes? My understanding is that they were originally put there during WW2 to fend off aircraft.




Fun Fact For The Day:
after world war 2, the british looked at the combat data collected, and designed this rilfe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle) (which for some reason stars in the lastest Call of Duty...), which fired a round roughly in the 5.56mm ballpark. However the Americans forced NATO to standardise on thier 7.62 round, so we brought the FN FAL and used that instead (another Fun Fact: both armies in the Falklands were armed with different makes of the same rifle.)

a little time passes, And america decides that, on reflection, 7.62 is too powerful for full auto assualt rifles, so they design the M-16, in 5.56mm, a round not that different form the one the forced the british to stop using.

Thier NATO buddies are Not Best Pleased.

Everything I've read, has said the British went to 7mm (.280) intermediate round -- or tried to. Although the information box in the wikipedia entry for the EM-2 lists a bewildering array of variants, the text mentions a 6.25mm cartridge being experimented with around 1970, and another even smaller one (4.85mm) after that.

[Norsesmithy]

Sorry... not following that. Are you saying that a Bullpup is harder to learn to use than a conventional rifle? Because if so, then I don't really see how I can agree with that: There is no special technique involved in working a bullpup. A rifle is a rifle. As regards which is superior, I'd say 'bullpup' every time. They are far easier to carry, use in confined areas (including trenches and woodland) and -in my experience- are more accurate. Now partly that's due to the barrel length, but of course the fact that armies that issue bullpups also standard-issue optics to infantry helps a lot, too.

Obviously one is going to gravitate towards what one has the most training time with, BUT there is a reason why special operations soldiers in nations that have a bullpup standard infantry weapon are almost universally equipped with standard layout rifles, and hardly anyone uses the very nice bullpup rifles made by FN, MSR, and Sabre Defence in competitions.

The standard layout rifle is (when used by two theoretical evenly matched soldiers with equal amounts of training) faster to reload, easier to keep on target, steadier pointing, quicker to move from target to target, quicker to shoulder, easier to clear when jammed, and safer in the case of catastrophic malfunction (IE Kaboom).

The L85 did win an accuracy competition several years back, but that was at a point where there wasn't a standard issue optic sight for the M16, so it was a rifle with a fairly good telescopic sight (the SUSAT) facing off with an optic equipped AUG, an optic equipped G36 (not a terribly accurate rifle), and and iron sighted M16. It is my understanding that the M16A4 MWS with ACOG is a more accurate rifle than the L85A2 with ACOG.

Regrarding tanks, Generally the commander takes the main roof mounted machinegun, either buttoned up in the cupola or exposed, the gunner has a coaxial machinegun he can fire aiming with his telescopic sight, and there is sometimes also another machinegun for the loader to use.

The M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams had a .30 caliber coaxial, a .30 caliber on a mount for the loader, and a .50 caliber machinegun for the commander.

The M1A1 TUSK and M1A2 TUSK Abrams has a whole panoply of secondary weapons, a .30 caliber coaxial mount machinegun, either a .50 caliber machinegun or 40mm automatic grenade launcher for the commander, able to be remotely operated or operated manually from an "unbuttoned" greenhouse of ballistic lexan, a second .50 caliber or grenade launcher in a CROWS remote mount controlled by the gunner, a third .50 caliber or grenade launcher in a second CROWS remote mount controlled by the loader, and a .30 caliber on a pintle mount inside a second bullet proof enclosure outside the loader's hatch.

It can seem excessive, but when you are driving a tank though a city where an insurgency is, you can't really use the main gun, so it's helpful to load so many machineguns that they start to get in each other's way.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The standard layout rifle is (when used by two theoretical evenly matched soldiers with equal amounts of training) faster to reload, easier to keep on target, steadier pointing, quicker to move from target to target, quicker to shoulder, easier to clear when jammed, and safer in the case of catastrophic malfunction (IE Kaboom).

I'll admit little experience in the matter, but I must disagree that a standard layout rifle is easier to keep on target, steadier pointing, quicker to switch targets, or quicker to shoulder. In my experience, it can be quite tiring firing a standard configuration rifle for any length of time, as the weight is concentrated further from the shooter's body. A bullpup, on the other hand, has the bulk of its weight further back, where it is primarily supported by the shooter's shoulder. Furthermore, because less of the weight is supported by one's arms, a bullpup is easier to keep on target, steadier in the hands, and much quicker to move from target to target. And they are, in my experience, much much quicker to shoulder and get into firing position.

I suspect that the lack of bullpups in competition is due to the competitor's tastes, and the inertia thereof, rather than an actual, quantifiable benefit.

[Norsesmithy]

A fair number of competitors have tried using bullpups, they just aren't as competitive. The Bullpup bauplan's center of gravity strongly tends to aft of the firing hand, this gives you much less control than a rifle who's center of gravity is between your firing hand and your support hand, and the greater the distance between your firing hand and your support hand, the more control you will have. This is why extended arm thumb over bore shooting has become so popular recently.

The biometrics of a person holding a bullpup rifle just aren't as steady. They FEEL steady, but the natural movements of your body are exaggerated and your ability to damp outside forces is reduced.

The steadiness of a conventional pattern rifle is actually a greater asset when it comes to getting sights on target quickly from low ready or from a different target you just engaged than the lower rotational inertia the weight rearward balance of a bullpup gives you.

I'm not just talking **** here, this is the why of the why people run M4geries instead of Aug clones or FN FS2000s in three gun matches. On the clock, the M4gery is just faster.

Don't take my word for it though, ask the SAS why they chose the M4 over the L85/L22 or the SASR why they chose the M4 over the F88C.:smallwink:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

A fair number of competitors have tried using bullpups, they just aren't as competitive. The Bullpup bauplan's center of gravity strongly tends to aft of the firing hand, this gives you much less control than a rifle who's center of gravity is between your firing hand and your support hand, and the greater the distance between your firing hand and your support hand, the more control you will have. This is why extended arm thumb over bore shooting has become so popular recently.

The biometrics of a person holding a bullpup rifle just aren't as steady. They FEEL steady, but the natural movements of your body are exaggerated and your ability to damp outside forces is reduced.

The steadiness of a conventional pattern rifle is actually a greater asset when it comes to getting sights on target quickly from low ready or from a different target you just engaged than the lower rotational inertia the weight rearward balance of a bullpup gives you.

I'm not just talking **** here, this is the why of the why people run M4geries instead of Aug clones or FN FS2000s in three gun matches. On the clock, the M4gery is just faster.

Don't take my word for it though, ask the SAS why they chose the M4 over the L85/L22 or the SASR why they chose the M4 over the F88C.:smallwink:

I speak only from my limited experience (mostly range shooting). I do have to question your statement re: biometrics. Wouldn't the distance between your shoulder and your firing hand be greater (on most bullpups) than the distance between your firing hand and your support hand on a conventional rifle? And what evidence do you have to support your claim that a conventional rifle is steadier? I realize that my evidence is purely anecdotal, but you offer no evidence to the contrary. Also, I acknowledge that the vast majority of three gun competitors use conventional rifles, but correlation does not imply causation.

And I was under the impression that SAS and SASR used M4 pattern weapons because they more frequently operate outside of British/Australian supply lines, and for plausible deniability's sake. Of course, that could be entirely off base.

[Norsesmithy]

The problem with relying on the shoulder above and beyond your arms for steadiness is that the shoulder can't grip like an arm can, and a shoulder can't put tension on the weapon like an arm can. Two widely spaced arms and a shoulder is just much more steady than two closely spaced arms and a shoulder.

As far as SAS and SASR needing M4s because they work where the British or Australians can't supply them, the use of an M4 is just as silly in that scenario, unless you are under the impression that the United States runs support for Commonwealth special forces. Which is not the case.

The reason why the SAS and SASR purchased and use M4s in place of the super short bullpup carbines already in the inventory of their respective nations is because the M4 has a superior manual of arms and handling properties. You get more benefit for your training time investment, and the advantages of the platform are significant at that level of proficiency.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The problem with relying on the shoulder above and beyond your arms for steadiness is that the shoulder can't grip like an arm can, and a shoulder can't put tension on the weapon like an arm can. Two widely spaced arms and a shoulder is just much more steady than two closely spaced arms and a shoulder.

As far as SAS and SASR needing M4s because they work where the British or Australians can't supply them, the use of an M4 is just as silly in that scenario, unless you are under the impression that the United States runs support for Commonwealth special forces. Which is not the case.

The reason why the SAS and SASR purchased and use M4s in place of the super short bullpup carbines already in the inventory of their respective nations is because the M4 has a superior manual of arms and handling properties. You get more benefit for your training time investment, and the advantages of the platform are significant at that level of proficiency.

While my shoulder can't grip as well as my hands, I find that by tucking the rifle against my shoulder it provides more than adequate support for accurate fire, and with the weight concentrated near my shoulder I have much less wobble. Of course, I've never had occasion to test this under fire or on the clock, so again, I can only offer essentially untested anecdotal evidence on the subject.

And actually, the SAS and SASR frequently operate in theaters where they would have ample support from the United States but lesser support from their respective militaries. This is often simply because the United States has a larger presence in the territory in which they operate. They frequently operate in tandem with American forces, to the point of wearing American camouflage (so as not to stick out). And I know the SAS have been known to use Kalashnikov pattern rifles when the supply situation calls for it.

What do you mean by a superior Manual of Arms? I was under the impression that a 'Manual of Arms' were the movements and techniques of operating a specific weapon and more specifically its controls. I have never heard anyone apart from you claim that it influences benefits gained for a given amount of training.

[Norsesmithy]

A rifle with superior human engineering has a better manual of arms. When the stuff a person has to do to use the rifle proficiently is simpler, easier, more intuitive, faster, or less tiring, the weapon has a better manual of arms.

What I am getting at, with regards to the SAS and SASR using the M4 as their primary individual arm is that it is one thing if they use an M4 when trying to blend in with American forces, but if the point is deniability, the AK is the only real choice. If they are working behind the lines or what have you, but in an area where they could get air support or supply drops from American forces, that's not really a good reason to choose the M4 over their respective carbine bullpups, since they use the same ammo and magazines as the M4.

The problems caused for a force by choosing to use a rifle radically different from the main service rifle of their parent service are definitely non-trivial (parts, procurement, retraining of armorers drawn from parent service, retraining of recruits drawn from parent service, and the unfortunate distinctness of weapon when working in concert with their parent service). That they decided that these drawbacks were outweighed by the advantages of the platform says a lot.

[Storm Bringer]

i was under the impression the SAS used M4s becuase of the (in)famous reliability issues of the early L85s, which really, really, really did not like being dirty. kind of like the early M16s...

[Yora]

I do have to question your statement re: biometrics. Wouldn't the distance between your shoulder and your firing hand be greater (on most bullpups) than the distance between your firing hand and your support hand on a conventional rifle?
I think most bullpup designs have a lot of the internal mechanisms pushed back into the stock. The trigger section and the reloading section don't just switch positions. The trigger section remains where it is on conventional rifles, but the reloading section goes into the stock, which in older designs is simply wasted space. Basically, the barrel gets pushed back into the stock, making the whole rifle shorter while maintaining the same barrel length. Because of this, there are no bullpups with folding stocks.
I think AR-15 type rifles also have some of the internal mechanism extending into the stock a bit. I assume this also makes flding stocks impossible and is the reason M4s have telescoping stocks instead.

[Psyx]

Don't take my word for it though, ask the SAS why they chose the M4 over the L85/L22

No infantry would be equipped with an L22 anyway. Initially, it was because IWs were unreliable pieces of junk and there was no mounting kit for a grenade launcher. It's also a kudos thing. 'Look: We're different.'
Last I heard, it was not a case of issue for individuals, but a choice. This may have changed. I don't know what their standard carry is these days.




The standard layout rifle is (when used by two theoretical evenly matched soldiers with equal amounts of training) faster to reload, easier to keep on target, steadier pointing, quicker to move from target to target, quicker to shoulder, easier to clear when jammed, and safer in the case of catastrophic malfunction (IE Kaboom).


I'd like you to expand upon this, please, as it does not tally with my experience. ie: Why is bullpup inferior on these points.
I personally prefer to reload with a magazine well that is close to me, than one I need to reach forward for. Easier to keep on target makes no real sense either, as the IW has negligible recoil. Quicker to move? Why? In my experience, the more barrel you have sticking out, the more of a pain to manoeuvre the weapon is while staying in tight cover. Having weight further back is a positive joy when prone and shuffling around, as it means you're much less likely to foul the muzzle. It also makes prone reloading easier. Generally, the weapon sits and balances nice and snug on your forearm and is very 'handy' feeling.

I could not disagree more with the faster to shoulder thing. This is completely incorrect. One of the finest things about the IW is the sling design. You can strap it to you in a dozen different ways, any of which are faster to retrieve the weapon from and fire it than any conventional rifle I've ever used. I cannot stress just how good the sling system is. A weapon is only useful if you have it on your person and it is at hand. And the system ticks both boxes, because there is frankly no excuse for putting your rifle down, given its flexibility and comfort.

I have NEVER seen a military rifle catastrophically failing, so that point is pretty moot.

Easier to clear.... Nah: Anyone who uses an IW can clear a *lot* faster than anyone trained on the M4/16 because they have lots more practice doing it... :smallwink:



It is my understanding that the M16A4 MWS with ACOG is a more accurate rifle than the L85A2 with ACOG.


I'm not sure about the A4, but I know that the IW was more accurate than the M16 in my day, because the [SF] guys who shot their annual tests with M16 variants did it that way to show off, because it was harder.

The IW wasn't a great weapon in many ways, back in my day. It didn't like sand, dirt, mud or water. You had to use Colt mags to get a full 30 in reliably, if you weren't badged for infantry you had to fight and grovel for SUSAT, pieces sometimes fell off (especially the bayonet, and often the gas cover), the sight could kill you with cancer if you dropped it, and it needed a lot of fiddly TLC. In many ways I hated it; especially when I got a stoppage at a crucial moment, and whenever it gouged a lump of flesh from the back of my hand while clearing it.
However, it was ergonomically excellent (For right handers...). Easy to shoulder, easy to carry. Easy to aim, a joy to fire, and blisteringly accurate. Reloading and generally working from cover was another strong point. The sight and sling system was fantastic (again... not so the bayonet). This is why I'm really struggling with the 'conventional arms are better' thing, especially given the fact that I really, really missed it whenever I used an Armalite [No, I wasn't anything special: I just got to go and play with Americans a lot. Ice cream on FTX... man you guys are SPOILED.].




It can seem excessive, but when you are driving a tank though a city...

Don't?

[Soylent Dave]

i was under the impression the SAS used M4s becuase of the (in)famous reliability issues of the early L85s, which really, really, really did not like being dirty. kind of like the early M16s...

Yeah, that seems to be the consensus I've heard as well - British special forces got the idea that the L85 was rubbish and unreliable (which the A1 was, to be fair to them), and once you get that idea - especially if it's from personal experience - it's hard to lose it.



It can seem excessive, but when you are driving a tank though a city...

Don't?

or "accelerate".

[Psyx]

I was under the impression that the M-16's early reliability problems were more to do with them not being looked after / cleaned properly?

[Karoht]

Wow. After seeing some Bullpup design rifles on Wiki, I'm now a fan. They look and sound awesome. Are there any inherant design issues with the Bullpup concept? IE-Easier to jam, harder to maintenance, heating/cooling, etc?

[Galloglaich]

I was under the impression that the M-16's early reliability problems were more to do with them not being looked after / cleaned properly?

No it's all the crap from the gas being blown into the upper reciever by the gas-tube. Which is still a problem.

G.

[Psyx]

I know it still means that cleaning them is a bit of an epic job, because everything gets gunked up. I was just under the impression that the troops initially handed them weren't doing a good enough job of it, and that reliability suffered heavily as a result.


Karoht: Not really. The mechanism needs to be housed in the stock, and some thought needs to go into the design so they don't spray hot brass in the face of lefties, but that's all that springs to mind.

Oh: And the magazine release catch needs to be partially shielded, so that you don't brush it accidently against your chest and eject the mag. Thanks Enfield for that one! /rolleyes

[Kalaska'Agathas]

...Stuff...

Yeah, that's pretty much been my experience. Hence my confusion over the 'superior manual of arms' and such. Though I guess I need more practice at speed-reloading bullpups, as I find them to be slightly (but negligibly) slower to reload.


