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

[Awetugiw]

Only if the acceleration is larger than your body can withstand do you have a problem, and it doesn't have to be.
Definitely.


Except that you can't use a slingshot maneuver to any good effect if you're travelling thousands of times faster than the escape velocity of the object you're using to slingshot yourself with. Which you are, if you're moving at speeds that make interstellar travel plausible.

And if you have continuous-boost spacecraft (so that you can turn the engine on and leave it on for days, instead of only having enough fuel for a few hours of thrust), you can use straight or near-straight courses Slingshot maneuvers and Hohmann transfer orbits and such are for spacecraft that have to be very careful about rationing their fuel because they can't carry enough to produce large changes in their velocity.

By analogy, if you have to reach a place 140 miles away on half a tank of gas, you might reasonably be worried. If your car is like mine, that's right at the limit of how far the car can go on that amount of gas. So you might plan your trip carefully, to minimize the total distance (take the straightest routes), and think about what speed to go at to get the most out of your gas (most cars have a get the best fuel economy in miles per gallon at some particular speed).

Interplanetary space probes of the sort we can construct today are like that. Every bit of fuel we put on board reduces the available room for scientific instruments, and even if the entire probe were nothing but fuel tank we still wouldn't really have all that much fuel on board.

So we have to get them up to speed using huge rocket boosters that have no purpose but giving small payloads a very high base speed. Then we use the small amount of onboard fuel to make small course changes to nudge the probe onto the most energy-efficient path to its destination.

If our ships were fusion-powered rockets with large, easily replenished fuel supplies instead of chemical-powered rockets with small, completely unrefillable fuel tanks, we could use much faster, much 'straighter' paths to get to the planets.

If you're inside a solar system, you won't be moving at relativistic speed. (Unless you're a relativistic missile, that is.) You'd either be very close to where you started, so you wouldn't have accelerated that much yet, or you'd be very near your target, so you'd have decelerated a lot already.

So as long as you're near an object large enough to slingshot with, you're probably not moving way too fast to slingshot.

It is true that if you have a more efficient drive you might use less gravity tricks. However, I think they will always remain useful. Maybe not a full slingshot maneuver, but aiming your entry in the solar system in a way you will work with the gravity currents instead of against them will always have some effect, and can be easily done. A fast enough ship might not need it, but it still helps. Think of it like aerodynamics for cars. You don't really need it to move, your engine is powerful enough. Still, given the choice, you make the car at least somewhat aerodynamic. Because even though the influence is relatively small, it still helps. Of course you don't sacrifice many other things to the aerodynamic design of your car, since it is only a small factor.


Yes, but it does so by providing a primer on the physics of space and space travel. The goal appears to be to teach SF writers not to casually break the laws of physics by mistake.
Yes. My remark wasn't meant to be an insult to Atomic Rocket and its creator(s). With "And it is specifically designed to help people who don't want physics to stand in the way of a good story." I only mean that if given the choice between "FTL isn't possible" and "FTL probably doesn't work. However, you probably want it for your story, so you use it. Do keep the following things in mind, so you don't get into more trouble than FTL is worth." Atomic Rocket will probably choose the second method.

Also, I have finished calculating. It is quite likely that I have missed something, but at least it gives some idea of the fuel requirements for interstellar travel.

Derivation of formulas (http://rapidshare.com/files/52362383/spaceshipcalc.pdf.html) (PDF)
Some examples (http://rapidshare.com/files/52362382/spaceship.pdf.html) (PDF)
The DIY version (http://rapidshare.com/files/52362381/spaceship.xls.html) (XLS)

For the people who don't want to read all that (and I don't blame you), the results.

I checked two things for a couple of engine types:
1) with what fuel per useful mass ratio can 4 ly be traveled in 8 year?
2) how long will a 4 ly travel take at 3:1 fuel to mass ratio?
Both assume you want to land (or something) in the target system, so you have to end up at speed 0.

Now.
First, the Ion Engine. This one actually exists. It cannot give high thrust, so it probably isn't very useful for interstellar travel. Still, it is said to be quite efficient, so let's see how good it performs.
If we want to arrive 4 ly further in 8 year, an ion engine needs a fuel:mass ratio of almost 700,000:1. For some reason I think an invasion fleet will not want to expend this amount of fuel.
If we only want to use a 3:1 ratio, we'll need approximately 5700 years for the 4 ly. Again, I don't think many armies will want to do this.

Secondly, we take a look at the HB-Fusion engine. This is one that might actually still work, though we can't build 'em yet. It does however have the same drawback as the ion engine: it won't produce high thrust, making it less useful for military purposes.
If we want to travel 4 ly in 8 year, we need a ratio of almost 35,000:1. A lot better than the ion engine, but I still don't think we want to use it.
When using a ratio of 3:1, we get where we want to be in a little over 1200 years. Well, no thanks.

Then, we check out the Maximum Orion Engine. This "engine" works by detonating nukes outside the ship, and "riding the wave". Normally, this wouldn't work very well, probably less well than the HB-Fusion, actually. And with a little more radiation problems. However, we look at the Maximum Orion Engine here. The one with the perfect, theoretical efficiency.
If we want to travel the 4 ly in 8 years, we need a ratio of only 356:1. This might actually work. At a ridiculous cost, of course.
With a 3:1 ratio we'll arrive at our destination in only 122 years. Maybe by that time we'll even live long enough to sit this one out without freezing.

Then, we finally arrive at the Maximum Photon Engine. This engine doesn't expel mass, is shoots photons. And it has a 100% efficiency matter-antimatter reactor. Hey, why not, I've made worse assumptions.
In order to travel 4 ly in 8 years, this engine needs only 1.52 kg of (matter+antimatter) per kg of the rest of the ship.
And if we are willing to expend 3 kg of (matter+antimatter) per kg of ship, we can even get there in 5.6 years. Now we're talking... Well, somewhat, anyway.

Now obviously, this makes an invasion... difficult at best. Even the perfect engine requires more fuel than the ship itself weighs, and then takes 8 years to reach the destination. Considering that you'll need to ship a lot of things (soldiers, life support for the soldiers, equipment, the engine, the rest of the ship... and so on) you probably simply can't afford an invasion. And that with a, very low, 4 ly between the warring planets.

You most certainly cannot afford an invasion without engines that are probably simply impossible. All in all, the point remains: don't use real physics for an interstellar invasion. It gets very boring very quickly if you can't reach the enemy.

-edit: fixed quote tag. I really should learn to do those right the first time.
-edit2: I'm really not that happy about the file hosting I used here. Does anyone happen to know a good place to host files like those a bit easier?

[Dervag]

If you're inside a solar system, you won't be moving at relativistic speed. (Unless you're a relativistic missile, that is.) You'd either be very close to where you started, so you wouldn't have accelerated that much yet, or you'd be very near your target, so you'd have decelerated a lot already.I was thinking about the "relativistic scout" concept.

Your statement is absolutely true of an invasion fleet, because such a fleet must actually come into contact with the target planet. Relative to the speed of light, it must brake to a near-stop before it can do anything useful.

On the other hand, a bombardment fleet might very well come barreling in and through the system with a large fraction of the speed it used to reach the system

I used the invasion/bombardment terminology before, with reason. In space combat that uses foreseeable weaponry, the most important and valuable weapon is momentum. Momentum adds power to your weapons and makes it harder for the enemy to localize and destroy you. Of course, the price is that it also restricts you to a single firing pass and gives you very little time to acquire your targets.

In a situation where both world-states have comparable fleets, the attacker must strip away as much as possible of the defender's infrastructure to have any hope of success. If they must send every ship across the void of interstellar space, taking decades of planet-frame time to reach the target, they don't stand a chance of defeating an equally equipped opponent who simply sits tight and holds their position. They need an edge.

Their only chance lies in the relativistic bombardment fleet. First, they must find a way of gathering targeting data. The bombardment fleet will not be able to do this, because they're going to be crossing the target solar system in no more than a few days and will be barreling through the regions around the target planet in a matter of hours or minutes. By the time they're close enough to the desired targets to light them up on fire control radar, it's probably too late to launch.

The intelligence team (it might be more accurate to think of them as forward air controllers) must rig up some kind of powerful directional communications system and beam instructions to the bombardment fleet.

The bombardment fleet may choose to launch a single extremely rapid pass (at, say, 0.5c or whatever their interstellar 'cruising speed' is). This will offer them the greatest immunity from attack, but make a second attack effectively impossible. They will not need to decelerate to make the attack run, and will be visible only because of the energetic reactions between the bow of their ship and the random gas and space dust in front of them.

Note that this is really energetic. The fronts of these ships will need to be very well armored or somehow shielded, because they are effectively traveling through a diffuse medium of high-energy plasma. I don't know how far away you'll be able to see the bombardment fleet, but there is no way they won't see you coming this way. However, they may not be able to do much about it, because they can't intercept you and can't readily lay a trap for you.

Or they may launch a much slower pass (at, say, 0.05c, which is still mind-blowingly fast). In this case, you may not be visible by the interstellar hydrogen 'bow wave' you make, but the engine thrust you used to slow down will be visible; extremely so. I have no idea which method is actually stealthier. This approach allows for better target acquisition, and the lower speed of the projectiles means that they can attack targets farther from the axis of attack of your fleet. The catch is that they will know you're coming for a long time, probably for even longer than they will in the other case. And your relativistically low speed means that you are not as invulnerable to attack as you would be otherwise. It is possible that some of your bombardment ships will be intercepted, or even pursued, depending on the defender's engine technology and what they can chase you with.

The bombardment fleet need not be large; it's only going to fire a small number of highly destructive shots. It may be equipped with independently maneuvering missiles or with a battery of rail guns, or both. Note that the missile engines and rail guns are not designed to increase the speed of the projectiles; they have already been accelerated to tremendous speed and energy by their parent ship.

The point of having missiles and rail guns is to allow the bombardment ships to fire shots in multiple directions, rather than just jettisoning a pile of rocks that move straight forward along the bomber's path.

The choice of targets for the bombardment ships must be made well in advance. Each ship will trace an effectively linear course across the defender's star system, and will only be able to engage targets along that line. Unless targetting decisions are made months or years in advance (a risky move), all bombardment ships will travel in roughly parallel lines along the direction they approached the system from. It would take way too long to make a big turn and come at the system from a completely different direction.

Unless you're really lucky, each ship can only attack one 'nest' of targets. At a given time, the targets the ship can hit will occupy a cone expanding outward from the location of the ship along its line of attack. The faster your shots can go (be they missiles or guns), the wider the cone is. The faster your ships are going, the narrower the cone is.

Now, you have to face the question of what to shoot at, and with

Your ideal targets are space-based infrastructure of any kind. One or more of the ships should attack the orbitals of the defender's planet. Others might attack colonies of strategic value to the enemy, destroying them with large missile/cannonballs or peppering them with smaller ones in hopes of creating chaos.

If you're feeling sneaky, you can build a very large missile (or rather, a very massive one), and fit it with a chemical or nuclear warhead. The warhead will not make the missile signficantly more damaging, but it will allow you to convert a single approaching missile into an approaching cloud of plasma, still moving at great speed. The bigger the warhead, the wider the cloud of plasma, but the less dense it becomes. If you can pull it off, it is entirely possible that this kind of attack could fry every low-orbit satellite on one side of the planet, and do very energetic things to the surface on that side. However, you won't get mushroom clouds, because the energy is spread very widely.

Obviously, if you shoot such a missile at the planet you must make sure that the fuze is accurate. If the missile detonates too soon, the debris wavefront won't be dense enough to cause damage. Too late and you've just dropped an extremely fast-moving asteroid on the planet. And incomplete destruction of the missile will have the same effect. Even modest-sized chunks of missile debris will have meteoric force on impact, though this may be a feature and not a bug depending on how harsh the conquerors are willing to be. There's nothing like having a bunch of megaton-range kinetic impacts scattered all over half the enemy's planet to force them to divert resources away from space-capable military production.

If all goes according to plan, a squadron of your warships has just thundered through their star system, launching devastating missile strikes against much of their space-based infrastructure. These warships can either continue off into the far reaches of the galaxy (presumably turning around and heading either for home or braking to a stop in the target system once it's safe; see below). If they came in slowly enough, they may well be able to turn around in weeks or months and launch another such devastating firing run (possibly hammering the other side of the planet this time). If they came in fast this will likely not be possible.

Now, the reason you sent in the bombardment fleet arrives: the invasion fleet. The invasion fleet's first goal is to secure the high orbitals above the target planet and broadcast a surrender demand. Most of the 'fixed' defenses and 'parked' combat vessels in the system have hopefully been wrecked by the bombardment fleet. If not, you're in for a hell of a fight because the defenders will be very angry and your invasion fleet will have to slow down to speeds low enough that they can be easily attacked and intercepted.

Ideally, the enemy will surrender now that you're in a position to demolish them at will (if your invasion fleet won). If the invasion fleet didn't come equipped for planetbusting, just warn them that the dreaded bombardment fleet is coming back, and that they've still got a few of those very large 'wavefront missiles'... the ones that act as dinosaur-killers if the fuze doesn't go off in time, remember?

Of course, you still face the problem of garrisoning the planet, if you ever had any intention of doing so in the first place. This problem may prove insurmountable.


You most certainly cannot afford an invasion without engines that are probably simply impossible. All in all, the point remains: don't use real physics for an interstellar invasion. It gets very boring very quickly if you can't reach the enemy.Well, unless I'm mistaken, my tactics will work tolerably well for a ramscoop fleet, which might work (we've never been in any position to test the concept and we don't have a fusion reactor to put in it even if we were).

[Zen Master]

I was thinking about the "relativistic scout" concept.

Your statement is absolutely true of an invasion fleet, because such a fleet must actually come into contact with the target planet. Relative to the speed of light, it must brake to a near-stop before it can do anything useful.

......

Well, unless I'm mistaken, my tactics will work tolerably well for a ramscoop fleet, which might work (we've never been in any position to test the concept and we don't have a fusion reactor to put in it even if we were).

Quote shortened considerably.

My claim would be - given any sort of significant sensor range (and I believe any near relativistic incoming would be detectable at a LONG range) it should be a relatively minor challenge to launch a counter. The thing about high speed is - the faster you go, the less you manouver. In other words, I'd say it would be far more difficult to intercept a slower moving incoming with a counter missile that one going so fast as to make any evasive manouvers impossible.

It's not like you need to shoot a speeding bullet out of the sky - all you need to do is to calculate it's trajectory, and place something in it's path. The momentum of the incoming will do the rest.

What you need is time to get your something in position - and the sensor range takes care of that.

[Om]

Not really trying to get into an arguement about whether it was war-winning or not - I was just trying to make the point that their war economy was propped up by Allied aidAgain, I am saying that this is simply false. The primary importance of Lend Lease was in considerably enhancing Soviet logistical capabilities. It did not "prop up" the Soviet economy and this economy was not in danger of collapse without Lend Lease. That's simply how it was.

That is not to say of course that Allied aid was insignificant, as Russian historians have traditionally suggested. Certainly this food and raw materials, along with direct military assets, were very much welcomed by the Soviets and contributed to their generally positive supply situation (outside of isolated sieges starvation was not a factor in Soviet sectors). However there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this aid formed a majority or even a crucial minority of Soviet production from '41-'45. Certainly it did not form the base or foundation of the Soviet war economy.


Ah, but if the command economy orders the production of too many tanks, it will starve. And if it orders production of tanks in excess of what infrastructure allows, things start to fall apart.Indeed. There is a huge body of Soviet literature devoted to this problem. The command economy delivers what commanded... but what should optimally be commanded?

Luckily the shift to a war economy rendered this question irrelevant. Instead of having hundreds, perhaps thousands, of variables the system, very handily, can be collapsed into two - "Military Production" and "Everything Else". The objective is to maximise the former while the only constraint is meeting the minimum requirements of the latter. This is a much easier problem to solve and, as we see from history, it was well managed by the experienced Soviet planners.

Their task would have been made easier by two significant factors. In the first case the mobilisation of the work force for the war effort, on a scale only really achievable in a planned economy, led to huge increases in production across the board. This conscription of labour armies, which was also taking place in other nations, gave the planners a huge degree of leeway and resources to play with. The other significant change was the introduction of war rations. Unlike the PRC, the USSR did not retain a rationing system while at peace and this was typically a major headache for the planners. Rationing is far more conductive to economic planning than a wage system and its introduction would have signficantly eased the computational burden by removing a whole dimension from the plans.

So the problem of planning in a war economy was signficantly easier than managing growth during peace. Really this is not surprising. The command economy has always been more efficient at allocating and directing resources than the free market (hence the move towards it by Western powers during WWI & WWII). The problem has traditionally been knowing where these resources are required for optimum growth. In a total war the only reason question is whether, bearing in mind the food/production constraint, you build tanks or planes.


The baseline for the expansion of the Soviet economy during this period was the extremely low level left behind by World War One and the Russian Civil War. It would have been a minor miracle (or anti-miracle) if Russia had failed to enjoy a large economic comeback and expansion in the 1920s and 1930s, even if the Bolsheviks had never existed. Russian industrial growth had been effectively halted since 1914, and they had almost nowhere to go but up.Please, this is nothing short of revisionism. The growth of the Soviet economy from 1928 outpaced every other nation by huge margins. In critical sectors, such as steel production, the increases were simply astronomical. Overall by 1938 the USSR had an industrial base that rivalled or surpassed that of Germany - a situation unthinkable in previous decades. The USSR not only returned to the 1913 levels, it smashed through them in almost all fields save agriculture. These massive leaps of growth were the direct result of Soviet industrialisation plans and remain unparalleled even today. To argue that any other economic model (be it Tsarist muddling or the NEP) could have achieved this is patently false.

I'm not putting figures to these increases simply because I don't have a source on hand. I highly recommend Ellman's Socialist Planning for an examination of state socialist planning (in both the Soviet Union and China), and Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers presents a more general overview of early Soviet economic growth. Both give a history of the stunningly rapid industrialisation of the USSR prior to '41.

[Awetugiw]

My claim would be - given any sort of significant sensor range (and I believe any near relativistic incoming would be detectable at a LONG range) it should be a relatively minor challenge to launch a counter. The thing about high speed is - the faster you go, the less you manouver. In other words, I'd say it would be far more difficult to intercept a slower moving incoming with a counter missile that one going so fast as to make any evasive manouvers impossible.

It's not like you need to shoot a speeding bullet out of the sky - all you need to do is to calculate it's trajectory, and place something in it's path. The momentum of the incoming will do the rest.

What you need is time to get your something in position - and the sensor range takes care of that.
Not exactly. The fast object does have trouble maneuvering in a way, but intercepting the object encounters the same problem. Maneuvering is acceleration. And acceleration is - barring relativistic effects, which even at this speed are quite small - not affected by speed.

What does change is the time one has to accelerate. Suppose you manage to get the interceptor directly in the path of the to-be-intercepted object. Let's assume both both sides are aware of each other. At this point the forward speed of the object doesn't matter anymore, except as a 'timer' for when a collision happens, or is avoided. All that can be done now is to accelerate to one side. The object that wants to avoid a collisions will attempt to accelerate away from the interceptor, the interceptor will attempt to mirror this acceleration. The side with the highest acceleration wins.
The same thing happens when the incoming side want to hit the other (is a missile) and the 'stationary' object want to avoid a collision.

So, once both sides are aware of each other, it all comes down to who has a better acceleration. Generally, it is easier to have a high acceleration if the ship is designed for it, or has no crew (is a missile). Since 'local flights' have less trouble with efficiency, they will generally have a better acceleration. So one gets a list like
local missile > relativistic missile > local fighter/scout > local large ship > interstellar ship > space base > planet.

The ship type higher on the list will, once it gets in front of the other, decide whether a collision takes place.

However, this only applies when the interceptor manages to get in front of the target, (or equivalently the missile manages to aim straight at the target).

This is where speed an sensor range do matter. If an incoming object is detected long enough in advance, only the acceleration of both ships matters. And since the defending side probably has some local missiles, this means the attacker has a problem.

However, if the attacker is fast enough and detected too late, it may not be possible to interpose a missile. In that case, the relativistic missiles will be able to hit pretty much everything they aim at.


Well, unless I'm mistaken, my tactics will work tolerably well for a ramscoop fleet, which might work (we've never been in any position to test the concept and we don't have a fusion reactor to put in it even if we were).
I'm not sure, but I think ramscoop fleets will have a problem with getting enough thrust. If that can be overcome one might actually be able to do something like you described, yes.

The bombers/missiles would probably also work with other engines. Those could be pretty much an engine with fuel, without anything else. The weight of the engine will probably do as mass for the relativistic missile. This way, even with a bad mass ratio, you'll probably still end up with an acceptable total mass. And of course those things don't have to decelerate, which also helps a lot.

The problem lies in getting the invasion fleet to the destination.

[Sundog]

Er, sorry guys, but Bussard Ramjets don't work in real life. Bussard's original mathematics relied upon a particle density in interstellar space greater than what we have actually found to be the case. A ramscoop field would draw an insufficient quantity of particles to maintain the fusion reaction.

Unless you're travelling entirely through a nebula, of course.

[Awetugiw]

A different question:
What is the advantage of firing in salvos? If you simply look at the amount of arrows/bullets/whatever that hit a target, firing single shots should get as much hits as a coordinated salvo. If you include waste due to too much projectiles hitting a single target, single shots should actually get more effective hits than the same amount of projectiles as salvo.

Now I could see salvos have more of a psychological impact. And if you use slow missiles that can (to some extent) be dodged, salvos might get more hits. But I doubt arrows, or bullets from early firearms can actually be dodged.

So why has firing in salvos been used so much?

[Om]

So why has firing in salvos been used so much?Very quick answer from a non-expert: It makes it easier to bracket the target.

[Fhaolan]

A different question:
What is the advantage of firing in salvos? If you simply look at the amount of arrows/bullets/whatever that hit a target, firing single shots should get as much hits as a coordinated salvo. If you include waste due to too much projectiles hitting a single target, single shots should actually get more effective hits than the same amount of projectiles as salvo.

Now I could see salvos have more of a psychological impact. And if you use slow missiles that can (to some extent) be dodged, salvos might get more hits. But I doubt arrows, or bullets from early firearms can actually be dodged.

So why has firing in salvos been used so much?

Actually, you can dodge arrows to some extent. Salvo loosing of arrows are usually done in a battle scenario, where the arrows are to go ballistic. A single ballistic arrow is fairly easy to dodge, as long as you notice it. It takes a fair amount of time to travel to the target.

But in any case, salvo firing is to achieve the exact same effect as a machine gun when you don't have enough rate of fire or relatively poor marksmanship. Fill the air with projectiles, and you'll be bound to hit *something* and force the enemy to take cover or at least slow them down.

Salvo firing is usually used at the extreme range of a weapon, or when dealing with troops where precision marksmanship is not guarenteed. For example, in the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the typical trooper was equipped with a musket. Muskets are notorously innacurate due to the lack of rifling, the average trooper was a mediocre shot, and as such would be directed to fire in salvo. Troopers who distinguished themselves for marksmanship would be pulled into special units and issued rifles. These would not be used in salvo, but more like snipers, firing at will. This is the basis of the 'Sharpe's Rifles' series of books and movies.

[Storm Bringer]

A different question:
What is the advantage of firing in salvos? If you simply look at the amount of arrows/bullets/whatever that hit a target, firing single shots should get as much hits as a coordinated salvo. If you include waste due to too much projectiles hitting a single target, single shots should actually get more effective hits than the same amount of projectiles as salvo.

Now I could see salvos have more of a psychological impact. And if you use slow missiles that can (to some extent) be dodged, salvos might get more hits. But I doubt arrows, or bullets from early firearms can actually be dodged.

So why has firing in salvos been used so much?

partly psychological, but mostly to compensate for the inaccuacy of the weapons by putting as many projectiles downrange as possible. Also, for most of the gunpower era, the troops were not trained in markmanship. At All. This was bacause what mattered was rate of fire, so they concentrated on the complex loading procedure. The muskets were so inaccurate (due to lack of rilfing, low manufactoring tolerances, indifferent gunpower quality, and so on) that the ONLY way to get signifcant hits was via volley and aimed fire was not possible in battlefield condictions (though hunters did aim, and indeed used rilfing long before the army adopted it).

Arrows can certianly be dodged while in flight, and early bullets long flight time, combined with the drills predictable nature (you would 'present'(aim) the musket a before firing, with a second or two gap between the two) that it was possible to duck in time (The Highlanders were reported to duck when they saw a redcoat line lower thier muskets, which helped reduce losses)


But the psychological element should not be overlooked. For starters, the sight of a thousand primed muskets being pointed at you is enough to make anyone a little nervous, and the effects of a point blank volley could break a charge, and allow a counter attack.

Also, the large smoke discharge of gunpower muskets ment that the firing of a few guns would blind the unit, so tight fire disapline was vital (the phrase 'fog of war' was literal on a early gunpowder battlefield. their are many reports of units stopping fire to allow the smoke to disperse, and a few of units blindly firing at a target that has moved on without them spotting it)

[Dervag]

It's not like you need to shoot a speeding bullet out of the sky - all you need to do is to calculate it's trajectory, and place something in it's path. The momentum of the incoming will do the rest.

What you need is time to get your something in position - and the sensor range takes care of that."Position" is not constant. This is an accelerating target, remember?

If it can accelerate, it can do evasive maneuvers. It can (presumably) vary its thrust by changing either the direction of the thrust, the force of the thrust, or both. Now, granted that the evasive maneuvers in question probably aren't more than a few meters per second squared, or a few dozen at most. But even at relativistic speeds the ship has plenty of time to make evasive maneuvers.

To make matters worse, if the ship is moving at truly relativistic speeds, it covers a signficant fraction of the distance to the target in the time it takes the target to find out it's made an evasive maneuver at all. Thus, the information the counter-missileer has at his disposal about the attacking ship's course and speed will be significantly out of date, by a long enough time scale for the attacking ship to hopelessly outmaneuver any purely ballistic anti-missile.

Anti-missiles capable of maneuver (such as a robot ship outfitted with a high-acceleration version of whatever these people use for interstellar drives) have a better chance, but are still very likely to miss the target entirely.

The individual ballistic projectiles that the bombardment fleet fires during its strafing run are more vulnerable to interception if they are traveling fast enough to be easily detected. Even there, you have to get a precise trajectory of the object very fast in astronomical terms. You have to have defensive anti-missiles in a position to stop the incoming shot in such a way that it does not rain high-energy plasma onto the target, which means intercepting it well away from its target. And if the enemy is using missiles instead of purely ballistic cannonballs, you have the same problem of intercepting an evading target without up-to-the-minute information on what evasions it's taking... only more so, because unmanned missiles can accelerate more wildly than manned spacecraft.

And of course the enemy can fire a whole bunch of missiles or cannonballs and make your life really interesting.

So even with the advantages you name, I for one would not want to be the one who had to stop an attack like this.

If I was, what I would want to do is build a squadron of high-acceleration ships that use whatever drive the interstellar ships use. These ships would not have the long-range mission duration of a full interstellar ship, but would essentially be missile boats. The high acceleration is so they can get far enough out that the bombardment ships or their debris clouds do not pose a serious threat to my star system by themselves.

Each missile boat would carry as many of the 'Very Large Wavefront Missiles' as I felt safe stacking on it. These missiles are heavy, so they can afford a good guidance computer. I would lob a salvo of such missiles at an oncoming bombardment ship, fuzing the missile to blow up if it loses lock.

Ideally, the missile does not lose lock and the oncoming bombardment ship catches a Very Large Missile in the kisser. Failing that, there's a decent chance they'll get slapped by an unusually dense and high-energy cloud of gas/dust/junk, which will do them no good and possibly a little harm. Depending on how good my missiles are at predicting and countering their evasions, this tactic may or may not be very effective. It's the best I can come up with on short notice.


I'm not sure, but I think ramscoop fleets will have a problem with getting enough thrust. If that can be overcome one might actually be able to do something like you described, yes.You can use the ramscoop to build up velocity for the bombardment run, then use another, more forceful drive for evasive maneuvers. Of course, that adds weight so it may not be such a hot idea. I'm not sure. Whatever you used to get up to ramscoop speed in the first place should work.


The bombers/missiles would probably also work with other engines. Those could be pretty much an engine with fuel, without anything else.Except for the ablative shielding built into the nosecone so it doesn't fry, and hopefully some kind of sensor package so it can do its own terminal guidance. The bombardment ships are not in a good position to direct their missiles in a 'fly by wire' scheme.


The problem lies in getting the invasion fleet to the destination.That's a standard problem in interstellar travel; think of it as a highly militarized colonization fleet.

