Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. IV [Archive] - Page 2

Wehrkind

2006-07-15, 10:26 PM

You can recently (within the last year or so) get 15 round magazines for the Glock 22's the police will sometimes use here in PA. The magazines are pretty light, so if I were forced to use mine in a fire fight I saw coming, I could carry 3 magazines comfortably, one in the gun and two in a belt holder, and would toss a mess more in pockets or a back pack. I have had ~500 rounds in boxes in a school bag, and that wasn't bad to carry around at all, so I think if you were really serious about toting ammo, a fit person could do that all day, no problem.

AK-47, that's a somewhat different story. 500 rounds is a bit heavier, so that would be all I would really want to be carrying other than some food and water and a side arm, if I could get away with it. The Russians make a 3 magazine belt bag, so convieniently one could carry 4 30 round mag's. I don't know about the springs on them though.

Zincorium

2006-07-16, 04:39 AM

Whether you want to have the additional rounds in boxes would depend on whether you were able to resupply after a firefight.

If yes, then you'll want to carry all the rounds you have in clips, and soak up the extra weight of the metal clips by carrying fewer rounds overall.

If no, then you're going to want to go through as few rounds as possible in any individual fight, since once your bullets are gone they're gone, and you'd sacrifice them being easy to access for simply having more of them in reserve.

For the purposes of the examples, being able to use enemy rounds would count as resupply, but you'd still want to be fairly cautious as to overall use.

Wehrkind

2006-07-16, 06:17 AM

That's assuming your enemy is using the same ammunition you are. If you are toting an AK, then your chances are pretty good. Otherwise, other than perhaps the NATO 9mm pistol round, there is a good bit of variation, and relying on enemy corpses to provide usable ammo is risky.

Also, not many pistols or rifles use "clips" any more. I think you mean to say "magazine," which is any holder for ammo that contains the rounds, and stays attached or inside the gun when loaded, as opposed to a clip which simply holds onto the back of the cartidge and the bullets are removed from when loading.

Thomas

2006-07-16, 06:27 AM

That's assuming your enemy is using the same ammunition you are. If you are toting an AK, then your chances are pretty good.

Depends on the AK model. AK-74 and RPK-74 use a different caliber than the AK-47, AKM, and RPK.

Mind, your statement looks strange to me. How does having an AK (I don't know which one you refer to, mind) make it more likely that your enemies will have the same kind of ammunition? What if you happen to be fighting, say, NATO troops with FN-FALs or G3s (7.62mm NATO), or IMI Galils (5.56mm NATO)? Or any of numerous other armies that don't use any version of the AK? (Honestly, your statement struck me as US-centric, but I haven't got a clue where you're from, so I can't tell if it was.)

Mind, the reason the Finnish Rk uses 7.62x39mm rounds is precisely because the Soviet army used that caliber in the older weapons - Finnish defense policy is still (idiotically) based entirely on expecting a re-match of the Winter War, with Russia invading Finland. I don't know what the point of the round is now, since the Russians have pretty much switched over to 5.45x39mm - I guess it's just the old problem with the costs of shifting weapons paradigms for an entire army.

Zincorium

2006-07-16, 06:37 AM

Okay, I am wrong, sheer force of habit from using it incorrectly for a long time. Yes, the majority of rounds I would think would be stored in magazines. Mostly because loose ammunition is not practical during a firefight if you need to load it into magazines prior to using it.

And I presented the using enemy ammunition supplies as an alternative, not a primary situation, because it isn't very likely to fit the weapon you went in with. However, if you pick up a weapon that the enemy uses, due to running out of ammunition, and thereafter use the stockpiled supplies they have with their choice of weapon, the issue is not whether the ammunition for resupply exists, but whether you can get to it without expending so much ammo that it because pointless.

Wehrkind

2006-07-16, 10:28 PM

One doesn't need to be from the US to be US-centric.

It is worth noting that the Russians made about 200i quintillion AK-47's and a suitable amount of ammo for an imaginary number of rifles. That is why you see every soldier or thug in every third world country toting one. Nifty side fact: the US has been buying them up left and right for just that reason. Since most conflicts occur in the hinterlands of the world as opposed to Europe and North America, you are much more likely to find AK-47 ammo as opposed to any other single kind of ammunition. Not that "I will use my dead opponants weapons" is a good plan in any case, just that it is most likely to work in a general sense if you have an AK.

Not to mention the fact the AK is just about the only weapon I would pick up if I were not in a severe pinch, as it is so easy to use any moron can keep it in repair, which is not the case for more finely tuned weapons.

Who else would the Finn's fight but thier nemesis of thousands of years? It isn't like they are planning on starting an empire.

Don't worry too much about the clip/magazine issue. It must have been in a tv show or something, because everyone seems to do it. Ususally it doesn't make a difference unless you are discussing the different aspects of the weapons specifically.

Sly_Lizard

2006-07-17, 01:46 AM

Aussie troops usually carry a minimum of 7 magazines for the steyr (about 30 rounds a mag IIRC) on the belt (and 1 in the weapon itself).

You would then have as much as you could handle in your pack (though it isnt much use for a firefight as the first thing you do is drop the pack).

Ryujin

2006-07-17, 06:04 AM

And I presented the using enemy ammunition supplies as an alternative, not a primary situation, because it isn't very likely to fit the weapon you went in with. However, if you pick up a weapon that the enemy uses, due to running out of ammunition, and thereafter use the stockpiled supplies they have with their choice of weapon, the issue is not whether the ammunition for resupply exists, but whether you can get to it without expending so much ammo that it because pointless.

With regards to this issue, take note of the FN SCAR rifle, which US SOCOM feels is worth spending money on, as one approach to making use of ammunition captured in the field.