Wow. After seeing some Bullpup design rifles on Wiki, I'm now a fan. They look and sound awesome. Are there any inherant design issues with the Bullpup concept? IE-Easier to jam, harder to maintenance, heating/cooling, etc?

The trigger can be wonky compared to a traditional pattern rifle. This is due to the linkage required as the trigger is generally further away from the firing mechanism on a bullpup rifle. Also, there is always the question of being able to fire from your off side (as you would sometimes need to, firing from cover) - some rifles (the FN F2000, the Kel-Tec RFB) eject far enough forward that this isn't an issue, while others (the FAMAS, the AUG) have the means for a gunsmith to switch the side the brass ejects from, and some rifles (the L85, the SAR-21) just say 'well, don't shoot from the left side, then.'

[Yora]

One reason bullpup rifles are seen less often than they are actually used is probably because most designs don't look as cool as a M16, AK-47, G36, or FAL.
FAMAS and AUG just don't look good on screens and in games. :smallwink:

[Raum]

I was under the impression that the M-16's early reliability problems were more to do with them not being looked after / cleaned properly?Per Wikipedia, the cleaning issues were caused by poor quality ammunition.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Per Wikipedia, the cleaning issues were caused by poor quality ammunition.

There are still issues, but they have been lessened when they changed the propellant.

[Norsesmithy]

With regard to the reliability problems that the M16 experienced in Vietnam, there are several contributing factors to it's poor early performance, but if you take that conflict as a whole, the mean rounds between stoppage statistic for the rifle was actually rather good, better than the M14, and better than the G3s used by certain special forces groups.

The issues could be traced to a handful of fatal errors made at a very high level.

The first was ordering the rifles without any chroming, against the recommendation of the manufacturer, in order to save costs. This was bad because just a little bit of pitting in the chamber of a rifle can cause a case to stick to the chamber, a jam that requires a fair bit of effort and time to remedy. This error had been remedied by the end of 1965, but not instantly or uniformly.

The second was switching from a modern extruded powder to use up stocks of WWII and Korean War era ball powder that was dirty to begin with (it was well known for fouling up Garands, and was rejected by people participating in service rifle matches with M1903s because it fouled their barrels so fast you had to clean between strings to keep acceptable accuracy), and probably past it's "sell by date". This caused the rifles to foul quickly, and worse yet, the residue was very hydrophilic, creating an excellent breeding ground for the type of chamber pitting that was such an issue because of the non-chromed barrels. This issue was remedied by Sept. 1965, but due to the nature of a supply chain, it took two more years for the bad ammo to work it's way out of circulation.

Third was not issuing cleaning kits. The XM16E1 that had been used in the adaption trials and issued to the "Military advisors" who wrote such favorable recommendations from the front lines of a pre-official US involvement Vietnam war had a chromed chamber and very clean burning ammo. In that configuration, it was basically unnecessary to do anything but wipe down the parts and lube the moving mechanisms. Cleaning the bore was superfluous. So in order to save money, cleaning rods and such were not purchased or issued. This caused problems because the primary mode of failure with the bad ammo and non-chromed barrels was stuck cases, and the way you get a stuck case out is with a cleaning rod. The infamous story about Marines who were found dead in their trench with cleaning rods stuck in their bores was unfortunate in that they were found that way before M16 cleaning rods had made their way in theater, they had been trying to clean their weapons with M14 cleaning rods, which have a larger diameter than the bore of the rifle. That they managed to get them in far enough to get them stuck is a testament to the "nothing is impossible" attitude of the the Marines. This issue was corrected sometime in 1966.

The fourth issue was the conscript attitude that permeated the military at that time. There were a whole lot of draftees who did not soldier in a professional manner. A Vietnam Vet I know who had joined the army of his own volition, and ended up motor pool instead of infantry because of how tall he was remarks that the boys in the army then would break things he didn't think were possible to break, and that he's sure that at least one of his underlings was loosening engine oil drain plugs on vehicles headed out into the field. Multiply that attitude across a huge draftee army, and you can see why everything was probably working more poorly than it would in a volunteer army like the one of today. And above and beyond abuse, someone who doesn't get the results he wants because of a lack in his own ability and training is generally very fast to blame the tool.

As far as modern M16 pattern rifle reliability in the modern era, the greatest controversy seems to stem from a single dust and sand reliability test in 2007. What doesn't get mentioned is that that dust test was one of a series of 8 (6 before it, one after it), and the results in that test were highly anomalous. For instance, the HK 416 uses the same magazines as the M4, yet had less than 10% as many magazine malfunctions.

If one does some digging, one finds that in the other 7 tests, the M4 performed in a highly competitive manner, but that in the test that gets all the publicity, there was no representative from Colt (the maker of the M4), though all the other rifles had a manufacturers representative handy to keep an eye on the proceedings, and that in the other 7 tests, there was a Colt rep on hand too.

Now I don't know about you, but something smells to me.

[Galloglaich]

That is very interesting... it does make sense about the powder and the chroming (man Vietnam was a mess...) but I'm not sure if it's all there was to it.

My own experience is this: I was a medic in the Army, stationed in Germany in 1986 and 1987. I used to do range duty (a rotating gig for medics) about once or twice a month because I liked to shoot and frankly, it was also a good way to kind of goof off all day, you just had to be there in case somebody got hurt. And that only ever usually happened at this one range where they had movable targets they raised and lowered from inside this tunnel (the guys would take off their helmets against orders and get head injuries from the target assembly sometimes)

Anyway, I saw a lot of guys check out at the range. I was there so often I made personal friends with the old mean crusty German range manager who was an ex falschirmjaeger who fought at Crete and Italy. I got to shoot the m60 a lot and the NATO troops we shared the range with occasionally let me try the G3s and the FN FAL and also the MG 3 and FN MAG light machine guns, and the various sidearms and once in a while an M2 or a larger crew served weapon on the machine gun range.

The M-16s we had then, which were M16A1, were getting 'stoppages' constantly, far more often than most the other rifles, and actual full-on jams fairly often, maybe once per hour on the range somebody would have a stovepipe or something. Though to be honest all the rifles got stoppages especially at full-auto, I think the M16s were the worst by a wide margin. They were old and beat up from field exercises, but so were our ancient rattling .M1911 45's, some of which you practically had to hold sideways to make them shoot the target, but those didn't jam very much.

I heard the A2s were better, but when I was in there was definitely still a design problem, and from my personal experience with the M16 you basically have to completely field-strip and clean the rifle, especially the upper-receiver, every single time you shoot it, and there is also a little part on the bolt, part of the extractor kind of like a washer, that you used to have to adjust every time you cleaned it. If you didn't do all this you were likely to get a stoppage, even without getting the rifle really hot.

I thought the best ones then were the FN's, and the Ak's we occasionally played with varied in quality a lot but the better made ones were extremely reliable. So were the old M14s.

This was just one unit in one part of Germany in the 1980s, but we were not conscripts were knew how to take care of the weapons and did so pretty faithfully. The guns didn't inspire a lot of confidence (neither did a lot of other kit back then, with a few notable exceptions like the M1 tank which impressed the hell out of me)

We did hear rumors occasionally, usually from NCO's, that they would be replacing our regular duty rifles with brand new pristine ones if we went to war, but I don't know if they would actually have that luxury. It could have been true though because I know we had a ton of NBC stuff in these 'war-bags' which wasn't to be opened except "in case of emergency" and we also had a lot of extra medical kit and supplies (like morphine) which we couldn't touch in peacetime FTXs.

Oh and, we never had icecream in the field that I can remember. Reconstituted strawberries from the MREs was about as good as it got during Reforger or Able Archer.

What I would say in favor of the M16 is that it is extremely accurate, unlike in movies where a guy can't hit another guy running just across the street. In real life if you know how to shoot you can easily tag somebody at 300 meters and you can almost automatically hit anyone up to 200 meters. If you couldn't hit somebody at 100 meters, running and dodging or not, you must have had a vision problem or brain damage. It is like a 'hot' .22 rifle, the bullet barely drops at all it just goes where you point it like a laser, and it does hit hard. It doesn't kick almost at all either but it does rise quite a bit when you shoot multiple rounds, and goes up up up at full auto.

And as for killing power, before I got to my unit we had a criminal incident, a guy took a rifle from another guy who was coming off of guard duty and shot his NCOIC. They kept the x-rays and autopsy photos to show us medics, he was only hit one time and it blew a crater out of the back of his head.

Just my $.02

G.

[Norsesmithy]

My only personal experiences with the rifles are as a civilian owner of semiauto variants, but listening to classmates who did enlist, their stories of the rifles used in stateside training are very similar to yours, rattletrap old pieces of crap that didn't function well, magazines that you could hold upside down and shake the ammo out of, an insistence on a very rigorous cleaning regimen, various little tweaks to keep damaged or worn out pieces functional.

But, when deployed, the story changes dramatically. All new magazines, fresh out of the wrapper that feed well and don't loose rounds, mechanically pristine rifles that require only a daily wipe out of the receiver and a good coating of CLP (not dripping, not merely a film), and little else in the way of maintenance. They also report excellent reliability, that isn't to say that the rifles were maintenance free or never had a stoppage, but that it was the other equipment they learned to expect to let them down, other weapon systems, not their M16s or M4s.

[Stephen_E]

I was under the impression that the M-16's early reliability problems were more to do with them not being looked after / cleaned properly?

My understanding was it was a combination of factors.
Including cleaning manual often not available
and
The original contract for ammo and firearms been split between 2 companies. 1 of which had designed the weapon. Tolerances were a bit off on the other company which was enough to significantly increase jamming occurances.

Stephen E

[Theodoric]

I was under the impression that the M-16's early reliability problems were more to do with them not being looked after / cleaned properly?
Depending on who you talk though; some consider that an excuse by the high-ups. 'Cause it's rather easy for the higher-ups to blame the soldiers, and it's rather silly idea that a soldier doesn't look after his rifle. The low view some folks have of the common soldier can be quite astounding.

From what I've been able to gather, the forward assist did help with issues a lot (since it meant no-one had to jam a cleaning rod down the barrel, which was eerily reminiscent of bygone centuries), but banging on the forward assist every few shots because of all the Afghan dust getting in isn't quite pleasant either (I've heard, I'm no Walt :smallwink:).

[Edmund]

It's worth mentioning that the preference for AR-15 pattern rifles over standard doesn't just extend to bullpup-using armies. Poland's GROM (standard arm is the tantal, an AK-74 variant), Spain's MOE (G-36), Brazil's Special Forces Battalion (FAL, though the BFE has a mix of G-36s and 5.56 FAL's too), and a bunch of others that I don't care to name since they are fairly unsurprising. They either fall into the category of being strongly tied to America, like the Iraqi Commandos, or first-world countries like Italy.

There is a glut of information that suggests, and an amount that states directly, that standard-pattern rifles are better for almost all tasks.


One reason bullpup rifles are seen less often than they are actually used is probably because most designs don't look as cool as a M16, AK-47, G36, or FAL.
FAMAS and AUG just don't look good on screens and in games. :smallwink:

I realise you're joking but one of halo's guns is literally the famas with a different name. Also anyone who ever wants a Space Gun without dealing with fabricating a model (M-41A pulse rifle <3) usually gets a bullpup of some flavor.

[firechicago]

Depending on who you talk though; some consider that an excuse by the high-ups. 'Cause it's rather easy for the higher-ups to blame the soldiers, and it's rather silly idea that a soldier doesn't look after his rifle. The low view some folks have of the common soldier can be quite astounding.

From what I've been able to gather, the forward assist did help with issues a lot (since it meant no-one had to jam a cleaning rod down the barrel, which was eerily reminiscent of bygone centuries), but banging on the forward assist every few shots because of all the Afghan dust getting in isn't quite pleasant either (I've heard, I'm no Walt :smallwink:).

There's also a certain type of engineer that's deeply convinced that just because something worked like a dream under the circumstances in which they were designing it, that those circumstances can be replicated in the field. And if they aren't then the user just isn't doing it right.

This is especially prevalent in IT. (Yes, I know that a misplaced comma will crash the whole database, but if we just tell everyone to be really careful when they manually enter data that will never be a problem!)

[Salbazier]

Spiked shield. How realistic (or unrealistic) it is? To be more precise, are there any examples of cultures that use spiked shields, at least as something more than decoration. I think I've seen or read something about existing real shield with spikes.

[Spiryt]

Spiked shield. How realistic is it?

Depends what you mean by "realistic" - certainly it wasn't used anyway often.

Some bucklers, or similar small shields had some pointy bosses or central parts, there are some scottish targes with quite impressive spikes mounted to the boss that can be seen in museums.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/2739535531_f0a163c066.jpg


But generally such ideas didn't seem popular at all, aside from poor fantasy art of course. :smallwink:

[Yora]

While a spiked shield might work (though probably break a lot), spiked armor is completely out of the question. Those things are just silly.

[Stephen_E]

Depending on who you talk though; some consider that an excuse by the high-ups. 'Cause it's rather easy for the higher-ups to blame the soldiers, and it's rather silly idea that a soldier doesn't look after his rifle. The low view some folks have of the common soldier can be quite astounding.


To be fair, soldiers can be quite careless of there equipment at times, I recall at the start of the Iraqi invasion a US supply convoy was ambushed and a female soldier was captured.
She was originally made out to be some sort of combat hero but it was later found out that she hadn't fired a shot because her rifle had been so badly looked after that it jammed when she tried to fire it.

But yes, the idea that soldiers will as a general rule severly mistreat their own weapons is a bit far-fetched without (edited from "with" typo) strong supporting evidence. In the M16's case the evidence does seem to be that there was a maintance problem, but the problem was created from above and not by the soldiers themselves.


Stephen E

[Mike_G]

Yeah, but she wasn't a grunt, she was a truck driver, if I recall correctly.

A lot of non direct combat MOS's have their share of people who just don't have any desire to shoot anybody, and don't consider and prepare for the possibility.

I would honestly expect her to check the oil level in the truck more than I would expect her to field strip her rifle.

Infantrymen generally take care of their weapons. If they don't, it's pretty much a self correcting problem.

The M16 issue in Vietnam was too quick, with too little prep, and some untested changes to the weapon and ammo specs. Plus, there were a lot of troops who were issued the rifle without a cleaning kit.

The M16 is a decent rifle, when properly cared for. It shouldn't have been rushed into service, and it should have been tested in the combat environment, in the exact configuration in which is was to be issued on a limited basis before taking away a whole battalion's M14's, which they knew would go "bang" when they pulled a trigger, and sending them into battle with a rifle with a cheaper than originally spec'ed barrel, cheaper ammo and no cleaning kit. That was pretty much murder. Trying to blame the troops after sending them out to die like that is obscene.

I went to Boot Camp in 1986, and the Marines had already adopted the M16A2, which was a better, more reliable, more accurate gun, and had a better sight configuration and a burst limiter. It still needed a lot of TLC to avoid stoppages. but we knew that and weren't being given a weapon and told we never needed to run a swab through it.

[Jon_Dahl]

Target: Unarmored human, unable to dodge the attack, you can't hit the target in the heart or head. Range: 30 ft.

Which one of these causes more damage to the above-mentioned target and kills it more likelier?
a. Modern crossbow.
b. Javelin, thrown by a fairly strong person, with a running speed of 10 ft (but the throw must be taken 30 ft before the target).

edit: Additional info
- Atlatl or Woomera is not used, the throw is "unassisted".
- Javelin is an angon. Assume that it's made from optimal modern day materials.
- Crossbow is any modern crossbow, with enough power to be used for hunting big game. Bolts are standard hunting bolts, used in modern day. Assume that the weapon, bolts and everything related to it are exactly what an average modern day hunter would have.

[gkathellar]

Target: Unarmored human, unable to dodge the attack, you can't hit the target in the heart or head. Range: 30 ft.

Which one of these causes more damage to the above-mentioned target and kills it more likelier?
a. Modern crossbow.
b. Javelin, thrown by a fairly strong person, with a running speed of 10 ft (but the throw must be taken 30 ft before the target).

Dismissive Answer: Depends on the nature of the spearhead/crossbow bolt, the kind of crossbow, and whether there's an atlatl involved.