In theory, you can launch both fleets at once. The invasion fleet will be decelerating to a near-stop over some long distance, so it will lag the bombardment fleet no matter what. The catch is that you may want to time your invasion fleet so that it has time to sneak through the outer reaches of the target star system if the bombardment fleet fails, because you aren't going to win this one without bombardment.


Er, sorry guys, but Bussard Ramjets don't work in real life. Bussard's original mathematics relied upon a particle density in interstellar space greater than what we have actually found to be the case. A ramscoop field would draw an insufficient quantity of particles to maintain the fusion reaction.

Unless you're travelling entirely through a nebula, of course.There's a variant ramscoop that doesn't use a fusion reaction in the throat of the ramjet but instead uses something else to heat the exhaust. Maintaining a fusion reaction in empty space was a problem in the theory anyway.

The advantage of the variant is that you separate your 'fuel' and 'propellant' reserves, which means that you can use various long-lived engine systems that would not normally work on a starship because you aren't throwing the fuel in those engines overboard.

Or you can use antimatter primer in the throat of the ramjet. That will give you a nice strong exhaust plume even if local particle density is less than stellar.


A different question:
What is the advantage of firing in salvos? If you simply look at the amount of arrows/bullets/whatever that hit a target, firing single shots should get as much hits as a coordinated salvo. If you include waste due to too much projectiles hitting a single target, single shots should actually get more effective hits than the same amount of projectiles as salvo.

Now I could see salvos have more of a psychological impact. And if you use slow missiles that can (to some extent) be dodged, salvos might get more hits. But I doubt arrows, or bullets from early firearms can actually be dodged.

So why has firing in salvos been used so much?Arrows can be dodged or blocked by shields. Bullets cannot.

Part of the answer to the question is something called the Lanchester Laws of Combat (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1198823), a system of differential equations that describe the effects of aimed vs. unaimed fire.

It turns out that unaimed volley fire gets a lot more effective when the enemy is densely packed, as they must be to withstand a melee attack.

Moreover, volley fire is not always unaimed; this depends on the weapon system being used. Early firearms were effectively impossible to aim at all; bow fire at long range was difficult to aim. In those situations, vollies were as likely to hit as wildly inaccurate 'aimed' fire, and could be delivered more quickly because the soldiers weren't wasting time drawing a bead on a target they could only hit by luck anyway.


(The Highlanders were reported to duck when they saw a redcoat line lower thier muskets, which helped reduce losses)Good thinking, that. All those sheep brains must have made them smart, eh?

[Zen Master]

But even at relativistic speeds the ship has plenty of time to make evasive maneuvers.

There are a lot of unspoken assumptions in that.

For instance, it is assumed the incoming has fuel to spare for maneuvers, that it didn't burn it all to reach it's relativistic.

It also assumes that dodging the counter will not make it miss it's target.

It further assumes that the counter is as easily detectable as the incoming. Basically, once on the right trajectory to intercept, the counter has no cause to be traveling fast - it just needs to be there to get hit.

The counter can be a very, very much smaller object than the incoming - since the counter needs to cover only a limited area of space, namely the region of space that contains the target (the planet in this case). Whereas the incoming needs fuel enough to reach relativistic speed and thunder across space.

I'm going to stick with my statement - it's fairly easy to defend a planet. The way to get in an effective attack isn't to rely on fast missiles not being intercepted - it is to swarm the defenses.

I was going to say saturate the region of space with decoys - but then I remembered that a decoy traveling at relativistic speed would by no means be a decoy.

[Storm Bringer]

Good thinking, that. All those sheep brains must have made them smart, eh?

More a set of ethics that ment they didn't see ducking as dishounorable (the period reports i read mentioning this tactic basically said "thier cheating!"). I have a story in my hand of a early sniper form the American war of independance, in which a british officer has no less than three horses shot out form under him and didn't think it was nesscary to move out of range of the sniper No wonder we lost that war.

[Neon Knight]

So, some cannons were made out of bronze. Is there any historical precedent for muskets or rifles made of bronze?

[Storm Bringer]

So, some cannons were made out of bronze. Is there any historical precedent for muskets or rifles made of bronze?

nah.

to my knowledge, the bronze cannons were because they couldn't cast iron barrels of that size without flaws, so they fell back on the bellmaking industry, which had the skills and equipment to make bronze items of that size without leathal flaws. Since they could cast iorn at musket size without worry, they used it as it was much cheaper.

[Neon Knight]

From what I read, it had more to do with the fact that bronze has very little metal-on-metal friction, which made it invaluable for the building of cannons where iron cannonballs would otherwise stick in the barrel.

[Sundog]

Also, Bronze is much easier to clean. Unburned powder and residue build up could be scrubbed away easily from a Bronze tube, but to properly clean an Iron one you would need lots of hot water and cleaning materials, and it would be necessary to do so more often, given Iron's greater propensity for corrosion.

None of which is a problem for land based militaries, but is a DEFINITE problem for ships at sea. Hot water means a fire, something wooden ships avoided like the plague. Salt air makes the corrosion problem even worse. Cleaning solvents are one more thing to be resupplied. Plus, Bronze being lighter, a ship could carry more and bigger guns if they made them from Bronze then if they were made from Iron.

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

I am going to turn 18 soon, and intend to practice my right to bear arms as soon as financially plausible (possibly compete as well). I have a few questions regarding potential purchases.

Can Glock still produce the 24 for special orders? If so, do I just email them for a price check? If not, how hard is one to find on the market? What do they usually run for?

The wikipedia article enlightened me to the wide variety of barrels and recievers for the AR-15, a weapon I was considering buying anyway. How controllable are some of the more powerful rounds in an AR-15 (I assume the .50BMG is just as ridiculous as I think it would be)?

Lastly, is there any hunting application for the .50 Beowulf round?

[Neon Knight]

To rephrase the question in a more relevant way, is Bronze a suitable material to construct weapons using blackpowder out of? Specifically, of small arms size, intended to be carried and used by a single man?

[Hawriel]

The bell makers have always been invalved in making cannons. They are the only peaple who new how to make somthing out of metal that size.

Bronze cannons where used up untill the 12 pound nepolion was made obsolete. Or rather as long as mussle loading cannons where used. Aside from the parote gun, breach loaders had to wait untill steel manufacturing became ecenomical in the late 1800s.

two big reasons why bronze guns where prized over iron. 1) bronze was lighter. 2) as said above the flaws of iron. when an iron cannon criticly failed it exloded. usualy causing the deaths of most if not all of the artillery crew. if it failed on the gundeck of a ship well. thats just bad. When a bronze gun criticly failed it did not expode as badly. The bronze gun pealed back like elmer fuds shotgun in a buggs bunny cartoon. it may cause some deaths but it did not kill all of that particular guns crew nore did it put the whole battery in danger. A battery is 4 to 6 guns. Bronze was used to make the mountan howetser, to a 24 pound naval gun. A mountan howetser is a 200 (250?) pound cannon (waite of cannon not shot) used in rugged turrane. The size of the gun also made it perfect for use by cavalry. The Constitution is still armed with 24 pound cannons. Sorry britts we never did learn the "proper way" of using 18 pound guns.:smallwink: A Parot gun is one of the first attemps at making a breach loading cannon. It was a cast iron cannon the a larged block over the breach made of layers of iron. My college history teacher was a major in the army field artillery, and specialised in the civil war, we learned about artillery.

[Zincorium]

I am going to turn 18 soon, and intend to practice my right to bear arms as soon as financially plausible (possibly compete as well). I have a few questions regarding potential purchases.

Can Glock still produce the 24 for special orders? If so, do I just email them for a price check? If not, how hard is one to find on the market? What do they usually run for?

The wikipedia article enlightened me to the wide variety of barrels and recievers for the AR-15, a weapon I was considering buying anyway. How controllable are some of the more powerful rounds in an AR-15 (I assume the .50BMG is just as ridiculous as I think it would be)?

Lastly, is there any hunting application for the .50 Beowulf round?

As for the Glock, I'm not sure, I'm aware of their status as reliable guns but they simple don't interest me. Most states you have to be 21 (and I'm assuming since you mentioned a right to bear arms you're in the united states) to purchase any sort of handgun so make sure it's something you can get at this point. Of course, the people who designed this law are obviously not familiar with the fact that rifles and shotguns are far more lethal than handguns.

AR-15s, in any caliber, are going to be lighter in recoil than an equivalent bolt or lever action rifle, due to their semiautomatic operation. Once you get past a certain size, muzzle brakes start coming into play.

And the .50 beowulf is a hunting round. With it's very limited amount of rounds in each magazine and smaller range than most rifles with a similiar loadout, it has about 1 military or police use: still hits really, really hard when silenced due to the heavier rounds being innately subsonic.

Unless you're interested in giving another $200 to the goverment and pass a lengthy background check just for the privilege, that's not a concern.

As far as hunting, the beowulf is in the same class as a 45/70, in other words if there are bear or bison in your area you can use it to hunt them. I don't recommend using it against squirrels or rabbits, however, there's nothing left to even prove you hit the target :smallwink: .

[Dervag]

Lastly, is there any hunting application for the .50 Beowulf round?Most of the animals big enough to require such a large round are now endangered species, not least because of such large rounds.


There are a lot of unspoken assumptions in that.You are right. However, those unspoken assumptions were not unconsidered on my part. I didn't state them because I didn't want to make the post even longer, and because some of them struck me as obvious. This was a mistake, but I think the unspoken assumptions I made were valid, for the following reasons:


For instance, it is assumed the incoming has fuel to spare for maneuvers, that it didn't burn it all to reach it's relativistic.If it doesn't have any fuel left to slow down, then it's doomed anyway, remember?

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't even bother to launch one of these warships without the capacity to maneuver in the target star system, and I doubt any competent military planner would either. As you and others have noted they can be intercepted easily if they don't maneuver. If I know it, you can bet that the Space Command of the attacking planet-state knows it, and will make allowances for the ship to maneuver as it approaches the target.


It also assumes that dodging the counter will not make it miss it's target.That would actually be a very counterproductive assumption to make; an undodgeable counter would make the attack suicide.

Assuming that 'not' was a slip of the keyboard such as I have frequently made in similar sentences, then you more likely meant the opposite: that I am assuming that dodging the counter will work. To assume that dodging the counter will make it miss is a fairly good assumption if the counter is a ballistic projectile. It may well not be true assumption if the counter is a maneuvering missile, but even then the counter will have trouble intercepting a target whose movements cannot be tracked in real time.

The only category of projectile that doesn't miss if you dodge it is an exploding projectile, such as the Very Large Wavefront Missiles I proposed earlier. Such a missile would make a good counter to an oncoming starship if you could get it close enough, and I specifically suggested using them for that purpose. However, even such a missile has limits; unless it can maintain lock until it is very close to the target in astronomical terms, the warhead will have scattered the missile debris cloud too widely for it to be an effective weapon.


It further assumes that the counter is as easily detectable as the incoming. Basically, once on the right trajectory to intercept, the counter has no cause to be traveling fast - it just needs to be there to get hit.No such assumption is needed. I can be dodging and weaving almost as well if I have no idea where the counter is. The object of the exercise is not to wait until the enemy fires a countermissile and then dodge it. The object is to be constantly and weaving back and forth at as much acceleration as feasible (1g or a little more if possible), and varying the acceleration to boot, regardless of what, if any, countermissiles the enemy is firing at you. You're not trying to dodge a specific attack; you're trying to make it nearly impossible to line up a long-range shot against your target.

By analogy, an airplane weaving around to avoid flak bursts isn't dodging specific flak shells because it can't see them; a warship zig-zagging to avoid enemy shellfire likewise. Instead, the goal is to make the ship a difficult target. And since any shots taken at the bombardment ship will require very long periods of time in which to reach the target (hours or days), those evasive actions can be very effective.

Of course, there's still a chance that you will get hit by a counter or that your evasive action will bring you into the path of a counter. But that chance is slim. When the defenders take a shot at you, they are faced with the fact that when their shot reaches you, you might be literally anywhere in a large sphere centered on the spot where your current direction, speed, and acceleration are taking you. They can't predict where in that sphere you will be in advance, and unless their missile has a very good guidance package it can't, either.


The counter can be a very, very much smaller object than the incoming - since the counter needs to cover only a limited area of space, namely the region of space that contains the target (the planet in this case).The counter needs to intercept the target before it fires its payload, which means intercepting it well beyond the planet, which requires a considerable boost to get it into position by the time the relativistic probe is detected. However, you're right that it can be smaller and slower than the oncoming ship and therefore harder to see.


More a set of ethics that ment they didn't see ducking as dishounorable (the period reports i read mentioning this tactic basically said "thier cheating!").The honor code in question evolved and survived in part because of the importance in maintaining discipline in the face of the enemy. It's not as simple as "gunpowder-age European officers were stupid."

Infantry fighting with gunpowder weapons won or lost battles on the basis of discipline, assuming that there was not a gross disparity in firepower involved. If both sides had roughly equal numbers of similar weapons, the winner was the one who could stand more vollies of musketry and the greater cannonade.

Rigorously training the soldiers to stand and fight in line, even when they were being pounded by enemy vollies, was the only way to achieve this result. Thus, musketeers did not duck (ignoring the fact that ducking would have disrupted their ability to reload their weapons, making it impossible for them to keep up the fire). If they were told to duck when the enemy was about to shoot, then they would be far more likely to stay ducked and to therefore not be able to keep up fire or defend themselves effectively against melee attackers.


I have a story in my hand of a early sniper form the American war of independance, in which a british officer has no less than three horses shot out form under him and didn't think it was nesscary to move out of range of the sniper No wonder we lost that war.Likewise, British, and other European, regular troop doctrine held that it was essential for officers to openly and aggressively lead their troops. The reasoning was that seeing an officer get shot wasn't as bad for discipline as seeing an officer run away, and in the likely event that the officer did not get shot, his presence would be actively good for discipline.

And this reasoning may well have been right; if it weren't, then it is likely that some European army would have abandoned it and been more successful for that reason.

[Zen Master]

@ Dervag

I basically assumed that my counter was intercepting a relativistic missile - not an attack ship. Hence I didn't assume fuel for a return run, but no matter.

Your incoming is moving forward at a speed near C. My counter is moving only fast enough to get in position in front of your incoming.

You dodge at 1 g, sideways. Your sideways motion, compared to your forward motion, is basically 0. Yes, you will be dodging, but your sideways movement will be so small a fraction of your forward motion that it won't matter.

I'm further aided by the fact that I don't have to hit the speeding bullet with another speeding bullet - my counter will detonate a few moments before collision, and shower your incoming with shrapnel.

[Awetugiw]

You dodge at 1 g, sideways. Your sideways motion, compared to your forward motion, is basically 0. Yes, you will be dodging, but your sideways movement will be so small a fraction of your forward motion that it won't matter.
The ratio sideways movement/forward movement is irrelevant*. Forward movement is the deciding factor for WHEN a collision occurs (and with what energy), sideways movement (or rather: sideways acceleration) is the determining factor for WHETHER a collision occurs.

(*Assuming the defender detects the attacker very long before it arrives. But if they don't the advantage of speed is for the attacker, not the defender.)

Yes, detonation of the intercepting missiles might help. However, there are way too many factors to truly determine who will win: interceptor or missile. Sensor range for both sides, the type of interceptor and missile, does the missile know the defender will try to intercept it?

[Wardog]

The honor code in question evolved and survived in part because of the importance in maintaining discipline in the face of the enemy. It's not as simple as "gunpowder-age European officers were stupid."


True. A lot of the tactics/attitudes in use then, which might seem daft to us now, had good reasons behind them. And many of the times when they failed spectacularly were not so much because they were bad tactics, but because they were bad tactics in that circumstance.

For example, as has already been mentioned, given the inaccuracy of the standard muskets, and the relatively low experience of the troops[1], you needed to have soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder in lines blasting away, to have a chance of hitting anything. And if they spread out to reduce the chance of getting shot themselves, they would be very vulnerable to cavalry attack.

And in such battles, being able to distinguish friend from foe (or even just being able to see your troops) amidst the smoke of battle was far more important than attempting to conceal yourself from the enemy, hence the bright uniforms. For example, at Waterloo, the French collapse was hastened when they mistook a newly-arrived enemy force for friends, and didn't even realise their mistake when they were attacked by them. (Instead they thought they had been betrayed by their allies, which had a worse effect on their moral than simply being attacked by more enemies would have).



That said, while such tactics were very effective in traditional European-style battles in open county, they could be fatally flawed in other terrain/circumstances.

A good example is the Battle of Monongahela River (June 1755). In summary:

Who: British vs French, in North America
Objective: Fort Duquesne, the most important French outpost on the Ohio River
Terrain: thick forest
The British Forces: In overall command, Major-General Edward Braddock, a capable veteran of wars in Europe, with 1450 men under him. Some of these are skilled woodsmen (Colonial Rangers), but mostly recently mustered Virginia Militia (commanded by one Colonel George Washington[2]), well-drilled, but unexperienced in forest warfare.
The French Forces: Not very many[3] regulars and Canadian militia, and 647 Indians, under the command of Captain Lienard de Beaujeu.
The Plan: British march in, and use superior numbers and firepower to crush the French.
What actually happened: French forces take the British by surprise, surround them, and start sniping at them.
The results: Major defeat for the British.
Casualties: At least 977 British/Colonial troops[3], including Braddock, vs. 12 French and 24 Indians.

The long-term consequence of the battle was a major re-think of tactics by the British, to give a much more important role to "light infantry". These were troops chosen for their intelligence and marksmanship skills, were trained to fight in loose formation, and to use their initiative as to whether to stand and shoot or look for cover, with the best marksmen were given rifles. Riflemen were also given dark green uniforms, as an early form of camouflage. (Note: this was a new development for the British, but the French and Germans had been using such principles for some time).

Note however that light infantry did not completely replace the traditional "heavy" infantry (at least not until modern times). Light infantry were less effective in close combat (due to being fewer in numbers and spread out more), and particularly vulnerable to cavalry. Rifles were also a lot slower firing than muskets (about 1 shot per minute or less for rifles, I think, verses 4 or more for muskets). They were also (at first) more fragile and less reliable that muskets, having originally been designed for hunting rather than warfare.

In one particular engagement in the American War of Independence (I'm not sure which one, and I can't find the details), American riflemen ambushed some British Redcoats, from what appeared to be a safe distance (i.e. within rifle range, but too far for muskets). However, the British survived the initial volley (well, those that didn't get hit survived), and before the Americans could reload, the British had time to run it to musket range, unleash a deadly volley of their own, fix bayonets, and charge (and rout) the Americans.


Overall, as tactics developed, it was learnt that the best thing to do was normally to use both types of troops together to compliment each other: riflemen/light infantry for scouting, skirmishing, picking off enemy officers, drummers/signalers, etc, and delay/wear them down before the main engagement, and heavy infantry to deal devastating damage at short range/close combat, drive the enemy from the field, and protect the light infantry from cavalry.


[1] The English/British have only recently (in historical terms; probably since about the time of WWI) been willing to accept the existence of a large standing army. Before that, they would have viewed such an army with great suspicion, seeing it as the potential enforcers of a despotic government. Consequently, the army in peace-time would have been very small, with large numbers only being recruited when war was thought imminent.

[2] Yes, that George Washington.

[3] NB: all this data is taken from "Rifleman" by Philipp Elliot-Wright. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition) gives slightly different numbers for the participants and casualties, and distinguishes between killed and wounded. However, in both cases, the overall result is clear: a small number of French and Indians, using more "modern" tactics, inflict a crushing defeat on a much larger force.

[Awetugiw]

For example, as has already been mentioned, given the inaccuracy of the standard muskets, and the relatively low experience of the troops[1], you needed to have soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder in lines blasting away, to have a chance of hitting anything.
No, they don't! For the amount of hits made, it doesn't matter whether you stand close together or not. N men standing close together, firing in concentrated salvos will have the same amount of hits as N men standing apart and firing at will, as long as they fire the same amount of bullets with the same accuracy.

Don't get me wrong, most of the reasons mentioned for standing together and firing in salvos make sense. However, you do not hit more targets that way.

[Dervag]

You dodge at 1 g, sideways. Your sideways motion, compared to your forward motion, is basically 0. Yes, you will be dodging, but your sideways movement will be so small a fraction of your forward motion that it won't matter.Acceleration doesn't work that way.

It's helpful to look at motion using vectors, which is why physicists normally do. The reasoning goes like this: Imagine that I am coming into a solar system roughly on the ecliptic (the plane that the planets are orbiting in). Now imagine that I 'dodge' a missile by accelerating at 1g along galactic north (at right angles to the ecliptic, as if I were coming in from the west and dodging to the north).

Your counterweapon responds by accelerating at 1g along galactic north.

Now, 1g means that I'm gaining about 10 m/s or 22 mph of speed in the direction I accelerate every second, and so is your countermissile. But since we both started with no speed in that direction (we were moving along a straight line drawn from the planet out into infinite space), we both have the same speed in that direction. It doesn't matter how fast I was moving in some other direction at right angles to my new acceleration. If we've both been accelerating like this for 100 seconds, we will both be moving along galactic north (in the direction of the dodge) at about 1000 m/s or 2200 mph. Now, I will have a huge velocity towards the planet in addition to my sideways velocity, but that doesn't change the fact that we're both moving at 1000 m/s or 2200 mph along galactic north.

As an analogy, imagine that someone drops two bowling balls at the same time from a great height. One is rolled off the edge of a level roof (and so starts out moving straight to the side). The other is simply dropped (and so starts out not moving at all).

Counter to what you might expect, both balls hit the ground at the same time. The speed that the first ball has at right angles to the acceleration of gravity has nothing to do with how fast it goes or how much it accelerates towards the ground.

You can check this in any physics textbook. It's why physicists normally describe motion and forces in terms of vectors, which can talk about motion in one direction and motion in another direction separately, instead of melting them all together into one big uninformative number.

To extend the 'dodging spaceship' thing further, if my incoming spaceship is still, say, the width of the Earth's orbit away when you launch your counter, there is a minimum lag of about 500 seconds imposed by the laws of physics on your reactions to my moves. Light takes 500 seconds to reach you from my ship, which means I can spend 500 seconds building up acceleration in any direction before you can even begin your counterdodge. In that time, my ship can build up considerable speed in any direction (hundreds of miles per hour, or even thousands).

It's like trying to play tennis in a multiplayer game that suffers from huge lag. You can't see where the other player is, only where he was, and you can't predict where the ball is going to be unless you know where the player is at the moment it reaches him.


I'm further aided by the fact that I don't have to hit the speeding bullet with another speeding bullet - my counter will detonate a few moments before collision, and shower your incoming with shrapnel.On the scale of interplanetary combat, a cloud of shrapnel isn't much bigger than a bullet. You still have to aim to within a few kilometers of the target, and that isn't easy.

Unless you use a really big missile (one of the 'Very Large Wavefront Missiles) I describe, which can potentially spread militarily significant shrapnel across hundreds or thousands of kilometers, it doesn't make much difference whether the missile explodes or not.

[Zen Master]

The ratio sideways movement/forward movement is irrelevant*. Forward movement is the deciding factor for WHEN a collision occurs (and with what energy), sideways movement (or rather: sideways acceleration) is the determining factor for WHETHER a collision occurs.

(*Assuming the defender detects the attacker very long before it arrives. But if they don't the advantage of speed is for the attacker, not the defender.)

Yes, detonation of the intercepting missiles might help. However, there are way too many factors to truly determine who will win: interceptor or missile. Sensor range for both sides, the type of interceptor and missile, does the missile know the defender will try to intercept it?

Look, really ....

If it takes you one second to move one meter sideways (you DO need to get up to speed, after all) - and you're moving forward at 300000 kilometers a second, then one second before collision I need to be able to pinpoint where you will be to within ... lets be large here and say 5 meters, and cover that area with shrapnel.

While the missile is still basically at quite an extreme range, I just need to be in the general vicinity, and pop a load of shrapnel. Moving at relativistic speed, your sideways acceleration will make absolutely no difference as to whether you barrel straight through that shrapnel or not.

Of course you might argue that you're going so fast my little cloud of shrapnel hasn't even begun to spread yet - but I still think that in just one second, it would cover quite a decent area, and at quite a decent density too.

Edit:




It's like trying to play tennis in a multiplayer game that suffers from huge lag.

Now, the lag thing I can agree on - it does work both ways though. And while it is significant that you can start dodging you counter and have something of a period of time before the counter can be adjusted for that, there are still to factors that work in favor of the defender:

1) I'm defending a relatively small area of space. I don't have to react to anything that isn't coming this way

2) If a missile does manage to dodge the counter, the counter may still have forced the missile away from the area of space that would have put it in a position to strike it's target - again, the counter wins.

I do agree however that it gets more than a little fuzzy around the edges - too many unknown variables in play.

[Dervag]

Look, really ....

If it takes you one second to move one meter sideways (you DO need to get up to speed, after all) - and you're moving forward at 300000 kilometers a second, then one second before collision I need to be able to pinpoint where you will be to within ... lets be large here and say 5 meters, and cover that area with shrapnel.First of all, the sideways speeds involved are WAY faster than one meter per second.

Second of all, you have to be in position to get close to me one second before impact. If I use my 500-second 'lag' advantage to sidestep several hundred kilometers off to the left (and I can), you're going to run into trouble doing that.

Third of all, if you blow up your missile early enough to cover a large area with shrapnel, either the shrapnel will be diffuse enough that things can pass right through it without being hurt, or it is a very big missile, exactly like the Very Large Wavefront Missiles I've been talking about for the past two or three posts. And if you don't cover a large area you have no guarantee of intercepting the target unless you were able to keep a lock on it for all the minutes, hours, or days that it's been flying at you, which is not easy.

I'm not sure what mental model of this situation you're using, which makes it hard for me to explain what I'm talking about. Some of what you've been saying suggests that you are not applying the rules of Newtonian physics, without which it is not possible to have an informed discussion on the behavior of objects moving at great speeds in space. I'm not saying you don't know these rules, but I can't tell if you're applying them or not.

You can't just assume that your interceptor will be in the right general position unless you're talking about intercepting the individual relativistic shots, not the ships. And the shots are much smaller targets than the ships- comparable in size to your countermissiles and therefore just as hard to see.


While the missile is still basically at quite an extreme range, I just need to be in the general vicinity, and pop a load of shrapnel. Moving at relativistic speed, your sideways acceleration will make absolutely no difference as to whether you barrel straight through that shrapnel or not.Yes, it will. Sideways acceleration can stop you from killing my ships with countermissiles before they fire. Once I have fired, I can launch lots of ballistic cannonballs, more than you have interceptors (since interceptors have to be able to accelerate and cannonballs don't). Or I can launch maneuvering missiles that do crazy zig-zags and corkscrews about their base trajectory, forcing you to try to outguess them if you want an interception. Which is not easy.


Of course you might argue that you're going so fast my little cloud of shrapnel hasn't even begun to spread yet - but I still think that in just one second, it would cover quite a decent area, and at quite a decent density too.Again, that misinterprets what I'm getting at. My point is that you can't line up one of these interceptor shots far in advance (while the incoming ship or cannonball or missile is still hours or days away). Even if you can detect them, they can easily zig-zag and corkscrew around enough to throw off your interceptors.

And if you have to wait until the ship or cannonball or missile is close, then you can't count on stopping everything. So this defense is seriously flawed unless you have many, interceptors to task on each incoming projectile. It will help. You're better off doing it than not doing it. But it doesn't make a relativistic attack by bombardment ships easy to shrug off.


Now, the lag thing I can agree on - it does work both ways though.I can't hit any target of yours that maneuvers, of course. But the point is that all or nearly all of my attacking ships and the missiles they fire can be maneuvering and therefore difficult to hit, while many of the things in your solar system that I would want to blow up are likely not maneuvering, unless you specifically designed all your space stations and satellites and such to counter this kind of attack. Even then, you can't move the planet or the area around it, making it a good target for Very Large Wavefront missiles.

Lag works for the attacker more than the defender because they have asymmetrical objectives. All the attacker needs to do is to slip by your interceptor screen


1) I'm defending a relatively small area of space. I don't have to react to anything that isn't coming this wayRelatively small, yes. Small, no. At the least, you have to make sure that my missiles don't come near the planet, assuming you have no high value targets far from the planet. That's a very large area to cover, millions of square kilometers. If you cover it in close, then you run into trouble because fragments of my attacking missiles can still smash your installations. If you cover it far out you have to cover a much larger area, because the set of dodges my ships or missiles can use and still come back on target in time to score hits increases dramatically.