Dervag

2006-07-17, 08:44 AM

It is worth noting that the Russians made about 200 quintillion AK-47's and a suitable amount of ammo for an imaginary number of rifles.That would be enough rifles to oversupply the entire population of the Earth by a factor of about a billion. I don't think there's enough steel in the world to make 200 quintillion assault rifles, let alone the manufacturing capability to do so in a sane amount of time. Even if your factories could turn out a million rifles a day, you'd still be at it for about 60 trillion years.
Are you sure that figure is accurate? It looks like a typo.

Don't worry too much about the clip/magazine issue. It must have been in a tv show or something, because everyone seems to do it. Ususally it doesn't make a difference unless you are discussing the different aspects of the weapons specifically.
I think the problem is that people were using 'clip' as a descriptive term for the 'ammo-thingy' on bolt-action rifles a long time before automatic magazine weapons became available. So the term stuck when armies switched from bolt-action to automatic.

Wehrkind

2006-07-17, 10:01 PM

I am fairly certain I mentioned number being imaginary both by including the value i (an imaginary number equal to the square root of -1) in the number given itself, as well as mentioning the ammo was sufficient for the imaginary amount of rifles. Ah yes, there it is. You are very smart for knowing what a quintillion is, but fairly silly to assume, despite all verbage and mathmatical connotations to the contrary, that I was seriously was saying the Russians made 200*10^18 (or 10^30 if you are a Brit.) rifles. Thanks for pretending to have math skills. Better luck next time identifying hyperbole.

To avoid confusion, the Russians made a very large number of AK-47s, which they distributed very liberally to their client states, and well as selling many thousands to various countries over the course of the last 40 years or so. This is combined with thier very simple maintenance and great durability. Hence, they are extremely common, particularly in locales that tend to see a lot of fighting, such as Africa, the middle east, south east Asia, and South America.

epiclvlpirateninja

2006-07-18, 11:52 AM

Thomas

2006-07-18, 02:01 PM

I seem to recall somethin about other countries starting to make them too. It's also why some AKs are a hell of a lot better than others ( like how some have 1 MOA and some can have as much as 6 MOA). Age and maintenance probably also play a factor of course.

Finland makes AKs, after a fashion. The Rk series are all AK-based, as are many other kinds of rifles. (The Finnish Rk is the highest-quality AK knock-off in the world - possibly better than the original, due to higher standards of manufacture and better materials.)

Anyway, thinking that "the enemy is bound to have AKs" is stiill ridiculously US-centric. The IDF doesn't have AKs, to use an army currently engaging in a war as an example.

Sundog

2006-07-18, 03:32 PM

China makes it's own AK-47 clones, along with T-55 and T-65 tanks (old, but still excellent designs - and yes, I'm well aware they have more advanced versions too). So, anyone they sponsor probably has their versions - which, frankly, I've heard can be a real mixed-bag quality wise.

Zincorium

2006-07-18, 03:44 PM

Raum

2006-07-18, 06:21 PM

Um, is the IDF you speak of the Isreali Defense Force? Because they still use the Galil, which is directly based off of the AK design, I believe using Finnish models for it's initial creation.

Of course 'IDF' could stand for a lot of things, so I'm hesitant to go off on your claim 'til I can get a better idea of what it is.
The Israel Defense Force has a large number of M16s and M16A2s in the inventory. They are currently (beginning in 2004) replacing them with Tavor Assault Rifles (http://www.defense-update.com/directory/tavor.htm). The Galil was used in the late 60s (during the 6 day war at least) but I think (this is opinion) it was replaced by the M16 as US replaced France as Israel's sponsor.

Edit: Yes, found some time frames from here (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as23-e.htm)
While being a successful weapon, the Galil was not widely issued to the IDF during its lifetime, because during the late 1960s and early 1970s Israel received large shipments of the US M16 and CAR-15 assault rifles at the very low prices. M16 rifles became the major armament of the IDF, with the Galils mostly issued to the Armored corps, Artillery corps and some units of the Israeli Air Forces.

Wehrkind

2006-07-18, 11:31 PM

Pardon me, but I didn't say "the enemy is bound to have AKs." I said it was more likely. More likely means that it is more of a probability than the alternative, for those of you just starting out on your journey to English proficiency. It doesn't mean absolutely, it doesn't even mean a specifically high percentage, just that it is more probable than when using another weapon. So to restate, considering the vast numbers of AK's and clones made by Russia and many other states, the ease of maintenance compared to nearly every other mass produced military style weapon that I can think of, and the huge number to be found in the hands of fighting men in 3rd world countries where conflict is most common, one is much more likely to be able to use a fallen enemy's ammunition if one carries an AK. However I still think it is a bad idea to rely on though.

It is also worth noting that the old chinese SKS, while not really an AK clone, uses the exact same ammo.

So, before you say my point is "ridiculous" please take the time to make certain it is in fact my point, and not simply poor reading comprehension on your part.

[/vitriol]

Ryujin

2006-07-19, 01:29 AM

The Israel Defense Force has a large number of M16s and M16A2s in the inventory. They are currently (beginning in 2004) replacing them with Tavor Assault Rifles (http://www.defense-update.com/directory/tavor.htm).

Interestingly enough, the Galil would be, with a few changes, adopted as the R4, the standard assault rifle of the South African Army, which replaced the R1, a localized version of the FN FAL. In an odd bit of synchronicity, the Galil was, in the first place, developed by Israel to replace the FN FALs the IDF used during '67.

Furthermore, the R4 would evolve into the shorter, lighter Vektor CR-21 bullpup (but it's still the same old AK action).

Quite a family tree, the AK-47...

Thomas

2006-07-19, 05:15 AM

Pardon me, but I didn't say "the enemy is bound to have AKs." I said it was more likely

Actually, lately, chances are pretty damned good that the enemy is going to be using M16s and wearing US Army or USMC uniforms. ;)

Wehrkind

2006-07-19, 05:20 AM

Contrary to your smug assertion, the US military is not fighting everywhere there is killing going on. Sudan springs to mind quickly. Also most South American conflicts between drug lords, and various revolutionaries.

