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

[Nonanonymous]

Given the wait-time for multiple searches on this board, as well as my 56k modem and the difficulties revolving around searches I've faced before altogether, I think it'd be a bit more efficient just to ask: How would you stat the following weapons in D&D?

Pata
Bich'hwa
Bagh nakh (possibly the bich'hwa+bagh nakh combo also)
Tekagi-shuko
Shobo


Many thanks to anyone who can help me with this.

[Sundog]

Given the wait-time for multiple searches on this board, as well as my 56k modem and the difficulties revolving around searches I've faced before altogether, I think it'd be a bit more efficient just to ask: How would you stat the following weapons in D&D?

Pata
Bich'hwa
Bagh nakh (possibly the bich'hwa+bagh nakh combo also)
Tekagi-shuko
Shobo


Many thanks to anyone who can help me with this.

This thread is for real-world questions, not D&D stats. However, I'll start a new thread and give my opinions there.

[Dervag]

It's going to depend on the type of fighting - in a one on one foot duel I doubt there'd be any disadvantage, he may even have an advantage if his opponent hasn't practiced much against left handers. He'd likely get kicked out of any infantry formation though. It's possible an infantry formation might fit a left hander on the far right of a line, but normally he'd be expected to train & fight the same way everyone else does...and to guard the infantryman on his left as well as himself.Or he can learn to fight with reverse handedness. It must have happened. After all, about one in ten people is left-handed, and unless I am much mistaken armies like the Romans didn't have an active policy of kicking out lefties. So you learned to use your right hand to fight with and hoped for the best. I think.

In a more individualistic fighting style, lefties can generally do fine; there's no a priori reason why they should be at any more of a disadvantage than righties in sword and shield fighting that I can see. Granted, all their angles of attack are reversed from left to right, but that doesn't mean they don't have angles of attack.

[Raum]

Or he can learn to fight with reverse handedness. It must have happened. After all, about one in ten people is left-handed, and unless I am much mistaken armies like the Romans didn't have an active policy of kicking out lefties. So you learned to use your right hand to fight with and hoped for the best. I think.Agreed, that's what I meant by "...normally he'd be expected to train & fight the same way everyone else does..."

Your second point is worth reiterating - individual combat comes down to individual skill and experience. Using opposite hands they'll each have the same advantages and disadvantages - except for skill and experience.

[Fhaolan]

My wife is a south-paw, and there are a few others in the stage-combat troupe I trained with. I'll tell you from a sparring perspective, working against a south-paw is very disorientating if you don't do it very often. Especially when they're going sword and shield.

Of course, experienced fighters *will* have experience against people who switch between left and right handed fighting. During the time of dueling, it was often an advantage for an experienced dueler to switch to left-handed because his inexperienced opponent would be put off by the change in angles.

The left-handed fighter, of course, will not have much of a problem fighting a right-handed fighter because he (or she) *learned* to fight in that manner, so his/her trained reflexes will work properly.

One of the top amusing sights I saw in the Knights was when my wife sparred with another south-paw, sword and shield for the first time. They both advanced, attacked and defended simultaneously, backed off and then stood there for a second trying to figure out what had happened. While they were both south-paws, they had never actually worked against another south-paw themselves, and had confused each other.

[Dervag]

During the time of dueling, it was often an advantage for an experienced dueler to switch to left-handed because his inexperienced opponent would be put off by the change in angles."I admit it, you are better than me!"
"Then why are you smiling?"
"Because I know something you do not know..."


One of the top amusing sights I saw in the Knights was when my wife sparred with another south-paw, sword and shield for the first time. They both advanced, attacked and defended simultaneously, backed off and then stood there for a second trying to figure out what had happened. While they were both south-paws, they had never actually worked against another south-paw themselves, and had confused each other.Yeah, I always wondered what would happen in that situation. The odds of two southpaws meeting in melee are about a hundred to one. On a battlefield, the odds of them actually squaring off to fight like that are even lower because many battlefield killings will take the form of one guy sneaking up behind another and bashing his head in while he's otherwise occupied, a task for which it really doesn't matter what your handedness is.

[Wraithy]

I think I remember seeing somewhere a type of concealed sword and I'd like to know more about it.
Unlike a regular sword it was flexible (like a ribbon), and it was conclealed inside a belt, to unsheath it the user would pull something near the buckle. I can't remember anything else about it, does it ring any bells?

[Hades]

Unlike a regular sword it was flexible (like a ribbon) ...

Were you thinking of the Urumi? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urumi)

[Joran]

I think I remember seeing somewhere a type of concealed sword and I'd like to know more about it.
Unlike a regular sword it was flexible (like a ribbon), and it was conclealed inside a belt, to unsheath it the user would pull something near the buckle. I can't remember anything else about it, does it ring any bells?

Were you by any chance watching Rurouni Kenshin? There's a character there that used a sword like that named Sawagejō Chō. It's basically a urumi but with exaggerated properties.

[Wraithy]

Thanks, this is almost certainly it. I didn't see it in that particular anime, I think I saw it being used by a nameless street thug in some other show.
Would this be the right place to ask for help converting the Urumi into a 3.5e weapon?

[Norsesmithy]

The home brew forum would be best for that. It helps if you get a couple videos and articles to link to when starting a thread.

What can you guys tell me about explosively formed penetrators?

[Swordguy]

What can you guys tell me about explosively formed penetrators?

Don't be on the penetrating end.

Besides that, can you be a little more specific about what you're looking for?

[AslanCross]

The home brew forum would be best for that. It helps if you get a couple videos and articles to link to when starting a thread.

What can you guys tell me about explosively formed penetrators?

Do you mean shaped charges?

[AMX]

Do you mean shaped charges?

Not quite - EFPs are produced by shaped charges, but not all shaped charges produce EFPs.

[Sundog]

An explosively formed penetrator - I actually prefer the term Self Forging Projectile - is a type of armour defeating round. It bears certain resemblances to the HEAT type, but with significant and important differences.

Like a HEAT round, an SFP consists of a powerful explosive charge behind a metal projectile. However, unlike in an HEAT round, the explosive detonates well short of the target, rather than on impact.

The metal projectile, in a semi-molten state, strikes the target with incredible velocity - both the flight velocity of the shell, and added to that, the velocity incurred from the detonation.

Now, I don't pretend to understand the math behind this, but at such velocities a plastic material - such as semi-molten metal - behaves in quite an odd fashion. Instead of splashing away, as it would do at lesser energy states, it instead forms into an optimal penetrator of whatever it hits - and more importantly, an optimal penetrator regardless of angle of attack.

HEAT rounds were defeated by laminate armour. SABOT rounds can be defeated by angling armour plating to prevent a clean hit. So far, we have not developed a good defence against an SFP.

[Norsesmithy]

Besides that, can you be a little more specific about what you're looking for?

What I am looking for is to keep the thread active. I had missed it for the period of some weeks where it had no posts.:smallwink:

I am under the impression that you use a parabolic pan of copper or other metal, packed tight with explosive, preferably the fastest detonating plastic explosive you can find. And that a meter or two of airspace between your metal pan and target is best.

Is any of this incorrect?

[Lapak]

HEAT rounds were defeated by laminate armour. SABOT rounds can be defeated by angling armour plating to prevent a clean hit. So far, we have not developed a good defence against an SFP.Actually, I'm given to understand that the British military has been developing an electrically-charged armor that would defend against such a projectile, because it acts by destroying the semi-molten penetrator rather than trying to deflect it; that the attack will penetrate the armor is part of its design. Article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.x ml); I can't find anything more recent to indicate if it's actually been rolled out on any tanks or armored vehicles yet.

[Swordguy]

What I am looking for is to keep the thread active. I had missed it for the period of some weeks where it had no posts.:smallwink:


Good enough. :smallbiggrin:



I am under the impression that you use a parabolic pan of copper or other metal, packed tight with explosive, preferably the fastest detonating plastic explosive you can find. And that a meter or two of airspace between your metal pan and target is best.

Is any of this incorrect?

That's the general idea. There's lots of different "niggeling detail" ways to make them - like dimpleing the dish to produce lots of little penetrating agents like a shotgun. The specific shape of the dish can produce lots of various effects on the target - that sort of thing.

An EFP is basically the poor man's shaped charge. It's got less penetrative power than the real thing (an EFP of a given diameter will penetrate about it's diameter in rolled steel, while a true shaped charge will penetrate five or more diameters, as a rule of thumb), but it's easier to make and a little more forgiving in its manufacture. However, when you're attacking the bottom of a vehicle, the reduced penetration tends to not matter so much.

You can make one by taking a copper dish, and spot-welding it into a steel pipe so that the bottom of the dish is in the pipe. Stuff the area behind it with explosives and put a heavy cap on the other end. Bury it in the ground set it off from a distance. The copper plate will melt and turn inside out (so the bottom now leads) - forming a penetrator.

[Norsesmithy]

Do they always use copper for the projectile, or are there other suitable metals?

[RyanM]

The way I understand it, a conventional shaped charge penetrates the target with a "jet" of metal. The metal doesn't actually melt, it's merely pushed so hard by the explosives that it behaves sort of like a liquid, even though it's still a solid. Like forcing play-dough through a funnel really hard.

This jet will, as mentioned, penetrate up to 5 diameters in steel. It also will sometimes form an EFP type slug after punching through. The main problem is that it's got an optimal "standoff distance." If the warhead detonates too close or too far, it loses pretty much all effectiveness. And of course the distance changes depending on the angle of impact, so the time it goes off has to be a compromise. They're also very easily defeated by intervening barriers. In Vietnam, APCs would carry around a roll of chain link fence to set up around the vehicle at night. Any RPGs fired at it would hit the fence, detonate early, and be pretty ineffective.

An EFP, on the other hand, is basically a shaped charge that goes off way early, and forms the metal into a slug rather than a jet. The lower velocity slug has far less penetration potential than a jet, but you've got a ton of margin of error. They're long ranged enough that they can be used almost as directional mines, with the EFP charge stationary, firing at a vehicle several meters away.

[Swordguy]

Do they always use copper for the projectile, or are there other suitable metals?

I think there are other materials you can use, but copper is cheap, easy to find and use, and seems to work the best. I've not heard of any manufactured weapons (so, IEDs don't count) that don't use copper, offhand.

[Dervag]

Actually, I'm given to understand that the British military has been developing an electrically-charged armor that would defend against such a projectile, because it acts by destroying the semi-molten penetrator rather than trying to deflect it; that the attack will penetrate the armor is part of its design. Article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.x ml); I can't find anything more recent to indicate if it's actually been rolled out on any tanks or armored vehicles yet.Seeing as how Chobham armor took many years to invent, I'm not surprised that this new stuff does too.


An EFP is basically the poor man's shaped charge. It's got less penetrative power than the real thing (an EFP of a given diameter will penetrate about it's diameter in rolled steel, while a true shaped charge will penetrate five or more diameters, as a rule of thumb), but it's easier to make and a little more forgiving in its manufacture. However, when you're attacking the bottom of a vehicle, the reduced penetration tends to not matter so much.I have often wondered what would happen if someone invented a vehicle where the bottom armor was very thick and heavy, with the side, front, and rear armor being relatively light, just to screw with the people trying to attack armored vehicles with mines.


This jet will, as mentioned, penetrate up to 5 diameters in steel. It also will sometimes form an EFP type slug after punching through. The main problem is that it's got an optimal "standoff distance." If the warhead detonates too close or too far, it loses pretty much all effectiveness. And of course the distance changes depending on the angle of impact, so the time it goes off has to be a compromise. They're also very easily defeated by intervening barriers. In Vietnam, APCs would carry around a roll of chain link fence to set up around the vehicle at night. Any RPGs fired at it would hit the fence, detonate early, and be pretty ineffective.I believe the formal name for this is "cage armor," at least that's what the Wiki article a few links away from the one on Chobham armor called it.

[Om]

I have often wondered what would happen if someone invented a vehicle where the bottom armor was very thick and heavy, with the side, front, and rear armor being relatively light, just to screw with the people trying to attack armored vehicles with minesSales of RPGs would rocket :smallwink:

[Hurlbut]

I have often wondered what would happen if someone invented a vehicle where the bottom armor was very thick and heavy, with the side, front, and rear armor being relatively light, just to screw with the people trying to attack armored vehicles with mines.
Wasn't there a combat vehicle (personnel carrier?) in South Africa designed with a highly angled bottom to defeat specifically the mines?

*edited* just because I used same word twice in one sentence :smallyuk:

[Hades]

Wasn't there a combat vehicle (personnel carrier?) in South Africa designed with a highly angled bottom designed to defeat the mines?

Yup, there are a number of vehicles outfitted with a V-hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-hull), unfortunately, I can't seem to find a decent picture of one on wiki at the moment.

[Swordguy]

Yup, there are a number of vehicles outfitted with a V-hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-hull), unfortunately, I can't seem to find a decent picture of one on wiki at the moment.

Here's the RG-33 (http://www.baesystemspresskit.com/ausa2007/image_gallery/Image_Gallery/RG33Series1_4x4.JPG), the vehicle from BAE (a South African company) selected for testing in the US Army's MMPV program. It's got a V-hull, carries 6 soldiers plus 1 operator, and is supposed to be rated to ensure the operator and crew survive detonations from all of the following: all known AT mines, contact detonations from an RPG-18 or below, standard ballistic small-arms, and all known single-charge IEDs. Naturally, there isn't a chance in hell of all that happening, but it beats a Humvee.