[Storm Bringer]

It's like trying to play tennis in a multiplayer game that suffers from huge lag. You can't see where the other player is, only where he was, and you can't predict where the ball is going to be unless you know where the player is at the moment it reaches him.

actaully a better analogy would be a Goalkeeper in Football (Soccer, if you insist on being american): you have a defendable area, which, compared to the play area, is rather small and can only be attacked form certian angles.

You have a object moving at, for arguements sake, as close to light speed as makes no difference. Now, since we're reduced to the 'massive run up' methord of acelleration, this attack is, on the whole, going to come form what is bascisally a straight line into the system form the attackers system (unless he is goning to spend a few years flanking it). Thus, you attack is coming form a known direction at a known target. We don't have to actaully hit the incoming object, just force it onto a unfavourable angle. Now, by forcing a dodge manuver form it we are already doing that, since any change in it's coruse is going to make it miss the target without corrections.

the trick would be either make the interception at such a range where the attacker must either take the hit or miss the target, or force the attack via repeated counters to stay of coruse.

[Dervag]

actaully a better analogy would be a Goalkeeper in Football (Soccer, if you insist on being american):I have to call it soccer. I'm already using the metric system because I've got my physicist hat on; if I start calling it 'soccer' my nationality-identifying vocabulary goes out the window!:smalleek:


you have a defendable area, which, compared to the play area, is rather small and can only be attacked form certian angles.

You have a object moving at, for arguements sake, as close to light speed as makes no difference. Now, since we're reduced to the 'massive run up' methord of acelleration, this attack is, on the whole, going to come form what is bascisally a straight line into the system form the attackers system (unless he is goning to spend a few years flanking it). Thus, you attack is coming form a known direction at a known target.The problem is that the direction is not known precisely, because the attacker can easily wiggle side to side by many thousands of kilometers and still hit you. You may know the angle of attack to within a few minutes of arc, but a few minutes of arc is a very large area when the area in question is a million kilometers away. If my bombardment ship is firing purely ballistic cannonballs using a rail gun, it can wiggle side to side and fire shells; if it is firing missiles it can both wiggle on its own and the missiles can wiggle.

So if you want to use the goalie metaphor, you must remember that the 'goal' is very wide indeed (thousands of kilometers), and the potential area through which enemy shots can pass is many millions of square kilometers of space.

Even with a laser-guided, nuclear-tipped headbutter, you're going to have trouble stopping all the soccer balls coming into a goal that big.


We don't have to actaully hit the incoming object, just force it onto a unfavourable angle. Now, by forcing a dodge manuver form it we are already doing that, since any change in it's coruse is going to make it miss the target without corrections.If it can make the dodge, it can make the correction. Again, this entire plan of evasive maneuvers centers on the ability to make course adjustments throughout the course of the ship or missile.

Ballistic projectiles such as cannonballs obviously can't maneuver like this. But you won't easily be able to tell when I've fired cannonballs at you, which means that you don't know where they're coming from until they are close enough to be detected by the scattering of interplanetary hydrogen off them. Which isn't going to happen until they're very close, because there's no reason for the cannonball in question to be particularly visible- a bar of iron would do nicely, and its narrow cross-section would mean that very little relativistic scattering would be coming off of it.


the trick would be either make the interception at such a range where the attacker must either take the hit or miss the target, or force the attack via repeated counters to stay of coruse.You'd need a lot of counters, or a very, very good system for guessing what maneuvers the targets were making. I'm sure you'd get some or force some off course this way, but you'd have a hard time getting many unless you had many times more counters than I had projectiles.

Which isn't a particularly fair assumption in the case of military parity- one counter is no easier to assemble than one bombardment weapon, and probably harder if the weapon in question is a cannonball.

[Zen Master]

I have to call it soccer. I'm already using the metric system because I've got my physicist hat on; if I start calling it 'soccer' my nationality-identifying vocabulary goes out the window!:smalleek:

The problem is that the direction is not known precisely, because the attacker can easily wiggle side to side by many thousands of kilometers and still hit you. You may know the angle of attack to within a few minutes of arc, but a few minutes of arc is a very large area when the area in question is a million kilometers away. If my bombardment ship is firing purely ballistic cannonballs using a rail gun, it can wiggle side to side and fire shells; if it is firing missiles it can both wiggle on its own and the missiles can wiggle.

So if you want to use the goalie metaphor, you must remember that the 'goal' is very wide indeed (thousands of kilometers), and the potential area through which enemy shots can pass is many millions of square kilometers of space.

Even with a laser-guided, nuclear-tipped headbutter, you're going to have trouble stopping all the soccer balls coming into a goal that big.

If it can make the dodge, it can make the correction. Again, this entire plan of evasive maneuvers centers on the ability to make course adjustments throughout the course of the ship or missile.

Ballistic projectiles such as cannonballs obviously can't maneuver like this. But you won't easily be able to tell when I've fired cannonballs at you, which means that you don't know where they're coming from until they are close enough to be detected by the scattering of interplanetary hydrogen off them. Which isn't going to happen until they're very close, because there's no reason for the cannonball in question to be particularly visible- a bar of iron would do nicely, and its narrow cross-section would mean that very little relativistic scattering would be coming off of it.

You'd need a lot of counters, or a very, very good system for guessing what maneuvers the targets were making. I'm sure you'd get some or force some off course this way, but you'd have a hard time getting many unless you had many times more counters than I had projectiles.

Which isn't a particularly fair assumption in the case of military parity- one counter is no easier to assemble than one bombardment weapon, and probably harder if the weapon in question is a cannonball.

For any given target you may want to attack - any single target - all attacks you make will come from a certain direction. Not as narrow as all that, but still for each target there will only be a cone shaped area from which your attack can come.

A few thousand miles to any side will not change that - and if I can reasonably guess your maximum acceleration for maneuvering purposes, I can say pretty precisely what attacks I need to intercept, and which attacks will miss.

Further more, I'd have to say that part of the difficulty in assaulting a planet is that yes, it is VERY reasonable to assume that the defenders will have very, very much greater stockpiles - you see, from them not having to haul everything across the interstellar gulf?

Also, remember that wholesale bombardment of the planet itself is not an option. We are trying to conquer a working, habitable planet with a reasonably intact workforce and infrastructure here. Not a barren lump of rock we want simply out of spite.

[Dervag]

For any given target you may want to attack - any single target - all attacks you make will come from a certain direction. Not as narrow as all that, but still for each target there will only be a cone shaped area from which your attack can come.OK, granted. The problem comes when you actually try to intercept things. When you launch your interceptor, you still have to outguess whatever evasive course I'm taking, and if I do something unexpected (like pull a few extra tenths of a gee of missile acceleration out of my hat that I'd been concealing for just such an emergency), a lot of your interceptors will miss their mark.


Further more, I'd have to say that part of the difficulty in assaulting a planet is that yes, it is VERY reasonable to assume that the defenders will have very, very much greater stockpiles - you see, from them not having to haul everything across the interstellar gulf?You're right if we only talk about 'missiles'- objects that can maneuver independently. But I can use a 'cannonball' as a bombardment weapon. You can't use cannonballs as interceptors because a cannonball is almost certain to miss the target if it has any chance of dodging at all. Maybe you could use cannonballs to intercept my cannonballs, but only if you can see them from a long way away- not guaranteed.

It's not unreasonable to assume that I can afford to pack more crowbar-sized pieces of iron aboard my starship than you can afford to have missiles.


Also, remember that wholesale bombardment of the planet itself is not an option. We are trying to conquer a working, habitable planet with a reasonably intact workforce and infrastructure here. Not a barren lump of rock we want simply out of spite.Well, you don't have to slam the planet with kinetic energy weapons in this battle plan. You can use Very Large Wavefront missiles, for instance. Which won't destroy the planet, or the civilization on it, though they may cause some ecological problems. And you can use kinetic weapons to target anything that doesn't lie on the line connecting the direction of your attack and the planet (such as most of the geosynchronous orbit).

For that matter, the attack doesn't have to come from a direct line between the attacker's star and the defender's star. In theory you can generate a noticeable 'scissors' effect by using a small fraction of the delta-v required to accelerate the ships perpendicular to that line. You'll make a significant sacrifice in terms of trip time, but it can be done if you aren't really short on fuel. And if you don't have ships that can go from your star to the enemy star with a substantial fuel reserve left over, then there's really no point in trying any kind of an attack in the first place. Which may be true, but which I don't think was part of the assumed conditions.

[Wardog]

No, they don't! For the amount of hits made, it doesn't matter whether you stand close together or not. N men standing close together, firing in concentrated salvos will have the same amount of hits as N men standing apart and firing at will, as long as they fire the same amount of bullets with the same accuracy.

Don't get me wrong, most of the reasons mentioned for standing together and firing in salvos make sense. However, you do not hit more targets that way.

Point taken.

I was thinking in terms of standing shoulder-to-shoulder allowing you to get more men into the same space, and hence get more shots per line length. But now I think about it, there would be no real reason (except in confined spaces, which I wasn't thinking of anyway) that they couldn't spread out some what.

Although if they spread out a lot, then they might get problems due to the advancing enemy moving at an angle to their line of fire, rather than straight towards them, thereby making it harder to aim.

[Dervag]

Point taken.

I was thinking in terms of standing shoulder-to-shoulder allowing you to get more men into the same space, and hence get more shots per line length. But now I think about it, there would be no real reason (except in confined spaces, which I wasn't thinking of anyway) that they couldn't spread out some what.Actually, packing as many guns as possible into a small frontage is probably one of the reasons gunpowder troops fought in formations. In a large battle with thousands of soldiers, the men at one end of the field are not in musket range of the other end of the field. Therefore, spreading out your line to cover more width can actually put you at a disadvantage, because it allows a more densely packed force to get local superiority over the part of the line actually facing it.


Although if they spread out a lot, then they might get problems due to the advancing enemy moving at an angle to their line of fire, rather than straight towards them, thereby making it harder to aim.You don't aim in musket battles, remember? You point, and you shoot. Aiming is pointless because the bullet may well go a degree or two off from where you fired it anyway.

[Mike_G]

Close formations did not give more accurate fire, but allowed better control of volleys. Dispersed troops will fire at their own ppace at targets of opportunity. Formed troops will fire on targets they are directe to, and will fire together, producing more psychologicla "punch" to a target unit (although not more casualties, statistically) and most important, they will be a formed unit when it's bayonet time.

A charge on a dispersed unit will have a huge advantage in melee, whereas a formed unit can more easily hold off a charge. Horses won't charge straight into a solid line of men with leveled bayonets, and infantrym while being human and dumb enough to charge leveled steel points, will not be able to push through a formed unit and surround and wipe them out, as they would a dispersed unit.

Dispersed troops do better at hitting more bad guys with ranged fire. Formed troops do much, much, much better in close combat. The assumption with a formed unti was a few volleys to soften the target for a charge, or to break up and disrupt an enemy charge, then use the bayonet to decide the issue. For a static shoot it out fight, dispersed shooters will always beat formed troops, as many colonial battles have shown. Formed troops lose (or have to fall back) when they can't close and destroy the enemy.

[Fhaolan]

Basicially you have to remember the insane reload times to these guns. You will likely only get one, maybe two, shots off before the cavalry hits you.

If both sides just have guns and sit there shooting at each other for hours, formation volley tactics are pretty pointless and self-defeating. Which is what the generals discovered as reload times became short enough for an individual gunman to be able to put multiple shots down-range very quickly.

Once you remember that these long-reload-time musketeers were on a battlefield at the same time as regular (non-gun) infantry, pike formations, calvalry and the like, everything changes. An individual musketeer, once he's shot his round, is effectively defenceless against all the primary-melee soldiers running around with halberds, pikes, and whatever, unless he's *exceptionally* good at using a bayonette (which in effect is an awkward, short spear). Put that individual musketeer in a formation, and the awkwardness of that short spear becomes far less important.

[Dervag]

I think it's just "bayonet." Is "bayonette" the original French usage?

"Bayonet" is not a diminutive; it's a name that reflects the weapon's origin (the town of Bayonne).

[Mike_G]

Basicially you have to remember the insane reload times to these guns. You will likely only get one, maybe two, shots off before the cavalry hits you.

If both sides just have guns and sit there shooting at each other for hours, formation volley tactics are pretty pointless and self-defeating. Which is what the generals discovered as reload times became short enough for an individual gunman to be able to put multiple shots down-range very quickly.

Once you remember that these long-reload-time musketeers were on a battlefield at the same time as regular (non-gun) infantry, pike formations, calvalry and the like, everything changes. An individual musketeer, once he's shot his round, is effectively defenceless against all the primary-melee soldiers running around with halberds, pikes, and whatever, unless he's *exceptionally* good at using a bayonette (which in effect is an awkward, short spear). Put that individual musketeer in a formation, and the awkwardness of that short spear becomes far less important.

The bayonet is far more than a short spear. It's a spear, a glaive (assuming you have a sword bayonet, not the stupid pig sticker spike), a staff and with the butt, particularly the toe of the weapon, a deadly crushing weapon. If your thrust is deflected, you can easily continue your same motion and whip the toe of the stock around like an elbow strike to the enemy. The weight of the weapon makes it easier to block with and harder to parry than a plain old spear.

Yes, you lose to the pike on reach, but don't discount the efficacy of the bayonet. Until breechloaders became common, it was the deciding weapon of the musketeer. Wellingtons troops fired their volley at the French columns and disrupted them, but it was the bayonet charge that finished the Old Guard, and the bayonet pushed the American militia off Bunker Hill and ended the sword and targe armed Highlanders charge at Culloden.

I love the bayonet. Watch Israeli Krav Maga training with the rifle, and see how a bayoneted weapon would be used in actual combat.

[Fhaolan]

I'm not entirely sure where I got the word 'bayonette' from. :smallbiggrin: I think I was just typing too fast.

I've worked with matchlock muskets that were supposedly historically accurate (I'm not a gun expert, so I'm not 100% sure of that), with plug-type short-blade bayonets. I can honestly say that was a very awkward weapon. Of course, I was handed the biggest, heaviest gun the group had access to, and it was supposed to be what was in the typical range of armanent for a Trained Band (civilian militia), so it is probably not typical for what the proper soldier would have had.

[Wardog]

You don't aim in musket battles, remember? You point, and you shoot. Aiming is pointless because the bullet may well go a degree or two off from where you fired it anyway.

Yes, but the gun still has to be pointing at someone in order to hit them, even if the shooter is only "aiming" at a big mass of enemies. Think about two armies facing each other, A and B. A advances towards B, like this:


AAAA



BBBB



All B has to do is point his musket straight forwards and fire, and he should hit someone in army A.


But if B spreads out, like this:

AAAA


B____B____B____B

The soldiers at the ends of the line will be shooting across the direction of movement of A. Which means they will have to actually lead the target (aim at the point the enemy will be when their bullet gets there). Which will of course be much harder to do.

[Storm Bringer]

It must be pointed out that very few bayonet charges actaully connected. Most times the enemy routed at the sight of the incoming men with bayonets fixed. It wasn't the 'deciding weapon of the musketeer'. What stopped the Imperial guard at waterloo? Muskets and cannister. the counter chrage just pushed them over the edge and started the rout, they'd already lost their momentum at that point. I could point to any of a hundred battles of that period, and find a similar result: the bayonets charge was a tactic used on a foe already beaten by fire. most never connected.

[Dervag]

I've worked with matchlock muskets that were supposedly historically accurate (I'm not a gun expert, so I'm not 100% sure of that), with plug-type short-blade bayonets. I can honestly say that was a very awkward weapon. Of course, I was handed the biggest, heaviest gun the group had access to, and it was supposed to be what was in the typical range of armanent for a Trained Band (civilian militia), so it is probably not typical for what the proper soldier would have had.Of course, you used the crudest and least effective bayonet possible (well, second-least); and I suspect that nobody did a very thorough job of drilling you in its use.

Infantry with bayonet-tipped muskets could be very effective in close combat- ask the Scotch Highlanders at Culloden.


Yes, but the gun still has to be pointing at someone in order to hit them, even if the shooter is only "aiming" at a big mass of enemies.If you fail to compensate for target motion, the bullet will miss whatever you pointed at. However, the target is moving slowly (no more than a few meters per second), while the bullet is moving quickly (at least a few hundred meters per second). The error in aiming will still only be about a degree or less, which is less than the intrinsic inaccuracy of the musket and too little to stop most of your gunmen from hitting the target.

The problem here is not forcing men to compensate for target motion; that only matters when the target is fast or when there is a specific single target who is not surrounded by other targets that are equally 'good.' The standard of marksmanship here is 'broad side of a barn', because putting a bullet through any point in the formation and hoping there happens to be an enemy soldier there is the best you can possibly hope to do with the weapons you have available.

The problem is that with the extended line you drew above, the 'B' soldiers on the right end of the line are most likely not in range of the enemy. Their musketry will be wildly inaccurate no matter what, because they are firing from a much greater distance than the 'B' soldiers on the left.

Therefore, four 'A' soldiers will be able to concentrate fire on at most two 'B' soldiers. A quick application of the Lanchester Square Law indicates that these two will be defeated handily and with relatively low lossses for 'A', at which point they can then destroy the other half of your extended skirmish line.

[Matthew]

Once again, I rolled a 1 on my Cross Bow knowledge (I should remember to 'take 10'). Can anybody provide examples of historical Cross Bows, preferably with weight, length, pull, shooting rate and information about ammunition? I'm not looking for perfectly accurate information so much as general guidelines on the subject.


For comparison, below is what I consider to be general information with regard to Bows, please feel free to correct me:

From what I understand, staves can range in length from 3-6' (or more), weigh something of the order of 2-5 lbs and have a draw weight of 30-180 lbs (or more). Arrow weight apparently ranges from 300 to about 600 Grains (7,000 Grains = 1 Pound) and up to around 3' in length.

The maximum range of the most powerful Bows is often touted at something like 600 yards (1,800 Feet or about 1/3 of a Mile), but consistant effective range seems to be no greater than about 100 yards.

One thing I read was that Arrows are weighted appropriate to draw weight to something of the order of 6-9 Grains per lb of draw weight. This suggests that Bows with very heavy draw weights might have Arrows that weigh 1,200 Grains or more.

[Ruerl]

The bayonet is far more than a short spear. It's a spear, a glaive (assuming you have a sword bayonet, not the stupid pig sticker spike), a staff and with the butt, particularly the toe of the weapon, a deadly crushing weapon. If your thrust is deflected, you can easily continue your same motion and whip the toe of the stock around like an elbow strike to the enemy. The weight of the weapon makes it easier to block with and harder to parry than a plain old spear.

Yes, you lose to the pike on reach, but don't discount the efficacy of the bayonet. Until breechloaders became common, it was the deciding weapon of the musketeer. Wellingtons troops fired their volley at the French columns and disrupted them, but it was the bayonet charge that finished the Old Guard, and the bayonet pushed the American militia off Bunker Hill and ended the sword and targe armed Highlanders charge at Culloden.

I love the bayonet. Watch Israeli Krav Maga training with the rifle, and see how a bayoneted weapon would be used in actual combat.

Not to diminish the efficiency of the bajonette, but the spear does make an excellent parrying weapon as well and is probably quite a bit better suited for it than a gun, and then we add such things as reach into the calculation and well... the bajonette is a great weapon if you fight others with similair armament I presume, but against a pike formation or even a formation with short spears i'd definitly pray for breechloaders.

[Mike_G]

Not to diminish the efficiency of the bajonette, but the spear does make an excellent parrying weapon as well and is probably quite a bit better suited for it than a gun, and then we add such things as reach into the calculation and well... the bajonette is a great weapon if you fight others with similair armament I presume, but against a pike formation or even a formation with short spears i'd definitly pray for breechloaders.


Actually, the Zulu, no slouches at hand to hand, praised the British bayonet and considered it a deadly weapon.

The bayonet is much maligned, and quite unfairly. Throughout the black powder period, it was not a weapon if last resort, but a vital part of the musketeers repetoire. The musket was only good for slow vollies at close range, against a charge, you would be expected to get off two or three shots, - maybe, certainly not more than one against a cavalry charge - from the time the enemy entered maximum range to the time they closed it, then defend yourself with the bayonet. Troops were regularly drilled with the weapon, and the drill was modified as new challenges arose, like the "aim at the guy to your right, not the guy in front of you," tactic against the Highlanders to avoid their shields.

@ Fhaoalan: The matchlock musket is unwieldy, and yes, it would have been an awkward melee weapon. Try a Brown Bess or a Lee Enfield with a bayonet and see just how nicely it moves.

@ Storm Bringer: The bayonet is the knockout punch, which is why I described it as the deciding weapon. A unit can be very shot up and still function, a unit broken by a bayonet charge is all done. Musketry tends to kill more enemy, but it doesn't destroy units. Before repeating rifles, most battles were decided by contact, or the threat of contact chasing away the enemy, which is just as good.

Musketry was "softening up," the bayonet was the weapon that won the battle. Look at Bunker Hill. The Americans, relying on fire, including some real rifles, from a defended position, killed a lot of Redcoats, but were chased off the field when the Brits got into bayonet range. Most American casualties in that battle were from bayonet wounds. If you want to kill a few enemy soldiers, by all means, snipe at them, if you want to push him off his position and take and hold ground, force him to decide between retreat and annihilation, then you need at least the threat of the bayonet.

[Storm Bringer]

Once again, I rolled a 1 on my Cross Bow knowledge (I should remember to 'take 10'). Can anybody provide examples of historical Cross Bows, preferably with weight, length, pull, shooting rate and information about ammunition? I'm not looking for perfectly accurate information so much as general guidelines on the subject.


well, the example in the book i have here is listed as being 71cm long by 66cm wide (28 inch by 26 in imperial), weighing a tab under 3kg (6.5lbs).

The text says this partcular model (made around 1500) has a draw strenght beyound an unaided human, and was recocked using a mechanical winch to pull back the string, giving an effective rate of fire of that varied between 1-3rpm depending on the system in question (i've seen both figures advanced as how fast winch systems could fire, so i'm giving both). the text doesn't give an actual draw strenght, but I will google it soon.

Crossbow bolts are apprantly thicker than arrows, shorter, and used a simmilar range of heads. Range for a crossbow is roughly similar to a longbow for the most powerful models.

A note on useage: In several armies the more powerful crossbows were worked by teams of two or three men: a gunner and several loaders who kept the gunner suppiled with fresh crossbows, all behind a Pavise (tower shield). This system managed to get rates of fire up to 8rpm.

is their anything else you'd like to know?

[Winterking]

A few more reasons for the use of massed musket formations, as opposed to skirmish lines:

As others posted, a concentrated body of troops was more effective in melee and at short range, being able to concentrate fire. A concentrated unit was also more effective against cavalry, and since most European battlefields lacked the sort of extensive cover found in the Americas, there were limited hiding places.

A concentrated body of troops, whether ranged or not, is easier to control. This should not be underestimated, especially when you consider the armies that fought with muskets. When you can only communicate by messengers, signal flags, and music (which can be killed, obscured, or drowned out in the course of a noisy, smoke-filled battle), it is difficult enough to convey orders to a solid block of troops, much less a skirmishing band dispersed throughout a few acres of woodland. Additionally, skirmishers are more susceptible to sudden flight. All on their own, effecitively, a threatened musketeer could decide to run, leading others to follow after, and causing the line to collapse. While this was, of course, possible in close order formations, the greater concentration of soldiers made it difficult, and NCOs had a better chance to hold their troops together. Plus, of course, there's the morale boost that comes from being surrounded by lots of friends.

Finally, a concentrated body of troops is able to deal sudden and decisive blows to other bodies of troops, concentrated or not. Skirmishers can't really equal the sudden force of a concentrated column attack or concentrated firepower. Mass formations, then, could be used as hammers, to win battles outright, rather than through days of sniping. Skirmishing, like guerilla warfare, cannot really win battles--the best it can do is make the enemy lose, which is another thing entirely.
In an age where military campaigns were a serious drain on a kingdom's treasury, and where the campaigning season was limited to late spring, summer, and early fall, protracted, irregular conflicts would bankrupt the participants. Generals wanted decisive battles, which would swiftly end the campaign or the war, and skirmishing couldn't do that for either side.


Of course, in cases where the terrain was dense, wooded, or otherwise irregular, and at least one side knew the land well, skirmishing was far more effective than mass formation battle. Likewise, once firearms became dangerous enough at a long enough range, open order fighting became the general rule.

[Dervag]

@ Storm Bringer: The bayonet is the knockout punch, which is why I described it as the deciding weapon. A unit can be very shot up and still function, a unit broken by a bayonet charge is all done. Musketry tends to kill more enemy, but it doesn't destroy units. Before repeating rifles, most battles were decided by contact, or the threat of contact chasing away the enemy, which is just as good.Of course, a badly timed bayonet charge was worse than none at all, as illustrated by Bunker Hill...


Musketry was "softening up," the bayonet was the weapon that won the battle. Look at Bunker Hill. The Americans, relying on fire, including some real rifles, from a defended position, killed a lot of Redcoats, but were chased off the field when the Brits got into bayonet range. Most American casualties in that battle were from bayonet wounds.where the British were only able to dislodge the Americans troops after charging the hill three times, suffering a combined total of 40% casualties to the attacking troops.

The real reason the third bayonet charge succeeded was not because the Americans panicked, but because they ran out of ammunition. If they had possessed either an adequate supply of powder and shot or bayonets of their own, the British would likely have failed entirely.

[Mike_G]

The problem here is not forcing men to compensate for target motion; that only matters when the target is fast or when there is a specific single target who is not surrounded by other targets that are equally 'good.' The standard of marksmanship here is 'broad side of a barn', because putting a bullet through any point in the formation and hoping there happens to be an enemy soldier there is the best you can possibly hope to do with the weapons you have available.

The problem is that with the extended line you drew above, the 'B' soldiers on the right end of the line are most likely not in range of the enemy. Their musketry will be wildly inaccurate no matter what, because they are firing from a much greater distance than the 'B' soldiers on the left.

Therefore, four 'A' soldiers will be able to concentrate fire on at most two 'B' soldiers. A quick application of the Lanchester Square Law indicates that these two will be defeated handily and with relatively low lossses for 'A', at which point they can then destroy the other half of your extended skirmish line.

Except that the "B" soldiers, even if they miss the "A" soldier they're aiming at, will have a reasonable chance to hit the guy standing next to him, where a near miss on a B soldier will sail harmlessly through the gap. Artillery amplifies this problem.

Units would often deploy in "skirmish order" for extended firefights, spreading out 5 yards or so between soldiers. This greatly reduces casualties from musketry or artillery, and volley fire doesn't really hit any more targets than independent fire. It has a greater psychological effect.

As stated above, however, open order weakens the units ability to fight in melee, or to rapidly change tactics, and makes it harder to control.

If the above units stood off at 100 yards and shot it out for ten minutes, unit B would probably inflict more casualties. If unit A charged, they likely wipe out unit B.

[Winterking]

Except that the "B" soldiers, even if they miss they A soldier they're aiming at, will have a reasonable chance to hit the guy standing next to him, where a near miss on a B soldier will sail harmlessly through the gap. Artillery amplifies this problem.

Units would often deploy in "skirmish order" for extended firefights, spreading out 5 yards or so between soldiers. This greatly reduces casualties from musketry or artillery, and volley fire doesn't really hit any more targets than independent fire. It has a greater psychological effect.

As stated above, however, open order weakens the units ability to fight in melee, or to rapidly change tactics, and makes it harder to control.

If the above units stood off at 100 yards and shot it out for ten minutes, unit B would probably inflict more casualties. If unit A charged, they likely wipe out unit B.


That's not exactly true. If the units were standing off at 100 yards, and each soldier had, say, a 25% chance to hit what he was aiming at, B1 would be dead at the first volley, leaving 4 against 3. And that impacts morale: remember, 3 of B just saw their leftmost member killed by a thundering volley.
The concentration of 3-4 shots against one target would give A's volleys increased effectiveness. A's volleys also would be aimed at each of B in turn, coordinated by whoever was in charge--no chance of everyone aiming at the wrong guy. If B had cover, or B consisted of better shots, or we were talking some weapon more accurate than the smoothbore musket/matchlock musket/arquebus, matters would be different.

Artillery, of course, screws with all of this. But so does cavalry, machine guns, and the Atom Bomb. But we're just talking muskets.

[Mike_G]

That's not exactly true. If the units were standing off at 100 yards, and each soldier had, say, a 25% chance to hit what he was aiming at, B1 would be dead at the first volley, leaving 4 against 3. And that impacts morale: remember, 3 of B just saw their leftmost member killed by a thundering volley.