And something I forgot to point out previously: The Israelis are not using AK's, but Hezbolah and Hamas certainly are.

Raum

2006-07-19, 08:39 AM

Actually, lately, chances are pretty damned good that the enemy is going to be using M16s and wearing US Army or USMC uniforms. ;)
I do hope you're just poking fun at US centric points of view and not really expecting to see Finland in opposition to the US.

In any case, with the AK being made by both Russia and China, and being supplied to their client states and anyone else willing to buy them, they tend to be very common. Most battlefields (not all, I'll concede) over the last few decades have had them used by at least one side and sometimes both.

IMO it's really immaterial to the argument of using the enemies supplies of weapons / ammo. Any power attempting to do so deserves it's probable fate. These days logistics win at least as many wars as tactics / strategy. Montgomery proved this in WWII, Grant in the US Civil War, and the USSR did the same in their second invasion of Finland during WWII. And if you go back to the times where armies really expected to live off of supplies from conquered territories, you'll see short campaigning seasons, armies lost to starvation and disease, and a general inability to project force over long distances.

Mike_G

2006-07-19, 10:26 AM

Actually, lately, chances are pretty damned good that the enemy is going to be using M16s and wearing US Army or USMC uniforms. ;)

Hey now!

Since you don't have any oil that we know of, chances are we won't be needing to liberate you from your oppressive regime any time soon.

You don't hate Freedom, do you? Because that can lead to US inavsions as well.

Thomas

2006-07-19, 12:57 PM

I do hope you're just poking fun at US centric points of view and not really expecting to see Finland in opposition to the US.

I should certainly think so. (Although I'll admit that Putin's zingers at Bush this weekend were the only time I've liked that man.) I have no influence over Finnish foreign politics that I'm aware of, and we have neither oil nor "terrorists" here. (The oil is in Russia, and they're already oppressing their own citizens - Muslims in the southern reaches of Russia, especially - over it.)

This is getting a bit too political now, though... ;)

To pick up the actual purpose of the thread, here's a question: can one half-sword with a longsword without using mail-palmed gloves or something similar? (I presume most longswords don't have a long ricasso like greatswords often did, though I may be wrong there.)

Also, what exactly was the point of the "thunder-strike" or "morte-strike" (taking the sword by the blade and hitting someone over the head with it)? Could this be done without protection for the hands? The move strikes me as unlikely to be effective, and very slow and awkward to perform (and pretty fatal to the attacker the opponent parries and counter-attacks).

Fhaolan

2006-07-19, 01:37 PM

To pick up the actual purpose of the thread, here's a question: can one half-sword with a longsword without using mail-palmed gloves or something similar? (I presume most longswords don't have a long ricasso like greatswords often did, though I may be wrong there.)

Yes. If you're using the half-sword technique properly, the edges of the sword you are half-swording will not have the opportunity to cut you. European swords are not normally kept as sharp as a razor, and the people who tended to use swords did not have soft callus-less hands like modern computer techies. :) If you're attempting to learn half-sword now, I recommend leather gloves.

Also, what exactly was the point of the "thunder-strike" or "morte-strike" (taking the sword by the blade and hitting someone over the head with it)? Could this be done without protection for the hands? The move strikes me as unlikely to be effective, and very slow and awkward to perform (and pretty fatal to the attacker the opponent parries and counter-attacks).

There's a lot of speculation as to what the point really was. The manuals that depict the move don't exactly go into lots of detail as to how you'd end up in the position to do it. European fight-manuals in general leave out a lot of detail because they are meant to be advertising for the swordmaster as well as practice manuals for those already in the know. You were expected to actually take lessons from the swordmaster to be able to use the techniques properly.

To my knowledge there are two versions of the morte-strike. The first is an attempt to use the quillions like a pick to penetrate the opponent's skull. In these cases, the diagrams seem to indicate that the quillions (cross-guard for those not familiar with the term) were actually sharpened into points. The second, and most common version I've seen, is to use the quillions to catch and pull the opponent's sword or sheild out of the way and then thrust forward with the pommel into the opponent's face.

Mike_G

2006-07-19, 03:24 PM

Too funny.

http://www.thornyscrate.com/~wes/roleplaying/inspirational2/katana.jpg

Mr Croup

2006-07-19, 04:03 PM

Too funny.

http://www.thornyscrate.com/~wes/roleplaying/inspirational2/katana.jpg

Curse you, I've been holding onto that image to post the next time rampant katana fanboyism rears it's head. Alas. But seriously, that made my day.

Deathbymonkey

2006-07-21, 03:13 PM

But they look so damn awesome.

Also I dont think the Japanese had full plate armor, so they were pretty effective.

arnoldrew

2006-07-22, 01:23 PM

Too funny.

http://www.thornyscrate.com/~wes/roleplaying/inspirational2/katana.jpg

It's gone!

endoperez

2006-07-23, 10:05 AM

It's gone!

"You Killed ME!
07/21/06

Ouchie... the server got a bit bogged down at 2000 hits per minute.

But a really nice guy set up a mirror site!

http://SNIP

I recommend peeking over there.. :)"

I removed the 'katana.jpg' from the end of the original link, and got to a page from which I copied that. I didn't post the link to prevent this from happening again - those interested in it will still find it, those just mildly curious won't bother.

Matthew

2006-07-23, 07:48 PM

Thomas

2006-07-23, 08:42 PM

Actually, I was referring to what I understand to be a specialized swordsman's glove - leather with mail on the palm and fingers' side, for grasping blades of weapons - rather than a part of regular armor. I'm not sure if it's historically accurate or not.