Complicated Answer: Assuming the javelin thrower doesn't have the atlatl necessary for actual spear throwing, the crossbow bolt wins out for sheer puncture force. If the javelin thrower has an atlatl, the javelin might well to more damage. The crossbow will still hit harder, mind, but a javelin has a good chance of getting stuck halfway through their body, and its far greater mass means that it will deal far more havoc to the muscles and organs even if it passes all the way through. A lot of the damage from piercing weapons comes from the sudden trauma inflicted almost globally when you get hit by one.

Of course, this is complicated by the head of the projectile. A barbed crossbow bolt (most crossbow bolts are barbed, btw), if not correctly extracted, can tear apart the body in some truly disgusting ways. And frankly, the amount of concentrated force behind those barbs can ruin whatever they hit permanently. A bolt can chip bones, destroy muscles and pulverize organs simply because the pointy end is designed to be cruel if it goes through and difficult to extract if it doesn't. A javelin, on the other hand, is likely to have a simpler head to make it more aerodynamic.

Either way, if you get in the thigh, lung, pelvis, hip, solar plexus or shoulder, you'll probably die. So the best answer is: ranged weapons kill you.

[Spiryt]

Target: Unarmored human, unable to dodge the attack, you can't hit the target in the heart or head. Range: 30 ft.

Which one of these causes more damage to the above-mentioned target and kills it more likelier?
a. Modern crossbow.
b. Javelin, thrown by a fairly strong person, with a running speed of 10 ft (but the throw must be taken 30 ft before the target).

Pretty hard to answer, mostly because above are way to vague.

It would all depend on the shape of bolt or spear head, in first place. Then on material or the head and the rest, weight, lenght, more importantly specifics of the crossbow (draw lenght, weight)...

Similarly with javelin.

But in very broad sense, I would pick javelin to be more lethal 'usually' - more massive missile, with bigger head, capable of penetrating deeper and inflicting larger wound.



Complicated Answer: Assuming the javelin thrower doesn't have the atlatl necessary for actual spear throwing, the crossbow bolt wins out for sheer puncture force. If the javelin thrower has an atlatl, the javelin might well to more damage. The crossbow will still hit harder, mind, but a javelin has a good chance of getting stuck halfway through their body, and its far greater mass means that it will deal far more havoc to the muscles and organs even if it passes all the way through. A lot of the damage from piercing weapons comes from the sudden trauma inflicted almost globally when you get hit by one.

Uh...

No.

Atlatl is not thing for making javelins go faster, it's tool for throwing darts, that are generally sort of very light, flexible javelins with feathers.

Of course it will vary depending on many things, but generally dart would be something "between" good javelin and arrow in characteristic - less massive and doesn't hit as hard as 'normal' javelin, but travels much further and faster.

Some comparison from World of Atlatl site.

http://www.worldatlatl.org/Articles/TakochCD/HOW%20hard%20does%20it%20hit%20revised.pdf

[J.Gellert]

I may not know weapons too well, but I know humans... Neither kills you if it doesn't hit anything important, either kills you if it hits something important and you have no help. Then it doesn't matter how dead you are.

Now, which is more likely to hit something important? That's for the weapons folks to answer, but I will hazard a guess... that aiming a crossbow is easier.

[Rainbownaga]

Uh...

No.

Atlatl is not thing for making javelins go faster, it's tool for throwing darts, that are generally sort of very light, flexible javelins with feathers.

Of course it will vary depending on many things, but generally dart would be something "between" good javelin and arrow in characteristic - less massive and doesn't hit as hard as 'normal' javelin, but travels much further and faster.

Some comparison from World of Atlatl site.

http://www.worldatlatl.org/Articles/TakochCD/HOW%20hard%20does%20it%20hit%20revised.pdf

Replace with the term "Woomera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woomera_(spear-thrower))" which are basically the same thing used to throw actual spears.

The actual definition of dart, spear and javelin are so vague anyway. Are we talking an olympic-style javelin? Since head and heart are missed, death will likely be from shock and/or blood loss.

[Jon_Dahl]

Sorry about that guys, I will improve my question:

- Atlatl or Woomera is not used, the throw is "unassisted".
- Javelin is an angon. Assume that it's made from optimal modern day materials.
- Crossbow is any modern crossbow, with enough power to be used for hunting big game. Bolts are standard hunting bolts, used in modern day. Assume that the weapon, bolts and everything related to it are exactly what an average modern day hunter would have.

[Spiryt]

Replace with the term "Woomera" which are basically the same thing used to throw actual spears.

The actual definition of dart, spear and javelin are so vague anyway. Are we talking an olympic-style javelin? Since head and heart are missed, death will likely be from shock and/or blood loss.

Well, since terms are vague, what can "actual spear" means?

And I don't believe they used to throw " actual spears" as stuff that could be used as an actual spear. Or javelin for that matter.

The very point of such thrower, is that you throw a light, flexible dart, and the optimal flexibility (in relation to lenght of dart, arm, thrower) will allow you to throw it efficiently.

Link 1 (http://www.worldatlatl.org/WhatisAtlatl_HowtoThrow.html)

Link 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGFuOgVG3js)


Link 3 (http://www.primitiveways.com/dart_Baugh.html)


Atlatl or similar stuff wouldn't really throw 'normal' javelin, just as atlatl dart most certainly wouldn't be really throw-able with just hands...

People often mention those weapons as "empowering" :smallconfused: any javelin or spear throw, while it obviously neither sounds logical, nor is true from all that I've saw.


Sorry about that guys, I will improve my question:

- Atlatl or Woomera is not used, the throw is "unassisted".
- Javelin is an angon. Assume that it's made from optimal modern day materials.
- Crossbow is any modern crossbow, with enough power to be used for hunting big game. Bolts are standard hunting bolts, used in modern day. Assume that the weapon, bolts and everything related to it are exactly what an average modern day hunter would have.

Well, there's quite a lot of variables still, especially about heads - many different are using in modern day hunting, and angons had many different spearheads too.

But still, I will stay with the angon. 30ft is just great distance for javelin, it will strike hard.

But really, it hugely depends on wielder - while crossbow will generally cause vaguely similar damage, athleticism and skill of thrower means pretty much everything in case of angon.

[Psyx]

(M-41A pulse rifle <3)

Which was on a Thompson frame, I believe.


Thanks for the informative post Norsesmithy.

Not mentioned so far, but I imagine going straight into a jungle environment is never going to reflect well on a new firearm.

The M-16 has a ability to grunge up the entire inside of the weapon that's really quite remarkable. I swear sometimes after firing one I'd take my boots off, and they'd have gas residue in...



The low view some folks have of the common soldier can be quite astounding.

And often well deserved, to be fair. Wellington made some very valid points.
I've seen PBIs do some breathtakingly stupid things, be bawled out for it, had the finer points of the stupidity pointed out, and then done it again an hour later.


It's worth mentioning that the preference for AR-15 pattern rifles over standard doesn't just extend to bullpup-using armies.

It's because we all want to be American, deep down :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

Well, since terms are vague, what can "actual spear" means?

And I don't believe they used to throw " actual spears" as stuff that could be used as an actual spear. Or javelin for that matter.

I think the device you are thinking of for throwing javelins is not an atlatl or a woomera, which as the others have stated upthread were for very special types of darts rather than ordinary javelins... is an amentum.

An amentum is a thong which was used to throw ordinary spears and javelins more accurately and with more force.

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

These were used with spears, javelins and darts going back to prehistoric times (they are mentioned in the bible and in ancient Egyptian and Summerian records) The spears which used these were also sometimes referred to (particularly in ancient records) as a "Weavers-Beam".

In the Renaissance this was retained as the "Swiss Arrow"

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

which was a dart, but these were very definitely used with full-sized javelins all the way into the 18th Century. Some amentum impart spin by winding the thong around the shaft of the weapon (which improved accuracy), some were detachable some were built-in.

With regard to the original question, I personally think the javelin would do more damage at close range, especially with a larger head. At close range javelins have excellent penetration, and they normally would have a larger striking head which would make a larger wound.

That said the most powerful modern crossbows have good penetration, I have seen youtube videos of Horton Excalibur crossbows (I think circa 250 lb draw) being used to hunt elephants and kill pretty quickly with one shot.

With more powerful mechanically spanned Medieval / Renaissance crossbows I think the balance may tip in favor of the crossbow though it's hard to say.

G.

[Yora]

I hate it when wikipedia articles describe objects without providing any pictures how it actually looks.
Do you have any pictures for them? It's often hard for me to get my mind around how something works without looking at it.

[fusilier]

Well, since terms are vague, what can "actual spear" means?

I have to admit that I'm finding the terms rather nebulous myself. There are references to "throwing spears" and I believe I've heard Atlatl's described as throwing "darts" or "javelins" (furthermore the word is typically translated as "spear thrower").

I was introduced to darts as basically large thrown arrows (probably a Kestros: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestros) -- and not something like a mesoamerican "dart/javelin" which is considerably longer. The wikipedia entries for javelin and dart both use the same image of a peltast with different captions (thanks wiki). So specifying what is meant by "dart", "javelin", and "spear" is probably good before embarking upon any discussion. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Psyx]

I've only used/seen used spear throwers (of whatever name) to throw very light javelins/darts. Certainly nothing like a close combat spear, or even an Olympic javelin. Indeed; I was told that they only properly work if there is flex in the projectile, so as to stabilise it on launch.

Both will -as everyone has said- kill you if it hits something crucial. The chances of that happening are a large matter of luck. But you make your own luck in many ways, and -assuming that you achieve penetration to a significant degree- a puncture weapon is more likely to hit something crucial if it causes a wider permanent wound cavity: ie is 'bigger' in cross-section.



Yeah, but she wasn't a grunt, she was a truck driver, if I recall correctly.

She was a soldier. So no excuse for having a weapon that didn't work...

[Galloglaich]

All you have to do is ask man.

As others pointed out, Atlatls and Woomera work with very special types of flexible, vaned darts made specifically for those throwers, not general purpose javelins. Outside of neolithic cultures the atlatl didn't really exist, it was essentially replaced during the Bronze Age by the amentum which was much more versatile.


An amentum is not a spear thrower, it's just a thong. It goes in a notch on the haft of a spear, javelin, or dart, or it may just be tied or looped around a javelin without a notch. It may or may not be wound around the weapon before throwing (winding imparts spin).

Like modern ballistic projectiles, thrown spears and darts have to be either spin-stabilized, or fin-stabilized in order to really be useful beyond a few feet of distance. They would frequently also have weights for better penetration.

The modern pop culture (including among most gamers and re-enactors etc.) perception of pre-industrial warfare is so distorted that the role of javelins is kind of shocking to most people outside of specific fields of Academia, or out-and-out weapon nuts. Ahem...:smalleek:

In this image you can see Arab soldiers carrying large fin-stabilized javelins:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Battle_of_Nicopol_aftermath_Thr_masacreofthecristi ans_revenge_for_rahova_massacre.jpg

Weapons like this were very common througout Europe, Central Asia, North Africa and the Middle East through the Middle Ages, as well as before and after.

The most famous smaller fin-stabilized dart is probably the Roman plumbata of which only partial fragments remain because they were partly organic. Here is a typical example
http://www.romancoins.info/plumbata-2008-2.jpg

...there are many modern reproductions mostly made by Roman re-enactment groups:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:D1FY77oTA3rv1M:http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6943/plumbata.jpg

Spin-stabilized javelins and darts were a;sp very common both for cavalry, chariots and infantry going back to the Bronze Age and forward into the 18th Century (excluding the chariots). The truth is javelins and darts were the dominant weapon on the battlefields of Europe and the Middle East from prehistoric times to the Medieval period, when they begain to lose importance somewhat to bows crossbows and eventually firearms, but they remained prominent on the battlefield particularly for combat in forested areas (such as by the Irish and the Lithuanians), really anywhere that a close-range ambush was possible, into the early Industrial era. The only other more ubiquitous weapon in human history are thrown rocks which people into RPGs and computer games and the fantasy genre in general usually also don't like to talk about too much. I guess as weapons they lack romance somewhat.

Here is a famous painting from 1680 depicting an Irish Lord (sir Neil O'Neil) posing with a spin-stabilized light javelin or dart with an amentum, with his finger in the amentum.

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/184637/1/Portrait-Of-Sir-Neil-O$27neill-$281658-90$29-1680.jpg

I can provide a lot more period depictions from Europe if anyone really needs to see them.

Here is a modern depiction which takes you through how they work step by step

http://www.armor.com/misc/ament/am01.jpg
http://www.armor.com/misc/ament/am02.jpg
http://www.armor.com/misc/ament/am004a.jpg

You can see the whole series here:

http://www.armor.com/amentum.html

And some videos of throwing with fixed amentum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmPSKu6-TMM&feature=player_embedded

...and detaching amentum (if you watch closely you can see the javelin spinning at the release):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtCDobXr9Gg&feature=player_embedded

Finally, an amentum could indeed be used with an angon.

G.

[Kansaschaser]

Dragonskin Armor Question
In the World of Darkness(Live Action Version), body armor gives you 2 health levels and it has two negative traits (bulky, heavy). That means you subtract a total of 2 points of damage and then the armor is useless. So most ballistic vests could only absorb one shot from a handgun. Dragonskin Armor was not invented when they wrote the Live Action Books.

My storyteller and I cannot come to an agreement as to what statistics it should have. My suggestion was that it should negate the first two levels of damage caused by any kinetic attack. If the attack was from a weapon that did more than two points of damage, you would have to keep track of how much damage has "penetrated" the armor. Once 10 levels of damage have penetrated the armor, then the armor is useless.

Question: In your opinion, what stats should Dragonskin body armor have in Live Action World of Darkness?

[Mike_G]

She was a soldier. So no excuse for having a weapon that didn't work...

I didn't say it was an excuse. I said I'm not surprised that a wheel jockey Nation Guardsman doesn't revere the Rifleman's Creed.

I'm saying that the Vietnam M16 apologists trying to blame weapon jams on the guys who died with jammed weapons in their hands when the whole aquisition, issue and training for the gun was charlie-fox is crap.

[AyeGill]

I may not know weapons too well, but I know humans... Neither kills you if it doesn't hit anything important, either kills you if it hits something important and you have no help. Then it doesn't matter how dead you are.

Now, which is more likely to hit something important? That's for the weapons folks to answer, but I will hazard a guess... that aiming a crossbow is easier.

This. Though i'll add that the added size and weight of a spear/javelin will make it hit very heavy compared to the crossbow, which means that damage to bones and thus will be increased. But i'd still say a crossbow, because
A) precision. I'd say at thirty feet, most people with a bit of experience could hit reasonably well with a modern crossbow. Even if you cant shoot the head/heart, there's lots of vital zones you can hit for a virtually ensured kill.
B) With the right head, even if you don't hit anything vital, you're likely to inflict a lot of damage and create a serious wound that will almost certainly kill the target over time if they don't get medical help.

[Matthew]

Dragonskin Armor Question
In the World of Darkness(Live Action Version), body armor gives you 2 health levels and it has two negative traits (bulky, heavy). That means you subtract a total of 2 points of damage and then the armor is useless. So most ballistic vests could only absorb one shot from a handgun. Dragonskin Armor was not invented when they wrote the Live Action Books.

My storyteller and I cannot come to an agreement as to what statistics it should have. My suggestion was that it should negate the first two levels of damage caused by any kinetic attack. If the attack was from a weapon that did more than two points of damage, you would have to keep track of how much damage has "penetrated" the armor. Once 10 levels of damage have penetrated the armor, then the armor is useless.

Question: In your opinion, what stats should Dragonskin body armor have in Live Action World of Darkness?

I am afraid you will have to start a separate thread for that. As far as I understand them, the rules for this one prohibit discussion of game rule statistics (see the first page of the thread for the rules of discussion).

[fusilier]

This. Though i'll add that the added size and weight of a spear/javelin will make it hit very heavy compared to the crossbow, which means that damage to bones and thus will be increased. But i'd still say a crossbow, because
A) precision. I'd say at thirty feet, most people with a bit of experience could hit reasonably well with a modern crossbow. Even if you cant shoot the head/heart, there's lots of vital zones you can hit for a virtually ensured kill.
B) With the right head, even if you don't hit anything vital, you're likely to inflict a lot of damage and create a serious wound that will almost certainly kill the target over time if they don't get medical help.