But they don't have a 25% chance to hit. A test was done at 80 yards, with rifled muskets, against a line of man sized targets in close order. In range conditions, with a dry day and no fear or confusion for the troops, about 30% hit somewhere on the target.

Now, smoothbore muskets will lower that percentage. The adrenaline of combat will lower it, and aiming at dispersed troops will lower it.

The majority of shots fired by either side will miss the individual target. The misses from side A will sail on through the 15 foot gap between soldiers in B's line. The misses from side B will possibly hit the man standing right next to their intended target.

This is like shooting at a telephone pole at 100 yard versus shooting at a stockade fence. Easy to miss the one pole, hard to miss the whole fence.

[Dervag]

That's not exactly true. If the units were standing off at 100 yards, and each soldier had, say, a 25% chance to hit what he was aiming at, B1 would be dead at the first volley, leaving 4 against 3. And that impacts morale: remember, 3 of B just saw their leftmost member killed by a thundering volley.If all members of B are in range of all members of A, B actually has the same chance of killing a member of A as A does of B.

My theory is simply that the increased dispersion of the skirmish line makes it less capable of concentrating fire onto a target for large formations, longer than the semi-accurate range of a musket.


The majority of shots fired by either side will miss the individual target. The misses from side A will sail on through the 15 foot gap between soldiers in B's line. The misses from side B will possibly hit the man standing right next to their intended target.

This is like shooting at a telephone pole at 100 yard versus shooting at a stockade fence. Easy to miss the one pole, hard to miss the whole fence.Well, a lot of the shots are probably going over or under the entire line, but of the shots with the correct elevation the percentages are still going to reflect your argument quite well.

[Joran]

But they don't have a 25% chance to hit. A test was done at 80 yards, with rifled muskets, against a line of man sized targets in close order. In range conditions, with a dry day and no fear or confusion for the troops, about 30% hit somewhere on the target.

Was this with a group of musketmen?

Lawrence Babits, author of A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens fired a reproduction Brown Bess and managed to hit a man-sized target at 75 yards with 5 out of 6 shots.

Of course, the troops of that era didn't have much target practice, but they did load their muskets with buck and ball, a musketball and 4-5 additional smaller balls, to improve their firepower.

[Threeshades]

Hi i have two questions:
First: Does a katana really require any special training for effectively wielding it one handed? As you know in DnD terms a katana is basically treated as a bastard sword. But the bastard sword got its exotic weapon rules are explained with it being too heavy/large to wield in one hand effectively. Though I have heard that a katana is actually lighter than a european type long sword would be (or broad sword, as those also count as long swords in dnd) and i have actually held a katana myself and it seemed easy to hold one handed to me.
Now Im not an expert at swordplay or trained at it at all, but i would have thought a trained swordfighter should have no problems with using a katana in one hand. Plus the light weight of the katana makes it actually less effective in a downward strike from above (compared toa european type sword of approximately the same size) since it doesnt get the additional power from the weight. So I thought wouldn't it make much more sense to classify a katana as longsword in dnd (maybe a longsword that can be wielded two handed, since it still does have a hilt suitable for two hands)?

Second:
What exactly is a Zanbato? Wikipedia told me about an exceptionally large japanese sword, that was actually to large to be wielded in a field battle, which is why it was never used. And that its been only made by swordsmiths to prove their talent.
Then we have these ridiculously large swords as Cloud from final fantasy uses. did anything like that actually even exist?
I seriously doubt it while some people i know claim that there are at least very similar weapons that are real. Basically they described a sword with an extremely borad single edged blade and a hilt thats long enough for at least 4 hands that has the basic shape of clouds gunblade. Also they claimed that one weapon they described to be a zanbato.

[Matthew]

Hi i have two questions:
First: Does a katana really require any special training for effectively wielding it one handed? As you know in DnD terms a katana is basically treated as a bastard sword. But the bastard sword got its exotic weapon rules are explained with it being too heavy/large to wield in one hand effectively. Though I have heard that a katana is actually lighter than a european type long sword would be (or broad sword, as those also count as long swords in dnd) and i have actually held a katana myself and it seemed easy to hold one handed to me.
Now Im not an expert at swordplay or trained at it at all, but i would have thought a trained swordfighter should have no problems with using a katana in one hand. Plus the light weight of the katana makes it actually less effective in a downward strike from above (compared toa european type sword of approximately the same size) since it doesnt get the additional power from the weight. So I thought wouldn't it make much more sense to classify a katana as longsword in dnd (maybe a longsword that can be wielded two handed, since it still does have a hilt suitable for two hands)?

Hello Threeshades.

A Katana is a Two Handed Sword. What this means is that it was designed primarily for use in two hands, having a very long grip and balanced with that in mind. You will primarily see it used in one hand at the moment it is drawn (for obvious reasons). During a protracted combat, though, it is used in two hands because it is balanced for two handed use.

That is not to say it was impossible to use the Katana in one hand, and we are all familiar with the late period Samurai who did this in combination with a Wakizashi or, perhaps, second Katana. According to him (as far as I am aware) mastering this style was quite difficult and demanded a high level of swordsmanship, but being able to do so was highly beneficial.

Miyamoto Musashi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi#Of_the_long_sword)
Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoho_Niten_Ichi-ryu)

The below quote is taken from this website: KampaiBudokai (http://www.kampaibudokai.org/Niten.htm)


Because I hold two swords, I call my fencing style two-sword swordsmanship. Holding a sword in my left hand [as well as my right] implies nothing special. It only helps me gain the skill to be able to hold a sword with a single hand [instead of gripping one sword with two hands as was customary]. If a man were galloping along a narrow path near a river or if he were in a battle crowded with samurai, he would hold his shield in his left hand, thus restricting the free use of that hand. He would then have no choice but to grip his sword only with his right hand. [Without training] he will feel that sword inordinately heavy. Only when a man has experience and is accustomed to wielding a sword with one hand [can he excel in battle.] When an archer becomes experienced by shooting arrows in training, his shooting ability soars. When a man becomes accustomed to riding horses, he can command a horse well. This is not only true of martial arts but can also be applied to the everyday. For example, with practice fishermen can excel in rowing and farmers in plowing. In the same way, men, with experience, can attain superior ability with a sword [wielding it in one hand]. Needless to say, a swordsman must choose a sword that corresponds to his physical strength.


A Katana is not a particularly light type of sword. It is about the same weight as its European equivalents, which is to say 2-4 lbs (mainly depending on size, much more often to the lower end of the scale and depending on your definition of 'Katana'). Much like the European 'Long Sword' (as distinguished from the Arming Sword) it was primarily used in two hands because that was the purpose for which it was intended and because that was the prevalent style of swordsmanship.

To use a Katana, as opposed to an Arming Sword, in combination with some other weapon does seem like the sort of thing that should require special training to be 'good' at, to judge from what Musashi is saying. Remember, an Exotic Weapon Proficiency is not required to use the Sword in One Hand, it just removes the -4 Attack Penalty. Mind, the Feat System is not a particularly good model for 'training' or learning in general.

That said, I could quite happily classify a Katana as a Long Sword, Scimitar or Falchion for D&D purposes. Do note that both Long Swords and Scimitars can already be used Two Handed in D&D.



Second:
What exactly is a Zanbato? Wikipedia told me about an exceptionally large japanese sword, that was actually to large to be wielded in a field battle, which is why it was never used. And that its been only made by swordsmiths to prove their talent.
Then we have these ridiculously large swords as Cloud from final fantasy uses. did anything like that actually even exist?
I seriously doubt it while some people i know claim that there are at least very similar weapons that are real. Basically they described a sword with an extremely borad single edged blade and a hilt thats long enough for at least 4 hands that has the basic shape of clouds gunblade. Also they claimed that one weapon they described to be a zanbato.

It is a largely fictional Sword that may or may not have been employed against enemy cavalry to kill horses, or so I have heard. I think Fhaolan said the Chinese used something like that and that this may be the inspiration for the Zanbato.

[Fhaolan]

It is a largely fictional Sword that may or may not have been employed against enemy cavalry to kill horses, or so I have heard. I think Fhaolan said the Chinese used something like that and that this may be the inspiration for the Zanbato.

Took me a bit to dig the relevant post up...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2110629&highlight=Zanbato#post2110629

No-one's ever dug up an actual period zanbato, but have been many reproductions made over the years. So nobody's really sure if they did in fact exist. If they did, they were basically a katana/glaive. A katana blade mounted on an exceptionally long grip.

[Matthew]

Ah, that's what it was. Looks like I was too embroiled in the Crusade Logistic discussion to remember it properly.

[Ruerl]

Hi i have two questions:
First: Does a katana really require any special training for effectively wielding it one handed? As you know in DnD terms a katana is basically treated as a bastard sword. But the bastard sword got its exotic weapon rules are explained with it being too heavy/large to wield in one hand effectively. Though I have heard that a katana is actually lighter than a european type long sword would be (or broad sword, as those also count as long swords in dnd) and i have actually held a katana myself and it seemed easy to hold one handed to me.
Now Im not an expert at swordplay or trained at it at all, but i would have thought a trained swordfighter should have no problems with using a katana in one hand. Plus the light weight of the katana makes it actually less effective in a downward strike from above (compared toa european type sword of approximately the same size) since it doesnt get the additional power from the weight. So I thought wouldn't it make much more sense to classify a katana as longsword in dnd (maybe a longsword that can be wielded two handed, since it still does have a hilt suitable for two hands)?

Just to elaborate on what others have mentioned allready:

1: All swords require skill, all swords require training if you wish to be good with them, the katana and the bastard (or as I prefer to call it, hand an a half sword, or as others name it, longsword), both require skill to be wielded correctly, they are wielded very differently due to facing different circumstances, but neither is "better".
...that being said, i'd still not want to face a knight in a (properly made) field* plate armed only with a katana.
2: On the effect versus weight: the swords damage is based first and foremost on precision and skill and only second on strength, weight is a very small factor compared to the two others.
3: On hilt size and wielding in two hands: Most swords, even one handed swords, can be wielded in two hands, most swords from the high period and onwards have a hilt suitable for one or two hands.
4: The katana has just as many myths about it as the european swords, mostly about how light and ultra sharp it was whereas the myths classically associated with the european swords is that of a heavy weapon wielded like a club, neither is correct.

Regards

Lars

*Field plate: I refer to any plate that in the D&D system rulewise is called a full plate but wich is'nt for ceremonial use, the word "fullplate" is probably best used on any armour for ceremonial uses, and I believe that the word "fullplate" is a rather recent word, I may be wrong on this one though as I only have an archeologists word on this. -and even he states that there is no "hard" truths.

[Mike_G]

Was this with a group of musketmen?

Lawrence Babits, author of A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens fired a reproduction Brown Bess and managed to hit a man-sized target at 75 yards with 5 out of 6 shots.

Of course, the troops of that era didn't have much target practice, but they did load their muskets with buck and ball, a musketball and 4-5 additional smaller balls, to improve their firepower.

This was a group of reenactors firing rifled American Civil War era muskets. They were firing as fast as they could, as the experiment was to see how many hits they could score in two minutes.

I don't doubt that there are individuals who can hit six of seven shots. I very much doubt that that would be a reasonable expectation for a company of troops under fire.

I have never missed a man sized target at under 200 yards, under range conditions, but I know that's not remotely applicable to combat accuracy. My brother Marines still needed to fire a few thousand rounds to inflict each casualty in Vietnam.

I highly doubt any unit has achieved 25% accuracy in actual combat conditions, with any weapon.

[Winterking]

Mike_G:
The point I was trying to make was not that the formation troops would somehow be more likely to each hit their respective opposite in the skirmish line; that's patently false. As you point out, a single man is harder to hit than a clump of them. I was mostly referring to the effects of concentrated firepower--the formation firing its volleys at each skirmisher in turn.

The 25%, by the way, was just an arbitrary number for the purposes of the discussion. I'm sure it is overly optimistic...the point is, there's not much chance of a single shot hitting anybody. Multiple shots at the same person would do better.

Of course, this entire scenario is kind of ridiculous--any fight between two groups of 4 musketeers/riflemen is going to be between skirmish lines. A formation isn't at all effective on that small a scale. A fight between hundreds or thousands of men, however, would be much different. That's where the extended length of the firing line, the difficulty of command and control, reliance on individual morale/courage, and the unconcentrated firepower would really hurt the skirmishers.

Another problem with a skirmish line is that it can't really hold ground too well--if the middle five musketeers die, you've got a big hole that cavalry or infantry can charge through. A formation, though, is solid enough to survive a few hits, and still hit back.

[Norsesmithy]

To say that the American soldiers needed to fire thousands of round to hit a single target is somewhat disenguous, as the vast majority of rounds fired were never intended to hit a target, or even fired in the known direction of any enemy. Instead they were intended to deny the enemy the use of an area.

In firefights against an enemy who was visible, the expendatures to kills ratio was far lower.

As for the 1/4 hit rate, I beleive that some Marine units may have acheived or exceded that rate in the battle of Fallujah (where the American ammo expendature rates were so low and headshot counts were so high that the UN sent investegators in to determine if the carnage was actually from a battle or if the Marines just rounded people up and executed them).

[Mike_G]

Mike_G:
The point I was trying to make was not that the formation troops would somehow be more likely to each hit their respective opposite in the skirmish line; that's patently false. As you point out, a single man is harder to hit than a clump of them. I was mostly referring to the effects of concentrated firepower--the formation firing its volleys at each skirmisher in turn.

The 25%, by the way, was just an arbitrary number for the purposes of the discussion. I'm sure it is overly optimistic...the point is, there's not much chance of a single shot hitting anybody. Multiple shots at the same person would do better.


Not really. If ten of my men shoot at ten of your men, and if all ten of yours shoot back at one of mine, that's not going to improve the hitting any.

A dispersed formation prevents more hits that concentrated fire creates.



Of course, this entire scenario is kind of ridiculous--any fight between two groups of 4 musketeers/riflemen is going to be between skirmish lines. A formation isn't at all effective on that small a scale. A fight between hundreds or thousands of men, however, would be much different. That's where the extended length of the firing line, the difficulty of command and control, reliance on individual morale/courage, and the unconcentrated firepower would really hurt the skirmishers.


Another problem with a skirmish line is that it can't really hold ground too well--if the middle five musketeers die, you've got a big hole that cavalry or infantry can charge through. A formation, though, is solid enough to survive a few hits, and still hit back.

Exactly the point I've been making. In a long firefight, open order is a good idea. To hold ground in melee, or take ground, or repel cavalry, close order is better.




To say that the American soldiers needed to fire thousands of round to hit a single target is somewhat disenguous, as the vast majority of rounds fired were never intended to hit a target, or even fired in the known direction of any enemy. Instead they were intended to deny the enemy the use of an area.

In firefights against an enemy who was visible, the expendatures to kills ratio was far lower.

As for the 1/4 hit rate, I beleive that some Marine units may have acheived or exceded that rate in the battle of Fallujah (where the American ammo expendature rates were so low and headshot counts were so high that the UN sent investegators in to determine if the carnage was actually from a battle or if the Marines just rounded people up and executed them).



I was pointing out the difference between saying "On the range, in good weather, so and so hit the target 90% of the time," and actual combat conditions. I was refuting a 25% hit ratio with black powder smoothbore muskets. Considering the percent of misfires from wet powder, poorly maintained weapons, fumbled ammo and simple loading errors from being under fire, and the lack of real marksmanship training from most troops in the black powder era, I'd be surprised to see one hit for twenty musketeers, rather than one in four.

Firing a thousand rounds to produce a casualty isn't bad shooting, for combat, given that the enemy will be moving and suing cover, and a lot of the time you're shooting at shadows.

They cover all this in boot camp. I get it.

While they spend a lot of time teaching us good shooting in the Marines (individual man sized targets out to 500 yards), I still have a hard time believing we're getting 7 hits out of a 28 round magazine ('cause you need to short load the 30 round mags due to weak springs in the crappy M16, low bid special clips.) Like I said, I've never missed the black at 200 yards, on a dry day, with a good firing position and nobody trying to kill me. I doubt I could wipe out a North Korean platoon with one magazine in actual combat.

Good for them if they are hitting one shot in four, I just don't think that's very plausible for combat conditions.

[Adlan]

Once again, I rolled a 1 on my Cross Bow knowledge (I should remember to 'take 10'). Can anybody provide examples of historical Cross Bows, preferably with weight, length, pull, shooting rate and information about ammunition? I'm not looking for perfectly accurate information so much as general guidelines on the subject.


For comparison, below is what I consider to be general information with regard to Bows, please feel free to correct me:

From what I understand, staves can range in length from 3-6' (or more), weigh something of the order of 2-5 lbs and have a draw weight of 30-180 lbs (or more). Arrow weight apparently ranges from 300 to about 600 Grains (7,000 Grains = 1 Pound) and up to around 3' in length.

The maximum range of the most powerful Bows is often touted at something like 600 yards (1,800 Feet or about 1/3 of a Mile), but consistant effective range seems to be no greater than about 100 yards.

One thing I read was that Arrows are weighted appropriate to draw weight to something of the order of 6-9 Grains per lb of draw weight. This suggests that Bows with very heavy draw weights might have Arrows that weigh 1,200 Grains or more.


Right, you see your problem is you are asking far to broad a question. Like asking Whats the weight, length ect. of a Gun?

Crossbows vary, across the civillisations and time spans that use them. There are chinese repeating crossbows, of a light draw weight, but automatic cocking mechanism and high rate of fire. And there are European Warcrossbows, with a draw weight verging on 400lb, (technically they are known as arelblasts), they are made of a steel and wood composite, and require a machine to load. rate of fire was 2, maybe 3 a minute, if you were good.


As for Bows?

Well, I've shot out to 300 odd yards, but Anything less than 50 needs to be a group. For me, a Reasonably accomplished Archer, using a Longbow and instinctive archery, I'd say 30 yard for a kill shot (torso or head), 50 yards I should hit him somewhere. 100 yards A group of them, 300 yards, an army.

Arrow weight? Modern compound archers shoot 6 or so grain per lb, They aim for maxmium speed to get the flatest trajectory. Traditional archers generally aim for 10-12 grains. Some of the medival arrowheads and some of the arrows from the mary rose were about a half inch thick. Heavy Bow, Heavy arrows.

[Zincorium]

Hm, to take a bit of a side trip, more on the subject of modern firearms:

I was looking recently at the revival of Calico light weapons systems on their website, and got to thinking a bit.

Currently, the military and swat teams have been using M4 carbines for use inside buildings, where ranges are very short and over penetration of walls is a concern (more so for the swat teams). The usual adversaries are unarmored and tend to not even be wearing heavy clothing.

With a much, much greater ammunition capacity on the weapon itself, and thus the ability to expend more bullets on a target, is the lethality of the 9mm still insufficient in real-world conditions? Hollow points in the law enforcement world probably make a difference, the question being how much of one.

Any thoughts?

[Matthew]

Right, you see your problem is you are asking far to broad a question. Like asking Whats the weight, length ect. of a Gun?

Crossbows vary, across the civillisations and time spans that use them. There are chinese repeating crossbows, of a light draw weight, but automatic cocking mechanism and high rate of fire. And there are European Warcrossbows, with a draw weight verging on 400lb, (technically they are known as arelblasts), they are made of a steel and wood composite, and require a machine to load. rate of fire was 2, maybe 3 a minute, if you were good.

Heh, yeah, I know, but if you'll note, I'm looking for historical examples from which I can extrapolate general ideas (for my own purposes :smallwink:).


As for Bows?

Well, I've shot out to 300 odd yards, but Anything less than 50 needs to be a group. For me, a Reasonably accomplished Archer, using a Longbow and instinctive archery, I'd say 30 yard for a kill shot (torso or head), 50 yards I should hit him somewhere. 100 yards A group of them, 300 yards, an army.

Yeah, that accords reasonably well with what I am thinking.


Arrow weight? Modern compound archers shoot 6 or so grain per lb, They aim for maxmium speed to get the flatest trajectory. Traditional archers generally aim for 10-12 grains. Some of the medival arrowheads and some of the arrows from the mary rose were about a half inch thick. Heavy Bow, Heavy arrows.

10-12 grains per pound for a 180 lb Bow, 2,360 grains? Pretty interesting. I was thinking 1,200 Grains sounded heavy, but three Arrows to the pound is heavier again.

[TheThan]

Ok here’s a question,

How much did cannonballs cost?

I need this for a pirate dnd game and I’ve exhausted all my dnd and historical resources so I was hoping someone would have that information so I could convert it over to dnd.

[Sundog]

Hm, to take a bit of a side trip, more on the subject of modern firearms:

I was looking recently at the revival of Calico light weapons systems on their website, and got to thinking a bit.

Currently, the military and swat teams have been using M4 carbines for use inside buildings, where ranges are very short and over penetration of walls is a concern (more so for the swat teams). The usual adversaries are unarmored and tend to not even be wearing heavy clothing.

With a much, much greater ammunition capacity on the weapon itself, and thus the ability to expend more bullets on a target, is the lethality of the 9mm still insufficient in real-world conditions? Hollow points in the law enforcement world probably make a difference, the question being how much of one.

Any thoughts?

Well, actually, most of the SWAT equivalent forces I know of use some variation of the H&K MP5 for their entry and sweeper teams, which is a 9mm. Rifles are used only for designated marksmen ("snipers"), who are trained to double-check for possible overpenetration victims before shooting. The M4 is a military weapon used by primarily military forces.

The military, however, operates under entirely different rules of engagement than civilian police. Police must try to limit civilian casualties and (if possible and reasonable) take perpetrators alive for trial and civil punishment. The military, unless being restricted by stupid politicians, are trying to kill all opponents as quickly and efficiently as possible.

That's probably obvious. However, it's worth keeping in mind when you talk weapons. To clear a room, a SWAT officer will throw in a flash-bang, follow it in and shoot anyone trying to resist. In the same situation, a soldier will throw in a fragmentation grenade, then shoot anything still moving - and probably each body, too, just in case.

The MP5 (and the Calico, which has impressed me from day one) gives high lethality against unarmored targets coupled with very high controllability, and virtually no chance of overpenetration - at the expense of not being overly good at dealing with an armoured opponent. This is an expense police SWAT and equivalents can easily afford to pay, given the rarity of good body armour in civilian hands. The M4 and equivalent weapons provide the military with a reasonably controllable weapon that will defeat any modern body armour at close range, but is serious overkill against unarmoured opponents - which is not a problem for the military at all.

The correct weapon, for the correct job. On the modern battlefield, that's the difference between victory and defeat - however you define those two results.

[Hawriel]

ok my two sence and As in college level military history classes. Teacher was a Lt col. Artillery, graduated WP docterat at UM taught at both.

All armies befor Nepolion where overwelmingly conscrips. The french where the first to have Nationalism as an Ideological consept. That was Nepolions greatest weapon. why? Disaplin.

Two big reasons why armies of that aira faught in dence formations. Disaplin and the most effect way to use fire power. The sargents did not lead from the front of a formation they marched behind. ONE reason. All of the men where conscripts, and army life was harsh very harsh. The only life that serpased its brutality was the navy. If a sargent or other NCO even thought a soldier was thinking about turning and running he got the bayonet in the gut. The bayonet is use was a triangular spike. That is a highly illegale weapon today. Why? A triangular puncture wound will not heal. The bayonet wasnt the pocket knife it is today. two feat of triangular steal is nothing to laugh at.

The smooth bore musket was a very inacurat weapon. So bad it was better to be the person fired at. opening shots where 200 yards or less. Most ingagments happed really started at 150. The average solder with desent drill could fire 2 rounds a minot. British soldiers after the napolionic wars where the best in the world, they could fire 3 rounds a minot. So could the french. Remember back then the french where tough, not the joke we make of them today.

Armies fought in line for disaplin and consintration of fire. Artillery was placed in front of the infintry. Arty punded a line to break it apart for the infintry to attack and then use a bayonet charge. when you start one at 50 yards its doable. Cavilry was used for shock. To defend from heavy cav a line would form into a turchio (spelling?) that is a square formation. the corners where dencer packed squares. Pikemen would stand behind the infintry. The sargent standing behind them kept the formation from breaking. As you know horse will not charge a spear. to counter that it was the fear of 5000+ 1000 pound horse running at a full charge witch broke the line. A charge was only called when it was beleaved the morale was low enough in the enemy line that they would brake.

See the movie Waterloo, this shows the tactics rather nicely. And the use of the revers slope for defence.

Rifles where not fragile. The reason rifles where not used in armies untill the 1860s was because of fowling. Black powder is durty. after maybe 3 shots the barel was so choked with grit the riflemen could not ram the ball down the barel. the ball must ingage the rifling to be effective. The rifle balls where made for a tight fit. musket balls where alot smaller so they could be rammed through the gunk. two inovations made rifles a viable standard weapon. The minie ball. witch was not a ball but a cone shaped bulled that had a hollowed out divet in the back. when the poweder ignited it would spread the hollowed divot out to engage the rifling. the second was "smokeless powder" or rather less smoke powder. that decreased the fowling of a weapon substancialy, allowing the weapon to be fired multiple times befor cleaning was needed.

A third inovation dering the nepolionic wars was the ring and socket bayonet. this allowed the soldier to fire the weapon wile the bayonet was attached. Befor this the plug bayonet was used. It plugged right into the barel of the musket. The order to "fix bayonets" was given only to defending troops in fortifacations. the Attackers came to the field with them fixed.

[Om]

All armies befor Nepolion where overwelmingly conscrips.Em... no. Prior to the French Revolution armies were largely staffed by professionals. It was the French concept of levée en masse that led to ever larger armies. Napoleon himself was infamous for calling up ever larger numbers of ill-trained conscripts.

[Swordguy]

Em... no. Prior to the French Revolution armies were largely staffed by professionals. It was the French concept of levée en masse that led to ever larger armies. Napoleon himself was infamous for calling up ever larger numbers of ill-trained conscripts.

Seconded. Army composition went from core of professional padded with conscripts in the Dark Ages through the Renaissance to the popularization of a purely professional army (mainly because of the feats of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden), and back to the levée en masse of Napoleon. It's a cyclical thing, having largely (but not totally) to do with how easy it is to train someone to fight in your doctrine. Complicated doctrine/equipment=professional army. Simpler doctrine/equipment=conscripts.

[Storm Bringer]

Right, I'll tackle the mistakes as i come to them. I'll correct the spelling as i go (before I offend you, mines not any better without a spelchecker handy.)



All armies befor Napoleon where overwelmingly conscripts.
Form about the end of the Hundred Years War to the start of the napoleonic wars (by which I mean the 1790's), the armies in the field were most professional with a good number of pressed men. the british army was in theory made entirely of Volunteers (though a large number of men were volunteers in name only). It was the french revolution, with the Levee en masse, that started the modern concept of conscription, which was enabled by the wave of patriotism that swept the country.


The french where the first to have Nationalism as an Ideological concept. That was Napoleons greatest weapon. why? Discipline.

Two big reasons why armies of that era fought in dense formations. Discipline and the most effective way to use fire power. The sargents did not lead from the front of a formation, they marched behind. ONE reason: All of the men where conscripts, and army life was harsh, very harsh. The only life that surpassed its brutality was the navy. If a sargent or other NCO even thought a soldier was thinking about turning and running, he got the bayonet in the gut.

right, very heavy overstatment of the case.

Not all the men were conscripts, as I stated above, but then agian not all were patriots and certianly not all were willing to go once more into the breech and die. Thus, the sargents main job was to keep the men in formation, both for the sound defensive strenght it gave and to prevent any sudden failures of heart form fleeing. They did NOT however just gut the men at will: that would be counter-productive with the limited number of men available, and quickly lead to the men fragging the officers. they did give the occisional wack with a musket butt, but outright killing was saved for crimes like murder, desertion and sodomy. Also, the commisioned officers led form the front.

Notably, the Napoleonic french army had a different method: as it had large numbers of people who wanted to fight for thier country(as opposed to wanted to live long and retire), they had a much more posative command style where the motovation was the promise of reward rather than the threat of punishment.

Also, the Navies tended to actaully be laxer with Discipline than the armies, mainly because once your on the ship and out to sea the porspects of desertion were minor. Also, they tended to form much more personal bondings with crewmates than the army (According to my scoruces here, something like 70% of navy deserters ran to thier old ship, not away form the service). Once out to Sea, the crews tended to settle down quite well to the routine of life.


The smooth bore musket was a very inaccurate weapon. So bad it was better to be the person fired at. Opening shots where 200 yards or less. Most engagments happed really started at 150. The average soldier with decent drill could fire 2 rounds a minute. British soldiers, after the napolionic wars, where the best in the world, they could fire 3 rounds a minute. So could the french. Remember back then the french where tough, not the joke we make of them today.