Matthew

2006-07-23, 09:29 PM

Ah, well, you had me worried there for a while Thomas. Here's a nice famous picture of a Knight in thirteenth century armour:

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=60735

"Crusader, possibly King Henry III of England, giving homage. The image depicts the armour worn by a Crusading knight and emphasizes the importance to medieval knights of military service to God and the church; from the Westminster Psalter, c. 1200, drawing from c. 1250; in the British Library (Royal MS 2 A XXII, fol. 220)."

One can see the leather / padded palm of the mail glove, though it is clearer in colour:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0226820122.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I thought I was going a bit mad there.

I don't know anything about the origins of specialised swordsmen's gloves, I'm afraid, though I would imagine them to be something of a modern innovation.

Were-Sandwich

2006-07-24, 06:10 AM

Quick Question: Is black lotus extract a real poison. I thinnk I read about it somewehere, or..something.

Fhaolan

2006-07-24, 09:33 AM

Nope, sorry. The black lotus is a fictional creation, along with the black orchid and other 'exotic magic flowers' that all apparantly are black. The black lotus is one of the oldest of these in modern Fantasy, appearing in the original Conan books. After that point, it shows up *everywhere*. :)

Dervag

2006-07-25, 03:51 AM

A lot of stuff appeared first in Conan books.

For instance, the image of the hero/heroes venturing into a trap-laden, monster-infested 'dungeon' in search of treasure owes a lot to Conan.

Howard's influence on the genre of modern fantasy is one of the few influences large enough to rival Tolkien.

Wolf53226

2006-07-26, 10:57 AM

Mr Croup

2006-07-26, 11:20 AM

Hmmm, and here I would have atributed it to tolkien, and the heros traveling through Moria(sp?)...or to when Bilbo gets the ring from smegal(sp?)

Of course those weren't really trap laden, but it did do the monster infested tunnels.

Seeing as Howard published his first Conan story five years before Tolkien started writing the Lord of the Rings, and over 20 years before the first volume of LotR was published, I'd say Howard's contribution is certainly worth mentioning.

Ryujin

2006-07-27, 02:50 AM

Lest we forget, the pioneering work of Lord Dunsany and James Branch Cabell.

Boy, this is getting to be quite a bit of a stretch for a 'Real-World Weapon' thread! ;D

Dervag

2006-07-27, 03:14 AM

Why did they call it a 'bazooka'?

Truthseeker

2006-07-27, 03:59 AM

The bazooka took its nickname from a fairly rare musical instrument it somewhat resembles. Why they call that a bazooka, who knows...? ;)

Ambrogino

2006-07-27, 05:20 AM

I was under the impression that mail gloves would have generally had leather or padded palms of some sort, as with later plated gauntlets. I imagine mailed palms would present difficulties in regard to gripping things like sword hilts and such, but maybe not, I don't have any practical experience. The pictorial evidence certainly seems to point towards mailed palms...

Whilst the specialised swordsman's gloves Thomas mentioned would still be superior, you certainly can grip adequatly well in gloves made entirelyn of mail - butchers use gloves made of a very fine mail, and I think so do anti-shark suits. I've a pair for LRP armour and whilst I haven't used them much, or with a real blade, their grip is fine as long as they're done up tight at the wrist to remove the slack.

Zincorium

2006-07-27, 05:58 AM

As far as the grip on the handle goes, you'd probably be best going with either sharkskin over the mail, or a locking gauntlet (which I'm fairly sure were uncommon at best). For gripping the sword, I would conjecture that you would simply apply pressure with your palm to move it quickly, and you could apply pressure with the back of your fingers to return it to the normal position. Somehow it doesn't seem grip would come into it too much, but then I don't know too much about actual swordfighting.

Murky_Pool

2006-07-27, 07:17 AM

The bazooka took its nickname from a fairly rare musical instrument it somewhat resembles. Why they call that a bazooka, who knows...? ;)

Perhaps it blows tanks up.

Don't look at me like that! It's an instrument, it could have a very odd frequency that vibrates tanks apart.

Raum

2006-07-27, 08:15 AM

Why did they call it a 'bazooka'?

bazooka"metal tube rocket launcher," 1942, from name of a junkyard musical instrument used (c.1935) as a prop by U.S. comedian Bob Burns (1896-1956), extension of bazoo, slang for "mouth" or "boastful talk" (1877), probably from Du. bazuin "trumpet."

Iruka

2006-07-31, 10:14 AM

what would be the best place on the body to carry throwing daggers around?

Fhaolan

2006-07-31, 11:08 AM

what would be the best place on the body to carry throwing daggers around?

Depends. There's a lot of variables involved, unfortunately. What's the goal? Concealment? Ease of draw? What kind of throwing daggers? Modern flats or more normal daggers that just happen to be ballanced for throwing?

The main problem with throwing weapons is that you've just thrown your weapon away. They don't come back. (And don't bother metioning boomerangs. Real weapon-type boomerangs don't come back either. Only the toys do that.) Because of this, you need a fair number of them to be effective.

If you don't care about concealment and they're normal daggers, a bandolier is the most common method I've seen. It's extremely obvious, though, and is usually viewed as a pathetic attempt at being 'bad-ass'.

If they're flats, you've got all the places that modern guns can be holstered. I've seen forearm sheathes, belt sheathes, and armpit holster-type sheathes. Boot and calf sheathes are usually only good for emergency/one shot weapons. Possibly the most effective concealment sheath I've seen is a belt sheath that runs across the small of your back.

In my experience, people that are serious about throwing knives always seem to end up with the type of shuriken known as a 'throwing spike'. Basically a very small, but heavy, throwing knife. They are easily concealable, and can be thrown with a variety of motions. You have to hit a vital point for it to be anything more than a deterant, but you always have to make compromises when dealing with concealable weapons.

Iruka

2006-07-31, 03:16 PM

Depends. There's a lot of variables involved, unfortunately. What's the goal? Concealment? Ease of draw? What kind of throwing daggers? Modern flats or more normal daggers that just happen to be ballanced for throwing?