[Subotei]

Do they always use copper for the projectile, or are there other suitable metals?

Gold would be good, but expensive. There was a rumour about some RPGs actually using gold a while back, but I can't find any information confirming that.

[paladinofvirus]

I have a question. pretend for a moment that your a German grenadier at Stalingrad, your out of grenades and all you have left is a machine gun with ammo. there is a Russian T-34 after you. the question is, can the MG do any thing to the T-34?

[Crow]

I have a question. pretend for a moment that your a German grenadier at Stalingrad, your out of grenades and all you have left is a machine gun with ammo. there is a Russian T-34 after you. the question is, can the MG do any thing to the T-34?

You can flee. You're better off trying to get away and link up with somebody who has the means to take it out.

[Swordguy]

I have a question. pretend for a moment that your a German grenadier at Stalingrad, your out of grenades and all you have left is a machine gun with ammo. there is a Russian T-34 after you. the question is, can the MG do any thing to the T-34?

Annoy it.

More seriously, you could theoretically shoot out vision blocks and snorkels, but that's about it. You could perhaps do some damage by climbing onto engine compartment, opening said compartment, and firing into the engine itself. You could pray for getting a round down the barrel while the breech is open (note: this did actually happen...once...to a German Tiger tank) and the round ricochets around inside and kills the crew.

The best thing to do with the MG-34/42 when facing down a tank, however, is to tape the trigger down so it's firing until it's out of ammo, and then run another direction. They'll generally deal with the runaway MG first, which gives you a head start to your running away.

[Storm Bringer]

I have a question. pretend for a moment that your a German grenadier at Stalingrad, your out of grenades and all you have left is a machine gun with ammo. there is a Russian T-34 after you. the question is, can the MG do any thing to the T-34?

realistically, the best you could do was distract the tank while a second element moved in with AT weaponry. I mean, in theory the might open the hatches for the better vision, and then you could shoot the commander (which would do quite a bit to limit thier all round vision), but this relies on the russian tank commander sticking his head out, which is unlikey in a city-fight enviroment.

basically, you could keep the tank fixed on you until it became aware of a better target (for example, an AT system or infy with close in weapons) or lost intrest. but you'd need AT weaponry to attack it. A MG wouldn't cut it.

However, the good news is that you're in stalingrad, so escape across terrian the tank cannot follow over is easy enough.


The bad news is you're in stalingrad.:smallbiggrin:

[paladinofvirus]

Annoy it.

More seriously, you could theoretically shoot out vision blocks and snorkels, but that's about it. You could perhaps do some damage by climbing onto engine compartment, opening said compartment, and firing into the engine itself. You could pray for getting a round down the barrel while the breech is open (note: this did actually happen...once...to a German Tiger tank) and the round ricochets around inside and kills the crew.

The best thing to do with the MG-34/42 when facing down a tank, however, is to tape the trigger down so it's firing until it's out of ammo, and then run another direction. They'll generally deal with the runaway MG first, which gives you a head start to your running away.

what about shooting at the tracks and road wheels?

[Swordguy]

what about shooting at the tracks and road wheels?

Not gonna do all that much. You'd have to get pretty lucky to sever a track, and all those road wheels provide a fair bit of redundancy. There's the further problem of, if you should out the mobility system of a tank, there's still a perfectly serviceable gun and several machine-guns on the turret. Tankers tend to take it personal when you kill their tracks (since it's a PITA to put them back on), so guess who just became Target Number One?

[Dervag]

what about shooting at the tracks and road wheels?Swordguy is right. The tracks and road wheels are made out of solid pieces of fairly heavy steel. They're easier to destroy than the armor of the tank, but then the armor of the tank is designed to withstand a direct hit from a field gun.

With an anti-tank rifle you'd have at least a chance of damaging the treads and road wheels, but with a rifle-caliber machine gun you don't have a credible chance. Remember, tanks were invented to be nigh-immune to machine gun fire; that was their job description.

[Mike_G]

In Stalingrad, with lots of rubble and buildings and broken terrain to escape through, your best bet is live to fight another day.

Or hope the tank tries to chase you and gets hung up in the rubble. Then you can sneak back and gun down the crewmen trying to free it.

[Storm Bringer]

ok, pretty sure this has been answered before, but let's keep the thread moving:

Were Medieval Knights ever the army destorying superweapons that popular history makes them? Was their a period when they were able to overrun formed footmen with impunity, or is this just a myth they propagated to make them look hard? I know that history is littered with examples of failed cav charges, but are their an eqaul number of sucesses?

[Zincorium]

Any time you have trained, heavily armored, and well armed professional warriors going up against masses of conscripted peasants... well, there's going to be a lot of bodies on the field.

[shaggz076]

I can answer the Home Depot aspect. The best way to use a length of chain is wrap it around your fist and forearm to provide weighted blows. You could use it to swing at somebody, but its not very effective given that it isn't designed or weighted to do so.

Also, since chains tend to be large, heavy and not very sharp I'd suggest that they cause blunt force trauma as opposed to lacerations.

Have you ever used a chain like this? Wrapping it around your forearm woul crush you own hand on impact making it effective for one hit and one hit only. Wrapping it around your forearm would work as you have more padding and yes it would increase the weight behind your punch but that added weight would also slow your punch down unless you are used to training with the added weight on your arm. Eith way it is not quite an effective maneuver for a length of chain. Futher down the posts I see informmation about the fuild motion of the chain and I would go more along these lines as yes you can block a chain but if the wielder is swinging it correctly then it will pivot on the blocking item and swing with even more momentum into their target.

[Matthew]

ok, pretty sure this has been answered before, but let's keep the thread moving:

Were Medieval Knights ever the army destorying superweapons that popular history makes them? Was their a period when they were able to overrun formed footmen with impunity, or is this just a myth they propagated to make them look hard? I know that history is littered with examples of failed cav charges, but are their an eqaul number of sucesses?

A very difficult question to answer fully and concisely, but I will give it a go anyway...

Knights were never 'super weapons', but they were often the best combatants on the field. The degree to which that is true depends on the period and the circumstances.

Knights were never capable of of over running formations of Foot Men with impunity. They could potentially break a formation, but the conditions had to be right.

The mounted charge was often very successful, but had to be used correctly. Charging a numerous, well equipped and disciplined formation of Foot Men with a handful of Knights is going to end badly. Charging a score of conscripted, poorly trained and ill equipped Foot Men with a handful of Knights is likely to go well.

Mounted Knights, generally speaking, could be used successfully to directly attack enemy cavalry, directly attack enemy archers and pursue fleeing enemies. Their speed also meant that they could be used to hit a foe unexpectedly, by way of ambush or by responding quickly to changing circumstances. They could also be successfully used against disciplined formations of Foot Men, so long as they were part of a combined arms effort, which is to say after Foot, Bow and/or Light Horse Men had disrupted the formation.

Of course, dismounted Knights also made excellent Foot Men and many would have been skilled in the use of the Bow and/or Cross Bow.

[Fhaolan]

Have you ever used a chain like this? Wrapping it around your forearm woul crush you own hand on impact making it effective for one hit and one hit only. Wrapping it around your forearm would work as you have more padding and yes it would increase the weight behind your punch but that added weight would also slow your punch down unless you are used to training with the added weight on your arm. Eith way it is not quite an effective maneuver for a length of chain. Futher down the posts I see informmation about the fuild motion of the chain and I would go more along these lines as yes you can block a chain but if the wielder is swinging it correctly then it will pivot on the blocking item and swing with even more momentum into their target.

1) Yes, I've used a chain like this. It's only slightly worse than using brass knuckles for self-inflicted damage. It also means you have what is in effect an armored forearm (if the chain is long enough). If you're weak enough that that extra mass is slowing you down significantly, you shouldn't be using that chain.

2) Yes, blocking a loose chain is fairly pointless as it will wrap around. However, unless that chain has a mass on the end, like a flail, or is heavy enough that it will blow through the block anyway, it's not going to do much to you when it hits anyway. That's the problem with a flexible weapon, it bends. The impact will be distributed across the maximum surface area, and a good amount of it will probably go past you anyay, as the chain bends around you. Yes, depending on the weight of the chain it can hurt, but it takes multiple blows before it begins to *hurt*.

I have been in real fights with chains, and what a lot of people don't realize is that the chain is a distraction, discouragement, and discipline weapon, much like a scourge. You attack the head of your opponent with it, to get them to duck. You slash it past their eyes, hoping for a lucky shot, or at least tear their skin. When you do hit, it's a fraction of a second of distraction that gives you time to follow up with whatever weapon you have in the other hand. The chain is simply not a killing weapon, unless you manage to use it as a garrotte.

[Dervag]

Were Medieval Knights ever the army destorying superweapons that popular history makes them? Was their a period when they were able to overrun formed footmen with impunity, or is this just a myth they propagated to make them look hard? I know that history is littered with examples of failed cav charges, but are their an eqaul number of sucesses?There were quite a lot of successful cavalry charges. We remember the failures not least because they came as such a shock to the people who saw them.

Cavalry don't work well against well disciplined infantry blocks that can hold a formation, but that wasn't a routine feature of medieval warfare. I don't think that most medieval knights themselves expected to be able to overrun formed footmen easily, and I suspect that they were less interested in trying than we might conclude from accounts of famous battles where they tried and failed.

Remember, no weapon system persists if it is not deemed cost effective by the warriors who use it.

[Zenos]

ok, pretty sure this has been answered before, but let's keep the thread moving:

Were Medieval Knights ever the army destorying superweapons that popular history makes them? Was their a period when they were able to overrun formed footmen with impunity, or is this just a myth they propagated to make them look hard? I know that history is littered with examples of failed cav charges, but are their an eqaul number of sucesses?

Cavalry were generally better at attacking the flanks and light infantry of the enemy, and heavy cavalry could, if used right, be sent charging into a formation of infantry and out on the other side, breaking them up for the infantry to charge in and deal with them easier. Heavy cavalry tactics consists of charging in, going out and charging again.

[Deadmeat.GW]

As an example, the French knights were only solidly defeated twice in Flanders when they seriously fought and this was against people who were drilled and used pike like weapons to stand against them.

Also funny...most of the French army was fighting in Flanders while the English overran chunks of France...

Knights were the blitzkrieg of their time, hard hitting and fast moving with some serious protection.

[Raum]

A recent article makes me wonder, are the F-22 and F-35 destined to be the last generation of manned fighters? How long before the advantages of UAVs as fighters overcome transmission lag and lack of an on board pilot?

[Zincorium]

A recent article makes me wonder, are the F-22 and F-35 destined to be the last generation of manned fighters? How long before the advantages of UAVs as fighters overcome transmission lag and lack of an on board pilot?

We already have UAVs in-service that can take off, land, and get to the mission area with no operator input. The only input they require is the go-ahead to actually fire (I'm thinking the firescout helicopter here).

The real stumbling block is of several components but it all comes down to the same thing: we're afraid of skynet. Seriously.

Everyone is afraid to go that next step and allow autonomous robots to decide for themselves to fire upon and destroy targets that can demonstratably be identified as hostile: Samsung has a turret that can reliably identify people at distances much farther than the naked eye and track those, while all US and allied country's vehicles and soon soldiers will be hooked into a network that reports their position on a constant basis.

The idea is that while a pilot who accidentally shoots the wrong target can be blamed and disciplined individually (like those A10 who destroyed a mis-identified canadian convoy a while back), a failure on that level of autonomous machines would probably involve a recall and destruction of that entire series.


However, if we do decide to put robots into fighter planes, it may very well be a quick transition. The F-22 in particular already translates all of the pilot's control signals into actual motion, and it's flight capabilities exceed a human pilot's survival threshold significantly. Hooking up a modern computing system with the right software could probably be done within five years with enough push from the higher-ups, given how much is already automated.

[Raum]

The real stumbling block is of several components but it all comes down to the same thing: we're afraid of skynet. Seriously.Not sure I agree. While there may be a popular fear of uncontrolled machines running amok I don't think the decision makers or scientists have any serious concerns.

Frankly, unmanned vehicles, aerial or not, will become common once they're more effective than the manned versions. As you've pointed out, we're already rolling out armed UAVs. They've already taken the place of the SR-71 and the U-2 (in combination with satellites of course). When they can reliably perform other missions for less cost than a manned aircraft they'll be used.


Everyone is afraid to go that next step and allow autonomous robots to decide for themselves to fire upon and destroy targets that can demonstratably be identified as hostile: Samsung has a turret that can reliably identify people at distances much farther than the naked eye and track those, while all US and allied country's vehicles and soon soldiers will be hooked into a network that reports their position on a constant basis.In this day and age I think having your weapon system hacked and turned against you is more of a threat than faulty autonomous decision making.


The idea is that while a pilot who accidentally shoots the wrong target can be blamed and disciplined individually (like those A10 who destroyed a mis-identified canadian convoy a while back), a failure on that level of autonomous machines would probably involve a recall and destruction of that entire series.A software failure wouldn't require destruction of a series, just a patch. Mind, I don't want Microsoft writing the code! :)


However, if we do decide to put robots into fighter planes, it may very well be a quick transition. The F-22 in particular already translates all of the pilot's control signals into actual motion, and it's flight capabilities exceed a human pilot's survival threshold significantly. Hooking up a modern computing system with the right software could probably be done within five years with enough push from the higher-ups, given how much is already automated.How much autonomy is given to the weapons system is another question. Many of our UAVs are flown by a human with a joystick and a video screen after all. Think Ender's Game, if the communications are reliable your command and control don't have to be local.