A few quibbles: the impression of the ranges i got was more 100 max/75 practical, but that may be for older designs. Most trained musketmen(i.e those with a few years service) could do 3rpm out of their flintlocks, day in, day out. 2rpm was common for conscripts and Militia. The best speed i've heard for unit fire was 5rpm by the late 17th/early 18th century Prussain Guardsmen.


Armies fought in line for Discipline and concentration of fire. Artillery was placed in front of the infintry. Arty pounded a line to break it apart for the infantry to attack and then use a bayonet charge. when you start one at 50 yards its doable. Cavalry was used for shock. To defend from heavy cav a line would form into a Tercio that is a square formation. the corners where denser packed squares. Pikemen would stand behind the infantry. The sargent standing behind them kept the formation from breaking. As you know horse will not charge a spear. To counter that, it was the fear of 5000+ horses, each over 1000 pound, running at a full charge, which broke the line. A charge was only called when it was believed the morale was low enough in the enemy line that they would brake.

okay.......mixing of time periods here. Or at least, It not clear you're talking about an earlier period than the rest of the post. The tercio was a 17th centuy formation that fell out of favour after the bayonet came in, and well before the Napleonic wars. As you say, the pikes formed the center and and Musketeers (armed with matchlocks at this point) formed at the corners. When cavlary threatened the mustketeers would press close to the pikemen, who leveled their pikes and kept the horses at bay. When the bayonet came in, they got rid of pikes in favour of more muskets. At that point they moved to a Square formation for the anti-cav tactic, as the Anglo Dutch (everyone forgets the dutch) infantry did at waterloo.

anyway, back to the rest of the quote:

Cannons were often deployed among the front line rather than in front (in the gaps between battalions, so that they could pour flanking fire on any attackers getting close (and so the guns didn't have to stop firing as the gunners fled before the oncoming attackers, as the indian gunners did at Assaye.) the bigger guns had the reach to be deplyed behind the main line, so they were.

However the basic idea that you used cannon to weaken a line is true, but you'd send the infantry and cav at the same time (as if you formed square to stop the cav you'd be a sitting duck to the infantrys muskets, while if you formed line to fight the infantry you'd lack the depth to stop the cav. This is why the french cav at waterloo failed, becuase they lacked infantry and cannon support.)



Rifles where not fragile. The reason rifles where not used in armies untill the 1860s was because of fouling. Black powder is dirty. After maybe 3 shots the barrel was so choked with grit the riflemen could not ram the ball down the barrel. the ball must engage with the rifling to be effective. The rifle balls where made for a tight fit. musket balls where alot smaller so they could be rammed through the gunk. two innovations made rifles a viable standard weapon. The minie ball, which was not a ball but a cone shaped bullet that had a hollowed out divet in the back. when the powder ignited it would spread the hollowed divot out to engage the rifling. The second was "smokeless powder", or rather less-smoke powder. That decreased the fowling of a weapon substantially , allowing the weapon to be fired multiple times before cleaning was needed.

Nothing i can see really wrong with this bit, though rilfes were used before the 1860s by light infantry units.



A third innovations during the Napoleonic wars was the ring and socket bayonet. This allowed the soldier to fire the weapon while the bayonet was attached. Before this the plug bayonet was used. It plugged right into the barrel of the musket. The order to "fix bayonets" was given only to defending troops in fortifacations. the Attackers came to the feild with them fixed.

To my knowelge the socket bayonet was standard issue sometime before the 1745 jacobite rebellion, possibly before the 1714 one (plug bayonets were still in use at that point). also, the order to fix bayonets for attackers was often only given not long before the order to charge, for psycological reasons (the sight of 10,000 bayonets being mounted is pretty daunting, so it helped weaken morale).

[Muaz]

Hi, This post of mine is very knowledgable and may enhance the information of the viewers , however I would like some specific information for myself. If someone can help me then please send me a private message. Best Regards,

[Storm Bringer]

god damm spam bots.......

anyway, could one of the local japanophiles help answer this for me? I'm wondering when the most intenstive fighting was in japans history. I believe it was the start of 1600's and right before the long peace that lasted into the 1850's and the rapid modernising of that time, but i may be lon

[Sundog]

god damm spam bots.......

anyway, could one of the local japanophiles help answer this for me? I'm wondering when the most intenstive fighting was in japans history. I believe it was the start of 1600's and right before the long peace that lasted into the 1850's and the rapid modernising of that time, but i may be lon

That's the most intense period I know of, certainly the worst internecine fighting.

However, Japan's invasion of Korea in the 12th? 14th? (Not entirely sure...) was also very bloody.

[Storm Bringer]

okay, thankyou.

I'm having a arguement with a friend on the classic 'samurai are better than knights' topic, with him in the 'samurai pwns' corner. I was looking for some more specfic dates to nail down some of the equipment issues.

One thing he claims seemed complety stupid: that Samurai would go into battle with very light or no armour, Relying on active defense and unimpeded movment to survive instead.

However, this goes agianst both what i have seen of samurai in any media (where they are shown going into battle in the classic armour (http://www.japanese-samurai-helmets.com/ArmorOthers7-05/ArmorOthers/Armor9000USD-side.jpg)) and common sense (in that the things that armour is most helpful agianst are the things that cannot be defended agianst activly, in particular bowfire. And that armour doesn't imepede movment that much.)

can anyone think of a reason why a samurai would willingly go into full scale combat with anything other than the most effective armour he could get? Because i cannot. I think my freind has fallen victim of propaganda, but I'm willing to belive him if this turns out to be true.

[Matthew]

He may be thinking of very late period Samurai, but as far as I am aware there was no reason for Samurai to wear anything but the best Body Armour available, depending on the situation. Pity Bug-a-Boo isn't here, he would know more about this.

Ask your friend to quote his sources.

[Storm Bringer]

I am like 99% sure his sources are the rantings of his "JAPAN IS TEH PWNZORZ!!1!" companions (he recently got a blunt katana, his waxing lyrical about it leading to the arguement disscussion).

[Matthew]

I doubt he will believe much of anything you source for him, then. Maybe you could recommend a few good books? I can't think of any off hand, but I know some are more reliable than others. Academic Books are probably your best bet.

[WhiteHarness]

Point out to him that Tokugawa Ieyasu himself, at the most important battle in Japanese history (Sekigahara, 1600) wore an imported European armour, modified to suit Japanese aesthetic taste. The armour is preserved to this day in a shrine in Kyoto. That the first shogun of the Tokugawa dynasty trusted his person to such an armour is strong testament to the high esteem in which the Japanese held European war-gear. Plenty of other samurai also imported European cuirasses and helmets, incorporating them into armours termed "namban-gusoku."

It is significant that, while the Japanese adopted many European martial innovations, including firearms and plate armour, the reverse is not true. The Europeans did not want katana or samurai armour as anything but curiosities; Rembrandt is said to have owned a couple of Japanese swords. But one never, ever hears of Europeans adopting katana for use in war. Clearly, the Europeans were light years ahead of the Japanese in terms of military technology, pop-culture opinion to the contrary. While the Europeans were in the Renaissance, the Japanese were stuck with technology that Europe had abandoned after the "Dark Ages"--their standard equipment consisted of pattern-welded swords, spangenhelms, and armour made up of many little metal plates. Not all that different from what the Viking-era Norse used...

There also exist a couple of accounts of European encounters with Japanese pirates (wako) in which both the Spanish and English completely own the Japanese, in spite of the Japanese possessing, in at least one such conflict, "many guns and much iron armour." I'll dig around for these accounts later, but I do recall that the name of the English vessel was the Tiger.

I am of the opinion that a knight would probably have an easy time beating the ever-living snot out of a samurai, by virtue of being (likely) a larger man in better armour, and having experience with fighting opponents from outside his own martial disciplines. Remember, the Japanese had very little opportunity to test their war-skills on anyone but each other, which probably led him to think in a tiny little box, while the knight fought just about everyone else under the sun.

[Matthew]

Here are some possible books:

Hired Swords: The Rise of Private Warrior Power in Early Japan by Karl F. Friday. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. Pp. ix + 265. $32.50.

Heavenly Warriors: The Evolution of Japan's Military, 500-1300 by William Wayne Farris. Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1992. Pp. xv + 486. $37.00.

Warriors of Japan as Portrayed in the War Tales by H. Paul Varley. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994. Pp. xiii + 276. $43.00 cloth, $16.95 paper.

The Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and the Making of Modern Japan by Eiko Ikegami. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Pp. x + 428. $45.00

[Dervag]

can anyone think of a reason why a samurai would willingly go into full scale combat with anything other than the most effective armour he could get? Because i cannot.I'd have to guess serious head injury.

[Ruerl]

*sniffs* allready so many posts pointing out valid arguments against the pwn'zor samurai, makes me all misty eyed.

Now, seriously though, while Japan is'nt my strong field I believe that the classic samurai often depicted in populair litterature is inspired by some of the very late samurai, wich had no comparison on the european battlefields (mainly because we kinda stopped using knights by then).

I wonder though; Is your friend one of those "the katana can cut through anything" people? If so, try to find some cutting tests, show what type of weapons the katana where intented against, and then point out that a fullplate is something you don't want to face withouth a weapon designed to do something about it, now, I have never seen any cutting tests of katana versus plate, but I just can't it being good for the katana.

If he is one of those people claiming that the samurai can just move around the knight and strike him when the knight tires, then point out that:
1: The fullplate does not hinder mobility to any significan degree.
2: It takes more effort to move around a person than just stand still and turn in a circle, ie: if the samurai moves around a lot, he gets tired before the guy in the fullplate.
3: That kendo versus european swordfighting is a long debate wich we have no ground for debating, it comes down to the skill of the participants and we have no reason to believe that the samurai where more skilled than the europeans or vica versa.

Regards, Lars

p.s.
please! Can someone give me the source on imported european armour into japan?

[Swordguy]

Alternatively, you could link him to this:

Swordguy's Alternative L5R Armor Rules and Justifications (http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=60685)


I made it meself...

The point of the document is that armor beats sword. Since European armor protects (as a system) better than Japanese armor, if Japanese armor can stop a sword, then by definition European armor can as well.

[Wardog]

It is significant that, while the Japanese adopted many European martial innovations, including firearms and plate armour, the reverse is not true. The Europeans did not want katana or samurai armour as anything but curiosities; Rembrandt is said to have owned a couple of Japanese swords. But one never, ever hears of Europeans adopting katana for use in war.

I did read once that at a particular point in European history (probably 19th C, after Japan was opened up to the West), that some British/European cavalry officer or soldiers acquired Japanese blades to replace the blades in their sabres.

(Apparently, the standard-issue swords of the time were pretty dire, due to the government being unwilling to spend enough to equip their troops properly).

Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this, so I have no idea how accurate it is.


In any case, though, this would be different circumstances from medieval knights, who would normally have the money and power to buy decent European weapons.

[Mike_G]

I did read once that at a particular point in European history (probably 19th C, after Japan was opened up to the West), that some British/European cavalry officer or soldiers acquired Japanese blades to replace the blades in their sabres.

(Apparently, the standard-issue swords of the time were pretty dire, due to the government being unwilling to spend enough to equip their troops properly).

Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this, so I have no idea how accurate it is.


In any case, though, this would be different circumstances from medieval knights, who would normally have the money and power to buy decent European weapons.

I've never heard this.

British troops in India swapping native blades for their standard issue sabres, yes, in fact George MacDonlad Fraser's Flashman series makes note of this.

I can't see doing the same with Japanese swords. The Indian swords are similar in shape, heft and blade design to sabres, and could be used as such by the Brits without much retraining, but a Katana isn't really a good sabre blade.

Notably, in the Royal Armory Museum at Leeds, there are no Katanas, other than those taken as spoils in WII, or sabres modified to take a Katana blade, while there are many Indian tulwars and scimitars.

[Dervag]

I can't see doing the same with Japanese swords. The Indian swords are similar in shape, heft and blade design to sabres, and could be used as such by the Brits without much retraining, but a Katana isn't really a good sabre blade. Moreover, since the British ruled India, they were in a better position to deal with Indian swordsmiths to get the kinds of sword they needed.

[Fhaolan]

The main reason that the Samurai normally wasn't in full plate-style armor had nothing to do with their mythical fighting ability. It was because that much high-quality steel was so incredibly expensive that it was pretty close to impossible for a samurai to afford a full plate-style armor. Japan just doesn't have much in the way of high-quality native iron on those islands. Once they opened up for trade, one of the main imports was Spanish steel.

So, much of the Japanese warrior's equipment design was due to a lack of good steel. The vaunted folded steel of the katana was for the exact same reason that the Norse, Celtic, and the Damask smiths did pattern welding/Damascus steel; to smooth out the inconsistancies in the steel and blend out any impurities that cause weak steel. Full plate armor didn't show up in Europe until the quality of steel reached the point that the big pieces were *possible*. Japanese steel never reached that level of consistant quality before the trade with Spain started up and the superiour spanish steel flooded the Japanese market. At which point the samurai simply bought spanish armor and redecorated it for their own aesthetic.

So, the Japanese fighting styles were based on the equipment they commonly encountered. There's no point to having heavy armor-busting weapons and maneuvers if you rarely encounter heavy armor.

[KnightoftheRoc]

Hi all- new member to the forum. Been checking out older posts, and I decided to weigh in on a couple recurring themes I noticed. first, the use of chain- as a weapon, it's been pretty well covered, and fairly accurately. However, I want to warn folks against the idea of wrapping your hand in chain for 'more forcefull blows', or for any other reason. I'll qualify my response first, with my own experience as an armored fighter in real life. I wore, until a back injury sidelined me, a compination of chain mail and plate, the full rig weighing around 75 pounds. When hit on plate, I could usually shrug off the hit, from rattan or even stage steel. When hit on the chain mail, physics rears it's ugly head- chain moves. and in the larger link's case, it actually focuses the force to the area the link comes into contact with you. And it HURTS! I have a set of chain mail gauntlets, which I use only against stage steel to prevent CUTS- impacts still hurt, and can still damage my hands. I'd hate to see anyone hurt themself by using hardware store chain as a protective layer.
The other item was the dominance of the sword issue. The Aztec obsidian sword was, indeed, bladed- often called the 'saw sword'- obsidian forms the sharpest edge known to modern man when chipped properly, similar to the way flint is used for arrow heads. Eye surgeons actually favor the use of a sterilized peice of obsidian over surgical tools used for other things. Obsidian can be flaked to an edge literally one molecule wide- now THAT'S sharp. Also, in Africa, a common misconception is that the war clubs carried by many tribes were blunt instruments, similar to a ball bat. The problem is that photos are usually taken of these from the side, and the eye fills in details on it's own. The clubs were usually a flattish shape, with the leading edge shaved rather sharply. While not as effective as a metal blade, the extremely hard woods found in the tropics of Africa and in S.E. Asia/ India made some really effective wooden swords, wear the focused impact would actually smash the skin open, as opposed to slicing it.
However, even tho this means, to my mind, that swords have been used by every culture on the planet, I have to agree that polearms have been the dominant weapon prior to gunpowder useage. Calvary and mounted knights were a small percentage of most armies, and represented the rich elite- which was the only way they could afford the arms, horse, and armor. Used as shock troops, they smashed enemy lines using mostly their bulk, not fighting prowess, riding foot soldiers under, and swinging swords, flails, and horseman picks as they went thru. The lance was seldom used on horseback, as it was so unwieldly.
Sorry- this turned into a rant, and I didn't mean for it to. I teach these weapons in a youth group, using foam covered weapons called 'boffers', and if it sounds interesting to you, check out our group at http://kingstonrenfair.com/roc

[Matthew]

I was with you right up until that last part about Knights. What are your sources for this assertion as to their tactical usage? The idea of the Knight as a Medieval Tank has been pretty well overturned in recent years, as far as I am aware, and I can think of nothing that would lead me to the conclusion that lances were seldom used.

[Neon Knight]

Used as shock troops, they smashed enemy lines using mostly their bulk, not fighting prowess, riding foot soldiers under, and swinging swords, flails, and horseman picks as they went thru. The lance was seldom used on horseback, as it was so unwieldly.

This seems to contradict a lot of what I've heard and read.

Firstly, most source seem to agree than Knights did posses if not great fighting prowess, then at least an above average degree of competency. They were professional fighting men in a time when most armies were composed of a small number of professionals padded with conscripts. Now, it is hardly a universal belief, but there are some who believe that field battles were rather rare during the period of Knights. Sieges were much more common, and during sieges, a horse was less useful, and thus Knights fought dismounted, proving to be highly effective even without the horse.

Secondly, the lance is one of the most common cavalry weapons the world round. Some believe that the stirrup elevated the cavalry charge to its king status, but others believe that even lacking a stirrup a lance charge was lethal. The full force of a charging horse and knight focused onto a single point is a hideously lethal force. After the initial contact the Knight would shed his lance for something more wield able in close quarters, but its use was hardly rare.

Even after heavily armored professional knights fell out of favor, cavalry still wielded lances.

[Fhaolan]

However, I want to warn folks against the idea of wrapping your hand in chain for 'more forcefull blows', or for any other reason.

Oh my lord, yes. I've seen lots of people make this same mistake. Technically it does add mass to your fist, so your punch does in fact hit harder. However, the chain never lies flat and solid against your knuckles so you end up with several small, hard surface areas with high pressure pushing back against your knuckles with your punch. Ouchies.


When hit on the chain mail, physics rears it's ugly head- chain moves. and in the larger link's case, it actually focuses the force to the area the link comes into contact with you. And it HURTS!

True, which is why anyone wearing maille should also be wearing sufficient padding underneath, just like they did historically. There is a tendency in re-enactors, SCA-types, and so forth, to try wearing maille over a plain shirt, or no shirt at all for those lunatics that think it makes them more 'manly'. Real historic warriors wore padding. :smallsmile:


Sorry- this turned into a rant, and I didn't mean for it to. I teach these weapons in a youth group, using foam covered weapons called 'boffers', and if it sounds interesting to you, check out our group at http://kingstonrenfair.com/roc

If you're ever over here on the other coast... http://www.seattleknights.com

[Dervag]

There is a tendency in re-enactors, SCA-types, and so forth, to try wearing maille over a plain shirt, or no shirt at all for those lunatics that think it makes them more 'manly'.And by 'manly' you mean 'harbors a secret wish for severe bruises and lacerations'.

[Belkarseviltwin]

Secondly, the lance is one of the most common cavalry weapons the world round. Some believe that the stirrup elevated the cavalry charge to its king status, but others believe that even lacking a stirrup a lance charge was lethal. The full force of a charging horse and knight focused onto a single point is a hideously lethal force. After the initial contact the Knight would shed his lance for something more wield able in close quarters, but its use was hardly rare.


Well, I've heard that Alexander's Companion Cavalry made regular use of the lance charge, and that it was certainly powerful. He must also have feared charging cavalry to place such value on long pikes- although the Persians apparently used chariots as their shock forces, along with the occasional elephant.

[Shas aia Toriia]

A good set of pikes makes you near usstoppable. When anybody charges, or even gets close, they are immediatly impaled.

[Storm Bringer]

A good set of pikes makes you near usstoppable. When anybody charges, or even gets close, they are immediatly impaled.

In meele, on open ground. even then, pike lines have been broken by frontal attack (notably at Gaugamela, where persians we able to penatrate the left flank, and at pydna, where broken ground allowed the romans to get into sword range and kick greek posterior). massed archer fire could also break the phalanx open.

then agian, it does look cool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phalanx.jpg)

[Om]

A good set of pikes makes you near usstoppable. When anybody charges, or even gets close, they are immediatly impaled.In Braveheart perhaps.

[Storm Bringer]

to be fair, I can't name more than a few examples of a pike line just not working. In fact, about the only time i can think of a phalanx formation being broken form the front while being used correctly is Gaugamela, where the gap was caused by the commanders of the left and the center tightening thier formations on the center of thier commands, not on the center of teh line as a whole (i.e. the left flank effectivly broke off into it's own phalanx and the persains pushed though the gap so made).


Almost all other examples are cases of the formation being used in a situation were it wasn't suited.

[Om]

to be fair, I can't name more than a few examples of a pike line just not working.From Antiquity to the Middle Ages there are countless examples of pike/phalanx based armies being defeated. Only counting those that have been defeated by head on assaults is akin to arguing that the French battle plan for WWII was perfect if the Germans had attacked as predicted


Almost all other examples are cases of the formation being used in a situation were it wasn't suited.No, these (from Lechaeum and Pydna to Neville's Cross and Roosebeke) are examples of the inherent inflexibility of this formation. If the enemy does anything other than charge straight into the spears then serious troubles will arise. If this was not the case then other systems (be they the Roman legions or Latin knights) would have have come to dominate the battlefield as they did.

[Mike_G]

The pike phalanx or later shiltron and renaissance era pike formations are a perfectly good tactic, but like most tactics, is only suitable for certain circumstances.

The reason renaissance era armies used pikes and muskets together, and co-ordinated them with cavalry and artillery, is because, while pikes are really good for keeping off a charge, and pushing forward against an enemy formation on level ground, they have many weaknesses, particularly against ranged weapons. As a component of a combined arms force, they have their place.

To say that a good pike formation is unbreakable is very much overstating the case. One may as well say a good cavalry charge is unstoppable.

[Storm Bringer]

I aggree that is is not a be all and end all tactic,to say a good pike formation, when used correctly, is extremely strong is a valid claim..


From Antiquity to the Middle Ages there are countless examples of pike/phalanx based armies being defeated.


yes, but my point was that the defeat was achieved via flanking the phalanx or luring it over broken ground. I can think of only a few examples where a pike line was defeated frontally in a head on attack.

When used as part of a combined arms approach (a la alexanders tactics or spanish tercios), they are a very strong and important element of the army.

[Om]

yes, but my point was that the defeat was achieved via flanking the phalanx or luring it over broken ground. I can think of only a few examples where a pike line was defeated frontally in a head on attack.And my point was that these limitations make the formation extremely unwieldy and inflexible. A smart commander would not charge into a mass of pikes but either flank it or employ archers. Thus such formations were only "near usstoppable" (sic) when the enemy did exactly as expected or under such very restricted conditions.

[Storm Bringer]

....which a smart commander of pikes would ensure happened, by secureing the flanks with either terrain, non-pike formations or whatever.

Seriously, I'm not saying Shas'aia Toriia is right with his "pikes are teh pwn" line, just that a weapon that was repeatedly used for hundreds of years across several thousand miles of country must have been effective enough to justifiy it's use.

[Raum]

A large part of the reason spears & pikes saw use for centuries is simply cost effectiveness. They were relatively easy to make (very easy if you count the basic sharpened stick) and easy to train soldiers to use. They were also very flexible weapons. Not just for both hunting and war, but spears had multiple battle applications...everything from forming a pike wall to a hand to hand melee weapon or even a short range ranged weapon.

Sword and shield are arguably more effective weapons for infantry, but they also cost more...both in equipment costs and in training.

[Dervag]

A large part of the reason spears & pikes saw use for centuries is simply cost effectiveness. They were relatively easy to make (very easy if you count the basic sharpened stick) and easy to train soldiers to use. They were also very flexible weapons. Not just for both hunting and war, but spears had multiple battle applications...everything from forming a pike wall to a hand to hand melee weapon or even a short range ranged weapon.Yes. Spears and pikes were cost effective, as you say. This true both because they were cheap and because they were effective. Not perfectly or supremely effective, but still effective.


Sword and shield are arguably more effective weapons for infantry, but they also cost more...both in equipment costs and in training.Moreover, their effectiveness is not applicable on all battlefields, just as that of a pike block is not. Sword-and-buckler infantry can break a line of pikes under some conditions, but will fail to do so on other occasions. The only perfect counters for a pike formation are troops with much greater mobility than the pike block fighting with ranged weapons on terrain that does not place them at risk for being trapped by the pikemen. And even then, if the pikes are supported by ranged weapon-troops of their own or by cavalry, the anti-pike units may be destroyed before inflicting serious damage on the pikes.

[Fhaolan]

As time wore on, mixed pike blocks turned out to be fairly effective as well. Mixed meaning that there were individuals spaced throughout the front line of the pike with different equipment, such as halberds, sword & shield, greatswords, etc. And archers and dual-armed men in the back row (dual-armed men being archers who could switch to pike. Dual-armed men actually lasted well into the gunpowder age, despite the fact that archers in general fell out of use. There is mention of dual-armed men as late as the English Civil War between Roundheads and Cavaliers [1642-1651, although technically it was three separate wars].) And of course musket and rifles were sprinkled into the formation when such things became reliable.

[Dervag]

And if you can find 'dual-armed' men or other men armed with musclepowered weapons into the mid-1600s, you've established their existence up until within a few decades of the end of the pike formation. By 1700 or so, the advent of the socket bayonet made infantry pikes more or less obsolete- the superiority of a pike over a bayonet-tipped musket in melee combat was not large enough to justify the lack of a ranged attack and the reduced portability of the weapon.

[Sundog]

And if you can find 'dual-armed' men or other men armed with musclepowered weapons into the mid-1600s, you've established their existence up until within a few decades of the end of the pike formation. By 1700 or so, the advent of the socket bayonet made infantry pikes more or less obsolete- the superiority of a pike over a bayonet-tipped musket in melee combat was not large enough to justify the lack of a ranged attack and the reduced portability of the weapon.

That's only if you deny that socket-bayonet equipped troops actually were pike-equivalents under the correct circumstances. The British "Infantry Square" formation and similar tactics were, in actuality, simply a pike-hedge updated for more modern armaments.

I would say that brings the use of pike tactics up to the middle of the 19th century. It only fell apart with the advent of rapid fire (i.e. minie ball) rifled musketry.

[Dervag]

That's only if you deny that socket-bayonet equipped troops actually were pike-equivalents under the correct circumstances. The British "Infantry Square" formation and similar tactics were, in actuality, simply a pike-hedge updated for more modern armaments.
Yes, but they were pike-hedges that could shoot at people.

A 'pike' that can knock a man dead at fifty paces is a very unusual pike indeed, and not one that can be classified in the tradition of pikes stretching back to the Macedonian phalanx. Such a 'pike' are far less subject to one of the main vulnerabilities of the pike formation, namely the pikes' inability to cope with missile troops.

So yes, I deny that a bayonet-tipped musket is like a pike. It can perform the role of a pike (albeit slightly less well, because it's shorter), but it can also perform a completely different role that bears no resemblance at all to what pikes can do.

[Mike_G]

The socket bayonet basically allowed the combination of the roles of troops in the old Pike and Musket formations of the Renaissance.

The balance of power was a gradual shift from the pike to the musket and later rifle.

Early on, the very slow firing and unreliable musket was used to give the mostly pike formations some firepower. As firearms got better, we see them become more and more the focus, from Gustava Adolfus' tactics which increased the proportion of musketeers and changed the formation to one better suited for firing, through the abandoning of the pike for the "give everybody a musket" option, through changes in tactics from dense formations that favored pikes to the lighter three deep firing line of Marlborough, to the two-deep, "thin red line" of Wellington, to the widely spaced skirmish lines of the later 19th century, to dispersed fire teams of today.

The bayonet is still there, it was used in a charge by the Highland regiment in Iraq, but now the spirit of the pike is pretty much gone and the musket has become an assault rifle.

[Dervag]

The socket bayonet basically allowed the combination of the roles of troops in the old Pike and Musket formations of the Renaissance.Exactly. However, a bayonet-tippeed musket bore little or no resemblance to either a pike or a musket without a bayonet on the tactical level. Unlike a musket without a bayonet, it did not rely on other troops to screen it from a melee attack (a major difference). Unlike a pike it could knock a man dead at fifty paces (a major difference).

[Mike_G]

Exactly. However, a bayonet-tippeed musket bore little or no resemblance to either a pike or a musket without a bayonet on the tactical level. Unlike a musket without a bayonet, it did not rely on other troops to screen it from a melee attack (a major difference). Unlike a pike it could knock a man dead at fifty paces (a major difference).


I agree completely.

The bayonet pretty much turned every musketeer into a double armed man.

[Winterking]

No, that's not the point. The point is that a bayonet-equipped musket was a substantially different weapon, with significantly different tactical strengths and weaknesses. If musket (and later rifle) warfare was essentially pike warfare, than modern combined arms warfare can be considered a development of squabbling cavemen throwing rocks and swinging clubs. Granted, they are both concerned with killing the people trying to kill you without getting killed yourself. But this kind of interpretation isn't at all useful in trying to understand the history of warfare, developments/changes in it, etc. In the same fashion, your idea of a continuous progression of pike warfare is interesting, and I suppose plausible (if you ignore a great many differences over time), but it doesn't provide any sort of useful perspective. It's far more effective and useful to consider bayonet-&-musket warfare as a distinct entity apart from pike-&-missile warfare.