Hmm, don't want to wear them to exposed, but ease of draw is more important.

Those forearm sheathes intrigue me. So is it better to put the daggers on the inside of the of the arm or the outside? The pointy end towards the hand or the ellbow?
Dependes on the throwing style, I guess?

Fhaolan

2006-07-31, 03:31 PM

Hmm, don't want to wear them to exposed, but ease of draw is more important.

Those forearm sheathes intrigue me. So is it better to put the daggers on the inside of the of the arm or the outside? The pointy end towards the hand or the ellbow?
Dependes on the throwing style, I guess?

So many variables, it's difficult to say although in all cases I've seen, the point goes towards the elbow. I've seen rigs where you can pull the knife from the sheath into the palm of the same hand. Very difficult to do, but it's technically possible. The forarm sheath is not the easiest of the methods, because it involves both arms and loose-sleeved clothing. Or wearing the sheath openly on the outside of the sleeve.

Iruka

2006-07-31, 05:07 PM

Anyway, thanks for your answers.

Roland St. Jude

2006-07-31, 07:45 PM

Perhaps it blows tanks up.

Don't look at me like that! It's an instrument, it could have a very odd frequency that vibrates tanks apart.

No, you're thinking of katanas. Those are the real tank-killers. :P

Wehrkind

2006-07-31, 11:54 PM

I am somewhat glad to hear that most throwing knives end up being little more than deterrtants barring vital shots. I have always wondered about that, since it seems they would be too light and small to do much damage when thrown. Sort of the thrown version of "No one wins a knife fight", only since it is thrown there is less power behind it, and thus less shock.

It always kind of irked me how many throwing weapons were treated as uber tricks.

Mike_G

2006-08-01, 01:22 AM

I've said it before, you need to stab the holy bejeezus out of somebody to drop 'em.

As a medic I've followed a blood trail up to an apartment where a guy who was stabbed in the neck and chest tried to refuse treatment. (He was just minding his own business and had no idea who stabbed him or why. Or what his gang tatoos meant, I'm sure.) I've chased a guy who was stabbed in the liver for a block before we could treat him. (I chased him in my nice, safe ambulance, but you get the idea.)

Knife wounds do kill. Just not right now. These guys would have bled to death in ten minutes or so.

But that's plenty of time for them to beat the snot out of the guy who stabbed them.

Gunshots or whacks with a machete tend to drop people.

Thomas

2006-08-01, 01:32 AM

Ironically, rapiers were about as lethal. That's why duels to disablement would often result in a death or two within a couple of days. (Since they didn't have any way to effectively treat the resultant injuries - severed blood-vessels and infections and the like.)

Norsesmithy

2006-08-01, 02:09 AM

Actually rapier duels were rarely fatal. Except for risk of infection, by the time rapiers were introduced, most physicians were rather good at stopping blood loss, and healing stab wounds.

The wounded duelist seldom died unless he refused treatment.

It takes an absolutely brilliant thow to do someone with a tossed knife. A throw that penetrates 3 inches of pine and snaps the blade, would cause only minor brain trauma if you got him in the brainpan.

Fhaolan

2006-08-01, 02:12 AM

Actually, it is indeed possible to be fairly instantly lethal with a rapier. But you have to cut open an artery. There are several to choose from with rapier combat, [neck, inner thigh, etc.] but against a trained fighter they will be defending those points of course. Fencing manuals tended to go into great depth on how to reach the arteries through someone's defences.

I'm not sure what the time is for bleeding out from an artery is, I'm sure Mike_G can tell us.

The same goes for thrown knives. It's *possible* to be lethal with this, but extremely difficult. It's more likely you put someone out of action due to shock, such as putting the blade right into an eye or the center of the throat. It won't kill immediately, but it probably will keep them from attacking you. Someone running high on adrenaline or drugs will be able to shrug it off for a bit, but blood loss will eventually get them.

The human body is surprisingly tough. The delicate organs tend to be behind bone structures that are there specificially to protect them. It takes a fair bit of force to penetrate the skull, or the rib cage. The spine can take an impressive amount of abuse, relatively speaking. Yes, you can break these bones, people do all the time, but it does take effort.

Wehrkind

2006-08-01, 02:18 AM

I suspect the instrument you are getting stabbed with matters a great deal as well. A steak knife or rapier doesn't have a very thick blade, and thus is not likely to open up as much as say a broad head arrow, and definitely not as much as a cut and thrust sword or spear (or a machete.)

Thomas

2006-08-01, 02:41 AM

Actually, it is indeed possible to be fairly instantly lethal with a rapier.
...
The same goes for thrown knives.

Hence "about as lethal."

As the saying goes, you only need 4 inches of steel if you stick it in the heart (or eye, or throat, or carotid artery...).

Sticking someone in the arm, stomach, or leg won't stop them in their tracks. (Unlike cleaving said parts off/open with a heavier blade.)

On the post-duel lethality, I'll just defer to Clements at the Arma (http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm).

A simple stab wound of only a few inches could instantly prove deadly. Narrow holes made in vital internal organs could not be treated and would not heal. However, even when mortal, its wounds were not always immediately fatal. Unless punctured clean through the skull or heart, a man might be run through and continue fighting for several moments, or even win a combat but die sometime later from shock and loss of blood.

Just as with knives, you might be struck a lethal blow, but still win the combat. The issues with the blades are obviously the same - a stab-wound into the right place can be lethal, but not always immediately; a stab-wound into the wrong place won't have much of an effect. (And knives tend to be about as useless for slashing as rapiers; you can give shallow cuts, but certainly not cleave deep or cut bones.)

Wehrkind

2006-08-01, 02:51 AM

Obviously we all need to fight with our melee weapons of choice in order to hash out this whole "stabby vs. slashy" debate.

"Well I find him very interesting and very perceptive! So interesting and so perceptive, that I believe we will now fight with knives!"