Here's an excerpt from the article:
These F-22s will replace more than 500 F-15A/B/C/D models -- some of which are showing serious signs of premature aging. The F-22 production run will be followed by a much more extensive F-35 Lightning II buy (formerly known as the Joint Strike Fighter program), currently anticipated to be on the order of 1,700 aircraft for the USAF alone. The F-35 has been conceived in part as a much more economical alternative to the F-22 (although the costs of the F-35 have been climbing at a disturbing rate and already have crept past $80 million per aircraft).

On one hand is the need to procure sufficient aircraft to absorb attrition (because of not only the age and wear-and-tear issues the USAF is accustomed to today but also the potential for significant combat losses in a future fight). On the other is the fact that the obsolescence of each F-22 and F-35 is installed with its ejection seat; while the constraints the human body's limitations put on combat aircraft are not new, the maturation of automated unmanned aerial systems has accelerated significantly in the last decade.

Thus, the Raptor and the Lightning II increasingly are likely to be the last two manned combat fighter jets in the inventory. The decision before the USAF, then, is not simply which wars likely will be fought in the next 30 years, but also how soon unmanned combat aerial systems will begin to eclipse the manned aircraft fleet.

[Dervag]

Not sure I agree. While there may be a popular fear of uncontrolled machines running amok I don't think the decision makers or scientists have any serious concerns.

Frankly, unmanned vehicles, aerial or not, will become common once they're more effective than the manned versions. As you've pointed out, we're already rolling out armed UAVs. They've already taken the place of the SR-71 and the U-2 (in combination with satellites of course). When they can reliably perform other missions for less cost than a manned aircraft they'll be used.The problem is that engineers make mistakes, because they are human. Technology gets screwed up once in a while, and the problem you're responding to is real. So I think it's more likely that we'd see 'pilots' on the ground controlling the systems and OKing the AI's decision to fire, as you suggest.

I'm not worried about an AI fighter unit deciding to try to take over the world. I'm worried that AI fighters will still mess up and kill friendlies once in a while, for some of the same reasons that human pilots do (misreported coordinates, faults in the IFF system). And when an AI pilot screws up, the entire production run is suspect. And it may be very hard to track down the problem; complex computer code is big.


A software failure wouldn't require destruction of a series, just a patch. Mind, I don't want Microsoft writing the code! :)The problems Microsoft has with making huge programs don't go away for everybody else, though.

[KazilDarkeye]

Sorry to post a question slightly off-topic, but what the heck do all the numbers mean with bullets?

E.g what does .308 signify?

[Storm Bringer]

calibre, in parts of a inch or milimeters.

I.e. a .308 bullet is .308 of a inch wide, a .50 cal BMG is half in inch wide, a 5.56mil is a little over half a centimeter wide, and so on.

[Matthew]

If I recall correctly, it's the diameter of the round it takes. So an Uzi 9mm, for instance, uses rounds 9mm in diameter. A .308 is probably the diameter in inches, but somebody will correct me if I am wrong.

[Edit]
Darn, beaten to the punch!

[Storm Bringer]

Darn, beaten to the punch!
I prefer the term 'ninja'd', personally.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

but yhea, the numbers in ammo names are the bullets calibre, which the width of the bullet, and is a rough mesure of how effective it is (Though the exact effectiveness of any given calibre compared to similar ones is a Hot Topic)

[Hzurr]

However, if we do decide to put robots into fighter planes, it may very well be a quick transition. The F-22 in particular already translates all of the pilot's control signals into actual motion, and it's flight capabilities exceed a human pilot's survival threshold significantly. Hooking up a modern computing system with the right software could probably be done within five years with enough push from the higher-ups, given how much is already automated.

However, the last time they tried to do fully robotic planes, it kept broadcasting the name "Sarah Conner" across all radio frequencies. Weird, huh?

[Zincorium]

Sorry to post a question slightly off-topic, but what the heck do all the numbers mean with bullets?

E.g what does .308 signify?

The caliber question already answered, you might have also noticed that some bullets also come with a designation for length, such as 9x19. These are quite important, due to the fact that in semiautomatic designs it's dangerous or impossible to use bullets of the wrong length, even if it's only slightly off. It can also make a big difference as far as effectiveness.

For example, 7.62mm is a very common diameter for bullets. However, 7.62x25 is a pistol cartridge (known as Tokarev), 7.62x39 is the bullet AK-47s are chambered for, 7.62x51 is equivalent to .308 and is used in the FN-FAL and many hunting rifles, and finally 7.62x54R is an old rimmed russian cartridge used in some sniper rifles like the dragunov.

The big difference in length between 25 millimeters and 54mm means that even though the bullets are the same overall diameter (or nearly so) they have completely different roles.

[Dervag]

I prefer the term 'ninja'd', personally.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

but yhea, the numbers in ammo names are the bullets calibre, which the width of the bullet, and is a rough mesure of how effective it is (Though the exact effectiveness of any given calibre compared to similar ones is a Hot Topic)The reason for this is that caliber (this is one of those American/British spelling things) only gives you the diameter of the bullet, not its length or its velocity.

For example, the .45 caliber rounds fired by a Tommy gun or the famous Colt .45 semiautomatic pistol are large, heavy bullets, but they are relatively short compared to rifle bullets, and they are slow.

The .50 caliber M2 machine gun fires rounds that are only slightly larger in diameter, but that use a much larger cartridge packed with explosives to drive the bullet. Therefore, the ".50 cal" has a much longer range than the .45 pistol, does vastly more damage on a hit, and has much greater penetration. Which is why the .50 caliber machine gun was originally invented to kill light tanks, a role in which the .45 caliber pistol would be utterly useless.

[Storm Bringer]

The reason for this is that caliber (this is one of those American/British spelling things) only gives you the diameter of the bullet, not its length or its velocity.

For example, the .45 caliber rounds fired by a Tommy gun or the famous Colt .45 semiautomatic pistol are large, heavy bullets, but they are relatively short compared to rifle bullets, and they are slow.

The .50 caliber M2 machine gun fires rounds that are only slightly larger in diameter, but that use a much larger cartridge packed with explosives to drive the bullet. Therefore, the ".50 cal" has a much longer range than the .45 pistol, does vastly more damage on a hit, and has much greater penetration. Which is why the .50 caliber machine gun was originally invented to kill light tanks, a role in which the .45 caliber pistol would be utterly useless.

Well, I was reffering to the discussion of vairous pistol calibres vs. other pistol calibres, but your comments are also true and enlightening.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

The caliber question already answered, you might have also noticed that some bullets also come with a designation for length, such as 9x19. These are quite important, due to the fact that in semiautomatic designs it's dangerous or impossible to use bullets of the wrong length, even if it's only slightly off. It can also make a big difference as far as effectiveness.

For example, 7.62mm is a very common diameter for bullets. However, 7.62x25 is a pistol cartridge (known as Tokarev), 7.62x39 is the bullet AK-47s are chambered for, 7.62x51 is equivalent to .308 and is used in the FN-FAL and many hunting rifles, and finally 7.62x54R is an old rimmed russian cartridge used in some sniper rifles like the dragunov.

The big difference in length between 25 millimeters and 54mm means that even though the bullets are the same overall diameter (or nearly so) they have completely different roles.
In addition to this, you can see some additional oddities with the number designations of different rounds, particularly for older cartridges from the mid 1800s (around the time of the US Civil War) to the early 1900s. A good example of this would be the .30-40 Krag and the .30-06 (thirty ought-six).

The .30-40 Krag was a US Army round of .30 caliber. The -40 part refers to the weight, in grains, of smokeless powder in the cartridge that propelled the bullet. This was a typical designation for the US Army from the introduction of rifle cartridges up until about 1903 - other examples include the .50-70 Government (.50 caliber, 70 grains) and the .45-70 Government (.45 caliber, 70 grains), both of which actually used black powder. As far as I have been able to ascertain, any round designated this was is a rifle round.

The .30-06, on the other hand, is a .30 caliber round developed in 1906, for the Springfield rifle. It replaced the less famous .30-03 originally created for the rifle in 1903 (also known as the .30-45, in keeping with the system described above). The .30-06 is well known since it was used in the main battle rifles US soldiers carried in both World Wars - the M1903 Springfield from WWI, and the M1 Garand from WWII - and saw action right up to the Vietnam War.

These two methods can be a bit confusing - for example, the .32-20 Winchester follows the first method (.32 caliber, 20 grains), but could easily be confused as a .32 from 1920. However, I have found that almost anything prior to 1900 uses the first method and anything after uses the second, and the second method died out very early in the 20th century - so if the number is 10 or higher, you're probably looking at the first method.

Another weird version is something like the .22-250 Remington or the .30-378 Weatherby Magnum. In this case, the first number is the actually caliber of the bullet, and the second is the caliber the case was originally developed for. Basically, what happens is that a case (the brass - usually - part that holds the propellant) for one round is "necked down" for a smaller bullet. The .22-250 is a .22 caliber bullet put into a .250 Savage case, while the .30-378 is a .30 caliber round in a .378 Weatherby Magnum case. This is pretty rare - most often you find it with wildcat (basically the firearms equivalent of homebrew) rounds for very special purposes, particularly target shooting.

Lastly, a few rounds with have two calibers separated by a slash - .577/450 Martini-Henry, for example. This one seems very rare, particularly used with a few old British rifles. Basically, it's a reverse of the above - the first caliber is the original round, the second is the actual caliber of the bullet being fired.

Occasionally a round with its caliber in 10ths or 100ths of an inch will include a length (also in 10ths or 100ths of an inch), but this is much more typical in rounds measured with the metric system (the 7.62x25mm as mentioned above).

Another thing to keep in mind is that, especially when talking about caliber in fractions of inches, it's usually a nominal caliber. The famous .38 caliber round is actually .357 inches (.357, however, is associated with the magnum version of the round; they are in fact the same diameter, so a .38 round can be fired from most .357 revolvers, but the longer .357 magnum round can't be fired from a .38 revolver). British .450 caliber rifle rounds are rarely actually .45 inches - most are .458 instead. Also, you sometimes get a metric round and a round measured in inches that are very similar - the 7.62x51mm NATO and the .308 Winchester are not completely identical rounds, but have the same caliber and a firearm that can fire one can fire the other. The .223 Remington and the 5.56x45mm NATO also have the same dimensions - the main difference is that the 5.56x45mm has more propellant packed at higher pressures, and is thus more powerful. You can fire a .223 Remington from a weapon chambered for the 5.56x45mm, but not the reverse.

Contrary to expectation, cartridge designations are not an exact science or standard. There's a lot of arcane tradition, marketing concerns, and other general weirdness that confuses things a great deal. Modern military designations in metric are the exception - the current designations were specifically chosen to alleviate the confusion from the non-standardized designations that preceded them. However, non-military commercial rounds don't have to follow these standards, and often use the older conventions. And the older the round, the more often you're going to have a confusing designation.

[Norsesmithy]

Also, you sometimes get a metric round and a round measured in inches that are very similar - the 7.62x51mm NATO and the .308 Winchester are not completely identical rounds, but have the same caliber and a firearm that can fire one can fire the other. The .223 Remington and the 5.56x45mm NATO also have the same dimensions - the main difference is that the 5.56x45mm has more propellant packed at higher pressures, and is thus more powerful. You can fire a .223 Remington from a weapon chambered for the 5.56x45mm, but not the reverse.

Careful when interchanging Civilian calibers and military equivilents. .308 winchester has slightly different headspace tolerances than 7.62x51, and is loaded to higher pressures.

It is safe to shoot 7.62 through a .308 chambered firearm, but not the otherway 'round.

With 5.56x45 and .223, as you said, it is the other way around, 5.56 has a thicker cartridge throat and is loaded to higher pressures than .223 rem, making it safe to run .223 in a 5.56 chambered firearm, but not the other way around.

[Dervag]

These two methods can be a bit confusing - for example, the .32-20 Winchester follows the first method (.32 caliber, 20 grains), but could easily be confused as a .32 from 1920. However, I have found that almost anything prior to 1900 uses the first method...Well, since using black powder as propellant for rifle cartridges became obsolete almost exactly around 1900, that's no surprise. Once you're using something like cordite instead of black powder, measuring the load in "grains" is pointless because ten grains of black powder and ten grains of cordite don't achieve the same effect.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Careful when interchanging Civilian calibers and military equivilents. .308 winchester has slightly different headspace tolerances than 7.62x51, and is loaded to higher pressures.

It is safe to shoot 7.62 through a .308 chambered firearm, but not the otherway 'round.
Now this is an interesting case. It had always been explained to me that while there are differences between the load pressures and internal case makeup (and apparently the headspace) with the .308 as compared to the 7.62x51mm, the two rounds could be used in a weapon chambered for either with no real problem. It's also not listed on SAAMI's website as an unsafe combination (the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm one is, though). Also, just about every ammunition seller I've seen lists them interchangeably as well.