[Dervag]

I agree completely.

The bayonet pretty much turned every musketeer into a double armed man.


No, that's not the point. The point is that a bayonet-equipped musket was a substantially different weapon, with significantly different tactical strengths and weaknesses.Actually, it's close enough to the point that I'm not in the least inclined to get exercised about it.

Granted that my original point was that the widespread use of bayonets largely spelled the end of the age of pikes (though they kept being used by rebels and other poorly armed groups for some time). But Mike correctly notes why they did, so I don't think there's any basis for disagreement.


In the same fashion, your idea of a continuous progression of pike warfare is interesting, and I suppose plausible (if you ignore a great many differences over time), but it doesn't provide any sort of useful perspective. I have to disagree; I think it's useful to compare bayonet formations to pike formations, as long as the added effect of the musket attack is considered. Since the musket attack is really important, it makes a big difference.


It's far more effective and useful to consider bayonet-&-musket warfare as a distinct entity apart from pike-&-missile warfare.Yes, but only because the bayonet finally fused the 'pike' and 'missile' components into something every soldier could readily haul around.

[Winterking]

Well, I guess it was me that missed the point then. Sorry for putting words into your mouth. Err...onto your fingertips?


On another note...I have a question on galleys, particularly renaissance ones, of the kind that Venice's arsenal could build in a day. Are there figures anywhere as to what sort of speeds they could manage? For that matter, are there sites with ship speeds for a variety of sailing ships? I know 5 knots was a good speed for an 18th-century ship of the line, but not much else, and homebrewing navies would be easier with more info.

[Fhaolan]

Venice could build a warship in one day? Huh. Learn something new every day.

I honestly didn't think it was possible to build a galley that quickly.

[Dervag]

They may have been using prefabricated components and overwhelming amounts of labor. Or that might be an exaggeration.

Besides which, nobody said the galley in question was very seaworthy.

[Sundog]

I believe that the stories of building a galley in a day are a misunderstanding of what was actually happening. I believe Venice, at it's height, was capable of launching a galley every day - which is not the same thing.

The USA did the same trick in WWII - A Destroyer a day, a Cruiser a month, a Battleship every six months. The Destroyer still took six weeks in a drydock to assemble (from pre-made components), but they were making so many that one launched each day from somewhere in the US.

The Venetian Galleys took just as long as anyone else's to make, but because Venice had the wealth and the resources, they could ramp up production to the point of launching one ship each day.

[Thiel]

Even using prefabricated parts I don't believe that it was (or is) possible to build a warship from the ground up.
Even if you crammed the workers in shoulder to shoulder the caulking alone would still take at least half a day.
I do believe that they could make a mothballed galley ready in one day.

As for the seaworthiness I can't really say. I do know that galleys were fast.
10 knots shouldn't be beyond them.

[Norsesmithy]

IIRC galleys had somewhat weak keels, and were ill suited to heavy seas, especially under load.

They also couldn't carry as many cannon as a caravel of the same size and expense, because of the way their hulls handled stress. They were very fast and had shallow drafts compared to a Caravel, however.

[Om]

IIRC galleys had somewhat weak keels, and were ill suited to heavy seas, especially under load.They were however perfectly suited for use in the Med and continued to be regularly employed there well into the 17th C.

[Thiel]

Galleys tended to be a bit top-heavy as well and their shallow draft made them hard to handle under sails.


They also couldn't carry as many cannon as a caravel of the same size and expense, because of the way their hulls handled stress. They were very fast and had shallow drafts compared to a Caravel, however.

According to this (http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/a-sasano/english/e-galley.htm) site a typical Venetian galley carried five guns pointing forward and 8 swivel guns on the poop-deck.

[Storm Bringer]

Are there figures anywhere as to what sort of speeds they could manage? For that matter, are there sites with ship speeds for a variety of sailing ships? I know 5 knots was a good speed for an 18th-century ship of the line, but not much else, and homebrewing navies would be easier with more info.

most ships, after a significant time at sea, would average about 5 knots when not in a hurry. Fresh form the dockyard and in a rush, 13 knots had been known.

Average speed for a given ship depended on the crew's skill at sailing: a well drilled and professional crew could generally get more out of a given wind (all strageic level movment was by wind. galleys just couldn't row for long).

in battle, the sailing ships had to take in thier mainsails (due to a risk of the cannons lighting them if left unfurled) and so almost never got above 5 knots. Galleys, however, could do bursts of 12 knots for a few minutes when pressed.


one thing to note, however, is that galleys tended to have a smaller stragic range than sailing ships: that is, they couldn't stay out of port as long, due to the very large number of oarsmen packed into a rather small hull. the Greeks and Romans never got more than about 3 days at a time out of thier galleys before they needed to land and resupply. wether later fleets did better is not known to me.

[Hawriel]

The USS, United States, Congress, President, Constitution, Constilation, Chesapeake, and Philidelphia where the best ships in the frigate class untill steam power made them obsolete. They where made with Virginia live Oak, one of the strongest hard woods on the planet. This is why the Constitution earned her nickname Ironsides. Diring an engagment with a British ship an 18 pound cannon ball bounced off of the hull. Granted it was fired from almost extream long range. A sailer saw this happen and shouted somthing to the effect of she has a hull of iron. News paipers loved the story.

The United States was the largest and slowerst of the ships wile the President was reputed to be the fastest. She may have reached 20 nots or so, conditions permiting. One of witch was how the masts where configured. The masts are put in after the ship is launched from dry dock. The captain of the ship gives the specifacations as to how large or small the masts should be.

All of the ships exept the Philidelphia where commitioned by the U.S. goverment for the creation of a national navy. The Philidelphia was built by a privat company using the same plans and live oak as her sisters. She was then sold to the U.S. navy. Constilation, and Chesapeake where 36 (38?) gun ships wile the four others where 44 guns. The Chesapeake was the runt of the litter. Eather there wasnt enough live oak available to make her the proper length or they used some of her alotment to finish the United States.

any way this is long enough here is a link from military.com
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/19thcentury/articles/usspresident.aspx
PS
The Constitution is still a commitioned ship in the United States Navy. She is just a seaworthy today as on the day of her launch, well after they fixed her rudder.
http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/

[Storm Bringer]

yhea, the US frigates were big and carried 24-pounder main decks (compared to the 18-pounder 38 gun british frigates). They were also crewed by volonteers, compared to british ships with a good number of pressed men in thier crews, which really helped the yanks in thier fights.

however, as to wether they were the 'best' frigates of the pre-steam navies is a different question entirely. Mainly, under what critiea are we using?

They were big, yes, and in some contditions they were fast, but they were not expected to operate thousands of miles from thier primary dockyard nor stay out of them for six months at a time. The british fleet was able to run what were on the whole sucessful blockades outside the american ports and the French ports for pretty much the duration of the war.

how far abroad did the frigates get? I know several ships got to the barbary coast, but don't know if they were the heavy frigates.

[Thiel]

If the seas were low then the American frigates had better fire-power than the British. However, in heavy seas you couldn't open the lower gun-ports for fear of flooding the lower gun-deck hence reducing the amount of guns capable of firing on the enemy.
Another downside is that they required a larger crew, had a shorter range, were a bit slower and ultimately more expensive to operate.
Then again the US could better afford the more expensive ships since they only had six of them compared to the dozens operated by the Royal Navy.

[Dervag]

The United States was the largest and slowerst of the ships wile the President was reputed to be the fastest. She may have reached 20 nots or so, conditions permiting.20 knots?

Umm... I have a really hard time believing that for any sailing ship, no matter how well designed. Steamships couldn't manage that for sustained periods until the mid-to-late 1800s. Could you provide a citation on that?

[Hawriel]

This seven ships I named in the previos post where the only US built frigates. the Constitution, Philidelphia, United States, and Constilation Alll did at least a one year ture in the mediteranion dering the barbary war. The Philidelphia was captured by in tripoli after the captain ran her aground. That captain should have been severly punished but was in U.S. tradition made a hero for his blunder. A rading party sent from eather United States or Constitution snuck in and burned Philidelphia to the water line. They could not navigate the costal waters to get her out. One or two of the frigates opperated around Brazil and aslo sailed in the pasific. They sailed whare ever they where ordered to go.


however, as to wether they were the 'best' frigates of the pre-steam navies is a different question entirely. Mainly, under what critiea are we using?

The US frigats where the best in there class. I did not say best of all sailing ships in the world. The desine of the ships at the time was truely radical, it took a direct order from the secratery of the navy to force the ship yards to fallow the plans. The keels where longer in praportion to the beam than normal. A new disine in the bow and internal structure of the ship allowed this with out stress. This is what also gave the ship a little more speed. As Ive said befor their key components where made of Verginia live oak. That is a very strong hard wood.


They were big, yes, and in some consditions they were fast, but they were not expected to operate thousands of miles from thier primary dockyard nor stay out of them for six months at a time. The british fleet was able to run what were on the whole sucessful blockades outside the american ports and the French ports for pretty much the duration of the war.

Yes the Royal navy bottled up the US navy. your missing big reasons why. ONE Trafalger. After that battle the French fleet was a non issue. What ever ships they had left they kepted in harbor in france or in their colonies. Spain was worse off.

TWO Befor the Rayal navy bottled in the US navy Nepolion was not defeated yet. All of there consentration was on France. In 1814 the British turned their full attention on the US after Nepolion was defeated the frist time. Now the full power of the British atlantic fleet tunred twored the US. Befor this the US was besting the British witch only had a slight advantage in numbers with SIX frigats and dont forget other ships of war. Sloops, converted merchantmen ect ect. the US had many other ships. not only that but they had a handfull of french frigates and other ships captured dering the quazie war just prior to the war of 1812. The Constilation was the first US ship to capture an enemy frigate. The reason the British could put the full power of there atlantic fleet against the US? Trafalger. With both the French and Spanish fleets a memory they could affored to focus on the US.The British Royal Navy at the time was hands down the best in the world. It was only serpased by the US after WW2. Ok I could say after the US civil war but that navy was primarily a brown water navy. It still made the british think twice.

THREE the US army was very very small. Jefferson gutted the army. The Royal Navy Could blockade US ports becuase they would take them over. Some ports they could not like Boston. They would take over small towns on the coast and use them for resuply. the US army was powerless to do any thing about it. Also there main port was in Canada and Newfoundland. Thats not very far away.

FOUR it was a paiper blockade. The british only blockaded a port in force if it harbored one of the six US frigates. Six, thats it. they only had to bottle up six ships. Two of witch where able to fight out side the blockade because you cant truely blockade the US coast. Its imposible. the British found that out in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. As did Loncoln in the civil war. There are way to many ports, coves, rivers and other such places on the east coast for a sailing ship to go to. Not to mention French and Spanish ports in the Caribbean they where not to far away. France would have no problem harboring a US ship who was fighting the British. The high cost of insurence for merchants to insure their ships was just as effective at keeping US merchant shipping in port as much as a Royal Navy battleship.

Now what makes you think that a British frigate or battleship, could range farther than a US frigate? they both had the same needs water, food, moral, repairs, ect ect. Sure when when a British ship left England it sailed for a year or more but it didint spend that year in the middle of the ocean. It sailed from port to port as needed. Just like a US Frigate did. Alot of ports particularly in Europian or US controle harbored multipal nations. Gipralter harbord French, English, Spanish, US, Dutch, and any one els traveling the med. During the barbary wars the US used Gibralter as one of its stations.

You mentioned the crews of the US being Volunteers. Yes they where. Its not the biggest reason why US sailors performed well. American sailors perfomed well in the navy because sailing was their life. An over welming magority of US navy sailors where merchant sailors from the New England states. They performed well because the US navy tradition is directly born from the British tradition, big suprise. Disaplin was the key here. Drill with the guns, profesionalism among the officers and sailors alike. Oh and alot of the volunteers where deserters from royal navy.

I'll end the post with this. The British navy and peaple came to a wisker of having the belief of the total superiority of the royal navy shattered as a nationalistic constant. It was a huge reality check. I meen the belief in that strengh and what it ment to the safety of England. IE Santa may not exist.

[Winterking]

Ah, the Constitution and her sisters. Good ships, and one of the few kinds of ship that I know very much about.

Thiel, if I recall correctly, the American frigates had particular advantages depending on the class of British ship they were up against. Facing British frigates one-on-one, (or multiple lighter ships, as in Constitution vs. HMS Levant--a sloop of war--and HMS Cyane--a frigate), the American ships were more powerful, with heavier guns and longer range. Against British Ships of the Line, the American frigates were faster and more mobile.

It was the American frigates which made it to the Barbary Coast, notably the Constitution; the Philadelphia, the US ship captured at Tripoli, then burned in a daring night raid, was a sister to the 6 original American frigates, being built by the same designers, but funded privately. Some of the frigates also operated in the Caribbean as well, so they were not simply coastal warships. Granted, they didn't have quite the same staying power as the British navy (who had rather more logistical support available in 1812-14). For that matter, British ships were able to refit at a number of ports in the Americas, from Halifax to Jamaica, so it's not as though the British blockades were in particularly far-flung locations.

Maybe the American frigates weren't the best, but they were certainly very good.

[Norsesmithy]

According to this (http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/a-sasano/english/e-galley.htm) site a typical Venetian galley carried five guns pointing forward and 8 swivel guns on the poop-deck.

Swivel guns are not really cannon in the sense of being the primary offensive armament of a ship, they are more like secondary weapons used in boarder repelling and boarder support. So too with the two outboard most guns on the bow of that model, they were likely used to fire shot and debris at the landing area for the boarding ramp, to clear a foothold for the marines that would jump ship in a fight. The middle three guns are all cannon sized barrels (the outer two are about 12lbers, a fairly average cannon size), and the middle gun in particular is an absolute monster (52 to 56lber? Did they really use them that big?)

That ship is a 48 meter galley, A caravel that large would actually be a Carrack, or perhaps a Galleon. It is difficult to be precise, or certain of the armaments carried on early period carracks or caravels, as they were considered state secrets, and writing such things down so that we could find your notes seems to have been frowned upon, but I have seen period art of boats that are reckoned at about 20 meters with 6 18lber or so cannon (and no swivel guns in sight, but I am sure such things would not have been neglected), though I am sure that the boats used by the traders and explorers that made Caravels so famous probably had 3 or four big guns, to save on weight and storage space.

48 meter hard hullers (carracks, caravels, and galleons, it refers to the method of hull construction) would probably carry more than 150 cannon class guns (say 8lber and up), the Mary Rose (yes, that Mary Rose) was a 38.5 meter hard huller, and she carried 91 cannon class guns in her final incarnation.

[Storm Bringer]

...the outer two are about 12lbers, a fairly average cannon size), and the middle gun in particular is an absolute monster (52 to 56lber? Did they really use them that big?)

the early naval cannons were often siege pieces emplaced on shipsl, and they tended to be seriously heavy compared to later pieces. however, they found that anything heavier than a Demi Cannon(32lb) was not worth the extra wieght and time to load compared to smaller cannons.

so, by the napoleonic wars, ships of the line carried 32-pounder main guns (and a few 64-pounder carronades on english ships), most frigates used 18-pounder main guns, with 12 pounder firgates nearing the end of thier useful life and 24 pounder frigates (like the american's heavy frigates) entering service.

[Hawriel]

The weight of the larger guns effected the stability of the ships. This is one of the reasons why the British used 18 pound guns. 24 pound guns changed the ships senter of gravety to much. The Americans well being Americans loved the larger gun. They beleaved the trade off of more fire power for less stability was worth it. However some captains did replace some of the 24 pound guns with 18 pounds for this reason. Or just as likely not enough of the larger guns where available.


Oh a retraction. (the edit)
earlyer I said an american got their frigate to do 20 nots. I miss spoke. I was doing two things at once and got mixed up and didnt check my post. Sorry for the mistake. I think it was 12.

[Belkarseviltwin]

If the seas were low then the American frigates had better fire-power than the British. However, in heavy seas you couldn't open the lower gun-ports for fear of flooding the lower gun-deck hence reducing the amount of guns capable of firing on the enemy.


A frigate has no lower gunports. If a ship has 2 or more rows of gunports it's a ship of the line. Guns on a deck open to the air are not counted in this case- although they still count towards the ship's total number of guns.

Heavy seas were important in the case of ships-of-the-line though, especially as they had their heavy guns on the lower decks. A standard 74-gun ship had 28 32-pounders on the lower gun deck, 30 18-pounders on the upper gun deck, and 16 nine-pounders on the quarterdeck and forecastle. In the only case (AFAIK) of a ship-of-the-line being destroyed by frigates, the ship in question (the French Droits de l'Homme) was unable to open its lower gunports due to heavy seas, which took the 32-pounders out of action and reduced its armament to the equivalent of a 38-gun 18-pounder frigate. Two large British frigates (the 36-gun Amazon and the 44-gun Indefatigable) were able to drive it ashore.

[Dervag]

Oh a retraction. (the edit)
earlyer I said an american got their frigate to do 20 nots. I miss spoke. I was doing two things at once and got mixed up and didnt check my post. Sorry for the mistake. I think it was 12.Even twelve would be remarkable; I'd like a citation for that, too.

[Storm Bringer]

nah, I'd accept twleve as a "achived under perfect condictions" speed. It's fast by the standards of the day, but certianly not unheard of.

[Dervag]

It's not that I don't believe it, it's that it's radically larger than the figures I've heard mentioned. I'd like some kind of reference- not necessarily an academic book, just something that was put down by a knowledgeable source as part of a substantial statement. Wikipedia would be just fine for this purpose.

[Raum]

I couldn't find specific numbers for ships prior to the mid-nineteenth century but the Cutty Sark (a clipper ship commissioned in 1868) was able to average 15 knots over a 24 hour period. Since clipper ships were developed in the late eighteenth century, they probably would have been capable of hitting 12 knots. The basic clipper hull was used in England as early as the sixteenth century though details and rigging changed. Per this site (http://www.globalindex.com/clippers/museum/ms_clipp.htm), the first true clipper ships appeared shortly before the American revolution.

From the site linked above: "For a seagoing, cargo-carrying sailing vessel, the clipper ship was remarkably fast; claims for speeds from 16 to 18 nautical mph are common, and exceptional speeds of up to 20 knots have been documented."

[Om]

I couldn't find specific numbers for ships prior to the mid-nineteenth century but the Cutty Sark (a clipper ship commissioned in 1868) was able to average 15 knots over a 24 hour period.Be careful there. The Cutty Sark, and other China/tea clippers, were the epitome of sail design and were specifically intended to be small and fast. They would have been a generation more advanced than the Constitution frigates. I would be extremely wary about using this as an indicator of frigate speeds.

[Raum]

Be careful there. The Cutty Sark, and other China/tea clippers, were the epitome of sail design and were specifically intended to be small and fast. They would have been a generation more advanced than the Constitution frigates. I would be extremely wary about using this as an indicator of frigate speeds.Agreed. I should have made it clear - I'm simply postulating that clipper builds, which were around as early as the American revolutionary war, would have been capable of 12 knots or more. However, Wikipedia does say the USS Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_constitution) was capable of 13 knots.

[Winterking]

From "Six Ships that Shook the World," Invention & Technology magazine, Fall 1997:
"The final design they acheived delivered on every promise Humphreys (the designer) had made in his original proposal. At 175 feet on the water line, and capable of setting almost an acre of sail, the superfrigate had the speed to outrun any other man-of-war in the world, up to thirteen knots." (p29)

(I knew there was a good reason to hold onto magazines as if I were a pack-rat)

[Hawriel]

The book Ive most resently read about the six frigates is

Six Frigates The Epic History of the Founding of the United States Navy

by Ian W. Toll

Toll acounted that the President and or The Constitution obtaned 13 nots. Im sorry I cant give the page number. No ware did Toll say that the speed was a regular accerence it just was obtaned.

[Dervag]

I'm satisfied; it's not a problem.

"nots?"

[Zen Master]

"nots?"

Ivan W. Toll said so - it must be correct :p

[Thiel]

It's spelled knots and it means nautical miles per hour.

[Leicontis]

I'm sure this has been answered in this thread or one of its predecessors, but I can't find it if it has, so here goes:

What stat differences would you apply for a true damascus (as opposed to normal blade steel) sword in d20? My best suggestion would be like a +1 enhancement bonus to damage, but that would be crappy for the same reason as 3.0 adamantine...

[Zincorium]

I'm sure this has been answered in this thread or one of its predecessors, but I can't find it if it has, so here goes:

What stat differences would you apply for a true damascus (as opposed to normal blade steel) sword in d20? My best suggestion would be like a +1 enhancement bonus to damage, but that would be crappy for the same reason as 3.0 adamantine...

1. We don't generally talk about game terms here.
2. Masterwork. It's a high quality material with excellent workmanship, but it's not fundamentally different.

[Norsesmithy]

As far as we can tell, the Wootz steel damascene swords were not inherently superior to pattern welded or monosteel blades.

On average, though, wootz steel blades were well made. Not to say that they were superior to a similarly well made pattern welded or monosteel sword, but that there seems to be fewer wootz blades of lower quality.

I don't know how this would translate game mechanics wise.

[Fhaolan]

Damascus, wootz, pattern welded, and so on, are all attempts to make up for the fact that the original steel being used is actually pretty darn bad. It smooths out the imperfections in the steel. The better the steel to begin with, the less folding actually helps.

The whole concept of 'micro-serrations' that is the current myth surrounding folded steel is absolute nonsense. If the different layers really separated enough to make a difference like that, the whole sword would flake apart the first time you hit something. They might help a knife for precision carving or filleting, but combat is a whole different scale.

The reason that they have such a mystique to them is two-fold. One, they’re very pretty. And pretty sells. Two, the ones that still exist were all made by master smiths, so they are ‘masterwork’ weapons in D&D parlance.

On related notes: You don't want a sword you can shave with, as the thin edge will fold over or shatter when it hits bone or steel. If you want to shave, get a skinning knife or a razor, that's what they're for.

Despite all the fantasy pieces on the market, serrated swords are actually more difficult to fight with as they tend to snag, and you have to put more effort into pulling the sword free to deal with your next opponent. They just wear you out faster.

[BardicDuelist]

A damascus sword was considered more durable than a regular steel sword of the period because the steel of the period was very bad. What damascus did was take some of the best steel and fold/combine it with the poorer steel, making a sword which had a better construction.

It was also rumored to be more flexable (and thus less likely to break) than the steel of the age, though I do not know if this is true.

[Subotei]

From what I've read Damascene blades where not necessarily produced by pattern welding, though the end result may look similar, so we need to be careful talking about folding/combining good and poor steels. Basically a lot of the facts about how they were produced are conjecture.

[Adlan]

Pattern welding is use for two reasons, 2 smooth out impurities in bad quality iron (as in japan) or too combine expensive steel with cheaper iron and still retain strength and flexibility (as in AngloSaxon swords, specifically, the sutton hoo one).

Damascene steel (wootz) is made from what is belived to be a specific ore, treated a certain way and the pattern results from carbides forming in the metal.

[Hurlbut]

How frequent can one attack with a 30 pounds mallet if he is strong enough to use it and had some practices with it?

[Winterking]

Probably not more than once a round (6 seconds), if that. Thirty pounds doesn't seem that much as a number, but turn it into metal and put it on the end of a stick, and you need a lot of energy to attack, and time as well. Not only do you have to swing the blasted thing, but you have to swing hard and fast enough to hit your target. If you do connect, you lose the mallet's momentum, and have to swing it back into position for the next strike. If you miss, you have to stop the mallet's momentum, and reposition it, without being killed in the meantime. The weight, and the need to not over-swing any part of the process, make it a slow affair.

In fact, a 30-pound mallet is extremely impractical. A normal sledgehammer is only 5-10 pounds, and it would certainly crush any unarmored body part, and probably crush or concuss even an armored torso, if it was swung with deadly force. A helmet, even a high-quality one, would not hold up either, judging from the popularity of maces and warhammers about the size and shape of a sledge. Wikipedia does mention some 20-lb sledges being used, especially for construction/demolition, but these would be slow, deliberate tools--a swing, followed by a pause, followed by the preparation for another swing. Someone would need superhuman strength to use even a 20-lb sledge for any period of time, at any useful speed, in combat. 30-lb is even less plausible for humans/humanoids.

[Raum]

How frequent can one attack with a 30 pounds mallet if he is strong enough to use it and had some practices with it?Once, if he's lucky and attacks first. Then he gets stabbed / sliced / clubbed by an opponent with a reasonable weapon. Or simply choked out if he doesn't drop the mallet when grappled.

As Winterking said, 30lbs is extremely impractical for a melee weapon. Particularly a head heavy weapon. Even if strength and endurance weren't factors, anyone with a normal human's mass will be pulled off center by strikes.

[Hawriel]

Ive used 5 and 10 pound sledge hammers in construction. just swinging them to hit a stake or wall can be rather combersom. Using them as a fighting weapon....I would rather use a crowbar or baseball bat. All the weight at one end really throws you off. As far as Ive read and sean pictures of real war hammers they where not 5-10 pound hammers that D&D, WOW, FF and any other fantisy sillyness would have you believe. A warhammer is a one handed weapon the head might be twise the size of a carpinters hammer. Again this is judging by photos and what I remember from a trip to a museum as a kid. The head often wasnt flat but had points 1 3 or 4 or I guess I could see somthing similar to a ballpin hammer. The hammer head would often be balanced by a spike. Like you would find in a hammer/hatchet tool found in hardware storse. Even a pole arm like a bec de corbon or lucerne hammer would not have a hammer head any bigger. you dont need a five pound sledge to brake bone. Against some one in plate something a little bigger than a carpentry hammer would be needed. The same with a pick. They didnt use somting like the size of a mining pick eather. A good depiction of that is from brave heart. In one of the first seens of the second(?) battle Mell Gibson uses a pick to kill some one by driving right through the top of some ones helm

.www.answers.com/topic/war-hammer

this pick from answers.com will serve. Also links to maces bec de corbin ect.

[Dervag]

To simplify the problem:

The heavy sledgehammers and picks used in construction and mining are designed to smash and stab through solid wood and rock. Flesh and bone aren't nearly as strong as solid wood and rock, so they can be badly damaged by a much lighter hammer or pick. The extra weight involved in a construction or mining pick (such as a 10 lb. sledgehammer), let alone in something even heavier (like a hypothetical 30 lb. maul) is simply overkill, and overkill isn't a good idea in a melee weapon because it's a waste of energy.

[Fhaolan]

Warhammers ranged in size somewhat, but if you pick up the largest ball-peen from the hardware store you're probably in the right range. Even when they got larger, it was usually just a longer handle (bec du corbin, lucern hammer, and suchlike) rather than a massive heavy head.

There is mention of using sledges in combat, but it's presented as them being emergency whatever-is-on-hand kind of thing instead of a deliberate choice. And there were large two-handed maces, but to be honest the ones I've seen in museums are very decorative. They were probably symbolic rather than intended to be practical, like some of the highly decorative silly-size swords I've seen. I've been told that these kinds of 'weapons' were meant to be carried in processions and parades, so were made to be highly visible rather than functional, and show no signs of actual use.

[Hurlbut]

Probably not more than once a round (6 seconds), if that. Thirty pounds doesn't seem that much as a number, but turn it into metal and put it on the end of a stick
If I remember correctly, the player's concept for the mallet was mostly wooden with a lead core.

[Sundog]

If I remember correctly, the player's concept for the mallet was mostly wooden with a lead core.

Then, effectively what you have is a lead-headed mace with padding.

30 pounds is just too much mass for a field engagement. A mallet like that is a siege tool.

[Mike_G]

How frequent can one attack with a 30 pounds mallet if he is strong enough to use it and had some practices with it?

Many weapon sites and sources far overestimate weights, so it can get confusing. I've seen mentions of 18 lb swords, which is crap.

For easy weight comparison, a gallon of water weighs 8 lbs. So imagine 4 gallon jugs all fastened to the end of a handle (32 lbs, but ballpark, and gets the point across), and ask if he thinks a normal man could swing it at all effectively.

When I worked at a liquor store, I remember lifting boxes of four 4 liter jugs of wine, which is close to 40 lbs, and you have to put your strength into just carrying those. Swinging a stick with a crate of wine on the end is beyond me.

30 lbs is going to pull him off balance, if he's man sized. This being D&D, the weapon could work for a Large sized, appropriately high Str character.