Perhaps a better way at looking at the debate is to compare stabbing vs. slashing with the same weapon. As noted, I think saying "Rapier fights often weren't fatal, but fights with machettes were" is a little misleading, as slashing with a rapier is not great either, and stabbing someone with a machette is probably going to do a lot of damage. It might be better to consider each weapon, or group of weapons to compare the two different methods of opening a human.

I would start by saying with a knife a cutting blow is much less damaging than a thrust, because the center of mass and balance is in your hand and thus tends to move past your opponant, while with a stab it is in line with your attack.

Thomas

2006-08-01, 02:58 AM

Perhaps a better way at looking at the debate is to compare stabbing vs. slashing with the same weapon. As noted, I think saying "Rapier fights often weren't fatal, but fights with machettes were" is a little misleading, as slashing with a rapier is not great either, and stabbing someone with a machette is probably going to do a lot of damage. It might be better to consider each weapon, or group of weapons to compare the two different methods of opening a human.

I would start by saying with a knife a cutting blow is much less damaging than a thrust, because the center of mass and balance is in your hand and thus tends to move past your opponant, while with a stab it is in line with your attack.

That certainly is inaccurate, yes.

A rapier can kill you very easily. Strikes to certain locations - limbs, for instance - just don't tend to be very effective. Rapier combats were quite lethal - what I said was, in fact, that they were often lethal after the fact, even. (It is suggested that fights with heavier cutting swords could be more like "brawls" where shallow cuts and bruises were inflicted, but often no deadly blows were dealt.)

A broadsword (as in the Scottish claymore and Italian schiavona; basket-hilted, double-edged, single-handed swords of the 17th century and later) to the wrist, however, might sever the hand.

A slash or cut with a knife is simply incapable of inflicting damage on the same scale as a sword with several times the mass of the knife.

Wehrkind

2006-08-01, 03:28 AM

A broadsword (as in the Scottish claymore and Italian schiavona; basket-hilted, double-edged, single-handed swords of the 17th century and later) to the wrist, however, might sever the hand.

And a thrust with said broad sword to the wrist would very likely sever enough tendons and arteries that even if it were still attached, it would be unusable.

Also, I am not certain it is as easy to sever the ends of the arms (hands, wrists etc.) as one might think. Arms seem to move around pretty easily, and thus resist being broken and smashed. Of course when they are anchored at both ends that is another story, but being only attached at the shoulder with a great range of motion, it seems that they are more likely to get pushed out of the way with some heavy bruising and flesh damage than to end up at your feet. There is a video over at ARMA addressing this notion, though honestly the guy's experiment was less than exciting to me, and I agree with him.

Edit: Also, thank you for confirming my point that cutting with a knife is largely pointless compared to stabbing with it.

Mike_G

2006-08-01, 02:58 PM

Ok, I have to disagree a bit.

Even with a knife, the edge can do a lot of damage. You just need to know where to cut.

The broad rule is: thrust at the torso, to reach the organs cut at the extremities to sever blood vessels and tendons.

Now, knife cuts won't be as deep as blows from a broadsword, but they can sever the arteries on the inside (body side, not deep inside) of the arm or leg, or the big vessels in the neck, or cut the tendons in the wrist, elbow, or knee.

As to thrusting with a broadsword versus a rapier, it would make a wider wound, yes. But landing the thrust at all would be much harder, as the weight, heft and grip of the blade all favor the cut, where the rapier is designed to thrust. A rapier thrust will also likely be deeper, given the blade's cross section.

You can't thrust effectively with a machete. That's like thrusting with a shovel or a bat. You can do the move, but don't expect much. The poiht is seldom sharpened, and often nonexistent. The weight of the blade is bad for thrusting.

I've seen a patient who was struck with a machete, and the deep, wide cuts, while easy to treat and save him, had him totally out of action. The moral being, don't thurst with your big, heavy, slashing weapon, or hack with your thrusting weapon, unless the circumstances are very specifically set up for the success of the move.

Zincorium

2006-08-01, 05:41 PM

josh_mang

2006-08-01, 05:50 PM

Take it from me, I have a machete that I do forearm workouts with. Quality time with a wooden post =P

Your average machete does indeed have a sharp point. The hard part of thrusting with it is that you have a very wide object to stick in someone's skin. With enough force it'll get the job done.

Machetes just have a LOT of top-end weight to toss. The immense amount of force slung and suddenly stopped is what really hurts people with those. You can, with effort, cut off a hand or foot within a couple good, solid hits.

You could also very well finish someone off with a horrorshow blow to the noggin.

Edmund

2006-08-01, 07:32 PM

Oh good! A topic I can post about. (Take that, modern firearms!)

Thomas:

I disagree with your last post a little.

I have seen little evidence that fights with cutting swords were more like brawls, even in a duelling situation. Given the mass distribution of some of the longer cutting swords (Oakeshott Xa and XI), recovery is not extremely easy, and so these swords were basically designed for one incapacitating or fatal swing, which is also in line with large-shield fighting in general.

Also: It's not just mass that makes the sword more lethal than the knife in terms of slashing. Length (and as a result leverage) has a fair deal to do with it too.

Wehr:
If your sword is properly sharpened, and your blow is committed (as it should be) that hand is coming off. I think I know the vid you're referring to, and it is my understanding that he was trying to emphasise the need for commital to a strike (full swings), rather than just light taps.

As a side note to this: What kind of knife are we talking about? Technically a 'grossemesser' is just a knife, and so is a box cutter. Either one could be used to kill, but one was made for it... For a bit less exaggerated an example than the grossemesser, the seax.

Zincornium:

Slashes to the chest are pretty unlikely. The extremities (head, limbs) are much more likely targets, especially because you generally have to go through those to reach the chest with a slash.

Also, it's not just shock from seeing blood that incapacitates people, as was explained in GaRWWoAQ Volume III.