I've read very little of javelin wounds, and don't think they're depicted often in popular media. So I really having nothing to go on, except that they are bigger. My guess is that they would probably be similar to a light lance wound. However, 10 yards is not a great distance for any seasoned javelin thrower. I would probably be more scared of a competently thrown javelin at that range than a crossbow. I might (emphasis on might) still be able to function with a couple of arrows in me -- I doubt I would be able to do much with a javelin stuck in me though . . .

[AyeGill]

I've read very little of javelin wounds, and don't think they're depicted often in popular media. So I really having nothing to go on, except that they are bigger. My guess is that they would probably be similar to a light lance wound. However, 10 yards is not a great distance for any seasoned javelin thrower. I would probably be more scared of a competently thrown javelin at that range than a crossbow. I might (emphasis on might) still be able to function with a couple of arrows in me -- I doubt I would be able to do much with a javelin stuck in me though . . .

Well, i kinda read the question as "what are the odds of surviving a crossbow wound from 30ft" vs "What are the odds of surviving a javelin wound from 30 ft." and while i dont know that much about javelin wounds, i'd say that if you're hit with a crossbow with some kinda barbed head, you're not likely to survive long-term unless you get some serious medical help, no matter where you're hit, because pulling out the head will cause the kind of wounds that just kill you unless you're treated now. Whereas i think(although my knowledge of javelins is lacking), that if you're hit in the leg or the arm or something, with a javelin, you might be able to survive the wound with a bit of antibiotics and good luck. Also, there's the fact that at 30 ft, anybody with a bit of practice and a modern crossbow could probably hit something vital if he wanted to - and then you're dead.

[Spiryt]

Well, i kinda read the question as "what are the odds of surviving a crossbow wound from 30ft" vs "What are the odds of surviving a javelin wound from 30 ft." and while i dont know that much about javelin wounds, i'd say that if you're hit with a crossbow with some kinda barbed head, you're not likely to survive long-term unless you get some serious medical help, no matter where you're hit, because pulling out the head will cause the kind of wounds that just kill you unless you're treated now. Whereas i think(although my knowledge of javelins is lacking), that if you're hit in the leg or the arm or something, with a javelin, you might be able to survive the wound with a bit of antibiotics and good luck. Also, there's the fact that at 30 ft, anybody with a bit of practice and a modern crossbow could probably hit something vital if he wanted to - and then you're dead.

I kinda don't know why you assume that javelin wounds wouldn't kill you too, though. Javelin may be a bit easier to pull out, but on the other hand, you can impale yourself/irritate the wound even easier.

[fusilier]

I am afraid you will have to start a separate thread for that. As far as I understand them, the rules for this one prohibit discussion of game rule statistics (see the first page of the thread for the rules of discussion).

I think Matthew is correct here, you are asking for rather specific game information (rules), and this thread generally avoids that. However, I would say that Dragonskin armor's effectiveness may have a conflated reputation due to increased media coverage. It may indeed be more effective than other body armors, but how much more effective isn't entirely clear. The one test I remember seeing they fired pistols at it, then a submachine gun, and finally they showed that it could stop a rifle round. Or I should say a "rifle" round, because while they kept saying "rifle" they were using an AK-47 which uses an intermediate cartridge! They certainly didn't show it trying to stop a .30-06, or 8mm Mauser, .303 Enfield, 6.5mm Carcano, etc.

Anyway, if you are looking for how effective Dragonskin armor is compared to other body armors, then you can ask that question here. I'm sure there are people here who know more about it. I would just point out that if the RPG you are using has relatively abstract armor rules, Dragonskin may just be another kind of body armor.

[Galloglaich]

At 30 feet a reasonably powerful hunting crossbow will almost always go all the way through a human body. They usually go through deer.

G.

[fusilier]

At 30 feet a reasonably powerful hunting crossbow will almost always go all the way through a human body. They usually go through deer.

G.

Fair point, but I still might be able to function with a couple of such wounds better than with a javelin stuck in me?

[TheMeMan]

I have to admit that I'm finding the terms rather nebulous myself. There are references to "throwing spears" and I believe I've heard Atlatl's described as throwing "darts" or "javelins" (furthermore the word is typically translated as "spear thrower").

I was introduced to darts as basically large thrown arrows (probably a Kestros: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestros) -- and not something like a mesoamerican "dart/javelin" which is considerably longer. The wikipedia entries for javelin and dart both use the same image of a peltast with different captions (thanks wiki). So specifying what is meant by "dart", "javelin", and "spear" is probably good before embarking upon any discussion. Thank you for pointing this out.

Although I'm not entirely sure how it began, we in the archaeology/anthropology business commonly refer to atlatl projectiles as darts to distinguish them from spears(Which are wielded or thrown by hand), and arrows. I have absolutely no idea where this distinction came from.

However, I would very much like to point out that an atlatl projectile is more akin to an arrow than to a spear of any sort. It is not meant to be held in the least. Which has led a few to simply call them arrows.

The truth of the matter is the terms aren't really codified in any discipline. When someone says "dart" to me, it immediately conjures an image of an atlatl projectile rather than anything else. Of course, this is due in no small part towards the vocabulary of my discipline.

That said, atlatls are downright lethal.

[TheMeMan]

At 30 feet a reasonably powerful hunting crossbow will almost always go all the way through a human body. They usually go through deer.

G.

That may actually be less than desirable if you want to actually kill someone. Having a weapon which leaves it's projectile in the body could actually cause severe trauma just through moving, as well as attempting to remove it. A projectile which goes clean through will leave a nice tidy hole to heal over.

[Galloglaich]

Just a guess but yeah my guess is yes, just like a gunshot wound pretty much (maybe a little worse in terms of slicing, more likely to hit an artery) but with some luck you could quite possibly survive three or four hits, and I suspect the Javelin has more K.E. at least at close range so a bit more lethality (but you could possibly survive two or three of those as well depending of course, as with the crossbow, on where you were hit). It really depends a lot on the javelin though.

Either way, an unhappy experience to be sure!

G.

[Kansaschaser]

Anyway, if you are looking for how effective Dragonskin armor is compared to other body armors, then you can ask that question here. I'm sure there are people here who know more about it. I would just point out that if the RPG you are using has relatively abstract armor rules, Dragonskin may just be another kind of body armor.

Ok, I didn't see anything about not getting game statistics, so I guess I didn't understand.

Ok, then I would like to know what rounds are powerful enough to penetrate a Dragonskin armor.

[AyeGill]

I kinda don't know why you assume that javelin wounds wouldn't kill you too, though. Javelin may be a bit easier to pull out, but on the other hand, you can impale yourself/irritate the wound even easier.

You have a point. I think the answer to this question is, if they hit you in the chest, you're going to die if you dont get help soon. If they hit something vital, you just die, and this is easier to do with a crossbow. Also, if they hit you in the leg, the arm, or a similar place far from vital body parts, you might survive if you have medical supplies like disinfectants and clean tissue to bind the wound, but you're probably still pretty likely to die. But i'd still say, when you pull out a barbed head the tissue is pulled apart and, depending on the head, in such a way that the wound will have trouble healing naturally(this isn't what you usually use for hunting, though). So i'd say that a barbed head significantly reduces your chances of survival. Still, no matter what, you're probably pretty likely to die.

[Galloglaich]

That may actually be less than desirable if you want to actually kill someone. Having a weapon which leaves it's projectile in the body could actually cause severe trauma just through moving, as well as attempting to remove it. A projectile which goes clean through will leave a nice tidy hole to heal over.

Quite true. Maybe that is why some Medieval crossbow bolts which were found in a military contexts had odd shaped heads like fowling heads, perhaps they were for sticking inside people (for unarmored targets).

But I suspect this is indeed part of the 'charm' of Javelins, they made for an akward injury with a three foot spear haft sticking halfway out of your leg or something, it would be inconvenient to keep fighting, in fact you are basically debilitated (just like very famously your should would be if partially penetrated)

G.

[TheMeMan]

Quite true. Maybe that is why some Medieval crossbow bolts which were found in a military contexts had odd shaped heads like fowling heads, perhaps they were for sticking inside people (for unarmored targets).


I wouldn't doubt that's the reason. Differing heads for different purposes isn't unheard of in projectile technology.



But I suspect this is indeed part of the 'charm' of Javelins, they made for an akward injury with a three foot spear haft sticking halfway out of your leg or something, it would be inconvenient to keep fighting, in fact you are basically debilitated (just like very famously your should would be if partially penetrated)

G.

That and pure trauma caused by the initial blow. The weight of javelins would cause a great deal of damage simple on impact. I wouldn't doubt it has the capacity to shatter bone from pure impact damage alone, let alone what piercing would do.

That said, I think comparing javelins to crossbows is rather silly, as the two are most definitely good at killing.

[Galloglaich]

You have a point. I think the answer to this question is, if they hit you in the chest, you're going to die if you dont get help soon. If they hit something vital, you just die, and this is easier to do with a crossbow. Also, if they hit you in the leg, the arm, or a similar place far from vital body parts, you might survive if you have medical supplies like disinfectants and clean tissue to bind the wound, but you're probably still pretty likely to die. But i'd still say, when you pull out a barbed head the tissue is pulled apart and, depending on the head, in such a way that the wound will have trouble healing naturally(this isn't what you usually use for hunting, though). So i'd say that a barbed head significantly reduces your chances of survival. Still, no matter what, you're probably pretty likely to die.

Not necessarily, most military formations had doctors and "surgeons" who were fairly good at removing arrows and etc., and though they did not understand about microbes or microbiology, they did have access to and clearly used disinfecting agents, such as alochol (strong vinegar is frequently mentioned), and effectively sterile wound treatments such as spider webs, as well as a wide variety of herbs and medicines many of which upon investigation have proven to be sound remedies. They also used silver instruments by preference which is a very strong anti-microbial (though this was not known as the reason for their desirability, it was just tradition going back to the Ancient Greeks).

It all depended on the quality of the doctors which varied enormously. All of this was attested to in surviving documents going back to the 12th Century in Europe that I know of, and considerably earlier in Muslim context (and of course before that, the Greek and Roman). They also had access to hashish and opium to use for pain.

To removed a barbed arrow, the shaft was cut removing both the head and the fletchings if possible, the arrow pulled through the body in the direction it was travelling using something like pliers.

Of course it wasn't unusual to poison arrows such as by dipping them in dung or just sticking them in the ground before shooting, which made death by infection more likely. It is also true that physicians of the pre-industrial world were less able to deal with puncture wounds than with cuts or bludgeoning injuries. Actually from what I have read embedded bullets were considered the most dangerous wounds in the long term, because they were usually harder to remove than arrows.

G.

[Stephen_E]

I'd put my vote on the Spear/javelin been more disabling than the Crossbow Bolt in most circumstances.

The bolt goes straight through, as G mentioned, or firmly lodges in place, and assuming the wound doesn't drop you, which does seem to be part of the assumption, you should be able to retain a reasonable degree of mobility.

The Javelin/spear on the otherhand won't go straight through, but will probably be fairly firmly lodged, while at the same time having a good length hanging out that wobbles about as you move causing additional pain/injury and interfering in movement.
You could remove the spear on the spot, but there is a reason that they don't advocate removing knifes ectre from wounds except by medical professionals. You are likely to effectively do additional wounds in the process. Whether by slicing/tearing more stuff as the weapon comes out, or by simply removing the weapon whose presence is acting as a pressure point for the wound it created.


Stephen E

[Galloglaich]

Doesn't sound like much fun does it?

Here is a video of a guy shooting an elephant with a crossbow, killing it with one shot. If you are a hard core animal lover you may not want to watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJokpxvMmvA

That was a 225lb. draw weight Excalibur "Exomax" model that shoots bolts at 350 fps. Looked like it took a while to kill the animal probably from blood loss, no way to tell how long since the video is edited. It looks like this video was basically a publicity stunt for Excalibur though the Elephant would have been selected for culling under these circumstances, probably due to disease or behavior problems.

It gives you a sense of perspective of how lethal even a modern crossbow is, makes me reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy want to see a test (not on an animal though) of a 1000 lb draw or more crossbow.

G.

[Psyx]

My suggestion was that it should negate the first two levels of damage caused by any kinetic attack.
Question: In your opinion, what stats should Dragonskin body armor have in Live Action World of Darkness?

That would be broken-good, seeing as practically nothing does more than two levels of damage. Even rifles do a single level of damage. Hand-cannon handguns are -I believe- optional weapons that MIGHT do 2 damage.

So something that soaks 2 levels of damage = no.

Dragonskin is just improved body armour. It's not concealable, so I'd consider giving it an additional negative trait. I'd just give it another ablative health level, meaning that after soaking a total of three hits, it's useless.

Armour in MET is clunky and GMs don't like it much. It's handled as an abstraction. It might not be 'realistic' that it only stops two bullets, but on the other hand, it's not realistic that every shot will hit it in the first place.

[Psyx]

Well, i kinda read the question as "what are the odds of surviving a crossbow wound from 30ft" vs "What are the odds of surviving a javelin wound from 30 ft."

That's what I was working on, so accuracy is a bit moot.

Given that both weapons have a similar head (barbed or not), I'm going with the javelin being more dangerous because a head that's 50% larger has a flat 50% chance more of hitting something important.

That said: The crossbow offers FAR better penetration and is obviously the best bet if any kind of armour is being used.


At 30 feet a reasonably powerful hunting crossbow will almost always go all the way through a human body.

On the bright side, that means they're failing to transfer all of their energy...




then I would like to know what rounds are powerful enough to penetrate a Dragonskin armor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_(body_armor)

Any full-powered rifle rounds: 7.62mm NATO, .50BMG (obviously!), .338 Lapua.

It looks contentious at the moment. The vests were certified NIJ III, but this has been repealed. It's not the wonder armour that the manufacturers would have the world believe.

And it won't stop a .22LR if it hits you anywhere but the torso, of course...

[Spiryt]

That said: The crossbow offers FAR better penetration and is obviously the best bet if any kind of armour is being used.


:smallconfused:

This is always pretty complicated matter, but I fail to see how crossbow would have much better penetration against most targets than javelin...

Taking javelin that weights about 2 pounds, you've got missile that has at least similar KE, is much more massive, dense, offers far superior sectional density, momentum will be much greater as well.

Compared to bolts from modern hunting crossbow, which are really just much faster...

I could see them penetrating softer tissues better, from the reasons like the fact that javelin would probably meet much more friction, from obvious reasons, but other than that...

Bolts speed would cause more resistance of the medium, their carbon construction isn't definitely made for penetrating harder stuff in mind and so on.

And if we assume stuff like angon, against modern crossbow not optimized toward armored target, it's becoming rather unfair.

[Psyx]

Higher velocity drastically reduces the chance of the projectile being deflected, in the manner that a lower velocity projectile might be.

Why is a dart more dense than a bolt? I'm not following.

Also there's a greater cross-section on the dart. We know that more pointy projectiles with less cross-section penetrate better, as the weapon has to simply move more armour-material out of the way in order to penetrate it.

to punch a hole this big: o
... means that you have to move all the material within the circle out of the way. That obviously requires less energy than this: O

[Galloglaich]

Actually I think from practical tests, Javelins have done very well in penetration, though I don't know of any formal academic studies on this.

They were using the old soliferrum (solid iron javelin) well into the Medieval period as an armor-piercing weapon.

The difference is I suspect the javelins penetration falls off dramatically with range, a crossbow bolt probably less so.

I also agree though it's true javelins are much easier to deflect, in fac they can fairly easily be caught out of the air.

G.

[Spiryt]

Higher velocity drastically reduces the chance of the projectile being deflected, in the manner that a lower velocity projectile might be.

Why is a dart more dense than a bolt? I'm not following.

Also there's a greater cross-section on the dart. We know that more pointy projectiles with less cross-section penetrate better, as the weapon has to simply move more armour-material out of the way in order to penetrate it.



What do you mean by deflect? If you mean by target reacting to it, that's not the topic here, and quite complicated one too.

If you mean mechanically, then more momentum means that object is harder to derail. And javelin will have more momentum. Velocity is only one part of it.

As for density, carbon fiber density will usually be not much greater than most woods, and bolts will be usually of hollow construction.


We know that more pointy projectiles with less cross-section penetrate better

With bigger sectional density. Bolt may have less cross section, but javelin will have way more mass behind it, being much longer.