[Dervag]

Yeah; balance is a very serious issue here.

I would suggest that you actually make this player try swinging thirty pounds on a stick somehow and see if it's possible. Stand way, way back.

i suspect they won't even be able to hold the maul with the weight of its head off to one side, let alone swing it around.

There reaslly isn't much justification for a weapon like this, because it would be both more ahistorical and less effective than a normal warhammer.

[Citizen Joe]

Should bows be unstrung if left unused for a long period of time? I'm thinking the long bow should, but what about the composite bows?

[Fhaolan]

Should bows be unstrung if left unused for a long period of time? I'm thinking the long bow should, but what about the composite bows?

Yes. A bow is really just a spring. When a spring is under tension constantly, it slowly bends to release that tension. It really doesn't matter what material it's made out of, it will do this. The tougher the material, the slower it will bend. Very tough springs, like leaf springs on a car, take a *very* long time to bend, but even they need to be replaced after enough time has passed.

So, a bow will slowly lose 'pull' if strung all the time. Non-composite bows will lose tension faster than composite bows in the same situation, but they both will do it over a long enough time-frame. Even crossbows will do this, although most serious crossbows have very tough prods (the technical term for the arms of the bow) made out of spring steel or the like to slow down this inevitable bending. Balistae and other really, really heavy crossbows don't use bent prods at all, but use a tortion system with twisted ropes. When the ropes stretch and the balistae loses tension, you twist the ropes father to add more tortion.

A similar situation is dry-firing a bow. This means pulling a bow back to the 'firing' position and letting go of the string without an arrow in place. This can cause the prods to twist slightly as they are 'expecting' the inertia of the arrow, and the lack of this inertia throws the balance of the bow out of whack. On cheap bows you'll notice this occuring fairly rapidly. On very good bows it will take longer. However, no matter how good the bow, dry-firing will slowly send the bow out-of-true.

[Matthew]

Doesn't the string also get damaged when the Bow is strung for prolonged periods?

[Fhaolan]

30 lbs is going to pull him off balance, if he's man sized. This being D&D, the weapon could work for a Large sized, appropriately high Str character.

Absolutely. This is really not a matter of strength. It's a matter of mass. No matter how strong you are, swinging a weapon that is an appreciable percentage of your own mass is not going to work very well in a combat situation. You can have the strength of Superman, and physics is still going to bite you. It's all about centers of mass, centers of force and equal and opposite reactions.

[Fhaolan]

Doesn't the string also get damaged when the Bow is strung for prolonged periods?

Yeah, I forgot to mention that part. It's a similar principle, just a linear stretching rather than bending, but it works the same way. Being under constant tension, bowstring fibres will pull apart and stretch to relieve that tension.

The basic rules are: An object under tension will slowly change to relieve that tension. Different materials will change at different rates. If that object is meant to be a spring, the spring will slowly lose 'force', so it will lose effectiveness.

[Adlan]

With Modern Fiber Glass or fiberglass composite bows, or compounds? Nah, not a problem, the amount they 'follow the string' as it's known, is negligable (compounds don't folow the string at all). W
ith Wooden self bows (American Flat Bows or Longbows), then it's noticable, and they should be kept strung. String stretch isn't so bad, if the string stretches just add some more twist to it or shorten the knot (unless you have a flemish twist). Modern string materials don't stretch much. Though Linien or hemp and other traditional ones will.

With Dry firing the bows? very very bad idea, all that energy which would go into the arrow, and now has nowhere to go, goes into the limbs and damages them. If you ever go into a bow shop, and dry fire a bow. Expect a 'You shot it, you bought it' policy.

[Stephen_E]

Absolutely. This is really not a matter of strength. It's a matter of mass. No matter how strong you are, swinging a weapon that is an appreciable percentage of your own mass is not going to work very well in a combat situation. You can have the strength of Superman, and physics is still going to bite you. It's all about centers of mass, centers of force and equal and opposite reactions.

Wild Cards, Book/Short Story series edited by G.R.R.Martin handled this well with a early story about a guy who developed super strength and invunerability who tried to stop a speeding car by standing in the way. Physics bit and the car knocked him down and ran over him.

Stephen

[Dervag]

Doesn't the string also get damaged when the Bow is strung for prolonged periods?Yes, for reasons above. On the other hand, strings are far more replaceable than bows, so if it was just the string it might not matter quite so much.

Though you still wouldn't want to leave a bow strung for too long because if the string stretches out you won't be able to use it in a hurry, which is the only conceivable reason for leaving it strung in the first place.


The basic rules are: An object under tension will slowly change to relieve that tension. Different materials will change at different rates. If that object is meant to be a spring, the spring will slowly lose 'force', so it will lose effectiveness.The physics geeks would use the term 'stiffness' for 'force', but Fhaolan is absolutely 100% right about this, and about why.


With Dry firing the bows? very very bad idea, all that energy which would go into the arrow, and now has nowhere to go, goes into the limbs and damages them. If you ever go into a bow shop, and dry fire a bow. Expect a 'You shot it, you bought it' policy.What about wet firing, or whatever you call the opposite of dry firing? Are you allowed to test fire the bows in any manner at all, or is a pure pig-in-a-poke buy?


Wild Cards, Book/Short Story series edited by G.R.R.Martin handled this well with a early story about a guy who developed super strength and invunerability who tried to stop a speeding car by standing in the way. Physics bit and the car knocked him down and ran over him.

StephenYes, but on the other hand if he was truly invulnerable he wouldn't get hurt and the car would. Badly. As if it had hit a 200 pound stone in the road.

As for the bit about the maul, if you were as strong as Superman the muscles of your legs and torso could exert enough force to keep you in a stable, upright position despite the enormous torque exerted by the 30 lb. head of the maul. But you'd still have problems swinging it without getting swung yourself.

[Fhaolan]

What about wet firing, or whatever you call the opposite of dry firing? Are you allowed to test fire the bows in any manner at all, or is a pure pig-in-a-poke buy?


You know, I don't think I've ever heard of an equivalent opposite term of dry-firing. Just as a weird note.

At the one specialty archery store I've been at here in Washington State, they have a small one-person range built into the store, for customers to fire an actual arrow at a target while trying out a bow, and somewhere safe to experiment with draw lengths and different pulls.

[Adlan]

Same with my local shop, all stores should have a range (even if it's only 3 yards long) for you to try before you buy, especially as one of the large parts of buying from a proshop as opposed to online is the help you get in setting up your bow eg: learning how to tune the compound sights ect.

I wouldn't buy a bow without testing it first, or at least, testing one buy the same bowmaker.

[TimeWizard]

The opposite of dry-firing is actually throwing an arrow. Time's Fun Fact #37.

[Hurlbut]

Would high quality bronze be better for weapons and armours than poor quality iron?

[Swordguy]

Would high quality bronze be better for weapons and armours than poor quality iron?

It'd kind of depend on the weapon or armor.

[Anxe]

Would high quality bronze be better for weapons and armours than poor quality iron?

Generally yes though. Poor quality iron doesn't have a sharp edge and breaks easily. High quality bronze will still bend, but is fixable with a small fire, hammer, and tongs. High quality bronze can also have an edge. So if you want a blunt weapon like a mace, then use iron, but everything else is better as bronze.

[Hurlbut]

Generally yes though. Poor quality iron doesn't have a sharp edge and breaks easily. High quality bronze will still bend, but is fixable with a small fire, hammer, and tongs. High quality bronze can also have an edge. So if you want a blunt weapon like a mace, then use iron, but everything else is better as bronze.Thanks.

Asuming you have equal access to sources of copper and tin and iron. Which one, Bronze or Iron, would be easier to use for same level of quality? That is, which one use a higher degree of technology for same quality?

[Swordguy]

Thanks.

Asuming you have equal access to sources of copper and tin and iron. Which one, Bronze or Iron, would be easier to use for same level of quality? That is, which one use a higher degree of technology for same quality?

Iron. Smelting the impurities out is a pain in the butt.

However, you quickly reach the point with iron that it's better than bronze. The bronze has to be VERY high quality to even be as good as mid-to-low grade iron, and the ease of bronze creation gets outweighed by the quality required to equal iron.

/Did that make sense? Cause I think I confused myself writing it...

[Adlan]

Bronze is very easy to make. Tin and Copper Ore, can be smelted together, and you will get workable bronze out, and then be able to work it and hammer out any impurities. Lower temperatures are needed. And can be made with a wood fuled fire.

Bronze has been discoverd, or at least, been theorised to have been discoverd multiple times, while Iron it is debatable, some theorists say only once. (I belive the other main theory is two seperate discoverys).

Iron is hard to make, even in a simple bloomsbury forge, but does have the advantage of only needing one ore. But you do need A Charcoal fire. However Charcoal is easier to make than tin ore is to find. The Lack of decent Tin Ore is theorised to have spurred on the Iron Age.

However, Knowing what we know now, I'd say Iron.

[Om]

However, you quickly reach the point with iron that it's better than bronze. The bronze has to be VERY high quality to even be as good as mid-to-low grade iron, and the ease of bronze creation gets outweighed by the quality required to equal iron.A very important point. It was very difficult to get the alloy mixtures right in order to produce steel but even lower grade iron became commonly used. That's largely a result of iron being cheaper/more common than both tin and copper. Iron tools also have the advantage in that, unlike bronze, they can be sharpened to retain their edge.

Of course the only real technology needed to make basic iron is the matter of heat. There have been continual advancements in making different iron alloys (the mass production of steel is less than 150 years old) but once you have a fire hot enough you can forge decent iron tools/weapons.

[Fhaolan]

You also have to take into account production techniques.

Bronze weapons are usually cast from molds. The more complex the mold, the more difficult it is to create the object. Long thin objects, like cut & thrust sword blades, are extremely difficult to cast. However, if you have enough molds, mass production is a lot easier with casting than it is with hand forging.

Iron weapons can be cast, and the early iron weapons usually were. Hand forging technically allows you to create long, thin objects that casting is very poor at. However, if your iron is really that bad the flaws in the metal itself will prevent you from making a good long sword blade.

So what it boils down to is what you're trying to achieve. With poor iron and bronze, you're going to get a lot of short swords, axes, spear heads, arrow heads, etc. Short blades. If you really need long blades, you have to go with reasonably good steel.

[Swordguy]

So what it boils down to is what you're trying to achieve. With poor iron and bronze, you're going to get a lot of short swords, axes, spear heads, arrow heads, etc. Short blades. If you really need long blades, you have to go with reasonably good steel.

Hence my original answer: depends on the weapon or armor...

(Came full circle on that one really quick :smallbiggrin: )

[Storm Bringer]

However Charcoal is easier to make than tin ore is to find. The Lack of decent Tin Ore is theorised to have spurred on the Iron Age.


Apprantly, thier are only two places in the world where both copper and tin occur close to each other: a site in what is now Iran, and thailand. Everywhere else had to import one of the elements of bronze form a signifcant distance.

What i've read (on The Wiki, so YMMV) was that the only scorce of Tin ore in Europe was Cornwall. This, in turn, impiles that the bronze age transport system (the decline of which apprantly triggered the Iron age) was better than anything managed until the mid-Medieval period.

[Dervag]

Apprantly, thier are only two places in the world where both copper and tin occur close to each other: a site in what is now Iran, and thailand. Everywhere else had to import one of the elements of bronze form a signifcant distance.

What i've read (on The Wiki, so YMMV) was that the only scorce of Tin ore in Europe was Cornwall. This, in turn, impiles that the bronze age transport system (the decline of which apprantly triggered the Iron age) was better than anything managed until the mid-Medieval period.Frankly, if the incentive had existed for the early medievals to do long-distance trading, the transport network probably wouldn't have collapsed so far. It wasn't that medievals couldn't build ships roughly as good as the ones the Bronze Agers had; it was that there was no reward to be had at sea that could compare to the intrinsic risk of taking a long sea voyage (which was dangerous in any era up until the Age of Steam).

Until the local economies of Western Europe grew back to the point where there was a serious market for luxuries, the economic base for long-distance travel and shipping didn't exist.

[Matthew]

I think you guys may be underestimating the extent of medieval trade. If nothing else, the Vikings were a major trade component of early medieval society and there was movement of goods between Scandanavia and Byzantium. However, I'm no expert on the subject, it is just my impression from my limited exposure to academic articles on the subject that the flow of goods through Europe was less than during the height of the Roman Empire, but reasonably healthy.

[Sundog]

I think you guys may be underestimating the extent of medieval trade. If nothing else, the Vikings were a major trade component of early medieval society and there was movement of goods between Scandanavia and Byzantium. However, I'm no expert on the subject, it is just my impression from my limited exposure to academic articles on the subject that the flow of goods through Europe was less than during the height of the Roman Empire, but reasonably healthy.

Viking trade expeditions more or less revitalized the european trading networks. There was a significant gap between the fall of western Rome and the rise of the Vikings, during which large areas of Europe were practically cut off from long-distance trade. Some sections were practically cut off from their neighbours.

Now, if you're talking southern Europe, around the Mediterranean Sea and it's offshoots, you are talking a different tale. The Med is so calm and easy to navigate (compared with, say, the Atlantic) that long and medium distance trade never really collapsed - a fairly cheap coaster was all that was needed. Plus, the eastern Med had such entities as the Byzantine and Persian empires adjoining or within striking distance of it - entities that remained viable and functional throughout the so-called "Dark Ages". Those areas never really lapsed into the anarchy that befell the northwest.

[Matthew]

I was under the impression that the Dark Age trade hiatus was under revision. There was certainly a reduction, but I don't know what the extent is thought to be nowadays. Certainly, Charlemagne had a reasonable economic base, in which case we're looking to narrow things down to something like the 4th to 8th centuries. As I say, though, I am no expert on the matter. Can anybody recommend any sources for this?

[Sundog]

I was under the impression that the Dark Age trade hiatus was under revision. There was certainly a reduction, but I don't know what the extent is thought to be nowadays. Certainly, Charlemagne had a reasonable economic base, in which case we're looking to narrow things down to something like the 4th to 8th centuries. As I say, though, I am no expert on the matter. Can anybody recommend any sources for this?

Well, even if we ARE talking about the 4th to 8th centuries, that's still a period of FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.

Consider: that's the same time period as between Tycho Brahe and William Shakespeare and the modern period. Or about 170 years longer than the United States has been in existence.

We're talking a period long enough that long range trade would have dropped out of living memory, and then out of oral tradition (which typically can't recall anything greater than 300 years previously).

It's still a major cultural break.

[Matthew]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean for that to be the final verdict, just the first step in narrowing the timeline. I have heard that the post Roman economic breakdown has been exaggerated (though there was certainly a decline), so I am interested to hear what people know of the situation. My understanding, tentatively, is that trade still went on for the most part with true isolation being relatively rare. Certainly, places like Northumbria thrived during the 'Dark Ages'.

[Sundog]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean for that to be the final verdict, just the first step in narrowing the timeline. I have heard that the post Roman economic breakdown has been exaggerated (though there was certainly a decline), so I am interested to hear what people know of the situation. My understanding, tentatively, is that trade still went on for the most part with true isolation being relatively rare. Certainly, places like Northumbria thrived during the 'Dark Ages'.

Well, the main thing that a lot of the early historians missed (or at least didn't take into full consideration) was the pilgrimage effect. Christians went on pilgimages to shrines, cathedrals, Rome etc. and this does seem to have been a social glue that held things together - inasmuch as anything did.

But to call what happened after Rome fell a "decline" is like calling the 1905 San Francisco earthquake a "tremor". Technically acurate, but it doesn't provide any sense of how extreme the event really was. Previously, huge networks of trade had united an Empire the size, roughly, of modern Alaska in governed area, maybe a bit bigger. That network literally disintegrated in under a century; even the roads were ripped up for the worked stone. Cities became towns, towns became villages, villages disappeared entirely as purely local economic conditions prevailed.

It may not have been as bad as some people once thought, a chaos of war and famine. But for any sort of long distance trade, the effect was just as chilling.

[ElectricEel]

What i've read (on The Wiki, so YMMV) was that the only scorce of Tin ore in Europe was Cornwall. From what I've read, not the only source in Europe, but the only source that could support the economies of classical antiquity. The nearest other such source was in Afghanistan IIRC.

[Om]

What i've read (on The Wiki, so YMMV) was that the only scorce of Tin ore in Europe was Cornwall.Not true. There were tin mines in Wicklow which, while not plentiful, provided the bulk of the material used in Irish bronze making. I wouldn't be surprised if there were numerous other local sources around the continent.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't it take until the late medieval period (circa the 11th C) before tin production in Cornwall really exploded and became sold throughout Europe?


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean for that to be the final verdict, just the first step in narrowing the timeline. I have heard that the post Roman economic breakdown has been exaggerated (though there was certainly a decline), so I am interested to hear what people know of the situation. My understanding, tentatively, is that trade still went on for the most part with true isolation being relatively rare. Certainly, places like Northumbria thrived during the 'Dark Ages'.That's something that historians are still arguing about. AFAIK the current agreement is that the previous "OMG civilisation collapsed entirely" arguments have been discredited but there is yet no consensus on the actual magnitude of the collapse/decline. What is relatively clear though is that continental trade did decline/fall severely and didn't fully recover until well into the Middle Ages (ie post-13th C).

'Course that's completely different from suggesting that civilisation/innovation/production/etc suffered to the same degree.

[Subotei]

AFAIK the current agreement is that the previous "OMG civilisation collapsed entirely" arguments have been discredited but there is yet no consensus on the actual magnitude of the collapse/decline. What is relatively clear though is that continental trade did decline/fall severely and didn't fully recover until well into the Middle Ages (ie post-13th C).

'Course that's completely different from suggesting that civilisation/innovation/production/etc suffered to the same degree.

I recall there was some interesting research done on the levels of lead found trapped in arctic ice - there as a result of tin production (I think) which shows high lead levels in the Roman period, falling off and then recovering again in the mid/late Middle Ages. Anyone know the source? - couldn't find it) This certainly indicates a drop off of metal production after the Roman period, but thats not to say civilisation collapsed, just that people probably either didn't need it, couldn't afford it, or couldn't get to it.

[Matthew]

Well, I have been looking through this online version of Talhoffer (http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_hs_loebenr=2&p_sidenr=25&p_illnr=0&p_frem=20&p_tilbage=20&p_navtype=rel&p_lang=eng) and I have to say there is some absolutely crazy looking stuff in it. If you have never taken a look through, I highly recommend you do.

[Fhaolan]

Well, I have been looking through this online version of Talhoffer (http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_hs_loebenr=2&p_sidenr=25&p_illnr=0&p_frem=20&p_tilbage=20&p_navtype=rel&p_lang=eng) and I have to say there is some absolutely crazy looking stuff in it. If you have never taken a look through, I highly recommend you do.


Yeah, while a lot of Talhoffer is perfectly fine, sometimes you've gotta wonder what the heck he was on when he came up with this stuff, and were can we get some?

[Leperflesh]

I am looking for the first three versions of this thread. Comrade Gorby's first post links to them, but, the links don't work... presumably because they're in the old version of the forums?

If possible someone please provide links, and ideally, Gorbash should update the first post.

Thanks

[Matthew]

Hey Leperflesh! Haven't seen you around in ages; where's your Avatar?

Anyway, here's a link to Mark III: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21318 (28 Pages, 819 Posts)

...and Mark II: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23290 (16 Pages, 452 Posts)

...and Mark I: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24294 (18 Pages, 518 Posts)

[Dervag]

Is it perchance time to start the Mark V? This thread is now longer than the other three threads of its name combined.

[Matthew]

I contacted Gorbash about it when we hit page 50, but got no response. I think they are just going to let it keep going until it 'maxes out'. One thing I have noticed about starting a new Arms and Armour Thread is that all the old questions tend to come back, so maybe it's for the best...

[tiaxrulesall]

-apparently the main combat style for most of history was the spear and shield.

-now this usually means that the spear will be wielded one handed.

-Now personally i find it incredibly difficult to accurately thrust with a spear held only in one hand, as the weight is on both sides of your hand, and is is ver difficult to apply torque to the spear with just a flick of the wrist, especially when your spear is 6-7 feet long as i think was standard.

-now did the ancients find a way around this, where they just much stronger in wrist and arm than me, or was a hard to control spear an acceptable trade off for having a shield in the other hand?

[Storm Bringer]

-apparently the main combat style for most of history was the spear and shield.

-now this usually means that the spear will be wielded one handed.

-Now personally i find it incredibly difficult to accurately thrust with a spear held only in one hand, as the weight is on both sides of your hand, and is is ver difficult to apply torque to the spear with just a flick of the wrist, especially when your spear is 6-7 feet long as i think was standard.

-now did the ancients find a way around this, where they just much stronger in wrist and arm than me, or was a hard to control spear an acceptable trade off for having a shield in the other hand?

A few things pop to mind that may help explian this:

1) it is quite possible, indeed probable, that classical and medieval spearmen, mostly from farming stock (and thus spent most of their time doing physical labour) had stronger arm muscles than a 20th century townsperson (assuming that you are city dweller who works at a desk job).

2) the ancient spearman, training with his spear, would likey do so for much longer periods than a modern re-enactor.and train more instensivly as well. one re-enactors site i have visited (but lost the url for) says they reckon it takes maybe 7 or 8 weekend meets before a person gains a basic level of skill, or, if they have the time, maybe a week or so intensive training. how long have you spent trying to learn spear fighting?

[Fhaolan]

-apparently the main combat style for most of history was the spear and shield.

-now this usually means that the spear will be wielded one handed.

-Now personally i find it incredibly difficult to accurately thrust with a spear held only in one hand, as the weight is on both sides of your hand, and is is ver difficult to apply torque to the spear with just a flick of the wrist, especially when your spear is 6-7 feet long as i think was standard.

-now did the ancients find a way around this, where they just much stronger in wrist and arm than me, or was a hard to control spear an acceptable trade off for having a shield in the other hand?

I have actually practiced spear and shield style in RL, so I can probably help you here.

In several recent movies, you see a lot of ancient warriors (usually Greek) using spear and shield. The techniques you see on the screen are actually not that far off of the way spear and shield was historically used in one-on-one duels, thanks to the new group of Fight Directors who are putting a lot of effort into learning how the weapons were actually used, rather than just translating the smallsword fencing they were familiar with into spears and broadswords. Now, admitedly they tend to throw in maneuvers that are from much later Itallian and German fighting manuals which are much fancier than was probably used. (A lot of what appears in those fighting manuals could be viewed by the modern eye as advertising. 'Join my school of fence, and I'll teach to how to do these cool maneuvers!' as they tend to be missing important instructions on how to make some of those maneuvers actually work...) And what you see on the screen tends to be the dueling forms, where you are supposed to have only two people on the field fighting each other. Spear and shield in formation is a lot different and doesn't require quite as strong a wrist.

Spear and Shield was common in ancient Greece, as well as the Norse (Vikings) and the like. These people trained a *lot* in the style, which did indeed result in stronger wrists and arms.

However, the spears used for spear and shield were not the same spears they used two-handed. They were closer to throwing spears, although they were not as small as what are depicted as javelins now-a-days. They tended to be about 6'-7' in length, wheras the two-handed spear was about 7-10' long. Their metal spearheads being on the smaller size, and the shaft was on average about 1" diameter. I say on average as RL antique spears tend to taper slightly from the grip point to either end, while most reproductions have a consistant diameter thanks to the existance of doweling machines. The Norse version tended to be made of ash, as that provides a very straight grain, which in turn allows a thinner shaft with the same strength. If you use pine or oak in your reproduction, you'll need a thicker shaft to get the same strength, and you'll need to be that much stronger to overcome the inertia controllably.

All this makes the spear a lot lighter than you would think. However, it still takes a lot of training to do spear and shield in the dueling forms you see in the movies. :)

[Leperflesh]

Hey Leperflesh! Haven't seen you around in ages; where's your Avatar?

Thanks for the links, Matthew. Yeah, I'm still around - got busy with other stuff and other forums. I never updated my avatar back when the forums URL changed or whatever that was. I still read the comics religiously and I occasionally stop in to the forums to browse.

I was asking for the links because on saturday I was at a party and we got to chatting about medieval warfare and weaponry and I found myself paraphrasing some of the stuff from this thread... and I wanted to send that guy the links, because I wasn't 100% sure I was getting everything right.

--edit--
Avatar added, once I figured out where I was hosting it.

[Matthew]

No problem. Good to hear from you and glad to be of service. I hope that the links help with your discussion (and nice to be able to see your Avatar again)

[tiaxrulesall]

-would it be possible to construct a modern compound bow out of materials and technology available in medieval or renaissance Europe.

-was this superior bow design not come across simply by chance or because the necessary prerequisites did not exist?

[Neon Knight]

A friend and I got into an argument. He thinks that a person can stab a man with a bayonet mounted to a rifle, fire the rifle point blank into the man, and have both bayonet and rifle be fine. I think the recoil of the rifle would cause the bayonet to snap off in the stabee's body. Which of us is correct?

[Crow]

The rifle and bayonet will be fine. Unless it is a plug bayonet.

[Storm Bringer]

A friend and I got into an argument. He thinks that a person can stab a man with a bayonet mounted to a rifle, fire the rifle point blank into the man, and have both bayonet and rifle be fine. I think the recoil of the rifle would cause the bayonet to snap off in the stabee's body. Which of us is correct?

the recoil of a rilfe would not damage a bayonet mounted to it. the bayonet is made (useually) out of decent steel and could take that sort of shock without damage. the recoil wouldn't really affect it much (being a force that would simply pull the bayonet backwacks out of the target, along the path it entered the body), and the targets sideways movement would not generate the sort of stresses that would damage the bayonet (if they do, you've got a bad bayonet).

[Fhaolan]

-would it be possible to construct a modern compound bow out of materials and technology available in medieval or renaissance Europe.

-was this superior bow design not come across simply by chance or because the necessary prerequisites did not exist?

Possible? Yes. Worthwhile? No.

The modern compound bow relies on pullies. Which rely on bearings. To make it worthwhile, you need sealed bearings. Which you don't have in those periods, and do not have the technology to make.

What you end up with is a bow that *looks* like a compound bow but is prone to failure in any condition where dirt or grime gets into the pully bearings. Such as combat or hunting conditions.

Add in the fact that the cost of said bow would be astronomical compared to a regular combat-level siege bow, due to complexity. Even if you manage to get past the sealed bearing problem, each compound bow would probably cost hundred times or more what a normal bow would cost. Which means for every man equiped with said bow, your enemies can equip 100 men with normal bows for the same cost. And I doubt that one bow makes that archer the equivalent to 100 archers on the other side. :smallsmile:

[tiaxrulesall]

-would it not be possible to use pulleys that lacked bearings, or would that defeat some element of a compound bow?

[Sundog]

the recoil of a rilfe would not damage a bayonet mounted to it. the bayonet is made (useually) out of decent steel and could take that sort of shock without damage. the recoil wouldn't really affect it much (being a force that would simply pull the bayonet backwacks out of the target, along the path it entered the body), and the targets sideways movement would not generate the sort of stresses that would damage the bayonet (if they do, you've got a bad bayonet).

I should note that Australian Bayonet Drill includes having a round "up the spout" (or, at least, did in 1946 when my father went through basic training). The idea is that if your bayonet sticks in the body of your victim, you fire the round to help break it loose from whatever it snagged on.

[Fhaolan]

-would it not be possible to use pulleys that lacked bearings, or would that defeat some element of a compound bow?

You could do it, but without bearings, pulleys are sticky. Which means your loose is going to stutter... okay let me try that again... When you let go of the string to fire (loose) the arrow, if the pulleys are sticky the string isn't going to pull smoothly on the arrow. The string will give little jerks (stutters) as the pulley catches and releases in small increments.

A stuttering loose will cause the arrow to be wildly inaccurate, in both vector and power.

[Dervag]

I should note that Australian Bayonet Drill includes having a round "up the spout" (or, at least, did in 1946 when my father went through basic training). The idea is that if your bayonet sticks in the body of your victim, you fire the round to help break it loose from whatever it snagged on.I speak from a profound lack of experience, but I'd think that isn't such a practical idea. The primary main purpose of the bayonet is to have something to fight with in lieu of reloading. As a rule, a soldier with a round up the spout would be well advised to fire this round at the enemy rather than reserving it as an emergency bayonet dislodger.

[Crow]

I speak from a profound lack of experience, but I'd think that isn't such a practical idea. The primary main purpose of the bayonet is to have something to fight with in lieu of reloading. As a rule, a soldier with a round up the spout would be well advised to fire this round at the enemy rather than reserving it as an emergency bayonet dislodger.