Josh:

It takes alot less than 'a few chops' to sever a hand or foot. Take this example in Russia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/15/AR2006011501020.html

The assailants were using axes, which are tools, not weapons, unless designed to be so, and even then are not as keen-edged and thin-bladed as swords.

You can definitely remove a limb with a single slash, and such a result is not altogether uncommon, on unarmoured flesh, given the proper weapon.

Mike_G

2006-08-01, 08:02 PM

I'd say shock has a lot to do with why a machete is more likely to get someone out of a fight faster. Having a big slash over your rib cage is a lot less lethal than a dagger in your abdomen, but it's very obvious, and that much blood spilling out of you, combined with the appearance of the wound itself, is going to send susceptible people into shock very very quickly.

Internal bleeding, such as with most killing blows with a narrow piercing weapon, is a bit easier to ignore or simply not notice. It'll kill you, but it's not going to freak you out.

The medical definition of shcok, yes. Lowered blood pressure as the body responds to pain by vessel dilation, causing diminished perfusion of the old brain.

This isn't "fainting at the sight of blood" that drops hardened warriors, it's the body's normal physiological response to exposing great swathes of nerves to the air.

In general, cuts hurt more than stabs, and the body reacts more, so you are more likely to fall on the ground, rolling around screaming, even though the wound may be very survivable. A thrust may reach a vital organ, and be very fatal, but this is seldom instant.

There are always exceptions. A thrust to the brain, spinal cord or left ventricle of the heart will drop you almost immediately.

Gunshot wounds, while technicaly piercing, cause a bit of shock by displacing tissue and interstitial fluid, thus producing more knockdown than a similar wound caused by a rapier blade. The speed of bullets gives them enough force to shatter bone, which is also unlikely for a thrusting weapon. Through and through bullet wounds are less incapacitating that those that hit bone for this very reason.

josh_mang

2006-08-01, 08:34 PM

Most certainly a good thwack with a heavy handed blade could take apart a limb. What a lot of people fail to see is that in fantasy movies and games, the reason for the removal of limbs is to really bring out the power of a character or his/her weapon. Not that such a thing happens so often in real life.

I mean... imagine a fully capable warrior with a vorpal blade in his hands? That really brings out the extremes of such a situation. Today's equivilant to such a weapon would be a monomolecular-edged sword... which I learned are made.

Just thinking of it makes me afraid. That's something a clumsy guy like me would have to be pretttyyy careful with.

Wehrkind

2006-08-01, 09:21 PM

See, this is what I was posting about before. I see a lot of "X weapon can do this and that, under the right circumstances." Sure, lots of things can do things, but that doesn't mean it is easy, or common, or even likely.

Broad swords, two handed swords, gladii and the like are actually pretty easy to thrust with. A properly balanced one lends itself to it well, as does a Chinese broad sword (essentially a machete.) Swords are not balanced like axes, and most are not balanced like machetes (which can go through someone pretty well.) Swinging a sword feels more natural perhaps, but stabbing with one is not an issue. Again, the argument is meaningless if you are not sticking with one weapon. You can stab pretty well with a warhammer with a little practice.

I agree it is possible to hack into and remove unarmored hands. I should have stated that even a light armor like waxed leather will at least reduce the damage to a bruise and a cut, assuming your hand wasn't being swung towards the sword at the time. (Heh, anecdote, bad armor can be more damaging than no armor. A few weeks ago I accidentally cut open a guys hand when I hit the back of his demi-gauntlet and drove the edge of the metal into the back of his thumb where it meets the wrist. Just taking the shot bare probably would have been better for him, considering it was just rattan. Poor guy :( )

Edit: Edmund, I was referring to a modern type knife, smaller than a chef's knife, and bigger than a box cutter. Say a folding knife or buck knife of some sort. My point was mainly that 90% of the locations you slash someone are going to be less than serious compared to what you can do putting the tip into them at those same points. (Or compared to what a larger bladed weapon will do to those same points, such as your German big knife.)

Wehrkind

2006-08-01, 10:09 PM

Matthew makes a good point about being on topic, so I am going to start this convo over here.

on Today at 2:35am, Wehrkind wrote:Sorry, I was not very intelligent in my choice of examples of things you could use a pugio for. I was listing things I used my folding knife for, as opposed to my kukri, or my pugio for that matter. Though I do agree it is a little odd. Perhaps the pugio was more of a civilian weapon to be carried around at all times, while the sword was a military weapon and out of place when you were not in full uniform?

Possibly, but this is often countered by the question: 'Why would the Roman army issue a weapon to it's soldiers primarily intended to be used against Citizens in non military situations?'

Here's a couple of links to discussions about the Pugio from over on RomanArmyTalk:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=7922

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5881&highlight=pugio

Essentially we are discussing why the legionaries of Rome carried a pugio (sort of a longer heavier dagger), and in a broader sense why did anyone carry a dagger as opposed to a short sword.

Looking through some of those posts, the best concept I think is that it was a back up weapon that weighed less than a gladius, and was less of a "military' item for when one went around town off duty, since they were often pretty much permanantly attached to the belt. It might also have been an issue of cost, since if metal was fairly expensive one might not want to equip all your soldiers with two expensive swords just in case, but rather an expensive sword and a less expensive back up.

Matthew

2006-08-01, 10:31 PM

Ah, I was just thinking about doing this myself...

Probably ought to provide a link to that thread as well:

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1153714480 ;start=0

Explanation:

During the prolonged conversation about guns on this thread (about which I know virtually nothing) I ended up continuing the debate about Short Swords and Romans (re)started by KineonWar on this thread. I'm not sure how smoothly it intersects, but it's pretty much the same subject. I imagine Dervag might have something to say about the Celt / Roman thing.
I will post my conclusions for debate on the subject when I get a moment. For now, discussion concerning the Pugio / Semi-Spatha / Seax / Knife / Dagger is of most interest to me, as I'm considering constructing a House Rule that would allow the Dagger / Knife to ignore the -4 penalty to AB when used in a grappling situation. Primarily, this would give me a reason to equip a Fighter with a Long Sword and Dagger, over Long Sword and Short Sword...