And if we add the OQ thing that javelin is the angon, there's no real competition. It's really penetrative stuff, with it's mass concentrated on thin iron shaft.


to punch a hole this big: o
... means that you have to move all the material within the circle out of the way. That obviously requires less energy than this: O

That depends on point, and even with proportionally larger javelins one, it won't even in part nullify other things.

And it's anyway not that simple, different materials will be penetrated better by different types of section.

No one will succeed easily in penetrating linen jack with really pointy, needle like arrow, for example.


EDIT: All this needs obvious point though - javelin is hugely dependent on thrower, obviously.

Give me angon and any heavish, decent crossbow, and there's good chance that I skewer something with crossbow. Not so much with javelin . :smalltongue:

[Fortinbras]

Does anybody know of any kind of historical basis for the "fullblade" from the Arms and Equipment Guide?

Note: According to the book it weighs 23lbs but I think that sounds ridiculous what do other people think?

[Yora]

I think it's {nonsense}. They just took a two handed sword and increased all the numbers. Even the greatswords shown in most fantasy art are much larger than anything ever used in combat by actual warriors.
There are some swords in the range of 10 to 15 lb., but these were purely ceremonial and not suitable for combat.

[Spiryt]

Does anybody know of any kind of historical basis for the "fullblade" from the Arms and Equipment Guide?

Note: According to the book it weighs 23lbs but I think that sounds ridiculous what do other people think?

Is there any drawing available? Can't find on the Wizards.

If it's anyhow similar to real stuff, they probably took some 16th century sword, draw it with weird proportion and details, and made up some stats.

Why would it need any "historical basis" ?

[Shenanigans]

Does anybody know of any kind of historical basis for the "fullblade" from the Arms and Equipment Guide?

Note: According to the book it weighs 23lbs but I think that sounds ridiculous what do other people think?
I agree with Yora...there are plenty of big, two-handed swords in history (the zweihander and claymore spring to mind) but they didn't weigh nearly that much.

[Yora]

Would this fit? :smallbiggrin:

http://www.anaitgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/cloud-finalfantasy7.jpg

[Psyx]

What do you mean by deflect? If you mean by target reacting to it, that's not the topic here, and quite complicated one too.

I mean be deflected by sloped armour. I understand velocity is quite an important aspect in that respect. I'm thinking of tanks here as well.



As for density, carbon fiber density will usually be not much greater than most woods, and bolts will be usually of hollow construction.


Eh? Carbon fibre? What, where etc? We appear to be talking cross-purpose.



And if we add the OQ thing that javelin is the angon, there's no real competition. It's really penetrative stuff, with it's mass concentrated on thin iron shaft.


I referenced darts. As in flexible atl-atl style darts, rather than iron shafted javelins. We're clearly at cross-purpose here, with talk of iron shafts and carbon fibre.



Give me angon and any heavish, decent crossbow, and there's good chance that I skewer something with crossbow. Not so much with javelin . :smalltongue:

Erm... that was kind of precisely my point as regards armoured targets. Given an unarmoured target, both are easily capable of lethal penetration.

[fusilier]

Eh? Carbon fibre? What, where etc? We appear to be talking cross-purpose.

The original question assumed modern materials, and a modern hunting crossbow.

[TheBlackShadow]

Would this fit? :smallbiggrin:

http://www.anaitgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/cloud-finalfantasy7.jpg

Oh, ye gods, the infamous Buster Sword. If you're looking for accurate representations of real-world weaponry, Final Fantasy is the last place you want to look, and Final Fantasy VII especially. I don't think the Buster Sword was ever even vestigially meant to be a plausible weapon even in the most crazed, acid-soaked dreams of Square's designers (the same minds that brought us, in that very game, the Masamune, a 6-foot long katana that the antagonist often wielded with a single hand, and, in VIII, the Gunblade, a unique weapon that simply defies all logical explanation).

[J.Gellert]

Fullblades have always reminded me of execution swords, because of how the tip is shaped. Of course the size is still absurd, if only because no one human can effectively wield something that big (let along pick it up properly). :smalltongue:

I am tempted to say that the fullblade is based on FF swords, and FF swords are based on one of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Scharfrichterschwert-ffm002.jpg).

[AslanCross]

Does anybody know of any kind of historical basis for the "fullblade" from the Arms and Equipment Guide?

Note: According to the book it weighs 23lbs but I think that sounds ridiculous what do other people think?

It is quite ridiculous. Greatswords usually weighed about 8 lbs (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html), much lighter than any media source typically claims. They were still hard to use because of their length, though.

I think the weird thing about most fantasy art (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tG7iGI46Vfk/TIFOdSnsJhI/AAAAAAAAAP0/eocGu6vw_TY/s1600/Amiri.jpg) (D&D, for example) is that it depicts greatswords as having very wide (6-inches or more) blades, and not really that they're long. (Of course, there are things like the Buster Sword)

They looked more like this:
http://www.thearma.org/images/S2000/New_Folder/p9160037.jpg

But yeah, whenever I see the Fullblade, I think of the Buster Sword.

[Spiryt]

I think the weird thing about most fantasy art (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tG7iGI46Vfk/TIFOdSnsJhI/AAAAAAAAAP0/eocGu6vw_TY/s1600/Amiri.jpg) (D&D, for example) is that it depicts greatswords as having very wide (6-inches or more) blades, and not really that they're long. (Of course, there are things like the Buster Sword)


....

Being more than 6 inches wide is really the last thing that is weird about that particular 'sword', though. :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

Actually 8 pounds is very heavy for a 'greatsword', depending on what you mean by the term. I've never heard of a sword under five feet in length which weighed that much.

In the John Clements article you linked to he is using that term to refer to zweihanders and "true" two-handers, (and some other subclasses of swords known in period as spada a due mani and montanto in Italy and Spain respectively) weapons 5 to 6 feet long like the one he has in the photo, and even those probably average closer to 5 or 6 pounds.

A "greatsword" as it would normally be represented in DnD games, i.e. a hand-and-a-half weapon about 4 feet long, like these 13th century swords (type XIIIa):

http://www.myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spotxiii11_s.gif
http://www.myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spotxiii09_s.gif
http://www.myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spotxiii08_s.gif

or these slightly larger 15th Century swords (type XX)

http://www.myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spotxx02_s.gif
http://www.myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spotxx03_s.gif

...weigh an average of around 3.5 pounds. Exceptionally heavy ones were found as much as 5 pounds, lighter weapons as little as two pounds.

The point of confusion are bearing swords which were just for carrying around in processions and could be up to 8 feet long. Those could weigh up to 15 lbs or more. I think in his (rather old and dated) article John was including a few of these bearing swords unintentionally.

G.

[AugustNights]

This question, I'm sure it's been brought up before, if so I apologize and humbly request someone point me in the right direction.

English heavy bow blew threw armor like a joke. (Or so I've been told.)
Guns are assumed to do the same thin. (Again, so I've been told.)
Has there been any, let's call it Mythbuster level, research done on the comparison of... and see, I'm not a history buff, but let's call it flintlock fire-arms compared to these bows? Particularly in means of punching through armor.

See as a DM I'm approaching the topic of guns.
I want them to be scary.
Scarier than a sword. Even though both could easily kill human as they stand.
And I don't want it to be scary for the same reason they are scary today (easy to use).
But I also want some real life 'flavor' to it.
Ultimately I want to know if handling guns as a touch attack, 1/2 physical armor penetration, or normal armor benefits are appropriate.

Thanks!
~This chump.

[Maclav]

English heavy bow blew threw armor like a joke. (Or so I've been told.)
Guns are assumed to do the same thin. (Again, so I've been told.)


In short;
No - armour worked. There is a lot of debate at just how good armour was at stopping powerful bows and crossbows, but no one (barring some longbow fanboys) would claim that it "blew threw armour like a joke".
No - armour worked. It got heavier and more protective until the weight became to much to stop the guns of the day. Then it started protecting less parts so the parts it did protect (head, torso) could get even heavier. In the periods I think your talking about, guns never just "blew though armour like a joke".



Has there been any, let's call it Mythbuster level, research done on the comparison of... and see, I'm not a history buff, but let's call it flintlock fire-arms compared to these bows? Particularly in means of punching through armor.

Not to my knowledge. Most tests that have been done involve a large number of glaring flaws. The tests seem to prove that armour was worthless, or longbows were worthless, dependent upon the person testing it.

[PorkSoldat]

How were chariots ever an effective weapon for meleeing infantry?

The leading element of a chariot is an unarmored horse.

Cavalry charges work because their lances can reach out a ways in front of the horse. But with chariots, the men are behind the horse, not on it. So their spears have a lot less ability to reach out in front of the horse.

Why wouldn't a bunch of men with pointy sticks just stab the horse as it charged them, or better yet, shoot arrows/javelins at the horse, causing the chariot to crash mid charge, before it even got to melee range?

Clearly I am missing something because these were once very important weapons, but I can't imagine them being any use at all against naked men with pointy sticks.

Bow/Javelin chariots seem decent, but chariots meleeing? How?

[J.Gellert]

How were chariots ever an effective weapon for meleeing infantry?

The leading element of a chariot is an unarmored horse.

Cavalry charges work because their lances can reach out a ways in front of the horse. But with chariots, the men are behind the horse, not on it. So their spears have a lot less ability to reach out in front of the horse.

Why wouldn't a bunch of men with pointy sticks just stab the horse as it charged them, or better yet, shoot arrows/javelins at the horse, causing the chariot to crash mid charge, before it even got to melee range?

Clearly I am missing something because these were once very important weapons, but I can't imagine them being any use at all against naked men with pointy sticks.

Bow/Javelin chariots seem decent, but chariots meleeing? How?

Reach weapons and undisciplined infantry formations, probably. Alexander the Great's phalanx didn't mind, but centuries ago in the east... Well, all you had really was naked men with pointy sticks, against the noblemen fighting from chariots. Which allows them to spend their noble-money for heavier armor, since you don't need to run around, your chauffeur drives you.

And you forgot "Only really works on open ground" :smalltongue:

--Edit (x3)--
...And when I say east, I mean Egyptians and Hittites.
...And well, now that I think about it, most cavalry didn't include horse armor, and it still dominated the battlefields for centuries. Speed is important, shock value is important, now horse armor... is probably expensive?
...Besides, if you are in front of two galloping horses drawing a large carriage with armored angry men that want to kill you, you don't stand in its way to try and stab the leading element.

[Daosus]

Chariots came into their own at around 1800-1700 BC, and lost much of their effectiveness during the Bronze Age Collapse, around 1200 BC. The chariot combined speed and the range of the newly developed composite bow with the tactics of the steppe nomads. They did not close to melee until after an enemy was routed. Even then, most of the close work was done by "runners" or "companions" who ran alongside with the chariots, threw javelins and carried short swords or knives.

At around 1200 BC, the development of infantry swarm tactics usually ended up overwhelming chariot formations. People learned to develop a strong, well-ordered infantry core. With that in place, and protected by skirmishers, infantry was fairly immune to chariots, who could harrass, but could not close to even direct fire range. Chariots ARE much more vulnerable to javelins and spears than cavalry, but for a while, that was all that was available, as horses were not large enough to ride yet. At Gaugamela, Alexander destroyed a chariot formation by a simple javelin screen.

[Karoht]

See as a DM I'm approaching the topic of guns.
I want them to be scary.
Scarier than a sword. Even though both could easily kill human as they stand.
And I don't want it to be scary for the same reason they are scary today (easy to use).
But I also want some real life 'flavor' to it.
Ultimately I want to know if handling guns as a touch attack, 1/2 physical armor penetration, or normal armor benefits are appropriate.


Any time I involve guns in DnD setting, I also beef up armor benefits. I usually list a bunch of benefits that can be confered in the game setting, and then pick out one or two. Guns (despite historically NOT blowing through armor like a joke) I usually simply have ignore most or all of those benefits.

Armor
AC bonus
Hit point bonus
Damage Reduction bonus

AC is already in game stats
Hit point bonus I usually use x4 AC for easy math. So if Full plate gives a +8 bonus, it confers 32 extra hit points.
DR I work like this. All Armor confers a DR of 1. Leather confers a 2, mail confers a 2, plate confers a 3 or a 4. I usually class it as a DR VS Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning, and really creative DM's can simply have that type typically changes with the armor type, or be adjustable. For most purposes, I let it stack as well.

Meanwhile, guns I simply build in with an armor reduction factor of 1-4. That number correlates to how much AC it ignores, and how much DR (Armor only) it ignores, and possibly the amount of hit points (confered by the armor) it ignores. It makes guns "scary" in a way. One DM I play with also adds CON damage (temporary) to the impact. It's more of a flavor thing. Usually D4 minus 1 temporary CON, lasts D6 rounds. Or he adds a knockdown/knockback effect.

Mind you, the above rules play very nicely with Crossbows, but it makes regular bows extremely powerful. The whole thing works out really well in low-magic/magic rare campaigns.

Most DM's simply increase the damage of guns (I've seen 20D6 guns in some campaigns). Which works, and doesn't work, I find. Too much damage, it's ridiculous at low level and worthless at high level. And the realistic consideration that a lvl 1 character could pack around a gun that does more damage than most magic? The balance there is to make said gun extremely expensive and extremely rare, but that doesn't really balance them all that much.

[Storm Bringer]

How were chariots ever an effective weapon for meleeing infantry?

The leading element of a chariot is an unarmored horse.

Cavalry charges work because their lances can reach out a ways in front of the horse. But with chariots, the men are behind the horse, not on it. So their spears have a lot less ability to reach out in front of the horse.

Why wouldn't a bunch of men with pointy sticks just stab the horse as it charged them, or better yet, shoot arrows/javelins at the horse, causing the chariot to crash mid charge, before it even got to melee range?

Clearly I am missing something because these were once very important weapons, but I can't imagine them being any use at all against naked men with pointy sticks.

Bow/Javelin chariots seem decent, but chariots meleeing? How?

as was said, charriots were a archery platform. the eygptian wall paintings of the Pharaohs at war usually show the pharaohs with a bow, smiting his foes with arrows. the charriots didn't close on the ranks of pesant spearmen until those had been weakened and disordered by prolonged arrow fire. the same was true of chinese warfare of the same time, where the nobles in charriots decided everything, while pesant warriors stood around and watched/porvided targets for archery.

remember, at the time of charriot warfare, heavy armour was very rare. the pesant farmers who formed the rank and file would have a spear and a shield, but anything heavier than padded armour, to my knoweledge, was the preserve of the charriot riding elite.

[fusilier]

This question, I'm sure it's been brought up before, if so I apologize and humbly request someone point me in the right direction.

English heavy bow blew threw armor like a joke. (Or so I've been told.)
Guns are assumed to do the same thin. (Again, so I've been told.)
Has there been any, let's call it Mythbuster level, research done on the comparison of... and see, I'm not a history buff, but let's call it flintlock fire-arms compared to these bows? Particularly in means of punching through armor.

See as a DM I'm approaching the topic of guns.
I want them to be scary.
Scarier than a sword. Even though both could easily kill human as they stand.
And I don't want it to be scary for the same reason they are scary today (easy to use).
But I also want some real life 'flavor' to it.
Ultimately I want to know if handling guns as a touch attack, 1/2 physical armor penetration, or normal armor benefits are appropriate.

Thanks!
~This chump.

I would disagree with most of what has already been said on this subject. Armor did improve where it could handle an arquebus ball, but not necessarily a musket ball and cannons were out of the question. Even then it was too expensive to make armor "shot proof" and light enough for most soldiers. So, the armor became heavier, but less of it was worn, which could be a liability: you may survive a musket ball to the shoulder, but you may permanently lose the use of that limb. This would also be a liability in hand-to-hand combat as now more of the fighter is exposed.

There are also stories of musket balls having sufficient energy to puncture the front breast plate, then bouncing off the interior of the rear plate and travelling back through the body.

Finally, a musket ball's penetrating ability falls off with range (more quickly than a bow arrow - I think). A Mighty Fortress (AD&D Historical Reference book), represents this by ignoring armor at close range, and giving a decreasing penalty at longer ranges. They also represent the damage of firearms with an interesting "cascading" damage rolls -- Modern terminology may be "exploding" dice. On certain results the damage die is re-rolled and added to the original roll.

On the other hand, when something goes wrong with an early firearm, even if it doesn't explode, it may take in ordinate amount of time to correct the fault.