They trained a lot of things in the 40's that would be considered impractical by modern terms. The theory is sound though. The concussion from the shot, compressed into a small area would be magnified, possibly jarring lose your pig-sticker.

Try firing a rifle from behind hard cover. If you're not crowding your cover and the muzzle is behind the cover (like if you're firing up a hill or something), you experience a little more "blast" due to the cover bouncing it back.

[Dervag]

They trained a lot of things in the 40's that would be considered impractical by modern terms. The theory is sound though. The concussion from the shot, compressed into a small area would be magnified, possibly jarring lose your pig-sticker.Oh, I don't doubt that it would work. I'm just thnking that the use of this tactic assumes a condition (having a round left in the chamber) that would make possible a more effective tactic (shooting your rifle rather than stabbing with it).

On the other hand, in the plausible contingency that you are in a bayonet fight because you were in too much of a hurry to reload, and that your bayonet is stuck, this training suggests a way to unstick it as soon as you can reload your stuck rifle.


Try firing a rifle from behind hard cover. If you're not crowding your cover and the muzzle is behind the cover (like if you're firing up a hill or something), you experience a little more "blast" due to the cover bouncing it back.That sounds likely, which does not surprise me, since I've heard of injunctions against firing a rocket launcher or recoilless cannon when there is a wall close behind.

[Storm Bringer]

That sounds likely, which does not surprise me, since I've heard of injunctions against firing a rocket launcher or recoilless cannon when there is a wall close behind.

oh, thats something different. that's the large amount of very hot gas beind vented out the back of the rocket/RCL system that can kill the user (or someone stood behind him) if they have a wall behind them, not the has out of front.

[Hawriel]

I think there are some missile anti tank systems that can be fired from an enclosed space. The missile is launched out of the tube with compressed are then the missile propelant is lit after a "safe" distance. Ive heard the Brits may have somthing like this. I dont know about the US but seeing as we still have that big bad bragerdly mentality about are weapons most likly not.

[Mike_G]

I speak from a profound lack of experience, but I'd think that isn't such a practical idea. The primary main purpose of the bayonet is to have something to fight with in lieu of reloading. As a rule, a soldier with a round up the spout would be well advised to fire this round at the enemy rather than reserving it as an emergency bayonet dislodger.


That is still part of the US Marine Corps bayonet drill.

I can't speak to the physics, but it's supposed to free the blade, whether from kickback of the rifle or venting gas into the body I'm not sure, but I learned that in boot camp in 1986.

[Thiel]

I think there are some missile anti tank systems that can be fired from an enclosed space. The missile is launched out of the tube with compressed are then the missile propelant is lit after a "safe" distance. Ive heard the Brits may have somthing like this. I dont know about the US but seeing as we still have that big bad bragerdly mentality about are weapons most likly not.
They have the FGM-148 Javelin, but that's an american system.

A picture of why you shouldn't fire a rocket launcher in a confined space.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/AT4_rocket_launcher.jpg

[Belkarseviltwin]

The British Army also use the Swedish AT-4CS, which is a modified version of the weapon in Thiel's picture. The CS stands for confined space. That one apparently works by ejecting a countermass of salt water out the back as it fires- I think it must be something along the lines of the exhaust gases from the rocket operating a plunger which forces the water out of holes in the back, thus neutralising the recoil and avoiding the flames. This is a "hot launch"- the rocket's engine is firing as it comes out of the tube. I don't think the Javelin (or for that matter any cold launch weapon) is recoilless.

[Thiel]

Yes and no.
It's not a recoilless weapon, but the recoil is rather limited due to the low muzzle velocity.


I don't think the Javelin (or for that matter any cold launch weapon) is recoilless.
I'm not exactly sure if it qualifies but the German Armbrust is recoilless.

[Dervag]

oh, thats something different. that's the large amount of very hot gas beind vented out the back of the rocket/RCL system that can kill the user (or someone stood behind him) if they have a wall behind them, not the has out of front.On the contrary; it is precisely the same thing, but on a vastly larger scale. Sort of like the difference between being clonked with a little rubber mallet and being clonked with a sledgehammer. The former may annoy, surprise, or distract; the latter can kill.


That is still part of the US Marine Corps bayonet drill.

I can't speak to the physics, but it's supposed to free the blade, whether from kickback of the rifle or venting gas into the body I'm not sure, but I learned that in boot camp in 1986.I'm guessing both. I believe that it works; I just have a hard time seeing why having a round in the chamber is considered a useful plus for bayonet fighting rather than being an opportunity to fire that round at the enemy. Again, I speak from a profound lack of experience.

[Hades]

I just have a hard time seeing why having a round in the chamber is considered a useful plus for bayonet fighting rather than being an opportunity to fire that round at the enemy. Again, I speak from a profound lack of experience.

It seems to me that there might be instances in which it would be unfortunate to use the round, but make quite a bit of sense to use the bayonet instead. Close quarters, friendlies on the other side, bayonet for the close hostile, round for the one further away, etc.

[Norsesmithy]

On the contrary; it is precisely the same thing, but on a vastly larger scale. Sort of like the difference between being clonked with a little rubber mallet and being clonked with a sledgehammer. The former may annoy, surprise, or distract; the latter can kill.
No, it isn't. Because one is muzzle blast reflected off of an object in front of you and making your head hurt, and the other is your legs getting burned off by the fire rebounding off of an object behind you.

Different kinds of force, in different situations, for different reasons.

[Sundog]

I just have a hard time seeing why having a round in the chamber is considered a useful plus for bayonet fighting rather than being an opportunity to fire that round at the enemy. Again, I speak from a profound lack of experience.

Ah, there's a significant difference in purpose between shooting at someone and delivering a bayonet charge to them.

Bullets kill. That's their purpose. And the possibility of being shot is something every soldier has to deal with, and does.

A bayonet charge, on the other hand, is to make the enemy run. An old aphorism is "Defeat occurs in the mind of the enemy." That's what the bayonet is for, to inflict terror on your opponent and make them run. There is a real difference between the idea of getting struck by a bullet and the idea of having 16"-18" of steel rammed through your guts.

The primary reason that the bayonet has fallen into disuse today, is that a bayonet charge is unlikely to succeed against trained opposition with automatic weaponry. As a backup weapon, a combat knife is handier and requires less preparation time. But that said, the last bayonet charge I know of was at the battle of Goose Green in the Falklands war, and it succeeded.

Finally, the bayonet isn't really designed as a weapon of final use. Both traditionally and today, a unit running low on ammunition is expected to retreat to resupply if at all possible.

[Raum]

But that said, the last bayonet charge I know of was at the battle of Goose Green in the Falklands war, and it succeeded.Didn't the Brits use one in Iraq recently? I'll have to go dig up new articles again...

[Dervag]

x
No, it isn't. Because one is muzzle blast reflected off of an object in front of you and making your head hurt, and the other is your legs getting burned off by the fire rebounding off of an object behind you.

Different kinds of force, in different situations, for different reasons.I would argue that the character of the two situations is like that of the bullet versus the cannonball- two essentially similar things, but with a difference in scale large enough to create a radical difference in what they can do.

In both the rifle and the recoilless cases, we have gases from the spent cartridge hitting an obstacle and rebounding on the shooter; the only difference is in the intensity and quantity of gas. The rocket case is arguably different, but not dramatically so- the underlying physics of a cloud of hot gas hitting an obstacle and rebounding on the shooter is still the same.


A bayonet charge, on the other hand, is to make the enemy run. An old aphorism is "Defeat occurs in the mind of the enemy." That's what the bayonet is for, to inflict terror on your opponent and make them run. There is a real difference between the idea of getting struck by a bullet and the idea of having 16"-18" of steel rammed through your guts.On the other hand, the bayonet was originally invented so that shooters would have a way to defend themselves against melee-armed attackers during the (extremely long) pause required to reload a muzzle-loader. I would argue that this role is the more essential one in close combat where the intent is to cause casualties rather than force a rout; the bayonet charge is a special subset of the possible uses for the weapon.


Finally, the bayonet isn't really designed as a weapon of final use. Both traditionally and today, a unit running low on ammunition is expected to retreat to resupply if at all possible.Not as final use in the sense of "I ran out of rounds to load into my weapon so I used my bayonet," but as emergency use in the sense of "I fired my last round, and, having no rounds left in my weapon, used my bayonet because I didn't have time to reload."

[Norsesmithy]

xI would argue that the character of the two situations is like that of the bullet versus the cannonball- two essentially similar things, but with a difference in scale large enough to create a radical difference in what they can do.

In both the rifle and the recoilless cases, we have gases from the spent cartridge hitting an obstacle and rebounding on the shooter; the only difference is in the intensity and quantity of gas. The rocket case is arguably different, but not dramatically so- the underlying physics of a cloud of hot gas hitting an obstacle and rebounding on the shooter is still the same.


And I would agree, except it is the concussive force of the pressure wave that is the danger in the first, and the heat of the gasses is the danger in the second.

Sure the danger arises from the same source, the propellant the weapon uses, but the mechanics are very different.

[tiaxrulesall]

-I have heard in many place that the Mongol empire had the capacity to conquer Europe if they had continued expanding, rather than collapsing due to political infighting.

-I was wondering as to the veracity of this statement which i have heard from many different sources.

-Would 13th century Europe truly have been unable to fight off the Mongol hordes, despite their forested and mountainous terrain being ill suited for the Mongol style of warfare?

-In another Mongol question, does anybody know the range or pull of a Mongol horsebow of Genghis Khan's time? I have heard 80-200 lbs cited, but that seems unlikely from a bow that could be fired from horseback.

[Fhaolan]

-I have heard in many place that the Mongol empire had the capacity to conquer Europe if they had continued expanding, rather than collapsing due to political infighting.

-I was wondering as to the veracity of this statement which i have heard from many different sources.

-Would 13th century Europe truly have been unable to fight off the Mongol hordes, despite their forested and mountainous terrain being ill suited for the Mongol style of warfare?

-In another Mongol question, does anybody know the range or pull of a Mongol horsebow of Genghis Khan's time? I have heard 80-200 lbs cited, but that seems unlikely from a bow that could be fired from horseback.

Difficult to answer, really. People tend to get a bit blurry around the history of that. There were many different waves of invaders coming from the steppes, each one of which made massive conquests in Europe. The Sumerians, the Scythians, the Alans, the Bulgars, the Magyars, the Huns, the Mongols, each of which reconquered and built on the empires left from the previous wave. Europe was conquered so often by the steppes people they might as well have installed revolving doors.

As for the pull of a typical steppe horsebow, again, people tend to get blurry. There are a lot of factors involved with the mongol horsebow that tends to mess up people trying to back-calculate the pull of a bow based on it's effective range (which is what they used to do when determining the pull of a famous archer, such as Temüjin. He is reputed to have accurately fired a horsebow at 550 yards, so people back-calculated the pull to be about 200-250lbs.) The fact that very few, if any, bows in that pull range are found was ignored.

The recurve makes a big difference, and the Mongols had another trick up their sleeve... or on their thumb to be precise. They typically used a wooden or metal thumbring to assist with the pulling of the bow. That allowed them to pull a higher strength bow and release more consistantly, producing much higher effective ranges than would normally be expected. (Remember Temüjin? With historically accurate recurve composite bows and thumbrings added to the calculation, the pull on his bow is now thought to be about 125-150 lbs. Well within the range of an experienced, dedicated archer.)

So, the 'average' mongol horse bow was once considered to be about a 150lb pull. Now the 'average' sits around 70-80 lbs, right in line with all the surviving horsebows from that period. Not that far off the 'average' pull on an English longbow. But if pull was all there was to archery, the World's Strongest Man competitions would include clout shooting. :smallbiggrin:

[Storm Bringer]

-I have heard in many place that the Mongol empire had the capacity to conquer Europe if they had continued expanding, rather than collapsing due to political infighting.

-I was wondering as to the veracity of this statement which i have heard from many different sources.

-Would 13th century Europe truly have been unable to fight off the Mongol hordes, despite their forested and mountainous terrain being ill suited for the Mongol style of warfare?

-In another Mongol question, does anybody know the range or pull of a Mongol horsebow of Genghis Khan's time? I have heard 80-200 lbs cited, but that seems unlikely from a bow that could be fired from horseback.


the short answer is ghengis Khan was able to create a army that was far better trained that it's oppenents. he was also able to field very large armies that had suberb stratgic mobility compared to anyone they fought, that were not tried down to any area of land by the need to run farmland, and that could and did intergrate the fighting styles of defeated oppents into the army to cover the weaknesses of the horse archers.

as to wether they could take Europe, they were able to overrun China, which would have been able to organise a more effective resistance than a divided europe could. Western armies didn't really have that good a track record against eastern horse archers.

[Ruerl]

-I have heard in many place that the Mongol empire had the capacity to conquer Europe if they had continued expanding, rather than collapsing due to political infighting.

-I was wondering as to the veracity of this statement which i have heard from many different sources.

-Would 13th century Europe truly have been unable to fight off the Mongol hordes, despite their forested and mountainous terrain being ill suited for the Mongol style of warfare?

The correct answer would be "we don't know", personally I don't think its likedly for the reason alone that it would take too long time to conquer and that the mongol hordes per their own nature would be likedly to disband before being able to conquer it all.

Then again, there are places such as Russia wich had a stable goverment under mongol leadership for quite some time, later russia own a lot of its internal stability and infrastructure to the mongols.


Is it perchance time to start the Mark V? This thread is now longer than the other three threads of its name combined.

Would it not more like be time to create a FAQ ordered into categories? ie: ancient time/early middle ages/high middle ages/renesance/etc. ?

We have to much knowledge gathered together in these thread that we could fill a WIKI on the subject.

[Sundog]

On the other hand, the bayonet was originally invented so that shooters would have a way to defend themselves against melee-armed attackers during the (extremely long) pause required to reload a muzzle-loader. I would argue that this role is the more essential one in close combat where the intent is to cause casualties rather than force a rout; the bayonet charge is a special subset of the possible uses for the weapon.

Not exactly. The bayonet was a means to give extra capability to fire blocks, so that they could protect themselves against pike blocks and cavalry, at first. But by the Napoleonic period, pike blocks had fallen into disfavour and fire-and-maneuver had taken pride of place again. By then, the Bayonet had become a very much OFFENSIVE weapon - occasionally with both sides charging the other! Since then, the bayonet has largely been considered an offensive, rather than a defensive, option.


Not as final use in the sense of "I ran out of rounds to load into my weapon so I used my bayonet," but as emergency use in the sense of "I fired my last round, and, having no rounds left in my weapon, used my bayonet because I didn't have time to reload."

Except that a rifle with a bayonet is significantly more unwieldy and less accurate (being barrel heavy) than a rifle without it. That means you don't generally shoot with it attached, and in an emergency situation, you don't have time to slot it. You'd be better off using the bayonet as a combat knife or clubbing your rifle.

[Matthew]

as to wether they could take Europe, they were able to overrun China, which would have been able to organise a more effective resistance than a divided europe could. Western armies didn't really have that good a track record against eastern horse archers.

One of the reasons I hear bandied about is the comparative lack of effective grazing in Europe, but it's all theoretical. Ghengis Khan had about as much chance as anybody else with a mighty empire.

[Neon Knight]

Except that a rifle with a bayonet is significantly more unwieldy and less accurate (being barrel heavy) than a rifle without it. That means you don't generally shoot with it attached, and in an emergency situation, you don't have time to slot it. You'd be better off using the bayonet as a combat knife or clubbing your rifle.

This leads to my next question:

Any truth to the statements that the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifles were more accurate with their bayonets attached than without? The Model 1944 Carbine had it's bayonet permanently affixed.

[Stephen_E]

A Mongol army did attack Europe. Or to be precise a recon in force army did come and have a look around and smash every military force of note east of West Austria. Then the current great Khan died (Ghengis's Grandson?) and the army returned to join the politicking into a successor. IIRC the result of the politicking saw a semi-partioning of the empire with the result that the various groups were to busy keeping an eye on each other to do any further expanding.

If the Great Khan hadn't died I suspect there would've been a good chance that the Mongols would've come back to conquer and, given the european performance against them the 1st time, that would've been it for an independant europe.

Could they have held europe. If they used the same system as they did in Russia, all authority came from the Mongols, when a lord died his heirs had to go off and get the nod from the current Mongol boss or sub-boss. It was a remarkably stable system and continued to work well past the time the Mongols could enforce it. While no one got to be top boss, most of the lords had a considerable freedom as the Mongol "boss" was far away. It's not as if the tribute was coming out of their personal pocket.

As to why the Mongol forces were so effective. My understanding is that the high degree of discipline in the Mongol forces combined with horse that didn't need to be grain fed, and a almost modern command structure allowed them to spread out and reform at need effectively magnifing their numbers (the old adage that you don't have to have more troops than the enemy, you merely have to have more troops at the place you're fighting) and greater flexibility on the battlefield, piling in the arrows from relatively long distance and when the Knights charged they ran until the knights horse ran out of steam and turned and hammered them once they were out of contact with their infantry. Their is indications as well that the 3 features I mentioned also gave them better scouting infomation than the europeans did in their own land!

The infomation on it I've seen was put together by comparing the Mongol records and the European records. IIRC (it's been a few years scince I last read about it) the europeans estimated the Mongol army was over 100,000 strong and made a fairly big deal about it at the time. The Mongol records mention 30,000 or less having a look around.

Roland Green wrote a series under the name Ken Hood set in a europe where just that had happened (been fantasy there was magic, but that's irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion).

Stephen

[Matthew]

Unfortunately, Knightly hosts were of varying quality. The charge relied on precise timing and discipline. You can see successful uses of it and unsuccessful uses. The battle that most often gets brought up (and whose name currently escapes me) was a perfect example of an unsuccessful use.

Could the Mongols have conquered Europe? Of course they could have, but it wouldn't have been on account of any special technology. It would just be a matter of unity of purpose, resources and resource management.

The Mongols suffered from exactly the same problem as every empire and kingdom before them, both great and small, internal squabbling.

[Subotei]

-I have heard in many place that the Mongol empire had the capacity to conquer Europe if they had continued expanding, rather than collapsing due to political infighting.

-I was wondering as to the veracity of this statement which i have heard from many different sources.

-Would 13th century Europe truly have been unable to fight off the Mongol hordes, despite their forested and mountainous terrain being ill suited for the Mongol style of warfare?

-In another Mongol question, does anybody know the range or pull of a Mongol horsebow of Genghis Khan's time? I have heard 80-200 lbs cited, but that seems unlikely from a bow that could be fired from horseback.

The factors against a Mongol campaign against Europe include terrain - as you say moutains and forests would not suit cavalry. The amount of grazing required for a large cavalry force is phenominal. It is reckoned to take about 10 acres of grazing land to feed a horse for a month (figure from John Man's Genghis Khan) so 10,000 horsemen, each with probably 2 remounts (as a conservative guess) would get through 10,000 acres per day of grazing land as a rough estimate. No wonder then that for most of Eurpoean history cavalry has been the choice of the rich or the noble.

The climate is also wet - which would have a detrimental effect on the performance of Mongol composite bows (Question to the archers on the forum: is this why wooden bows were preferred in Europe?). However, even given these factors, given their success elsewhere, I don't doubt the Mongols could have conquered Europe.

A more interesting question is would they bother attacking Europe? Compared to China and the Islamic states of the middle east, with their extensive trading networks, Europe would've looked very slim pickings.

As regards the bow pull - I don't have any definitive figures. I would expect a rough equivalency with the figures reported for longbows, as they seem to have roughly equivalent performance in terms of range and penetration. The power of the bow itself was not the secret to their success - it was leadership, tactics and disipline. Those are the primary factors in most military successes.

[Subotei]

This leads to my next question:

Any truth to the statements that the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifles were more accurate with their bayonets attached than without? The Model 1944 Carbine had it's bayonet permanently affixed.

See our old friends at the Box of Truth for some rough n ready testing:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu27.htm

[Mike_G]

Except that a rifle with a bayonet is significantly more unwieldy and less accurate (being barrel heavy) than a rifle without it. That means you don't generally shoot with it attached, and in an emergency situation, you don't have time to slot it. You'd be better off using the bayonet as a combat knife or clubbing your rifle.


Yes, a fixed bayonet will hurt your accuracy.

In close quarters fighting, such as the slums of Baghdad, or the jungles of Vietnam or the South Pacific Islands, where it is reasonable to expect to encounter an enemy at a range of a few feet, having a bayonet fixed before contact is common practice.

Some loss of accuracy is pretty much not a concern if you have to shoot a guy who appears around a corner or out of the underbrush a few yards away from you. The ability to ram a bayonet into him without prep time is well worth it, especially as even shooting him may not drop him quick enough to save you if he's that close.

[Crow]

Add to the bayonet ramblings;

I am specualting here, but I would think that using the bayonet while you still have rounds might be something one does when unexpectedly placed in melee combat.

Take clearing a room (not CQB/CQC style clearing, but rather a room search), where somebody may be hiding, and that somebody may be dangerous (armed). Particularly if it is cramped quarters. Rifle grabbers can be a problem here. Most people would switch to a pistol if possible to negotiate cramped areas, but if a pistol is unavailable, clap on the bayonet.

Not that we ever did anything like that during my training, but we did have to go to the pistol a few times.

[Dervag]

That makes sense. But in that case, it isn't a deliberate tactic; it's a reaction to being surprised. The soldier is not going into a bayonet fight with a round in the chamber to clear his weapon from the body of his foe; he is going into a gunfight with a bayonet on his rifle so that he can use it effectively in melee combat. The intent is to use the rifle to shoot the enemy whenever possible and only to stab the enemy when it is not possible or safe to shoot.

[Mike_G]

That makes sense. But in that case, it isn't a deliberate tactic; it's a reaction to being surprised. The soldier is not going into a bayonet fight with a round in the chamber to clear his weapon from the body of his foe; he is going into a gunfight with a bayonet on his rifle so that he can use it effectively in melee combat. The intent is to use the rifle to shoot the enemy whenever possible and only to stab the enemy when it is not possible or safe to shoot.


That's largely the point of the bayonet, no pun intended.

Back when you had one round in the weapon, and loading it took time, the bayonet was a very important part of your combat capability. Considering it was developed in the pike and musket era, men were accustomed to the idea of fighting with a steel blade on a long shaft anyway, so it wasn't a weapon of last resort, or of emergency use, but of standard practice. Now, when you have 28 rounds in the magazine, and six more magazines in your pouches, and reloading takes seconds, it's assumed you pretty much always plan to shoot your enemy rather than stab him. Plus, we almost never need to form a square to repel cavalry charges these days.

The modern bayonet is still useful in close combat, where I'd still rather shoot you from two feet away than stab you, but it's nice to have the option. It also has a huge psychological effect, which is why it is sometimes fixed with more intent intimidate that to actually run anybody through. Many modern bayonet charges never set steel in an enemy, but persuaded them to retreat rather than face some screaming madman charging them with what's basically a very high tech and expensive pointed stick.

[Storm Bringer]

That's largely the point of the bayonet, no pun intended.

Back when you had one round in the weapon, and loading it took time, the bayonet was a very important part of your combat capability. Considering it was developed in the pike and musket era, men were accustomed to the idea of fighting with a steel blade on a long shaft anyway, so it wasn't a weapon of last resort, or of emergency use, but of standard practice. Now, when you have 28 rounds in the magazine, and six more magazines in your pouches, and reloading takes seconds, it's assumed you pretty much always plan to shoot your enemy rather than stab him. Plus, we almost never need to form a square to repel cavalry charges these days.

The modern bayonet is still useful in close combat, where I'd still rather shoot you from two feet away than stab you, but it's nice to have the option. It also has a huge psychological effect, which is why it is sometimes fixed with more intent intimidate that to actually run anybody through. Many modern bayonet charges never set steel in an enemy, but persuaded them to retreat rather than face some screaming madman charging them with what's basically a very high tech and expensive pointed stick.

most historical bayonet charges didn't connect. Most times, either the attackers lost momentum, or the defenderes broke ranks and routed rather than face the solid mass of oncoming steel. One officer of the napoleonic era british army basically said that his battlion's bayonets spent more time holding up washing lines or being used as candle holders than they did fixed on thier muskets.

[Dervag]

most historical bayonet charges didn't connect. Most times, either the attackers lost momentum, or the defenderes broke ranks and routed rather than face the solid mass of oncoming steel. One officer of the napoleonic era british army basically said that his battlion's bayonets spent more time holding up washing lines or being used as candle holders than they did fixed on thier muskets.Well, you didn't march around with the bayonets fixed, so they would be fixed at most during major battles and possibly certain kinds of parade and review.

Whereas they were useful in the utility knife role all the time. So that's not a surprise.

[Storm Bringer]

Well, you didn't march around with the bayonets fixed, so they would be fixed at most during major battles and possibly certain kinds of parade and review.

Whereas they were useful in the utility knife role all the time. So that's not a surprise.

true, though these are the old socket bayonet, which weren't usable unmounted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bayonette-p1000740.jpg). but the point remains that even in major battles, the bayonets generally did not actaully get stabbed into someone, as horses wouldn't go near them and infantry would flee rather than take a charge.

anyway, returning to the original weapon of discussion (the russain rilfe with a fixed bayonet), the weapon in question was a bolt action rifle, which means in a close combat enguagement you were far more likey to have a gun that had no round chambered than with a later semi-auto gun. thierfore, having a bayonet mounted would make sense.

[Pilum]

Ive heard the Brits may have somthing like this.

According to the Army website, the LAW is to be replaced with NLAW, which a quick google search (here (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/)) says CAN be fired from an enclosed space. Entry into service "2007". Beyond that I don't know.

Oh, and the bayonet charge was by the Argylls.

[Stephen_E]

I recently ran into someone talking on that old debating point of Longbow vs Armour (specifically plate). In support of the Longbow beats Plate they mentioned a tale I've heard before but not quite as specific as in this case.

The tale is of a knight pinned to his horse by Longbow arrows through his leg and thigh into his horse. The specifics mentioned in this case was a knight's corpse dugup on the site of Agincourt.

Has anyone else heard of this, and if so do they know of any source for the claim.

Thanks
Stephen

[Matthew]

I can't imagine how one would go about identifying the context of the injuries he suggests from a battlefield exhumation (A plate armoured Knight buried wholesale on his horse?). I think he's probably confusing it with the most commonly cited occurence from the twelfth century Itinerarium Cambriae:


"[…] in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal"

It's on the wiki page: English Long Bow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Longbow)

As far as it goes, to me it's the Long Bow equivalent of the 'mighty blow' that occasionally makes the jump from the Chanson Geste to Historia. It reminds me of certain Roman accounts of the effectiveness of the Ballistae.

[grimbones]

Let me say it here: Sorry for the ignorance.

Please help me to understand how heavy cavalry was effective. (Wikipedia would have me believe that most knights rode up to the battle, dismounted, then fought on foot, but in my heart of hearts I want you guys to prove Wiki wrong.)

So:

The opposing army, sighting the dreaded GitP cavalry, forms up a shield wall with lots of spears poking out the front.

The GitP cavalry, seeing that the army somehow failed to do the same with their flanks (Why again? How many times do you want to be flanked by a guy on a horse?), rides around the side of the army and … Charges!

The GitP lancers each manage to spear one peasant. Whee.

Let’s presume that we managed to scare the army into routing. The GitP cavalry begins to hack and slash with our melee weapons! Huzzah, the carnage!

The tightly packed army routes. But they are a mob, so it is tough for them all to get out of the way. So one peasant out of every ten, unable to flee for his life, turns around and takes a crack at a horse with his spear.

Said peasant breaks horse's knee, horse goes down, peasant spears GitP cavalryman in the visor. All those hours of training both warhorse and knight are wasted on … what again?

Again, sorry for my ignorance. Any accurate reference books to recommend that can explain the culture and practice of heavy cavalry and the mounted charge? Help! :smalleek:

[Matthew]

Well... let's narrow things down first. What period and culture are you looking at?

The classic knightly Heavy Cavalry of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was essentially deployed in tight formation to attack and break an enemy formation. If it failed to break the formation, it would generally get badly beaten, which is why it was best deployed against the flanks and rear of an enemy already engaged, already broken up by ranged weapons or both.

They relied heavily on panic and fear, but a peasant attacking a horse is vulnerable to the rider. We might like to think in terms of communal bravery and self sacrifice, but you can bet that peasant is thinking more along the lines of individual survival. Besides which, a fleeing army is usually given room to flee. That said, a rout could easily turn into a counter attack, pursuit was as risky a business as battle.

The other function of cavalry was to attack enemy cavalry and prevent them from outflanking or otherwise harassing ones own forces.