I did find a few articles stating concerns when I started checking now, but this is the first I've heard that there was any problem or danger. I'll have to look into it further.

EDIT: You definitely don't want to put a 7.62x39mm Soviet through either a 7.62x51mm or a .308 (or vice versa, assuming you can get it to fit) though!

EDIT2: I mentioned SAAMI (http://www.saami.org/) above; the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute is a good resource for information on firearms safety, especially from the technical side of things.


Well, since using black powder as propellant for rifle cartridges became obsolete almost exactly around 1900, that's no surprise. Once you're using something like cordite instead of black powder, measuring the load in "grains" is pointless because ten grains of black powder and ten grains of cordite don't achieve the same effect.
Very good point, that hadn't occurred to me.

[Dervag]

Very good point, that hadn't occurred to me.:smalleek: I was certain it had; that was mostly exposition for the benefit of anyone who wasn't enough of a history geek or firearm geek to know that.

I make a rather poor firearm geek, but an excellent history geek, which is why I know.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

:smalleek: I was certain it had; that was mostly exposition for the benefit of anyone who wasn't enough of a history geek or firearm geek to know that.

I make a rather poor firearm geek, but an excellent history geek, which is why I know.
Well, we all know what assuming does :smallwink: I was aware of the switchover, but I hadn't put two and two together to get to how that would affect the round designations.

As for the firearm geekiness, I come by it naturally - I was born in Springfield, MA and my father worked for S&W for a time :smallbiggrin:

[Crow]

Now this is an interesting case. It had always been explained to me that while there are differences between the load pressures and internal case makeup (and apparently the headspace) with the .308 as compared to the 7.62x51mm, the two rounds could be used in a weapon chambered for either with no real problem. It's also not listed on SAAMI's website as an unsafe combination (the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm one is, though). Also, just about every ammunition seller I've seen lists them interchangeably as well.

To be fair, the differences in the those particular cartridges as they relate to safetly are almost negligable. People use them interchangably every day. While there is a very small chance of a catastrophic failure, it is really not much more a chance than you would have had running the "right" ammunition anyways.

The difference is more pronounced between .308 and 7.62x51, and almost nil between .223 and 5.56x45. It is strange that one would be listed and the other isn't.

[Zincorium]

The best rule to go by: use what the gun is marked for.

Some guns with fairly loose tolerances (like the saiga AK in .308) work well with both rounds of a given type and are marked as such. I believe there is some sort of chamber for AR types called the Wylde which will work with both 5.56 and commercial .223. There are probably other exceptions.

And then there's the wonderful world of revolvers which routinely use rounds of different case lengths.

[Norsesmithy]

The best rule to go by: use what the gun is marked for.

Some guns with fairly loose tolerances (like the saiga AK in .308) work well with both rounds of a given type and are marked as such. I believe there is some sort of chamber for AR types called the Wylde which will work with both 5.56 and commercial .223. There are probably other exceptions.

And then there's the wonderful world of revolvers which routinely use rounds of different case lengths.

You can run .223 in a 5.56 chamber, just fine. The Wylde chamber is a match 5.56 chamber with a $100 premium attached.

As for the .308 in a 7.62x51 issue, many guns sold as 7.62 actually use the .308 chamber. Issue FALs were actually produced to the comnercial chamber specs (but not the STG58s), and so were most (but not all) M14s.

Trouble mainly seems to manifest itself in CETMEs, 1918A3s, and G3s.

At least according to SHOTGUN NEWS.

[Storm Bringer]

here a quickie:

Has anyone ever done a ballistic gel test on the old flintlock musket? It'd be intresting to see how it proformed compared to modern rilfe rounds.

[Norsesmithy]

I saw one, once. Not sure the mix was right, or that the prep was done correctly, and I know they didn't calibrate, but a .74 caliber rifled musket shooting spherical (Not minie) ball isn't that impressive, next to a 5.56.

At 15 yards, it made a 14 inch wound with no expansion, just a 3/4th inch tunnel.

M855, on the same batch of gel, penetrated 16 inches, with a 7 inch wide perminant cavity.

This is slightly larger than expected, so we can posit that the musket would have penetrated less in the good stuff. It looked like a bigger FMJ pistol round, performance wise.

Kinda lack luster.

[Lord Herman]

In movies, you often see people throw swords. Is it possible to throw a sword with any kind of accuracy? Apart from the problem of not having a sword anymore once you've thrown it, is it practical to kill someone at range with a sword?

[Swordguy]

In movies, you often see people throw swords. Is it possible to throw a sword with any kind of accuracy? Apart from the problem of not having a sword anymore once you've thrown it, is it practical to kill someone at range with a sword?

NO.

One of the worst examples I've ever seen was in an otherwise acceptable movie for it's battle scenes - The Last Samurai. I saw it with a bunch of friends who are also in the stage combat biz. When Algren threw the katana (like a spear, no less) and impaled that guy, we all stood up (no joke) in the theatre and shouted "swords don't DO that!" basically spontaneously.

You could, theoretically, throw a sword at somebody within about 10 feet, or maybe 15 if you figured out the rotation. But is it practical? Let me answer like this: in the history of written warfare, there is no my knowledge not a single manual of the sword, in any culture, that advocates throwing your sword.

[Matthew]

My gut impulse is the same as Sword Guy's... however, I have heard rumours that certain schools developed techniques to throw the Wakizashi... and given some of the crazy (and not particularly practical) stuff that some of the later sword schools seem to have come up with, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that were true.

A quick google search turns up this sort of thing: Sword Throwing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHNZX2fc1_E), which suggest to me that this is perhaps the most stupid thing you could do with a sword, still... it wouldn't surprise me... more of the same: Sword versus Spear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NGk9xHdwnU) and another guy Throwing Shurikens and Blades (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYybeUfTiWY)

Also, talk about posers: Martial Arts Training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJtUl1sijJk)

I bet this guy could chuck a sword awesome: Xeno: Warrior Prince (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RezTcPb3CHQ)

Hmnn... here's a link (http://www.warriorquest.com/martialartsglossary.html) to a Glossary of Martial Arts terms that includes:

Ken nage- Throwing the sword
Ageru gyakuto- Rising reversal (sword throwing position)

Could be just made up, though.

[Swordguy]

Ken nage- Throwing the sword
Ageru gyakuto- Rising reversal (sword throwing position)

Could be just made up, though.

Quick point: those are functions of Shinobi Happo Niken - a branch of ninjutsu consisting of the "8 secret arts" (Happo). Ken Nage is grouped in the 5th art - the throwing of blades - along with Shiriken-jutsu [sic].

It should be noted that the entire purpose of Shinobi martial arts is to allow the practitioner to escape pursuers. From what I understand, Ken Nage is essentially throwing your sword (which is a disposable tool to the Shinobi, not a precious object like it is in most other sword-using cultures) at your opponent's head or body to get a head start on running the heck away. It is intended to hit, but not intended to kill or seriously injure, because doing so with a thrown sword is seriously difficult. It's a distraction.

The term "Ken Nage" appears in some other formats - but not in the way you think. They are "throws with swords", not "swords that are thrown". They include hip and shoulder throws - throwing your opponent to the ground while holding a sword (they appear in Aikijutsu/Aikido and Kenjutsu in the Japanese tradition). They don't actually involve winging a sword at somebody's head. For example, Ageru gyakuto involves bringing your sword up and meeting your opponent's downward swing very early in its arc (the rising), while zoning in and pushing his center of gravity up and back (reversal), forcing him into falling to the ground.

[Coplantor]

Hi, I'd like to know what a "Ricasso" is, all I know is that it is a part of a sword...

[Swordguy]

The ricasso is the section of the blade of a sword closest to the guard. The exact size varies, but a ricasso is always considered to be an un-sharpened or semi-sharpened location where the wielder can grasp (in the case of larger weapons) or finger (in the case of single-handed weapons) the blade for better support and control.

Not all swords have ricassos.

[Fhaolan]

In movies, you often see people throw swords. Is it possible to throw a sword with any kind of accuracy? Apart from the problem of not having a sword anymore once you've thrown it, is it practical to kill someone at range with a sword?

No, not really. Other than perhaps by accident. I've experimented with doing so, just to be sure. If you throw it like a javelin, it's techincally possible for it to hit point first, but you'll get very poor penetration and the accuracy sucks.

There are, however, bladed weapons that are made to allow for throwing. A proper machete, for instance, is a reasonably good throwing weapon.


Hi, I'd like to know what a "Ricasso" is, all I know is that it is a part of a sword...

Here's a site with a listing of some sword terminology and the current popular definitions for them:

http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordparts.html

I say current popular definitions, as weapon and armor terms tend to shift around over the years, and at no point does everyone agree with the terminology all at the same time. :smallbiggrin:

[Dervag]

It should be noted that the entire purpose of Shinobi martial arts is to allow the practitioner to escape pursuers. From what I understand, Ken Nage is essentially throwing your sword (which is a disposable tool to the Shinobi, not a precious object like it is in most other sword-using cultures) at your opponent's head or body to get a head start on running the heck away. It is intended to hit, but not intended to kill or seriously injure, because doing so with a thrown sword is seriously difficult. It's a distraction.A good one, I imagine. I mean, it may not be very accurate, but it's still a goodly number of pounds of very sharp iron flying through the air at you. If I suddenly had a ninja chuck his sword at me, you may be assured that the sword would have my full attention until it was safely on the ground.

[Neon Knight]

I understand the basics (very basics) of the functioning of blowback, Recoil Operation, and Gas-operated systems in automatic small arms. While I realize that these are still rather generic categories, with each individual firearm design still possessing its own quirks, I was wondering if there was a (a any advantages and disadvantages to using a particular one, and b) which is most common?

[Swordguy]

I understand the basics (very basics) of the functioning of blowback, Recoil Operation, and Gas-operated systems in automatic small arms. While I realize that these are still rather generic categories, with each individual firearm design still possessing its own quirks, I was wondering if there was a (a any advantages and disadvantages to using a particular one, and b) which is most common?

Oy...big can o' worms.


The second part of your question is easiest to answer. Pure blowback tends to be used in low-caliber firearms (generally below 9mm) and in some low-velocity arms. The Mk19 automatic grenade launcher is a notable example. Long Recoil Operation is found almost entirely in semi-automatic shotguns - the Browning Auto-5 being the seminal example. Short Recoil Operation is in medium-to-large caliber handguns more or less exclusively. If it's 9mm or bigger, it's almost always gonna be SRO. Gas-operation is found essentially only in semi-automatic or fully-automatic long arms (since the piston and gas vent system they require wouldn't generally fit in a handgun).

So...none is really the "most common" except as each operation system generally dominates a particular class of weapons. I suppose if long arms are the most common type of firearm, then gas operation would be the most common (specifically the short-stroke system of the AK-47 family).

I'll hit advantages and disadvantages tomorrow (been awak FAR too long) unless somebody else gets it before I do. Plus, it's a horribly complex topic - tracing back firearm quirks solely to their operation system is very difficult.

[Crow]

As Swordguy said, blowback operation tends to be most common in pistols and such, mostly because it's easier to cram in the requisite parts. Gas operation is most common in longarms (if you go by the numbers produced. There are some submachine guns that are recoil operated as well, though gas-operation is very common too.

Gas operation in longarms has some drawbacks in specific weapons, mostly due to fouling or maintainence issues. Loose gas tubes and gas rings on AR15 variants for instance can prevent the system from building up the pressure necessary to cycle the bolt. A lot of times this results in a type 1 or in some cases, type 3 malfunction. There are very reliable examples of gas-operated firearms though, such as the AK series of rifles, and the Israeli Galil.

Blowback operated longarms tend to be very reliable, not having the same issues as gas operated ones. Heckler and Koch uses a delayed blowback system utilizing rollers on weapons such as the mp5 and many of their rifles. While GIAT uses a delayed blowback system which utilizes a "lever" on their FAMAS variants. Both lines of weapons have a reputation for reliability in harsh environments.

Drawbacks vary from weapon to weapon, and I would tell you that the operating system of the weapon is really secondary when discussing it's drawback and merits. There may be issues wherein a weapon has problems with it's operation due to other problems, but more than likely, any issue you have with a weapon is mostly likely linked to it's manufacturer and it's maintainence, than the system the weapon was built around.

[Norsesmithy]

Blowback action generally makes for a weaker action, but the compact setup makes it great for pistols, where the low pressure cartridges render the relative weakness (relative to a gas or recoil operated action) a non factor, the exception the proves the rule is the St44's descendants, including the CETME and the G3, their roller delayed blowback operation trades a complicated and bulky action for the strength required to play with high pressure rounds. It also means that when they fail, they fail SPECTACULARLY.

Recoil operation works best with very heavy loads, like .50 and up machineguns and cannon, and shotguns. The action generally has lots of moving parts, and required strong springs and heavy pieces to prevent severe fatigue and wear, making them more suited to fixed and vehicle mounted . Low Velocity munitions, like shotgun shells, reduce this need, making it more suitable for personal arms. It also responds well to barrel shortening, unlike gas systems, making them great for riot control guns. They still have lots of moving parts, and most designs that use this method are nearing 100 years old.