So there are trade offs here. If you accept that guns were effective against armor, and could produce massive amounts of damage, then they are also fickle, time consuming, and potentially dangerous to the operator. You could have a lot of fun with a critical mishap table for early guns. :-)

[fusilier]

as was said, charriots were a archery platform. the eygptian wall paintings of the Pharaohs at war usually show the pharaohs with a bow, smiting his foes with arrows. the charriots didn't close on the ranks of pesant spearmen until those had been weakened and disordered by prolonged arrow fire. the same was true of chinese warfare of the same time, where the nobles in charriots decided everything, while pesant warriors stood around and watched/porvided targets for archery.

remember, at the time of charriot warfare, heavy armour was very rare. the pesant farmers who formed the rank and file would have a spear and a shield, but anything heavier than padded armour, to my knoweledge, was the preserve of the charriot riding elite.

My understanding of the use of the chariot in Egypt and the near east agrees with what has been said. It's been several years since I studied it, but I recall that Egyptian/Near East infantry of the time, often had large "tower shields." At the beginning of a battle, the infantry on each side would line up, planting their shields in front of them basically as static defenses, leaving a large flat field in between the opposing armies for the chariots to fight in. The the chariots from both sides would enter and duke it out. The side that won the chariot battle typically won the battle, as their opponent's infantry would break fairly easily -- then they could be run down by the chariots. Sounds like the infantry was poorly disciplined at the time.

Also, horses at the time that chariots were popular may have been too small (i.e. couldn't efficiently carry much on their backs) to have been ridden into combat. I've heard some discussion to the opposite, but this was one of the reasons given for chariots rise to prominence during the period.

[AugustNights]

Meanwhile, guns I simply build in with an armor reduction factor of 1-4. That number correlates to how much AC it ignores, and how much DR (Armor only) it ignores, and possibly the amount of hit points (confered by the armor) it ignores. It makes guns "scary" in a way. One DM I play with also adds CON damage (temporary) to the impact. It's more of a flavor thing. Usually D4 minus 1 temporary CON, lasts D6 rounds. Or he adds a knockdown/knockback effect.

*snip*

The balance there is to make said gun extremely expensive and extremely rare, but that doesn't really balance them all that much.

Hey, that will work nice.
Armor penetration rank on the gun.
Why didn't I think of that sooner? I love shadowrun, should've thought to borrow the mechanic.
I also like the 'knock-down' effect, idea.

I'm going with a world where guns are 'new' so I think I won't go with less but heavier armor in the right places... except maybe for a few ingenuous enemies.

Thanks for the input, ya'll.

Edit:


Finally, a musket ball's penetrating ability falls off with range (more quickly than a bow arrow - I think). A Mighty Fortress (AD&D Historical Reference book), represents this by ignoring armor at close range, and giving a decreasing penalty at longer ranges. They also represent the damage of firearms with an interesting "cascading" damage rolls -- Modern terminology may be "exploding" dice. On certain results the damage die is re-rolled and added to the original roll.

On the other hand, when something goes wrong with an early firearm, even if it doesn't explode, it may take in ordinate amount of time to correct the fault.

So there are trade offs here. If you accept that guns were effective against armor, and could produce massive amounts of damage, then they are also fickle, time consuming, and potentially dangerous to the operator. You could have a lot of fun with a critical mishap table for early guns. :-)

Yes, I was planing on using exploding dice, and dangerous backfire chance, but the idea of decreased armor penetration at range increments is a good idea.
Maybe with the combination of the feat 'point blank shot' I'll allow a wielder who is adjacent to their target ignore all 'hard' armor, but you know, still provoke the AoO.

How often did early fire arms misfire/back fire?
And how long would it take to load and fire a... well I know flintlocks are more modern than what I'm aiming at, but I'm thinking they skipped the whole matchlock think and jumped right on to flint and steel.
I know the Puckle-gun was crazy in its day for being able to put out 16 shots a minute... At least, again, I'm told.
My grandfathers, both of them, would be so disappointed with my Knowledge (History) ranks, or rather lack there of.

[Mike_G]

Modern reenactors with muzzle loaders and paper cartridges can get off about two rounds per minute. Period sources claim a good musketeer could shoot three times a minute. So, under the best circumstances, paper cartridges, you're looking at 20-30 seconds to reload. That's 3-5 rounds in D&D.

With loose powder and ball, things get worse. In the context of small unit D&D type warfare, a gun will probably just be a first shot weapon before you draw your sword.

I haven't seen a good breakdown of what percentage of shots were misfires, but prior to percussion caps, guns were a bit dicey, since you had to rely on an external ignition source for the primer, then hope the primer lights the main charge. For D&D I'd just us a natural one means it failed, with a chance of catastrophic accident, or at least the need to clear the gun and try a fresh charge.

[Karoht]

Hey, that will work nice.
Armor penetration rank on the gun.
Why didn't I think of that sooner? I love shadowrun, should've thought to borrow the mechanic.
I also like the 'knock-down' effect, idea.

I'm going with a world where guns are 'new' so I think I won't go with less but heavier armor in the right places... except maybe for a few ingenuous enemies.And don't forget, some guns could do things like cone attacks. Point Blank Shot could also add extra armor penetration value. Some ammunition could have higher penetration value. Lots of ideas to make guns scary without giving them obscene damage values.




Yes, I was planing on using exploding dice, and dangerous backfire chance...Remember that the ammo itself (assuming paper cartridges) is flamable. And if they have a powder horn or some other powder delivery system, players WILL do their best to set that off, or get it wet. If you make guns scary dangerous, this can be a good balance to dealing with a squad of guys with guns. Or at the very least, it might be something your party focuses on (re: may or may not argue with you for several hours) as a viable strategy for dealing with guys with scary guns.

Balancing terrain becomes fun. Fastest way to make a gun useless (in DnD) is use cover to break line of sight. Give some of the bad guys special scopes on their guns to deal with that issue, or guns capable of literally blasting appart their cover when reasonable. IE-If the party hides behind some wooden crates, the gunners volley the crates, everyone takes shrapnel damage (reflex to reduce/ignore), and the gunners have a % miss chance. And the cover is now greatly minimized in effectiveness.

Lastly, if it's going to take 3-5 rounds for someone to reload guns, you may want your villians to hire some powder monkeys. That is, hirelings who's sole purpose in life is to reload these guns as safely and quickly as possible. This would increase rate of fire or shorten reload times, and would also act as something your party could do to slow the squad down.
Quick skill check of some sort to identify the reloaders and figure out 'hey, if we neutralize that guy, guns don't fire as much and we don't die as much' and then whatever action to deal with it.

[fusilier]

Modern reenactors with muzzle loaders and paper cartridges can get off about two rounds per minute. Period sources claim a good musketeer could shoot three times a minute. So, under the best circumstances, paper cartridges, you're looking at 20-30 seconds to reload. That's 3-5 rounds in D&D.

With loose powder and ball, things get worse. In the context of small unit D&D type warfare, a gun will probably just be a first shot weapon before you draw your sword.

Mike is basically correct on the load times, however, there were instances where it could be faster. British infantry apparently claimed they could load and fire as many as 6 shots a minute -- this involved skipping priming (the vent holes were slightly over drilled, so some powder would escape from the breech to the priming pan), and typically not ramming, just blowing down the barrel and *hoping* that pushed the ball far enough down -- not recommended practices.

However, in all editions of D&D that I've seen guns had to spend only one turn reloading. That's probably a fair game mechanic, otherwise it may get too cumbersome. On the other hand, weapons like pistols were usually only fired once in a particular combat anyway, usually just before closing with the enemy. Sometimes many pistols would be carried (a "brace" of two pistols was common).

[Karoht]

However, in all editions of D&D that I've seen guns had to spend only one turn reloading. That's probably a fair game mechanic, otherwise it may get too cumbersome. On the other hand, weapons like pistols were usually only fired once in a particular combat anyway, usually just before closing with the enemy. Sometimes many pistols would be carried (a "brace" of two pistols was common).

Re: Reloading a gun.

I remember one campaign involving muzzle loaders where the DM had 2 guys constantly reloading, allowing one fellow to constantly shoot. Manpower issues aside, would this have ever been a realistic prospect, or is this just silly?

[Galloglaich]

Re: Reloading a gun.

I remember one campaign involving muzzle loaders where the DM had 2 guys constantly reloading, allowing one fellow to constantly shoot. Manpower issues aside, would this have ever been a realistic prospect, or is this just silly?

It's realistic. And historical. They actually did that with crossbows too, systematically going back to the 13th Century. One guy would be behind a pavise, aiming, his assistant would be spanning a second weapon.

This sort of thing was common in historical records with muskets particularly during sieges through the 19th Century. The cliche is the woman loading weapons like in The Outlaw Josey Wales but it was actually done that way in practice.

As a side note that this was being done in your DnD game is an example of how somewhat realistic rules which encourage players to adapt to them in somewhat realistic ways which dovetail into yet more nuances that make the game more interesting and immersive.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Modern reenactors with muzzle loaders and paper cartridges can get off about two rounds per minute. Period sources claim a good musketeer could shoot three times a minute. So, under the best circumstances, paper cartridges, you're looking at 20-30 seconds to reload. That's 3-5 rounds in D&D.

With loose powder and ball, things get worse. In the context of small unit D&D type warfare, a gun will probably just be a first shot weapon before you draw your sword.

I haven't seen a good breakdown of what percentage of shots were misfires, but prior to percussion caps, guns were a bit dicey, since you had to rely on an external ignition source for the primer, then hope the primer lights the main charge. For D&D I'd just us a natural one means it failed, with a chance of catastrophic accident, or at least the need to clear the gun and try a fresh charge.

My system is probably more complex than most people would want to do, but it works like this:

First of all, you have multiple die, something called a Martial Pool. You get 4 dice per round. Each dice can be used to move, attack, defend, or do something like reload.

Each weapon has a prep time expressed in Martial Pool. So for example, a javelin has a cost off 0, so you can throw three javelins in one round if you have them ready in your hands (it was common historically for javelin throwers to carry three weapons). A bow might have say a prep time of 2, so one shot, prep another arrow, and one more shot is possible, but then you have no MP left for movement or defense. This goes faster if you have certain feats like rapid shot. A gun or a heavy crossbow will have 4 or 5 prep time cost or more, so in a close melee situation they are often shoot and drop weapons.

But we also have this concept called a "Free Dice", an extra die roll you can add to your Attack or Defense roll, and you take the highest number which improves your odds. You get them circumstantially or for special Martial Feats. So for example, if you are behind cover you get a "Free Dice" on Active Defense for every 25% cover, making it much easier to dodge if you have a wall to hide behind. With a crossbow or a gun you also get a "Free Dice" if you can support the weapon on say, a window sill or the gunwhale of a boat before shooting. This is caleld a supported shot

In the Codex you can also use multiple dice for one shot. Now if you have a bow, more shots are often better so you may typically use one-die shots. But with a crossbow or a gun since you can't reload fast anyway it makes sense sometimes to use several dice for one shot; you keep the highest die roll. So like if you rolled three dice and got a 14, a 10, and an 8, you keep the 14 as your die roll.

In addition, if you use multiple dice for one Attack, you increase your chances of a critical hit (natural 20). If you get a critical hit, and you rolled multiple die, we have this rule called Dynamic Criticals, you actually do as many die of extra damage as you rolled in your To Hit roll, so in the above example if you got a 20 instead of a 14, you would have a 3 die critical (because you rolled 3 dice) So a carefully aimed shot (more MP spent on your shot than moving or reloading) can be very dangerous.

For range we use the basic 3.5 range rules, slightly modified. Every weapon has a range increment. At close or point blank (melee) range all weapons are +2 To Hit, +2 Damage, and +2 Armor Piercing. When you get to longer range the bonus goes away and then becomes a penalty. Armor is damage reduction in the Codex but you can also go around it (bypass). At longer ranges the AP goes away, but self bows (bows) which can shoot in an arc get a 'plunging fire' ability which allows arrows to retain their lethality even at long range. The range for guns falls off quicker, they have a long maximum range but their 'good' range falls away fast. This reflects the inaccuracy but retained lethality of arquebus or muslet balls at fairly long range.

Finally, with gunpowder weapons, a natural 1 means a roll on the dreaded misfire table. This depends on the weapons misfire penalty (touch-hole weapons are more dangerous than matchlocks which are more dangerous than wheel-locks which are more dangerous than flint locks and etc.) and on your Gunpowder skill (which reflects how well you prepared your weapon) and if you 'took 10' (extra time) when you were preparing your weapon.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I should add, there is also the whole issue of armor -piercing ammo but that's another segue...

G.

[Mike_G]

My system is probably more complex than most people would want to do, but it works like this:

<stuff>

G.

I'm kind of a fan of this.

[Galloglaich]

Feel free to borrow any of the above you like. For example you can implement free dice for supported shots pretty easily without adding a martial pool, you can implement free dice for cover in any system which lets you roll and active defense roll of any kind.

G.

[bansidhe]

Yep,if you want realism style stuff in your rpg,or ,just a lot of stuff properly looked at, look at G,s stuff... an no I dont know him..I just want his stuff!

:D

[Fastmover]

Hey Guys,

I was wondering. How feasible would having a replica of motorcycle armor, like this;

http://i28.tinypic.com/jfc6ja.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/oksisx.jpg

http://www.motorcycletoystore.com/sport/images/uploads/icon-leg.gif

http://www.motorcycleparts-accessories-andmore.com/image-files/2008_sidi_vertigo_corsa_motorcycle_boots_black.jpg

Made of say Kevlar and/or Mil-A46100 steel or of equal effectiveness? I know that it would be possible to make given the right amount of money. But as I asked how feasible would it be? Such as a guestimate of how encumbering, it would be with say something like; this (http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=18039&TabID=548&cs=1) as well?

[Galloglaich]

in other words... batman armor?

[Norsesmithy]

Hey Guys,

I was wondering. How feasible would having a replica of motorcycle armor, like this;
Made of say Kevlar and/or Mil-A46100 steel or of equal effectiveness? I know that it would be possible to make given the right amount of money. But as I asked how feasible would it be? Such as a guestimate of how encumbering, it would be with say something like; this (http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=18039&TabID=548&cs=1) as well?

It's only going to be good against rifles where the steel plates are, it's gonna be a lot less flexible than the original, it's going to be very hot and sweaty to wear, and it's going to be much heavier than expected, if you want it to actually resist things like M855 penetrator rounds, never mind M995 penetrator rounds.

[fusilier]

I think this Peruvian Riot armor:
http://i26.tinypic.com/e9yezs.jpg

[J.Gellert]

I've been wondering, why don't they make a modern "full-plate" armor of kevlar, or whatever is the best material they can find.

So you'll want your special forces to storm that building and have no casualties? No problem, your special forces are immune to bullets.

Sure, it'll be heavy, but you really only need to wear it for 5 minutes in these situations. Sure, it'll be expensive, but in the grand scheme of things, an F-22 is expensive, so full bulletproof armor is just pocket change. Sure, your special forces will look like Imperial Stormtroopers, but star wars fans might appreciate it :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

Eh, AFAIR "why they don't" doesn't hold up, as they kinda do. :smallwink:

There are bloody expensive things made out of ceramic materials, kevlar and good old steel plates. I'm not knowledgeable at all about it, though.

Thing is that jacketed, high powered rifle rounds are always bloody hard things to stop in their tracks.

[Psyx]

Finally, with gunpowder weapons, a natural 1 means a roll on the dreaded misfire table.

I assume that the first die rolled is a different colour, to prevent shots fired from a rest or aimed being more likely to misfire?



I was wondering. How feasible would having a replica of motorcycle armor, like this

Not very, I'm afraid. The torso would be fine, although given how thin motorcycle protection is, there simply isn't enough room to put good plates or decent trauma padding in, so it'd only stop handgun rounds.

You'd be looking at needing at least 6mm of steel to stop anything with a bit of power. I dunno if you've ever lifted a 6mm thick steel plate, but it's not exactly light. Then you need trauma padding...

Forget bullet protection on the arms and shoulders. If you constructed them from kevlar, you wouldn't be able to move them. Kevlar works in multiple layers. IT doesn't give freedom of movement, and stopping a bullet doesn't stop it crippling you if there's not a thick layer of padding underneath.

The shins are probably do-able, although would again be thicker. Forget the knee protection. 30 layers of kevlar doesn't bend well.