Gas operation works great with high pressure cartridges shooting light bullets, but can also be used to supplement/replace both the other systems (most auto shotguns are actually gas). Most gas setups have a piston, and the length this piston travels during operation will characterize a Gas Piston action as either short stroke or long stroke. Long stroke actions are very robust, but have heavy moving parts moving long distances, and this produces a negative effect on accuracy. Short stroke actions are more accurate, but require tighter fitting and better quality control to be as reliable. The third kind of gas operation is called Direct Impingement. DI is the newest system, invented in the late '40s, and only implemented in large numbers in the early '60s. Direct Impingement is what the AR-15 and M16 use. It required extensive tuning for a particular barrel length/internal mass match up, but is very forgiving of cartridge pressure differences, lighter than the others, and naturally accurate. They tend to have less moving mass, a longer, gentler action impulse, and the strongest action lockup available. It is still possible to blow up a DI rifle, but they can handle pressures with weapon damage and no injury to the user that would absolutely ruin a Gas Piston rifle and severely injure the operator. The same impulse in a Roller Delayed blowback rifle may kill the user. The drawbacks are that the rifles are unforgiving of improper assembly (as mentioned by Crow) and more maintenance intensive than a Gas Piston rifle.

In some environments, an improperly tuned DI rifle (like the M16A1, courtesy its abbreviated development process) will require daily cleaning (though to be fair, many other weapons using other systems will need similar maintenance cycles in those environments as well). However, baring one anomalous test (I can get into this if need be, but hopefully I don't), the properly tuned DI M4 has proven itself to be every bit as reliable as the Short Stroke Gas Piston HK416 and SCAR rifles.

[Neon Knight]

Thank you for the replies. Most interesting.

A final inquiry: Why is it that you find double action pistols, and no double action rifles? I've never heard of a non-pistol double action weapon.

[Storm Bringer]

answer, i think:

double action requires a heavier trigger pull, which makes it harder to fire, and plays up with aim. The advantage of double action systems (that they can be carried with the hammer uncocked for extra safety) is more useful on systems need to be carried all day but still be ready to fire at any moment, like police or self defense pistols however, with longarms, you want an accurate system, and having to yank hard on the trigger disrupts aim, so a single action is prefered, with the hammer being cocked by the charging handle.

I Think. Bear in mind i have never handled a working firearm and live in a country where guns are not common.

[Awetugiw]

How lethal are
- an average 7.62mm marksman's rifle (say a PSG 1)
- an .50 antimateriel rifle (Say a 'Light Fifty')
when hitting a person outside of the usual lethal areas, say a hit in the arm?

[Storm Bringer]

depends on about a dozen variables, most of them unknown before the impact. Basically, it boils down to who just got shot, what state of mind they are in and what they may be on. some dudes will take one look at the wound and pass out. some will jsut ignore it and carry on.

I've read (though i lack the book in question these days) of a police officer dying of system shock form being shot in the foot, and a case of a man taking somrthing a like a dozen .45 caliber wounds and carrying on going for nearly ten minuites before he keeled over.

Obviously, the .50 BMG round will do more damage, but what that will do the person is really up in the air.

[Epinephrine]

The muzzle velocities on a marksman's rifle are very high, which gives a bullet a lot of kinetic energy. The same is true for a .50 cal., but it weighs more, so it has more energy to impart. In fact, the .50 cal BMG round is used in sniping.

The energy of a .50cal BMG round is in the 18,000-20,000 Joules area, while a 7.62 NATO round is only about 3,300 Joules, so the energy that can be imparted is probably larger by a factor of 6 or so for the BMG.

I have no idea how lethal each would be, but the .50 cal would be moreso.

[Storm Bringer]

indeed, but the fact remains that what effect it have on a person hit by it is very dependant on the person being hit. I have a link (http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm), gained form this very thread, I think, that talks about terminal ballistics and how humans react. the short answer is that you really cannot predict how someone will react to being until until you shoot them and observe thier reaction.

[Mike_G]

You can't say with certainty, but you can predict statistically.

7.62 is a fairly heavy, high velocity round, and will impart a lot of energy. It is more likely to knock someone down than a .223 cal (5.56mm) round, and penetrate cover better. It's used in a lot of sniper rifles, and quite a few battle rifles. It's quite a lethal round. There's also the consideration of the length of the round, which determines how much propellant it contains, and therefore how fast it will leave the muzzle. A 7.62 x 51 mm round from an M14, rifle or M60 machine gun moves much faster than a 7.62 x 39mm from an AK47 (3200 f/s versus 2300 f/s).

A .50 caliber BMG round is all kinds of badass. It can punch through lightly armored vehicles. It is very heavy, moves very fast and delivers a lot of energy to the target. It's probably statistically the most lethal round that isn't explosive. In direct comparison to the 7.62, the .50 cal is 12.7 mm x99mm, which is much wider and nearly 2-3 times the length, depending on which 7.62 you mean.

In theory, assuming you miss a vital organ, the big heavy fast round will do so much damage from cavitation that you are much more likely to stop someone with the bigger, faster round. 9mm pistol rounds don't tend to be one shot stops, high velocity rifle rounds do. If you want to compare lethality of rounds, .50 BMG > 7.62 x51 > 7.62 x 39.

That said, people do die from hits with very light rounds and survive hits from big, scary ones. It's not an exact science.

[Dervag]

How lethal are
- an average 7.62mm marksman's rifle (say a PSG 1)
- an .50 antimateriel rifle (Say a 'Light Fifty')
when hitting a person outside of the usual lethal areas, say a hit in the arm?I would guess that the .50 caliber round will almost certainly disable the arm, probably permanently, and possibly tearing it off outright on a solid hit. The marksman's rifle is somewhat less likely to disable the arm, but still very likely to do so. The probability of permanent crippling injury is again reduced, but quite large.

I am by no means an expert.

In neither case is it especially likely that the person struck will die if given prompt medical attention. The only truly likely cause of death assuming modern medical technology is shock. I cannot estimate the probability that someone shot in the arm will die of shock, but it is much greater for the .50 caliber round than for the 7.62mm round.

Shock is a plausible danger only for a major wound (such as a bullet that strikes the arm squarely, tearing very deep into muscle and tendon and/or damaging or destroying part of the arm bone).

[Awetugiw]

Of course one cannot really be certain whether a shot will be lethal or not before it is fired, but on a scale of 1-5 given by:
1) You'll be okay, as long as you can get to a hospital soon.
2) You'll probably survive.
3) It's 50-50, really.
4) You may survive, but only if you're lucky and get medical attention soon.
5) You're dead, it was nice knowing you. You may or may not have a couple of seconds left to stare at the remnants of your arm, but you'll drop down soon.

Where would the 7.62 x 51 and .50 hits in an arm be on this scale, approximately?

Or, to phrase it differently: in a game system, should the hits be a "take X damage" or "take X damage and make a DC Y fort save or die" kind of hit?

-Edit after noticing Dervags ninja-skills: thanks, that was approximately the information I was looking for.

[Mike_G]

Of course one cannot really be certain whether a shot will be lethal or not before it is fired, but on a scale of 1-5 given by:
1) You'll be okay, as long as you can get to a hospital soon.
2) You'll probably survive.
3) It's 50-50, really.
4) You may survive, but only if you're lucky and get medical attention soon.
5) You're dead, it was nice knowing you. You may or may not have a couple of seconds left to stare at the remnants of your arm, but you'll drop down soon.

Where would the 7.62 x 51 and .50 hits in an arm be on this scale, approximately?

Or, to phrase it differently: in a game system, should the hits be a "take X damage" or "take X damage and make a DC Y fort save or die" kind of hit?

-Edit after noticing Dervags ninja-skills: thanks, that was approximately the information I was looking for.

If shot in the arm with a .50, I'd say you have a better than even chance of surviving, assuming you can stop the bleeding, but a .50 cal will almost definitely cripple the limb. A 7.62 round in the arm is probably not fatal, and probably you can recover use of the limb, depending on whether or not it hit and shattered the bone.

A leg hit can easily damage the femoral artery and kill you.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Thank you for the replies. Most interesting.

A final inquiry: Why is it that you find double action pistols, and no double action rifles? I've never heard of a non-pistol double action weapon.

Hum, not sure but what I remember of double-action pistols is that there are several things people call double action.

One of them is the trigger mechanism in which you can push the trigger forward when the gun is prepped to be fired and requires just the lightest touch to fire.
However this is also available on rifles of any kind.

The other one was the same idea as the old revolvers but seemed to have been for target shooting only.
All semi-automatic pistols fall in this category anyway as far as I gathered.
However a lot of rifles do the same thing but you just don't mention it.
Semi-auto rifles can do this too.
The trigger ***** the hammer after you fire a shot.

[Neon Knight]

Hum, not sure but what I remember of double-action pistols is that there are several things people call double action.

One of them is the trigger mechanism in which you can push the trigger forward when the gun is prepped to be fired and requires just the lightest touch to fire.
However this is also available on rifles of any kind.

The other one was the same idea as the old revolvers but seemed to have been for target shooting only.
All semi-automatic pistols fall in this category anyway as far as I gathered.
However a lot of rifles do the same thing but you just don't mention it.
Semi-auto rifles can do this too.
The trigger ***** the hammer after you fire a shot.

I'm talking about the term "double action" meaning a weapon in which the trigger not only fires the weapon but is also capable of chambering the first round.

Wikipedia Article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Action#Double_action_.28DA.29)

[Norsesmithy]

A double action autopistol is different from a double action revolver, and indeed, their are several different styles of double action pistol which are each very different from each other, mechanically speaking.

A single action is well defined, the trigger does one thing, engage the sear and drop the hammer (or on some guns, the striker), but a double action is any trigger that does more than that.

In some double actions, like the S&W 59 series, the triggers first "stage" involves lifting and securing the hammer, and the second stage engages the sear and drops the hammer.

In some others, like Para Ord's LDA series, there is only one stage, that lifts the hammer, and when the hammer reaches ****, it is disengaged from the sear, firing the weapon.

In still others, like the S&W MP series and the Glock Safe Action Pistols, the first stage compresses a spring on the striker, and the second stage releases the striker to fire the weapon. In these pistols, the second stage can be made so short that they appear to be a single stage double action design like the Para Ord.

No matter the version, the defining characteristic of a double action autopistol is that if the cartridge fails to fire, you can work the trigger again to restrike the primer of the round in the chamber.

In a revolver, Double Action actually does three things, it lifts the hammer, advances the cylinder, and then engages the sear.


I do not know of any double action rifles, other than a few carbines based off of double action pistol designs that use pistol caliber cartridges. This is a safety feature. Most Rifle cartridges operate at far higher pressures than pistol cartridges, often double or triple as potent. If a rifle cartridge fails, for whatever reason, to fire, odds are you do not want to try to fire it again.

When a pistol blows up, you often are unhurt, or suffer some minor lacerations, and sometimes a little mangling of the hand, when most rifles blow up, they can kill you.

[hamishspence]

concerning the high caliber high speed rounds hitting extremities and not being lethal: Does that measn that "hydrostatic shock" as some fiction books call it, is mythical? Some novels use this term as a reason for rounds hitting extremities of victim but killing instantly, and I was wondering if that was mostly artistic licence?

[Noir-Neko]

It partly depends on the individual's vitality. A Hardined War vetrin can get his arm blown off and he'll been in a lot of pain and die soon if the bleeding isn't stopped. He will also be very very mad.
However, your average office working civilian will probably go into shock very quickly if the same injury was incurred. Then die shortly there after.

Personal experience: I've met war vets who have told me the storys behind their missing appendages. And I have seen someone shot in the collarbone and fall over without a word and died.

So I think it has to do with their vitality, their ability to handle pain.

[Storm Bringer]

it's...... not a myth, pre say, it's just it's very hard to predict how a person will react to being shot until he's been shot. some people react worse to high velocity lead than others.:smallbiggrin:

[Mike_G]

Hydrostatic shock is kind of a myth.

The theory is that a human body is largely water, so a bullet will create a shock wave similar to a bowling ball dropped in a pool. That's only kind of true.

A high velocity bullet passing through tissue (or anything, really) creates cavitation, a pressure wave in front of it and a vacuum behind which can rupture organs and damage tissue not in its immediate path. A high velocity round that goes through your torso doesn't have to hit your heart or spleen or whatever to damage it, just pass near enough that the cavitation can do the damage.

A hit in the arm or leg does not produce enough ripple effect to kill you. You may well bleed out form vessel damage, and the cavitation may create a big ugly wound channel and pull some of the meat out the back side of the wound as tissue rushes to fill the vacuum, but that's not "shock." The pain may be debilitating, and you may never play the piano again, but any medic worth his salt can save you with a tourniquet and aggressive packing and some fluid.

I have done time in both the Marines and as a Paramedic, so I'm a bit confident on this one.

[Spiryt]

Hydrostatic shock is kind of a myth.

The theory is that a human body is largely water, so a bullet will create a shock wave similar to a bowling ball dropped in a pool. That's only kind of true.

A high velocity bullet passing through tissue (or anything, really) creates cavitation, a pressure wave in front of it and a vacuum behind which can rupture organs and damage tissue not in its immediate path. A high velocity round that goes through your torso doesn't have to hit your heart or spleen or whatever to damage it, just pass near enough that the cavitation can do the damage.

A hit in the arm or leg does not produce enough ripple effect to kill you. You may well bleed out form vessel damage, and the cavitation may create a big ugly wound channel and pull some of the meat out the back side of the wound as tissue rushes to fill the vacuum, but that's not "shock." The pain may be debilitating, and you may never play the piano again, but any medic worth his salt can save you with a tourniquet and aggressive packing and some fluid.