Boots are again a bit of an issue due to flexibility. You can armour them... just not very well.


I know that it would be possible to make given the right amount of money

Nah-ah.

Money alone doesn't advance material science. If we could already make practical complete upper body protection that was bullet-proof without destroying mobility, our troops would already be wearing it. Considering how much a dead soldier costs in financial and political terms, money isn't the real issue.



I've been wondering, why don't they make a modern "full-plate" armor of kevlar, or whatever is the best material they can find.

So you'll want your special forces to storm that building and have no casualties? No problem, your special forces are immune to bullets

Wow... I wonder why nobody else thought of that. :smallamused:

This is a bomb suit. It's the closest we can get to full body protection:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Aviano_bomb_suit.jpg/443px-Aviano_bomb_suit.jpg

It's worn by bomb disposal crews. As you can see, it's ridiculously bulky, hot, uncomfortable, and awkward. Can you imagine storming a house in it? Abseiling? Crawling through mouse-holes or windows? It's only worn by disposal crews because they don't need to move around much.

And the worst part: That suit is still not going to stop a high velocity light armour piercing rifle round to the limb. Especially not from three feet away.

We all see police strapping on vests in films. So if we made a suit that thick we'd be bulletproof, right? However, the police tend only to get shot at with handguns and shotguns. The military generally doesn't use such puny weapons or face them, so our special forces team needs armour capable of stopping an actual rifle bullet. Let's look at what they wear...
If you watch the news you'll see the vests worn by the military are MUCH bigger and more bulky than police ones, in order to deal with the higher threat. However, even those vests rely on armour plates to stop heavy rounds, which are worn in pockets in the vests. See here:

http://www.vestguard.co.uk/images/1/ea71a2cceramicjpg

This vest is designed to stop level IV threats, which includes high energy rifle rounds. The catch is that the vest itself will only stop powerful handgun rounds and shrapnel. 5.56mm AP will still go through it unless it hits one of those plates (which are either ceramic or 12mm of military grade steel. That's FAR thicker than historical plate armour) which are slipped into pouches to provide frontal protection. Those are the only parts that will stop the heavy ammunition.

You obviously can't practically make even torso protection that offers 100% coverage in such plates because it would weigh a ridiculous amount.

It's simply not possible to make kevlar thick enough to stop rifle rounds reliably and be able to move in - you'd need so much of it that you literally could not bend at the joints. So there is no way at all of offering any limb protection that one can move in, unless you want to make a suit of plate armour made from military grade steel over 12mm thick!

It's basically not viable to have body armour sufficiently heavy to protect the limbs and be able to use small-arms in close quarters while wearing it. However, there's another solution:

http://www.sarkardefence.com/images/ballistic_shield.jpg

Ta-da! It doesn't need to bend, you can put it down, and it can be made thick enough to stop a rifle round. As seen in use by SWAT.

[Yora]

It's worn by bomb disposal crews. As you can see, it's ridiculously bulky, hot, uncomfortable, and awkward. Can you imagine storming a house in it? Abseiling? Crawling through mouse-holes or windows? It's only worn by disposal crews because they don't need to move around much.
Is abseiling really a word used by english speaking climbers? :smallbiggrin:

[LansXero]

I think this Peruvian Riot armor:
http://i26.tinypic.com/e9yezs.jpg

I don`t think its designed with being bullet-proof in mind; most riots here involve small arms AT MOST; lots of bludgeoning trauma though, so thats more likely to be its focus. (I kid you not, people here crack the riot shields all the time through smashing them with construction stuff, like large concrete blocks on sticks and the like).

[Psyx]

And now for a quick word from our sponsors on storming buildings held by people with guns in:

Don't.

The OP mentioned SF teams doing such work in storming an isolated building where they wouldn't mind wearing armour. Now ask 'Why bother?'

Just drop a dozen mortar rounds on it and drag the corpses out of the rubble. Or pop in a thermobaric warhead and level the place that way. There's no need to go in there and get shot.

Let's say we have to go in there to capture some McGuffin. In which case we toss a grenade in every room and down every passageway before even considering sticking our heads in. The weapon of choice for storming buildings is the hand grenade. Accept no alternative.

Let's say there's a hostage that we need to rescue. Whoah... this has stopped being a job for mere special forces, and is now a job for the best of the best: SAS or whatever Tier 1 unit you have kicking around on stand-by. In this case we take away those grenades and replace them with stun grenades and wash, rinse, repeat. Now granted; our hostage is going to have ruptured eardrums, but they'll be able to smile for the cameras in a day or two. If there's a hostage involved then speed is essential and there is most certainly no time for waddling around in anything that makes you resemble the Michelin man anyway.

For more police-type actions where tossing explosives around is really not an option, we have SWAT, GS-G9 and the like (and then we toss tear-gas around instead. See: Grenades are lovely!). It's a dangerous job, and they'd wear full-on protection if it was available, but there really is no such thing. The best we can get is a combination of a level IV vest, some upper limb and groin protection that will stop a handgun, helmet and ballistic shields. And that's kinda what SWAT wear. Only not all of them. Because it's heavy and if we're dealing with hostages, we need speed.

Truth of the matter is that if we're kicking in doors and storming rooms that speed is essential. We'd practice and drill so that we're already in the room before the target reacts. The first two are through and clear of the door and not standing in it; in the line that naturally draws instinctive fire. If you want to give a ballistic shield and heavy body armour to anyone in the team, give it to the third man through the door. Statistically he's the most likely to get shot, because he's standing in the doorway when the bad guys react. So we give him a massive shield so he draws fire from the other two guys who are already in the room, while they do the actual killing. And that's pretty much the way it works in real life.

In short: Speed, shock and firepower are far superior to body armour.

[Psyx]

Is abseiling really a word used by english speaking climbers? :smallbiggrin:

Yes.

It's rapelling that's the dumb one. And spelunking, too! :smallbiggrin:


I don`t think its designed with being bullet-proof in mind

Indeed. Riot armour is intended to deal with bricks, bottles and petrol bombs, not several thousand Joules of bullet.

[Yora]

Only wondered because it's a german word that has nothing to do with philosophy. :smallwink:

[Psyx]

/chuckle.

Americans rappel, English abseil.

Abseiling is obviously faster... :smallamused:

[J.Gellert]

Obviously, police "have it easy" in comparison, because handguns are weaker, most criminals don't have any protection from gas/flashbang/whatever, and civilian buildings are easy to break into (doors, windows, and paper-thin walls).

As for riot gear, from what I see here (and you know... Greece...) you really mostly need it to be flame-resistant. Scary-looking helps too.

Now with soldiers... I remember reading somewhere (can't remember source, perhaps it was terribly biased) that for the American armies, since WWII, "casualties" consistently remain at about the same percentage... but injuries go up, and deaths are decreased. And that's probably because armor keeps getting heavier.

So, I don't know, they could speed up the procedure and build extra-heavy suits? Or at least switch to great helmets? :smalltongue:

[Yora]

I think in most cases, ballistic vests don't as much prevent injuries, but rather reduces lots of lethal injuries to injuries that can be survived. If you're hit, you're out of the fight anyway, but you have a much better chance to survive.
More heavy kinds of body armor that use solid armor plates can stop rifle rounds completely and soldiers have reportedly been able to stand up and resume fighting without any serious injury and some claim they didn't even notice they got hit until later. But even in those cases the armor plates take considerable damage and work much less effective on a second or third hit.

[Galloglaich]

I assume that the first die rolled is a different colour, to prevent shots fired from a rest or aimed being more likely to misfire?

No you don't count both dice, you just pick the higher die roll.

With two dice you have almost no chance (well, something like 1 in 500 depending on how you estimate the statistics) of rolling a 1. With three or four dice I've never seen anyone roll a 1 in ten years of running this system, though of course it could happen (you would have to roll all 1s)

G.

[Galloglaich]

I think historically the use of body armor goes up as armies get smaller, and goes down as armies get bigger. It's correlated with the relative value of the individual troop.

I suspect it's possible at this point to make pretty good, fairly light ballistic armor sufficient to protect from rifles, but it would be prohibitively expensive, in the orderr of hundreds of thousands of dollars per soldier. I know for a fact the DoD did a bunch of tests of tempered steel 15th Century armor and weapons (sword blades) for use in military applications (though not necessarily for individual soldiers) back in the 1990s and 2000s, and they came to the conclusion that tempered steel of that type and quality could be effective for armor, but it was too expensive both to make and to work with.

G.

[Psyx]

No you don't count both dice, you just pick the higher die roll.


So if you lean your musket on a windowsill, you reduce the chance of it blowing up in your face by 95%? :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

Yes, and you reduce the chance of a bowstring breaking if you aim your shot... a misfire or other incident is more likely to happen when you rush.

it's an abstraction obviously, but the idea is that when you are taking more time to prepare your shot you are less likely to make a mistake leading to a misfire.

A misfire or a half-fire are much more likely than the gun actually exploding of course, though there is always a chance for that.

There are a couple of more realistic optional alternatives for handling gunpowder weapons (with a much higher likelyhood of a mishap) but the default is streamlined. The Codex is designed for fast paced play, so the level of abstraction is poised between speed and accuracy, with as few die-rolls and as little math as possible while still sticking to the patterns of something like real historical combat. It's the same reason I use hit points instead of bothering with hit locations and bleeding rules and broken bones and all that sort of thing (which is where most 'realistic' systems put their focus). I just use a hit point ceiling instead.

G.

[Fastmover]

Actually, now that I think about it there is a way, now that is, to get full plate and have full limb protection. I'll have to post when I get home though... job comp doesn't let me get to certain sites... darn government comps.

Found it (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japans_robot_suit_to_bring_hope_to_the_disabled_99 9.html). At least something you can take a look at that is. They have vids of it on Youtube.

If this thing is capable of increasing muscle capasity and potentially moving at your speed, what stopping us from creating the armor seen in G.I. Joe?

[fusilier]

I don`t think its designed with being bullet-proof in mind; most riots here involve small arms AT MOST; lots of bludgeoning trauma though, so thats more likely to be its focus. (I kid you not, people here crack the riot shields all the time through smashing them with construction stuff, like large concrete blocks on sticks and the like).

I agree with you. It's just cool looking body armor that's actually in use. :-)

[fusilier]

Now with soldiers... I remember reading somewhere (can't remember source, perhaps it was terribly biased) that for the American armies, since WWII, "casualties" consistently remain at about the same percentage... but injuries go up, and deaths are decreased. And that's probably because armor keeps getting heavier.

This can also be attributed to improved medicine and organization of the medical services, more rapid response times, etc.

[Tyndmyr]

I think in most cases, ballistic vests don't as much prevent injuries, but rather reduces lots of lethal injuries to injuries that can be survived. If you're hit, you're out of the fight anyway, but you have a much better chance to survive.
More heavy kinds of body armor that use solid armor plates can stop rifle rounds completely and soldiers have reportedly been able to stand up and resume fighting without any serious injury and some claim they didn't even notice they got hit until later. But even in those cases the armor plates take considerable damage and work much less effective on a second or third hit.

A great deal of that depends on the kind of armor plate. Steel is going to probably have more felt impact(though shape and weight of armor is going to affect this a great deal too). However, it'll usually be fairly solid against further strikes.

Ceramic is light, and for the weight, is extremely awesome at taking the energy. However, said energy, since it's not going to you, is obviously going somewhere. In the case of ceramics, it's used to fracture it. So, less awesome at stopping subsequent rounds.

Everythings got tradeoffs, but yeah...neither type of armor is really a good idea to take several shots with. You can survive that, sure, but it's likely gonna hurt, and you *could* still be unlucky.



As for the rushing w regards to bowstrings, misfires...not really. Bowstrings really only break after significant wear and tear, if they were improperly made, or if you've REALLY abused them. It's fairly infrequent. A rushed shot IS more likely to miss, but not really significant on the misfire aspect. Modern firearms, same deal. Rushing a shot isn't going to affect anything but accuracy. Gunpowder weapons, you've got some justification...but even then, it's not rushing the shot, it's rushing loading.

[Mike_G]

Now with soldiers... I remember reading somewhere (can't remember source, perhaps it was terribly biased) that for the American armies, since WWII, "casualties" consistently remain at about the same percentage... but injuries go up, and deaths are decreased. And that's probably because armor keeps getting heavier.



Armor does turns some hits that might kill into wounds, but as fusilier said, the biggest factor is medicine. We save a lot of people who would have died in WWII or Vietnam. Time from the field to the real OR is very quick these days.

Plus, the average Afghan insurgent isn't shooting an 88 mm gun at your Sherman. He's using an improvised explosive that causes a lot of injury, but isn't all that high velocity. In general, bullets kill, mines or booby traps wound. The current fighting is leaving a lot of amputees.




So, I don't know, they could speed up the procedure and build extra-heavy suits? Or at least switch to great helmets? :smalltongue:

The troops hate heavy armor. And hate a helmet that you can't hear in. Armor is a trade off. The heavier it is, the better it protects, but the more it impedes your effectiveness. If you want to be completely invulnerable but totally ineffective, just stay home.

[Norsesmithy]

Or at least switch to great helmets? :smalltongue:

MITCH helmets as worn by American soldiers will stop a 7.62x39 bullet outside of 100 meters, and a 7.62x54 or .303 British round outside 250 meters. A recently EASed friend of mine credits the MITCH with more saved buddies than the Interceptor vest and plate combo.


More heavy kinds of body armor that use solid armor plates can stop rifle rounds completely and soldiers have reportedly been able to stand up and resume fighting without any serious injury and some claim they didn't even notice they got hit until later.
Adrenaline is a wonderful drug. I have a different friend who participated in the Battle of Fallujah, and got "John Wayne'd" (IE shot in the shoulder), but miraculously the bullet passed through him without damaging anything terribly important, because he continued to fight, and only noticed that he was injured after his right boot started to slosh with his blood.

He found the bullet stuck in the kevlar of his back armor.

[Psyx]

MITCH helmets as worn by American soldiers will stop a ... .303 British round outside 250 meters.

I'll remember that next time I use a 60 year old rifle: Nobody's used .303 for military applications for about that long...

[Salbazier]

After reading d20modern SRD weapon table today I went to check some of the firearms (RL) range. Something bug me. Why a machine gun like M60 can have further effective range than sniper rifle like PSG1?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I'll remember that next time I use a 60 year old rifle: Nobody's used .303 for military applications for about that long...

.303 is getting use in Afghanistan currently, on the insurgent side.

[Spiryt]

After reading d20modern SRD weapon table today I went to check some of the firearms (RL) range. Something bug me. Why a machine gun like M60 can have further effective than sniper rifle like PSG1?

They probably check'd Wikipedia. :smallwink:

I don't know though, they seem to shoot the same bullet type with very similar starting velocity.

Maybe M60 spins it 'better' so missile is more stable, or perhaps it's just indication that when it's mounted and is firing short burst, it's way more 'deadly'.

[Psyx]

After reading d20modern SRD weapon table today I went to check some of the firearms (RL) range. Something bug me. Why a machine gun like M60 can have further effective than sniper rifle like PSG1?

The MOA won't match the sniper rifle. Not by a long shot. Where were the ranges cited, and what were they? On a per-bullet basis the H&K is far more accurate.

The M60 is firing a lot more ammunition though. I imagine that when they say 'effective' that this is considered. You might not be able to shoot someone at 1000m overly effectively with a rifle, but you can create a dangerous beaten zone with an automatic weapon with it. In the same way, the effective range of the L85 used to be cited as 400m, or 600m as a squad weapon. ie: One person is not going to be effective with it at 600m, but 8 people firing 8 times as many aimed shots will be.

[Psyx]

.303 is getting use in Afghanistan currently, on the insurgent side.

.303 or .308? Because I imagine that ammunition for .303 is a bit hard to get hold of these days.

I know that the Afghans were using Lee Enfields still around 20 years ago, but given that you can cheerfully pick up a hand made-copy of an AK for a disturbingly low price, I'd be surprised if there were still many around.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

.303 or .308? Because I imagine that ammunition for .303 is a bit hard to get hold of these days.

I know that the Afghans were using Lee Enfields still around 20 years ago, but given that you can cheerfully pick up a hand made-copy of an AK for a disturbingly low price, I'd be surprised if there were still many around.