I have done time in both the Marines and as a Paramedic, so I'm a bit confident on this one.

I heard that in case of monters like Barrett M82 which give bullet 16 KJ of kinetic energy this effect becomes really visible, and this schock really can kill. ( Aside from the fact that half inch, 50 gramm bullet flying with such speed killls you anyway, of course)

What do you think? Another myth, or truth?

[Mike_G]

I heard that in case of monters like Barrett M82 which give bullet 16 KJ of kinetic energy this effect becomes really visible, and this schock really can kill. ( Aside from the fact that half inch, 50 gramm bullet flying with such speed killls you anyway, of course)

What do you think? Another myth, or truth?

The Barrett fires the same .50 cal BMG round as the M2 machine gun, originally intended as an antiaircraft weapon and to kill lightly armored vehicles. It can punch through a brick wall and kill the guy on the other side of it.

It will kill you dramatically by cavitation if it hits you in the body, even if it misses every vital organ. It will take off or cripple an arm or leg, but it's less energy than stepping on a landmine, and you can survive that kind of injury to an extremity.

I would not bet the farm that an arm or leg hit would kill my enemy dead. I would not expect him to dance the Macarena any time soon.

[Shademan]

how does boobs function in a armour?
and i mean a armour made to fit! not a chain-bikini!
lets say we have a curiass made for a female with breasts of average size, will the "twins" be a major disadvantage or what?

[Storm Bringer]

nah, curved surfaces are useful, they make solid hits hard to achive. the odds are anyone who can make worthwhile plate armour (and it's something that usually needs to be custom fitted) could likey make a female breastplate that offered the same level of protection as one made for a man.

[Thiel]

You don't make breastplates with "boobs," instead you extend the entire chest section so that everything fits inside. That way you avoid having to make it from more than one plate and thus reduces the amount of possible weak spots. (A piece of steel is stronger than two pieces of steel joined by rivets or straps.)
Armour like this (http://castlevania.classicgaming.gamespy.com/Images/Scans/PoR/pic_41.jpg) only exists in fiction and as less-than-accurate "recreations."

[Norsesmithy]

The biggest reason you don't use a separate lobe of armor for each breast isn't, necessarily, because joints are weaker (you can reinforce them), but rather because the inward slope between the lobes will act as a blade/bullet trap, and will tend to let a strike maintain good contact instead of glancing off.

[Dervag]

nah, curved surfaces are useful, they make solid hits hard to achive. the odds are anyone who can make worthwhile plate armour (and it's something that usually needs to be custom fitted) could likey make a female breastplate that offered the same level of protection as one made for a man.Might be a tad on the heavy side, though. For the same level of physical conditioning, wearing an adequate amount of plate steel on the torso is probably going to be harder for women.

However, I don't imagine there'd be a problem with the breasts as such, keeping in mind that women physically fit enough to do well in melee combat with swords and such aren't going to have a really large bosom.

As others point out, anything that channels strikes to a specific point on the armor is bad, so the armor shouldn't have two separate... err... frontal protrusions.

[Swordguy]

How do women fit in armor? Like this:

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud1_lo-res.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud3_lo-res.jpg

Or maybe like you see here (http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/spiers-saddlery_2000_1156313).


In general, the breasts are covered and essentially hidden by the breastplate. When you see them made an issue of in historical works (there's a fechtbuch or two that depict female fighters in armor), it's to emphasize that the fighters are in fact, women - not that the armor necessarily looked like that. It was difficult, for example, for the English to identify Joan of Arc on the battlefield. If she had breast-specific armor, do you think it would be anywhere near as difficult?

The only reason to have exposed breast armor in fantasy artwork is because guys like looking at boobies. And, frankly, as one of those guys who enjoys watching them, and as the demographic which powers the existence of the companies that produce said artwork via my purchases, I think that's a good thing. Just as long as there's no pretense made of "historic accuracy".

[Shademan]

thanks for all the replies.
(wow, she looks hot in that armour... uh, focus!)
think i'll be drawing females in more "gender neutral" armours from now on.

[Swordguy]

thanks for all the replies.
(wow, she looks hot in that armour... uh, focus!)
think i'll be drawing females in more "gender neutral" armours from now on.

Meh, don't bother unless you're going for realism (and ask Rutee about how much people like realism in their games :smallwink: ). If you've got a helm on her to hide the hair, half the time nobody will be able to tell it's a girl. Armor disguises people well - during a run of The Lark (Joan of Arc play), both me and my wife were cast as stunt fighters because we both have our own harnesses. One night a professor brought his class to the show and asked the students afterward to identify the woman in armor...naturally, they picked me (note: I am not, to the best of my knowledge, a girl). Why? I had a peascod breastplate and my wife had a flat Milanese breastplate. We even were using open-face helms and they got it wrong.

Plus, as mentioned, the target audience for games (that would be "men") like looking at boobies. Why deprive them of that in artwork, where the actual protective qualities of armor don't matter?

[Mauril Everleaf]

In my DnD group we have a houserule regarding parrying attacks (based somewhat off the mechanic from NWN). My question is basically concerning the strength of a rapier and how well it would fair in a parry. I have no doubt that it could parry a dagger or other small blade, but how would it fair against something like a Bastard Sword? Or an axe? I understand that rapiers were surprisingly resilient for their size, but there has to be an upper bound of what it can parry.

[Matthew]

Hey, I like a bit of historical authenticity in my games! :smallsmile:

Yeah, unless your talking about a 'muscled cuirass' there's very little need to discern much in the way of anatomy when depicting armour on different genders. In the case of Mail, Scale or Lamellar, the armour generally needs to be drawn tight, so you probably wouldn't see much in the way of anatomical differentiation either.

Remember, though, you're probably already drawing gender neutral armour if you draw your plate clad knights with mail skirts! :smallwink:

[Joran]

On a tangential note, I'm curious how much the breasts inhibited women when fighting. With one-handed weapons or shields, I don't see much of a problem, but with two-handed weapons and bows, I can definitely see where there could be a problem.

I recall a history professor telling us that in some cultures, the women would actually maim themselves so that their breasts wouldn't get in the way of combat.

[Awetugiw]

I don't have any experience with rapiers, so I might be wrong here, but I think a bit of thinking about the situation might well provide an answer.

Imagine you're holding a rapier. Now try to bend/break it using one hand, and fixing the rapier on only one side. (Say, for example that you put it on a table with the tip, and then try to bend it by pushing down with your hand.)

Unless you are very, very strong (or your rapier is very, very weak) I'm quite sure you will fail. You need to stop the rapier on two sides to have any real chance of damaging it. (Say, putting it in a crack in a wall, and then pushing the rapier to one side)

When parrying, you will generally not have something to brace your rapier upon. Your rapier therefore doesn't have to hold against the power of the attack your parrying, it has to hold against your own strength.

[Mike_G]

I really like the photo of functional female armor. Nice.

While I like breasts as much as the next guy, I have a hard time with the chainmail Bikini look, unless it's supposed to be humor.

[Storm Bringer]

In my DnD group we have a houserule regarding parrying attacks (based somewhat off the mechanic from NWN). My question is basically concerning the strength of a rapier and how well it would fair in a parry. I have no doubt that it could parry a dagger or other small blade, but how would it fair against something like a Bastard Sword? Or an axe? I understand that rapiers were surprisingly resilient for their size, but there has to be an upper bound of what it can parry.

short answer, the blade would survive, even if the weilder didn't. It's more likey that a heavy blow form a two handed weapon would basically smash though the guard than the rapierist could hold it stiff enough to force his sword to break.

Then agian, a blow of that sort is going to leave the man with Big Sword open to a gut stab form the rapierist . A normal wack wouldn't be beyond the rapierist abilty to stop.

agianst armoured foes, the rapier is Not A Good Weapon. Against someone in street clothing, it's bleeding deadly. Thier is a reason it took hold among duelist and other non-battlefield warriors, and that in unarmoured combat it's just as useful as a longsword, while being much lighter and easier to carry.



I recall a history professor telling us that in some cultures, the women would actually maim themselves so that their breasts wouldn't get in the way of combat.

According one of the greek writers ( I forget which), the Amazons would traditionally apply a branding iron to the right breast of pre-pubescent girls, to stop the breast form growing, and so to let them draw thier bows more easily. then again, the greeks were not above enhancing the truth for the sake of a good story.




I really like the photo of functional female armor. Nice.

you'll note it does quite a good job of showing off her waist and arse from the rear............

[Norsesmithy]

On a tangential note, I'm curious how much the breasts inhibited women when fighting. With one-handed weapons or shields, I don't see much of a problem, but with two-handed weapons and bows, I can definitely see where there could be a problem.

I recall a history professor telling us that in some cultures, the women would actually maim themselves so that their breasts wouldn't get in the way of combat.

It is my opinion that it would take a fairly ponderous set of breasts, or clothing that enhanced their prominence to interfere with the use of a two handed weapon or a bow. Even woman with above average endowments should be able to to function unimpeded with a firm wrap. Even without the wrap, I think that the drawbacks to breasts would have more to do with their swinging about unsupported, and the discomfort that may cause, rather than their getting in the way of anything.

[Matthew]

According one of the greek writers ( I forget which), the Amazons would traditionally apply a branding iron to the right breast of pre-pubescent girls, to stop the breast form growing, and so to let them draw thier bows more easily. then again, the greeks were not above enhancing the truth for the sake of a good story.

A quick adventure over to Wikipedia reveals the following...



Hippocrates relates that they "have no right breasts...for while they are yet babies their mothers make red-hot a bronze instrument constructed for this very purpose and apply it to the right breast and cauterize it, so that its growth is arrested, and all its strength and bulk are diverted to the right shoulder and right arm."

Apparently, it is thought that 'the Amazons would not have had the medical knowledge to manage the inevitable massive hemorrhage or infection if such ablation of the breast actually occurred.' and also that 'amputation of the breast followed by cauterization could have been performed with instruments specifically designed for this purpose.'

[Storm Bringer]

actually, looking at that lass's armour agian, is it me, or does that waist seem to be unusually small?

i mean, it may just be me (i don't know how much of a flairing you would expect), but she looks like shes in a corset.......

[Thiel]

On a tangential note, I'm curious how much the breasts inhibited women when fighting. With one-handed weapons or shields, I don't see much of a problem, but with two-handed weapons and bows, I can definitely see where there could be a problem.

I recall a history professor telling us that in some cultures, the women would actually maim themselves so that their breasts wouldn't get in the way of combat.

I remember watching a program on TV once about a tribe of white mongols whose women cut of their right breast so as better to be able to handle their weapons. I don't know if it's true or not, but I do know that throwback occur every once in a while. They have the same bone structure as "normal" mongolians but their skin and hair is white and their eyes are blue.


actually, looking at that lass's armour agian, is it me, or does that waist seem to be unusually small?

i mean, it may just be me (i don't know how much of a flairing you would expect), but she looks like shes in a corset.......
She doesn't appear to wear much padding underneath.

[Storm Bringer]

yhea, but even so, the indent isn't normally that prounced. It looks like it would be resictivly tight, to be honest.

I mean, compare the flair at the waist on that pic and on the other picture swordguy linked to (http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/spiers-saddlery_2000_1156313), whoose wiast barely flairs at all.

[Swordguy]

yhea, but even so, the indent isn't normally that prounced. It looks like it would be resictivly tight, to be honest.

I mean, compare the flair at the waist on that pic and on the other picture swordguy linked to (http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/spiers-saddlery_2000_1156313), whoose wiast barely flairs at all.

Although, you may note, historical armor tended toward wasp-waists that would make Victorian corset-wearers stand up and take notice. Go here (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=55830) and scroll down to Aaron Schnatterly's 4th post (the one with the 2 full harnesses depicted). Take a look at those waists - that second one is an 18" waist...on a MAN'S armor.

When dealing with armor design, the more the armor adheres to the lines of the wearer's body the better it will be, and the less with will catch on things. Look at the couters on both those and the lovely lady depicted above. See how huge they are? Note that their bulk DIRECTLY corresponds to the gap formed by the wasp-waistedness of the armor. The waist needs to be cut a long way in so the elbows can move freely through that space without catching on anything.

As for the (excellent) view of her butt above - they're promo shots...she's not wearing any sort of leg harness. Besides, my wife is quick to point out that most plate armor grants a very pleasant view to the rear - as the buttock can typically go unprotected because there's supposed to be a horse attached to them. SCA-style spank plates notwithstanding, of course.

[Thiel]

Apparently it's a promo poster for the film Shroud. That would explain the lack of padding at least.

Edit: Ninjaed


SCA-style spank plates notwithstanding, of course.
Spank plate?

[Storm Bringer]

ok, fair enough. it just looked really odd.

[Shademan]

actually, looking at that lass's armour agian, is it me, or does that waist seem to be unusually small?

i mean, it may just be me (i don't know how much of a flairing you would expect), but she looks like shes in a corset.......

shush, now. stop ruining my daydreaming. :smallamused:

[Storm Bringer]

now, now, after having been show authentic period armour that is simmilar in that respect, I'm quite happy to accept it and enjoy the view. hell, i was enjoying the view anyway,:smallwink:

[Thiel]

Not a question this time but I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this picture.
http://www.truefork.org/Photography/Leger1c_files/fico1.jpg
Imagine trying to explain it to the engraver.
It's from this site (http://www.truefork.org/Photography/Burgundian_Armour_3.php)

[Swordguy]

Apparently it's a promo poster for the film Shroud. That would explain the lack of padding at least.