.303 actually. It's also still in use in India (with their police forces) and I'm pretty sure there's a factory in Pakistan which still produces Lee-Enfield pattern rifles and ammunition. There was also a video going around the interweb of a pretty girl with a bolt action, .303 AK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDiwRFaJv-A&feature=player_embedded).

[Psyx]

I believe that Ishapores which were made locally are chambered to .308, rather than the venerable .303.

It's a little optimistic to call the weapons manufacturers in Afghanistan and Pakistan as 'factories'. They're hand made in small shops. You can buy pretty much anything on the gun markets. A copy of a Russian AK is more expensive than a copy of a Chinese one, because Russian ones are better. Go figure!

[Daosus]

The reason for the longer effective range on the m60 is that to be considered effective, all it has to do is put the bullets in "that area." The limit is the point at which bullets deviate too far from point of aim to be useful. The PSG-1, on the other hand, needs to put one bullet into one person to be considered effective. That means as soon as the bullet starts moving unpredictably, you're out of effective range.

[Stephen_E]

Now with soldiers... I remember reading somewhere (can't remember source, perhaps it was terribly biased) that for the American armies, since WWII, "casualties" consistently remain at about the same percentage... but injuries go up, and deaths are decreased. And that's probably because armor keeps getting heavier.

So, I don't know, they could speed up the procedure and build extra-heavy suits? Or at least switch to great helmets? :smalltongue:

A large change in the casulty death ratio occurred due to the "Golden Hour" concept. While the specific time is dubious, the fast movement of patients from wound to significant treatment makes a huge difference to survival rates.

The recent further jump occurring in the US casultioes in the Iraq Insurgency does appear to be linked to the relatively recent leap to common availibility of top quality body armour (including inserts) amongst US troops severly reducing serious torso wounds. This does have a follow on effect of a higher percentage of amputees IIRC. Where before the injuries that would cause the loss of a limb would also result in torso woulds resulting in loss of life, the torso wounds are avoided or significantly reduced in severity.

Stephen E

[Norsesmithy]

.303 or .308? Because I imagine that ammunition for .303 is a bit hard to get hold of these days.

I know that the Afghans were using Lee Enfields still around 20 years ago, but given that you can cheerfully pick up a hand made-copy of an AK for a disturbingly low price, I'd be surprised if there were still many around.

The friend who gave me this information picked a beat to hell old No.4 off of the guy who put the round into his helmet.

Generally, if a badguy is a proficient enough rifleman to be a threat outside 100 yards, he's more likely to have an Enfield than anything else, and most of the recovered ammo is headstamped 1960 or earlier. Actually one "sniper" missed a man who didn't have his helmet on because the round he fired at him was a tracer, instead of a standard lead core. The tracer bullet was recovered from a sandbag ~6 inches above where this guy's head was, and the difference in trajectory between Mark 7 lead core and Mark 7 Tracer ammo at that range is ~8 inches.

[fusilier]

I don't think .303 surplus is that hard to come by, and it is still produced as a civilian/hobby/sporting(?) round. The blanks for my 6.5mm Carcano, are made from new semi-rimmed .303 british brass, with the excess rim ground off. *shrug* Likewise, a few months ago a friend of mine picked up a bunch of surplus Turkish made 8mm mauser which fired just fine.

On the other hand, I have a bunch of 6.5mm Carcano surplus ammo from the 30's -- everybody tells me not to shoot it as I'll blow my gun up. Half the rounds don't chamber anyway. (It's like the brass has expanded on some cartridges).


The heavier it is, the better it protects, but the more it impedes your effectiveness. If you want to be completely invulnerable but totally ineffective, just stay home.

lol! I like the way you put it! :-)

[Galloglaich]

the .303 was the Ak-47 of the early 20th Century and into the late 40's and 50's all around the 3rd world, gradually replaced by the SKS and later the AK. There are still hundreds of thousands of them out there, though of course with the ubiquity of the AK they have been replaced as the front rank weapon of choice. I gather there are still remnants in use though which have taken kind of the equivalent role of an M-14 in the US Army per what Norsmithy said above, as a longer range weapon since most of the AKs around aren't effective beyond 150 meters or so.

.303 Enfield is a very reliable, accurate, sturdy and hard-hitting weapon. I like the M1 Garand a little better in that particular niche but the Enfield is a close second.

G.

[Crow]

The tracer bullet was recovered from a sandbag ~6 inches above where this guy's head was, and the difference in trajectory between Mark 7 lead core and Mark 7 Tracer ammo at that range is ~8 inches.

So what you're saying is that there was chance this shot could have missed by ~14 inches instead. :smallbiggrin:

Sorry, no more soldier humor.

[fusilier]

the .303 was the Ak-47 of the early 20th Century and into the late 40's and 50's all around the 3rd world, gradually replaced by the SKS and later the AK. There are still hundreds of thousands of them out there, though of course with the ubiquity of the AK they have been replaced as the front rank weapon of choice. I gather there are still remnants in use though which have taken kind of the equivalent role of an M-14 in the US Army per what Norsmithy said above, as a longer range weapon since most of the AKs around aren't effective beyond 150 meters or so.

.303 Enfield is a very reliable, accurate, sturdy and hard-hitting weapon. I like the M1 Garand a little better in that particular niche but the Enfield is a close second.

G.

In the early 20th century I would say mausers were more widespread than Enfields, but in a variety of calibers (Almost all of Latin America used some kind of mauser, and a good chunk of Europe too). I'm not actually that familiar with the spread of Enfields but I would suspect it was primarily among Commonwealth/Empire countries/regions, and then they were probably unloaded in large numbers after WW2? I'm inclined to say that they show up more in places like Africa -- but I'm not sure if that's correct. Mosin Nagants were pretty common among communist states after WW2 as well.

Those bolt actions rifles were built to last and produced in very large numbers, some very old ones are still capable of giving good service today. My Carcano was made in 1895, and I've had no problems with it (admittedly, I haven't live fired it much and need more practice in that respect).

[Stephen_E]

About 20 years ago I read that at a yearly "1 mile range" shooting competition in Britain the .303 Lee Enfield was still the single most common rifle used.

Stephen E

[Salbazier]

Can someone explain to me about studded leather armor. What exactly is it and its historical use?

[Yora]

The sad truth: It never existed.
Blades will just slip between the studs and it offers no more protection than a lather jacket. It also doesn't offer protection against blunt trauma. You could place the rivets very close together to get something that looks and behaves like chainmail, but a leather jacket with that many studs would consist almost entirely of holes for studs and not much leather to hold it together, so it would easily tear or get stretched so the studs fall out.

The common theory is, that some people saw brigandine or coat of plates armor and didn't realize the studs are in fact rivets that hold the metal plates inside the leather jacket. The rivets don't protect anything, the steel plates do.
Outside (http://home.messiah.edu/~gdaub/armor/pictures/valentin/brigand.jpg)
Inside (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Brigandine,_Italian,_c1470,_Royal_Armoury,_Leeds_% 28internal_view%29.JPG)

[Spiryt]

Why exactly should it be "sad" truth?


RPG fans and other deviated groups of people, :smallbiggrin: devised many weird thing, 90 % of them have no sense at all.

Only trace of "studded leather' I could find is something like this:

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16408

Supposed to be somewhere from deep Syberia, although to be honest it smells like another weird interpretation of some drawing/tiny piece of metal from some grave.

Seems almost sensible compared to fantasy stuff, but still no point for warrior wealthy enough to wear mail, helmet and good weapon to wear something like that.

[Yora]

Why exactly should it be "sad" truth?
We were lied to!!! :smallyuk:

I think this image doesn't show rivets but small plates. And while it might offer some protection, why not make the plates larger so the gaps become smaller? As said, he wears chainmail and a sword, so the additional cost in raw materials shouldn't be an issue.

[Spiryt]

Here's nice reconstruction of one of the Visby's CoPs (http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoas_rustningar/source/suit_of_armour_no_24_front.html)


We were lied to!!!

That's the function of popular culture, myths, fairy tales since forever - provide some more interesting (depending on the taste) reality. "Lie" is such an ugly word. :smallwink:


As for the rest, that's why it seems weird to me, and it's probably just another wonky interpretation of something.

Guy probably would have lammellar/scale or perhaps some local coat of plates on that mail.

[Yora]

They can lie about monsters and magic as much as they want. But I know leather and how it works. With monsters and magic, they admit they made it up, but there's no excuse for attributing wonderous properties to leather. :smallbiggrin:

[Salbazier]

Ah I see, no wonder I can't find anything about it. Thank you :smallsmile:

[Yora]

I've gone thrugh exactly the same process about a year ago. :smallbiggrin:
I think it was this thread that explained it to me...

[Galloglaich]

See as a DM I'm approaching the topic of guns.
I want them to be scary.
Scarier than a sword. Even though both could easily kill human as they stand.
And I don't want it to be scary for the same reason they are scary today (easy to use).
But I also want some real life 'flavor' to it.
Ultimately I want to know if handling guns as a touch attack, 1/2 physical armor penetration, or normal armor benefits are appropriate.

Thanks!
~This chump.

One other thought .... I like the idea of making guns more scary. But I think you should make swords more scary as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAqlCZPGktE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PSkUGQAxrc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vleC5-tvx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e6x5J7nrKE

I know people are used to playing a certain way, but I think it actually enhances the game if you don't pretend most of the weapons are nerf weapons. In real life, most weapons used in pre-industrial times were extremely lethal.

G.

[Yora]

Realistically, I think a hit with a weapon is either a nick that can be ignored, or enough to take you out of the fight. Fantasy games almost always allow for a character to be hit several times before being in danger of any actual consequences.

I wish people would make more videos of testing spears. It's always just swords. They are good, but there are lots of reasons people used spears even though they had swords at hand. I'd like to see some comparisons how a spear gets through armor and how a sword fares in the same situations.

[Galloglaich]

On studded leather armor, and leather armor in general, I think you do see some rare examples of stuff like that in Siberia. like this Mongol Armor

http://www.maritimeasia.ws/site/images/photos/Takashima_armour_400x665.jpg

I think that is very rare, marginal type of armor, stop-gap armor for irregular light cavalry. Even a semi-professional soldier wouldn't wear something like that. It didn't exist in Europe or most of the rest of the world. You do also see some types of Bakhterets armor (mixed armor or half-armor) in Russia and Central Asia which combines discs or squares of metal with leather.

But generally speaking there is very little evidence of leather armor in Europe. It was used for a brief period as a stiffener for mail armor (worn under the mail) along with horn, baleen, and other miiscelaneous substances, during the 12th-13th Century, before being replaced by brigandine and various types of coat- of plates (using small iron plates).

Leather cuir boulli was also sometimes used for tournaments, like this Italian armor

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/28/l_99f38bab31f541edb17fee682caeb719.jpg

But it was quite rare, even cuir bolli (hardened leather) didn't make very good actual arrmor, in that it didn't stop sword cuts or spear thrusts very well.

while in DnD light armor is leather armor and slightly better than is mail plus studs, in real life light armor (in Europe anyway) was really textile armor, and it was a lot better than is portrayed in RPGs.

This English HEMA pracittioner from Schola Gladiatoria is wearing a textile armor called a Gambeson.

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/23/l_dfeca8a559594db7a989aa8382667fe9.jpg http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/12/l_6e611ca4fb7443cbb07f1ff04fe68b57.jpg

Textile armor was actually quite effective, as you can see here in some tests where it was placed over mail and shot with a 90 lb draw longbow from 20 feet. I think that is 12 layers of linen if I remember correctly.
http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gallery/2006/MichaelmasChuck/Full/IMGP1813.jpg

http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gallery/2006/MichaelmasChuck/Full/IMGP1816.jpg

http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gallery/2006/MichaelmasChuck/Full/IMGP1818.jpg

Leather was not widely used in Europe partly because it was quite expensive, when made stiff and thick enough to use for armor it is also much more cumbersome than equivalent mail protection and isn't even necessarily any lighter. Iron armor will protect against a sword cut at around 1.5 mm, against a lance or a longbow at around 1.8 mm. Leather has to be 4-6mm or more and still has a much much lower failure point. At that thickness it is as stiff as 1.8mm of iron, and much thicker, and almost as heavy as mail (a realistic riveted mail hauberk I saw for sale recently weighs about 13 lbs). A gambeson made of 10 layers of linen is less cumberome than the leather, doesn't have to be made into plates and offers generally superior protection to the leather.

The one area that I know of where you do see some leather armor or cuir-boulli used is as lamellar, mostly in Central Asia, sometimes combined with horn, water-buffalo hide, and brass in alternating rows. That is still poor mans armor but it offers more effective protection than the 'studded leather' you see above.
http://home-4.worldonline.nl/~t543201/web-mongol/mongol-images-photos/mongol-armour2.jpg

But normally lamellar would be bronze, brass or iron.

In the steppes with so many cattle herding nomads, leather was cheaper than it was in Europe. In Europe by contrast, there was a strong textile industry in the Middle Ages, so textiles were comparatively cheap and plentiful (though the superior silk textiles were more rare).

G.

[Galloglaich]

Realistically, I think a hit with a weapon is either a nick that can be ignored, or enough to take you out of the fight. Fantasy games almost always allow for a character to be hit several times before being in danger of any actual consequences.

Yes, which is absurd. And the answer in terms of balance is to just make armor realistically effective. RPGs make humans (elves etc.) into sort of great bing carrots or potatoes which you can knock pieces off slowly, or maybe more like a big parmesan cheese and the swords, bows crossbows etc. are like cheese graters which barely knock off a few flakes with each hit. Then they make the armor almost useless (unless it's magic)

Instead, make people more vulnerable like they really are, (like say, a cabbage?), but put armor on them that works like real armor. (Like an oven mitt or a mail shark suit.) It works! I don't understand why they nerf everything and make it all so ridiculous, just to keep everyone in their comfort zone. It's so unsatisfying to me.



I wish people would make more videos of testing spears. It's always just swords. They are good, but there are lots of reasons people used spears even though they had swords at hand. I'd like to see some comparisons how a spear gets through armor and how a sword fares in the same situations.

we have done some, we have a spear. We may film some tests with it on our next test-cutting day.

G.

[fusilier]

Are you in the middle of making a stew? Or were you just hungry when you wrote that, G? ;-)

I understand what you are saying. GURPS usually does a slightly better job, mainly because characters have very little hit points, and shock and stunning after a wound is represented. WEG Star Wars had different effects depending upon how bad the wound was as well. On the other hand, sometimes it is surprising the number of wounds an individual took during combat -- and also surprising what some people survived.

[Matthew]

Well, without straying too far into the land of rule discussions, I would add that originally D&D did work on a "one hit kills" basis. Players didn't like that much, so it became 1d6 damage versus 1d6 "hit points". Heroes were treated as "four normal men", which became 4d6 hit points, and then the between levels were filled in, and you know the rest. It works great for the game, but you have to assume a lot of abstraction and employ a certain degree of suspension of disbelief for it to "feel real".

Now, onto a less rules bound, but interesting addendum to the studded leather armour deal. Gygax's original source for armour he provides:



Note: If you are unfamiliar with medieval armour types, you might find Charles Ffoulkes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_ffoulkes)' ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford 1909) a short and useful text. The armour types I have selected are fitted into a game system. Here is what they subsume: LEATHER ARMOUR is cuir bou[il]li, consisting of coat, leggings, boots, and gauntlets. STUDDED LEATHER adds protective plates set in the leather and an extra layer of protection at shoulder area. RING MAIL is leather armour sewn with closely set iron rings. SCALE MAIL is a suit of leather armour set with small overlapping iron plates. CHAIN MAIL needs no explanation. BANDED MAIL is horizontal strips of articulated armour plates worn over a suit of chain mail. SPLINT MAIL is a coot of vertical plates of armour sandwiched within the layers of the garment and worn over chain. PLATE MAIL is a set of pieces of plate (shoulder, breast, bock, elbow, groin/hips legs) worn over chain mail. Plate Armour is a late development and is not considered, i.e. the full suit of solid plate used c. 1500 is not an armour type used, but the reader should be aware that this form of protection was lighter and more mobile than plate mail! It is also two or three times more costly...

So, I guess Ffoulkes is at the root of it. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Not really. What he described is "heavy leather armor" where you put additional layers of leather on the leather plates. Not sure if this was actually done, or even if all leather armor was actually made that way, but there's nothing that explains where the term "studded" comes from.