Spank plate?

The SCA plays a game they call heavy weapon combat. In theory, it's like medieval combat, but with clubs instead of sharps. In practice, because of targeting restrictions, they end up with a product that has as much relation to combat as I do to Liv Tyler (hint: I have absolutely no relationship with Liv Tyler).

In essence, because the lower legs are an off-limits target, it promotes a style of combat the espouses huge, indestructible shields (since the legs are off-limits, you don't have to move to keep your legs from being chopped from under you). Because the shields are so big, people can't get past them from the front, so they developed the "wrap shot".

Wraps key off of the fact that swords, when swung, tend to want to travel in a circle. Take a ruler or something and hold it horizontally over your head and swing it in a horizontal circle - that's the motion of a sword swing. Now, you'll note a point during the circle where your wrist turns over - with a real sword, you want to strike your target before that happens. With a wrap shot, the target for your swing isn't your opponent, but about 2 feet to the SIDE of your opponent. When you swing the sword in that circle while aiming off to the side of your adversary, the sword will loop back around and hit him in the back AFTER the wrist has turned over (with the "false edge" of the weapon). Because you're aiming off to the side, you're going around that stupidly large shield that's hanging in front of him. The swing "wraps around" the target and hits him from the rear. Hence, "wrap shot".

The upshot to this "wrap" technique is that the back of your target will be hit more often than the front. The head and back have to be armored anyway as a matter of course, but many SCA-types hang hardened leather or metal plates from the bottom of their backplate to absorb the impact of a wrap shot at waist level, since the armor won't normally cover a person's butt, and getting hit with a club hurts anywhere - even your butt. These plates are called "spank plates".

[Thiel]

Ahh, that makes sense. (Why do I keep reading it as Spanking Plate)
Anyway, you get a somewhat similar effect in LARP games even though the legs are legitimate targets. Of course, when dealing with LARP weapons there's a good chance that it's the sword that bends.

[Swordguy]

Ahh, that makes sense. (Why do I keep reading it as Spanking Plate)
Anyway, you get a somewhat similar effect in LARP games even though the legs are legitimate targets. Of course, when dealing with LARP weapons there's a good chance that it's the sword that bends.

The problem with wrap shots is that they don't generally work unless they hit an unarmored area. I've personally let somebody wrap shot me in the back of the head with a sharp Del Tin whilst wearing a butted-mail coif and arming cap. Guess what? No damage - the mail was barely even scratched. There's impact, for sure, but not even enough to make me dizzy.

Wraps only work, essentially, in games of 'tag", both of which LARPs and the SCA fall into.

That's not a shot at LARPs, by the way. I played NERO for 8 years, and the wrap shot that goes around the bottom/outside edge of a coffin shield into the back of somebody's left knee is a phenomenally difficult-to-stop shot, especially if you feint high and draw the shield upwards, creating a blind spot for your attack. I just wouldn't do it if I was ever in a real swordfight again.

[Fhaolan]

In my DnD group we have a houserule regarding parrying attacks (based somewhat off the mechanic from NWN). My question is basically concerning the strength of a rapier and how well it would fair in a parry. I have no doubt that it could parry a dagger or other small blade, but how would it fair against something like a Bastard Sword? Or an axe? I understand that rapiers were surprisingly resilient for their size, but there has to be an upper bound of what it can parry.

Here you run into terminology problems. What a lot of people assume when they say the word 'parry' is actually 'block'. Meaning you've stuck your weapon out there, and are trying to hold it firm when the opposing weapon bounces off of it (best case). Parry is actually a more sophisticated defence where you attempt to redirect the path of the incoming blow so as to miss you. For example: Figure 1 thrusts his rapier forward, intending to stick it into Figure 2's chest. Figure 2 places his rapier along the incoming rapier, guiding it so that the point is redirected three inches to the left, and so the thrust misses. Figure 2 does *not* attempt to hold his rapier up so that the point of Figure 1's rapier hits the blade and stops dead. This same principle applies to all weapons, not just rapiers. Say you have a broadsword vs a flail. The appropriate parry in this case is to follow the flail head with the broadsword blade, pushing it out of vector so that it either falls short or off target and does not make contact. With a good parry technique, it's possible to have a dagger parry a halberd. Skill overcomes relative mass. What the dagger can't do is *block* the halberd. Unless you are truely impressively strong, the dagger doesn't have the mass to halt the momentum of the halberd.

However, if your weapon has more mass than your opponent, you can also attempt a beat aside, which is basically a very brute-force form of parry where you actively slam your weapon against his, driving it *far* off target.

Also remember that a rapier in this context is not like the modern fencing weapons, but is a far more substantial weapon. Modern fencing is based more on very late-period smallswords and straight sabers which were a lot smaller and lighter than earlier rapiers.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Thanks Fhaolan, that helps a lot. So a the rapier in question could effectively redirect pretty much any weapon it needs to, but would have a rough time blocking it due to its size and shape. I'll have to pass that along, since I'm pretty sure everyone at my table was under the same misconception.

[Lapak]

Thanks Fhaolan, that helps a lot. So a the rapier in question could effectively redirect pretty much any weapon it needs to, but would have a rough time blocking it due to its size and shape. I'll have to pass that along, since I'm pretty sure everyone at my table was under the same misconception.If it helps them envision it: the difference between a block and a parry is the difference between how a professional boxer stops a punch and how an aikido expert stops a punch. The boxer interposes his own well-protected hands and arms, and the punch is wasted on them instead of his head. The aikido expert pushes the attacker's wrist to the side while the punch is coming in, causing the punch to miss entirely.

They both avoid damage. The parry takes better timing and more skill than the block, but it needs a lot less force behind it to do the job - which is important when the incoming force is a great big battle-axe and all you've got to work with is a short sword.

EDIT: And yes, I am aware that boxers also sidestep, parry attacks, move with punches to reduce the impact, and other things. But they also do the classic 'put the hands up and stop the incoming shot' as well, and it's easy to visualize.

[Adlan]

On a tangential note, I'm curious how much the breasts inhibited women when fighting. With one-handed weapons or shields, I don't see much of a problem, but with two-handed weapons and bows, I can definitely see where there could be a problem.

I recall a history professor telling us that in some cultures, the women would actually maim themselves so that their breasts wouldn't get in the way of combat.

I know plenty of Big Chested Lady Archers, shooting both modern and traditional bows, they manage no problem.

[alexi]

I know plenty of Big Chested Lady Archers, shooting both modern and traditional bows, they manage no problem.

to add to that here is lady with the bigest breasts I know:
http://a964.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/7/l_eaa6afcd322d96c88ca8a39ce488bc4b.jpg

She races bikes, they don't get in the way. I've seen her punch guys in the face, boobs do not get in the way. if you imagine a line drawn from shoulder to shoulder it would take an incredibly low angle across her chest for her breasts to interfere

PS yeah they are real :smalleek:
pps and she is 6'1" if that helps sizing

[Dervag]

How do women fit in armor? Like this:
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud1_lo-res.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud3_lo-res.jpg...In other words, "rather well, thank you."


On a tangential note, I'm curious how much the breasts inhibited women when fighting. With one-handed weapons or shields, I don't see much of a problem, but with two-handed weapons and bows, I can definitely see where there could be a problem.Maybe not a big one. Again, remember that women who fight with musclepowered weapons for a living aren't likely to be all that bosomy.


I recall a history professor telling us that in some cultures, the women would actually maim themselves so that their breasts wouldn't get in the way of combat.As others have pointed out, this may have just been the ancient Greeks spicing up their stories about 'Amazons.'

Though what we really need to do is get a female archer's word on the matter...


She races bikes, they don't get in the way. I've seen her punch guys in the face, boobs do not get in the way. if you imagine a line drawn from shoulder to shoulder it would take an incredibly low angle across her chest for her breasts to interfere

PS yeah they are real :smalleek:That answers the issue fairly decisively... this may be the last coherent thought I ever have.

Goodbye, everyone...

[Crow]

The SCA plays a game they call heavy weapon combat. In theory, it's like medieval combat, but with clubs instead of sharps. In practice, because of targeting restrictions, they end up with a product that has as much relation to combat as I do to Liv Tyler (hint: I have absolutely no relationship with Liv Tyler).

In essence, because the lower legs are an off-limits target, it promotes a style of combat the espouses huge, indestructible shields (since the legs are off-limits, you don't have to move to keep your legs from being chopped from under you). Because the shields are so big, people can't get past them from the front, so they developed the "wrap shot".

Wraps key off of the fact that swords, when swung, tend to want to travel in a circle. Take a ruler or something and hold it horizontally over your head and swing it in a horizontal circle - that's the motion of a sword swing. Now, you'll note a point during the circle where your wrist turns over - with a real sword, you want to strike your target before that happens. With a wrap shot, the target for your swing isn't your opponent, but about 2 feet to the SIDE of your opponent. When you swing the sword in that circle while aiming off to the side of your adversary, the sword will loop back around and hit him in the back AFTER the wrist has turned over (with the "false edge" of the weapon). Because you're aiming off to the side, you're going around that stupidly large shield that's hanging in front of him. The swing "wraps around" the target and hits him from the rear. Hence, "wrap shot".

The upshot to this "wrap" technique is that the back of your target will be hit more often than the front. The head and back have to be armored anyway as a matter of course, but many SCA-types hang hardened leather or metal plates from the bottom of their backplate to absorb the impact of a wrap shot at waist level, since the armor won't normally cover a person's butt, and getting hit with a club hurts anywhere - even your butt. These plates are called "spank plates".

I'm very surprised that they wouldn't allow leg shots. This must be for safety reasons. It's ridiculous though when you consider how many bodies they have unearthed on battlefields that sport evidence of wounds to the legs and feet (especially in Scandinavian lands, where this was especially common due to the methods of warfighting that endured for a long while).

[Mike_G]

I'm very surprised that they wouldn't allow leg shots. This must be for safety reasons. It's ridiculous though when you consider how many bodies they have unearthed on battlefields that sport evidence of wounds to the legs and feet (especially in Scandinavian lands, where this was especially common due to the methods of warfighting that endured for a long while).


It's supposed to prevent knee injuries.

It also allows big, fat, immobile guys to keep top rankings, which they could never do in a million years if they had to dance out of the way of cuts to the lower leg.

Ponderously circling with a rattan sword on one shoulder and a barn door strapped to your left arm is well within reach of people whose greatest fears are vegetables and aerobic excercise.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm very surprised that they wouldn't allow leg shots. This must be for safety reasons. It's ridiculous though when you consider how many bodies they have unearthed on battlefields that sport evidence of wounds to the legs and feet (especially in Scandinavian lands, where this was especially common due to the methods of warfighting that endured for a long while).

oh certainly. I'm pretty sure one of the standard polearm attacks on armoured foes was to hook behind the leg and have a go at the back of the knee.

[Hurlbut]

As far as I know, leg shots were allowed, but there were parts of the leg that were off limit or shots to them doesn't count.

[Mike_G]

As far as I know, leg shots were allowed, but there were parts of the leg that were off limit or shots to them doesn't count.


From two inches above the knee on down is off limits.

Which eliminates the most common historical target for a sword and board fighter.

Hard to fight sans feet.

[Swordguy]

It's supposed to prevent knee injuries.

It also allows big, fat, immobile guys to keep top rankings, which they could never do in a million years if they had to dance out of the way of cuts to the lower leg.

Ponderously circling with a rattan sword on one shoulder and a barn door strapped to your left arm is well within reach of people whose greatest fears are vegetables and aerobic excercise.

Preach it brother Mike!

[Ruerl]

It's supposed to prevent knee injuries.

It also allows big, fat, immobile guys to keep top rankings, which they could never do in a million years if they had to dance out of the way of cuts to the lower leg.

Ponderously circling with a rattan sword on one shoulder and a barn door strapped to your left arm is well within reach of people whose greatest fears are vegetables and aerobic excercise.

Fie to thee! Fie I say! Thee lover of aerobic excercise and other enemies of mankind! Fie I say! Fie!

*coughs*

No, to be serious I know the results of the battle of Visby and the number of kills made by leg (and head) injuries there, however in a duel with one on one where your speaking ranking with the aforementioned big fat immobile guys:

Won't striking at his legs, even should it be allowed, just expose you? The distance between me and you is always shorter when I strike at your head/chest region than when I strike at your legs, hence all you have to do, to avoid a strike towards the legs if we where fighting would be to pull your feet back and whack down with your sword on my head.
And that would conclude that fight.

Could anyone here please give a practical example of a duel situation where its actually practical to strike at the legs, the only textbook example I can think of in (the lichtenaue tradition), is from Talhoffers works where you stab the leg from your opponents bad angle starting at the hand and a half sword grib.

[Mike_G]

Fie to thee! Fie I say! Thee lover of aerobic excercise and other enemies of mankind! Fie I say! Fie!

*coughs*

No, to be serious I know the results of the battle of Visby and the number of kills made by leg (and head) injuries there, however in a duel with one on one where your speaking ranking with the aforementioned big fat immobile guys:

Won't striking at his legs, even should it be allowed, just expose you? The distance between me and you is always shorter when I strike at your head/chest region than when I strike at your legs, hence all you have to do, to avoid a strike towards the legs if we where fighting would be to pull your feet back and whack down with your sword on my head.
And that would conclude that fight.

Could anyone here please give a practical example of a duel situation where its actually practical to strike at the legs, the only textbook example I can think of in (the lichtenaue tradition), is from Talhoffers works where you stab the leg from your opponents bad angle starting at the hand and a half sword grib.

If you feint high, draw his shield up, probably blocking his vision, and then make a quick cut at his lower leg, which the fat guy can't pick up and get out of the way, and you can't miss, since it's the size of a tree trunk fashioned of lipids, you can easily wound him and not overly open yourself up.

Then , he's bleeding, in pain, and even less mobile, so you can circle to his undefended side faster than he can pivot.

Leg shots are easy. In several padded weapon/ boffer sword type games I've played, it seems that half the hits are below the knee, and making those attacks don't overly extend you.

It's easy to defend your chest with a shield, and even with a sword, since your hands are up at that level, and you don't have to move far to parry. Legs are far away, shields are seldom tall enough to protect your ankles, or if they are, they become cumbersome, and parrying an ankle shot with your weapon brings it down, far from your vitals, so a feint low to the leg can set up a thrust to the body or head.

The Coup de Jarnac was a blow to the tendon behind the knee, used in a famous duel.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/DOTC.htm

For a discussion of leg hits in historical combat and fencing manuals, check out this link:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/LegWounds.htm

For an article on why banning them changes SCA combat:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/fullleg.htm

The whole site is a pretty good reference.

[Ruerl]

Now, I admit that I have next to no experience fighting with a shield, but it still seems to me like its easy enough -if you stand in a proper stance to begin with that is, to simply close your legs together and whack the offender on the head, then again, I would likedly try to parry the initial strike to my head with a strike to wrist of the attacker.

...but as I said, I have next to no experience with shields and i'm simply not used to thinking in those lines, my line of thought when it comes to combat is that of parrying and killing your opponent with the same stroke, not blocking a feint.

With feints though: Are your feints intented to score a "kill" also?

edit:
I forgot to add that where I train the legs *are* a legal targetting zone, but that most attacks towards it gets punished with a blow to the shoulders, arms or head.

[Hairb]

Just a couple of quickies:
What would standard issue equipment for a US marine in WWI?
What size naval artillery did German ships employ during WWI, and what is the range of such cannons?
When were silenced firearms developed?
What was military radio equipment like during WWI, in terms of range, portability etc?
Thanks
-Hairb

[Mike_G]

Just a couple of quickies:
What would standard issue equipment for a US marine in WWI?



Well, weapons as follows:

Springfield 1903 .30-06 bolt action rifle with a five round magazine, bayonet, fragmentation grenades, fighting knife. A .45 caliber M1911 automatic pistol for officers. Shotguns distributed through the platoon, probably one per squad. The Browning Automatic Rifle and Thompson submachinegun were developed at that time, but few reached the troops in the trenches before the war's end.

Gas mask, flat, British style steel helmet, canteen, tin mess kit basic wool uniform.

Pack/rations/ and so forth, I'm not 100% sure of design, but how detailed are you looking for?

[Norsesmithy]

When were silenced firearms developed?


I know Hiram Maxim's company was selling suppressors by the mid 1890s, they may have existed earlier, but I am not sure.

[Storm Bringer]

Just a couple of quickies:
What would standard issue equipment for a US marine in WWI?
What size naval artillery did German ships employ during WWI, and what is the range of such cannons?
When were silenced firearms developed?
What was military radio equipment like during WWI, in terms of range, portability etc?
Thanks
-Hairb

1)What would standard issue equipment for a US marine in WWI?
answered above in more detail than i can manage

2)What size naval artillery did German ships employ during WWI, and what is the range of such cannons?
most of the german captial ships had 11 inch guns. While i can;t find an absolute range figure for them, the germans opened fire at Jutland at a range of about 16,000 yards (about 9 miles), but that was somewhat within the thoretical limits (though they had trouble with aiming them accuaratly even at that range, so a longer ranged shot would he difficult.)

Note that only the Dreadnaughts and Battlecrusiers had 11 inch guns. older and smaller vessels had a wide range of guns, almost all lower calibre and fewer in number,

edit: futher digging reveals that a second world war german warship, the Scharnhorst, scored a hit on a english ship at 26,000 yards/14 miles/24 Km, using 11 inch guns. I think it the same gun design, but with a better rangefinding system attached.

3)When were silenced firearms developed?
dunno about when they were invented, but they were not very common until the second world war. at least, I've never heard of them being used before then.

4) What was military radio equipment like during WWI, in terms of range, portability etc?

Radios in the first world war were large, bulky thing that needed a van to be mobile, and a largish mast to transmit. transmision range......god knows. it was long enough that the german high commander could talk to his army commanders via radios them, so at least some sets were good distance. Note that this is all morse code, as voice radios were not about yet.

that's assuming land based radios.The British navy was able to communicate effectivly with any of it's ships in the north sea form land without and difficulty, and the germans as well, so ranges of several hundred miles for those would be certian.

also, bear in mind that every single you sent on a radio in the first world war would be picked up by everyone in range of you transmitter. everyone. with two or three sets at different locations, you could pin down the transmitters site quite accratly,even if you couldn't read the message.

[Crow]

Now, I admit that I have next to no experience fighting with a shield, but it still seems to me like its easy enough -if you stand in a proper stance to begin with that is, to simply close your legs together and whack the offender on the head, then again, I would likedly try to parry the initial strike to my head with a strike to wrist of the attacker.

...but as I said, I have next to no experience with shields and i'm simply not used to thinking in those lines, my line of thought when it comes to combat is that of parrying and killing your opponent with the same stroke, not blocking a feint.

With feints though: Are your feints intented to score a "kill" also?

edit:
I forgot to add that where I train the legs *are* a legal targetting zone, but that most attacks towards it gets punished with a blow to the shoulders, arms or head.

None of this matters due to the huge amounts of battlefield evidence which shows that blows to the legs were commonplace. Yes, striking the leg is an effective tactic. If any of you have ever been shot or stabbed (even if the blow doesn't sever a tendon or kill the guy), even damaging the muscle tissue will result in a significant change in mobility, especially in the case of the legs which are the platform for all of your movement at some level or another.

Parrying and killing your opponent in the same stroke becomes much much harder when they are wielding an effective defensive implement (which can also be used offensively). I spent my earlier years doing kendo (before becoming interested in European-type sparring) and such so I understand where you are coming from to some degree. But even in Kendo, shots to the leg were common and effective. Sword and board is very different just due to the fact that the opponent has the shield. Most people don't realize what an incredibly effective defense it was. If I was a young Norwegian Carl and had a choice between carrying a sword and wearing mail to the battlefield, and carrying a sword and large shield to the battlefield, I'd go with the shield. Of course, if I you gave me the option of full-plate (which the Carl wouldn't have available), I'd go with it!

[Hairb]

Thanks Mike G, thanks Storm Bringer, thanks Norsesmithy. All very useful answers.

One other question under the spoiler. If you plan on playing my Supermen and Flying Machines campaign, (you know who you are) please don't read it.
Odd one I know, but how many men would it take to crew a destroyer, similar to the Royal Navy's 1927 A-Class destroyers, at bare minimum. I'm talking movement, not crewing any guns, radio or anything like that.
For context, the campaign involves the hijack of two Canadian A-Class destroyers by a group of pirates. I need to know how many pirates, essentially.
Many thanks,
-Hairb

[Norsesmithy]

Thanks Mike G, thanks Storm Bringer, thanks Norsesmithy. All very useful answers.

One other question under the spoiler. If you plan on playing my Supermen and Flying Machines campaign, (you know who you are) please don't read it.
Odd one I know, but how many men would it take to crew a destroyer, similar to the Royal Navy's 1927 A-Class destroyers, at bare minimum. I'm talking movement, not crewing any guns, radio or anything like that.
For context, the campaign involves the hijack of two Canadian A-Class destroyers by a group of pirates. I need to know how many pirates, essentially.
Many thanks,
-Hairb

Judging by Wikipedia's description of her plant, I would want a bare minimum of 14 men, at all times, crewing her boilers and turbines. And that is hard work, so figure 6 hour shifts, not eight. Of course, if you only want a couple of knots steam, you only need to crew one boiler, not all three, which would be doable with 4 men.

Then you need a couple of lookouts, a helmsman, a navigator, and a couple of runners to relay messages between the groups of pirates in different areas of the ship. on a short hop, you can have them run 12 or even 24 hour shifts, but if you intend to steam for more than a week, you need to reduce them to 8 hour shifts.

And you always need a cook, or no one will be happy, figure 12 hour shift for him and he will be the busiest man aboard.

So I say between 20 and 50 men per vessel.

[Dervag]

What was military radio equipment like during WWI, in terms of range, portability etc?A military wireless (they hadn't got round to calling it a radio) of the Great War was a building with a large antenna sticking out and a big electric generator. Capital ships could carry them. Buildings could carry them. Army headquarters could carry them, with the necessary equipment for the wireless tent broken up into multiple wagons or trucks. There was no such thing as a man-portable, or even land vehicle-portable military radio receiver to the best of my knowledge. There was certainly no such thing as a portable transmitter.

Hence the reliance on runners and field telephony, hence the chaos that resulted when you tried to launch an offensive. The infantry couldn't talk to their own HQs and artillery, so they couldn't coordinate, which meant that any scheme of central military direction broke down almost immediately. You couldn't go tell the corps commander that he needed to get the regiment on your left to move up before you were outflanked. You couldn't tell the battery of 60-pounder heavy artillery five miles behind the lines that their shells were falling short... on your head. You couldn't tell the big friendly tank 100 yards away that you needed help with a machine gun nest, because anyone fool enough to run close to a tank would be cut down by the hail of bullets being fired at it by every enemy soldier in range.

Obviously, this was less of a problem in open warfare where runners were less likely to get killed and where the field commander could see what was going on because he didn't have to live in a dugout. And it was less of a problem in defensive warfare where the runners had the advantage of communications trenches and the field telephone lines were somewhat less likely to be cut by enemy fire.
____________________________________

Oh, and the A-class weren't commissioned until 1931.

[Swordguy]

Now, I admit that I have next to no experience fighting with a shield, but it still seems to me like its easy enough -if you stand in a proper stance to begin with that is, to simply close your legs together and whack the offender on the head, then again, I would likedly try to parry the initial strike to my head with a strike to wrist of the attacker.

...but as I said, I have next to no experience with shields and i'm simply not used to thinking in those lines, my line of thought when it comes to combat is that of parrying and killing your opponent with the same stroke, not blocking a feint.

With feints though: Are your feints intented to score a "kill" also?

edit:
I forgot to add that where I train the legs *are* a legal targetting zone, but that most attacks towards it gets punished with a blow to the shoulders, arms or head.

Mike_G's already covered the majority of this topic, but I do want to throw something else out there.

Having studied MS I.33 (sword & buckler) at some length, I can say that the system explicitly discourages attacks to the leg. Why? Normally the idea when fighting with a sword and shield is to strike low and cover your head with your shield from your opponent's counterstroke. In I.33, the buckler and sword are generally moved as one unit, simultaneously blocking an opponent's strike and striking in the opposite line with the wrists almost "cuffed" together. In essence, you're using a single weapon that both defends and attacks. That's the trick - with a SINGLE weapon, you do not generally attack to the legs.

You ascertain, correctly, that to strike to the legs from a reasonable distance (that is, not so close that neither of you has to step to strike the other) you are forced to extend forward slightly and expose your head to a counterstrike. You also realize that the best defense against a leg attack is to step back with the leading leg and to bring your weapon around at the exposed head of the enemy. When using a single weapon, if you attack the enemy's leg, he will simply step back with the lead leg and kill you, because you've no way to defend the counterattack.

It is only when paired with a secondary weapon (read: shield) that allows you to defend the head does a strike to the leg become feasible and survivable. It's what allows you to follow Mike_G's information about feinting in the first place. That's what makes fighting with a shield so different that fighting with a single weapon. Fighting with shields is actually VERY mobile and fast, not because two guys are humping each other while they try to "wrap" blows around each other, but because each is striking at either the head or exposed leg, which must be defended and maneuvered to avoid a fight-ending stroke. Fights between individual shield fighters tend to drift in a circle around the shield side of whomever doesn't have the initiative - this mobility is anathema to the stereotypical 5-foot 10, 300lb SCAdian.

[Norsesmithy]

Oh, and the A-class weren't commissioned until 1931.

But they were ordered in 1927, and the two the Canadian ships were launched in 1930.

[Dervag]

I may have misunderstood the Wiki, or it may be wrong. Scratch my comment about the destroyers.

Not the radios though.

If it's relevant, the A-class destroyers would have a radio, and a pretty good one, too. Long reach and all. However, no walkie-talkies or other man-portable radio sets like them. Those were not invented until World War II- amusingly, by a Canadian company.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Comrade Gorby: Hueg thread is hueg. Locking this one and starting a new one. Recent posts may be transferred as well. Please stand by. Please stand by. Please stand by.