Wehrkind

2006-08-01, 11:34 PM

Were-Sandwich

2006-08-02, 06:07 AM

Fhaolan

2006-08-02, 09:20 AM

In the Hellboy movie, the clockwork ninja enemy guy who's name escapes me, uses these bladed tonfa type things. I'll see if I can find a picture. Anyway, were these thnigs ever actually used in real life? If so, where, when and by whom.?

Tonfa swords show up in several video games as well. (skys of arcadia, soul calibur, etc.) :)

Nah, they're another fantasy creation. That guy in Hellboy made them look impressive by doing a lot of tonfa katas, but in real life the mechanics wouldn't work so well. You end up with a sharp edge pressing against the length of your forearm a lot, in exactly the correct alignment for a successful suicide cut. Unfortunate, but there you have it.

Zincorium

2006-08-02, 05:16 PM

Well, that definitely wouldn't have bothered the guy in the film, he performed surgery on himself for fun after all.

Yeah, there probably at one point was a version of it in real life, but it stopped getting used when people realized that they were a lot more likely to hurt themselves than their enemies.

Dervag

2006-08-02, 06:58 PM

I'd say it would have gone more like this.

Warrior or swordsmith imagines such a blade. Then he visualizes actually fighting with it. This in an era where almost anyone who would try to design a novel sword would have considerable familiarity with swordfighting tactics and with the wounds caused by bladed weapons.

Almost immediately, before even bothering to make the weapon, much less use it, they would notice the serious issue that if something hits that blade wrong you've just slit your wrist in the 'optimum suicide cut' mode.

It would be like many 'swords' in modern fantasy: a weapon nobody would take seriously enough to build or develop a fighting style for, because there's really no advantage to it and considerable disadvantages.

Remember that actual medievals and ancients experimented with sword design for something like four thousand years. Many cultures worked on the concept in parallel, and there were strong incentives to develop new, effective weapons and tactics. The result is that by the time you reach a 'finished product' sword design like the Roman gladius, the Scotch claymore, or the Japanese katana... you can be reasonably confident that the sword is about as good at what it's designed to do as it can be. If there were any readily apparent modifications that would make the weapon significantly more effective given the technical capabilities of the time, those modification would have been made.

The odds that a radically new sword design would have been dramatically more effective than the ones that people actually used IRL, especially when it has some significant self-evident vulnerability (like placing a blade along your wrist for easy slitting), is very slim.

Matthew

2006-08-03, 07:48 AM

I think I wouldn't eliminate it all together, but maybe drop it to a -2, and maybe -0 if the user has Improved Grapple as a feat. Stabbing someone who is monkey jumping you is easier with a dagger than a sword, but not as easy as if they are just standing there trading blows.
My dad works in a youth detention center, and let me tell you, if he doesn't want you making use of a particular limb, you just aren't. I am not a great wrestler, but I can usually hold my own against most untrained people, but man, even at 57 he can take me down with no trouble, and even when I have a practice knife I am lucky to get a shot on him when he is in the process of smashing my face into the carpet with his knee.

Interesting, I have no combat experience, so it's all hypothetical on my part, but it seems to me that the question is not really "how effective is a Dagger in a grapple?" but "how much better is it than a Short Sword, Hand Axe or Light Mace?" So, what do people think, is a Dagger a lot better, better, a little bit better or not better at all?

Raum

2006-08-03, 09:21 AM

Interesting, I have no combat experience, so it's all hypothetical on my part, but it seems to me that the question is not really "how effective is a Dagger in a grapple?" but "how much better is it than a Short Sword, Hand Axe or Light Mace?" So, what do people think, is a Dagger a lot better, better, a little bit better or not better at all?
If you've seen any of the early UFC fights you've seen how dominating a trained grappler can be once in a grappling situation against a fighter who focused on striking. With that in mind, I'd say a significantly superior grappler could negate any of the four weapons you mentioned. The same superior grappler could probably use any of the four effectively.

In a more even match it's unlikely that either an axe or a mace could be used as an axe or mace, however the handles might be used in trapping limbs or even in choking maneuvers. The axe might also be grabbed at the head and used as a short dagger. As for short sword vs dagger, the shorter weapon will be easier to bring to bear when you're grappled enough to make swinging difficult.

However, in all situations, your opponent will know you are armed, and in real life at least, would leave openings against fists/knees/etc if necessary to control the weapon arm.

Edmund

2006-08-03, 05:28 PM

Matt:

I'm going to presume that we're already in the grapple, because I'd wager the mace, shortsword, and axe equally effective in preventing a grapple. You can't get a good hold on someone with a ruined forearm.

Now, in the middle of a grapple, against a trained grappler, and you are not... Well, you shouldn't even be in this situation if you have one of the weapons above. But, in the situation given, I'd wager a shortsword, and dagger are just about equally useful. Both of these weapons can potentially be used for stabbing, and if you manage to give the fellow a nice draw-slice on the femoral artery, or some other big blood vessel, you will have a good chance of escaping comparatively unharmed.

It is important to note, though, that grappling is an important part of fighting with the dagger. And so a good grappler will pick up dagger fighting with ease.

Matthew

2006-08-03, 08:36 PM

If you've seen any of the early UFC fights you've seen how dominating a trained grappler can be once in a grappling situation against a fighter who focused on striking. With that in mind, I'd say a significantly superior grappler could negate any of the four weapons you mentioned. The same superior grappler could probably use any of the four effectively.

Well, indeed, but this is a function of the grappler, rather than the weapon employed against him, wouldn't you say?

In a more even match it's unlikely that either an axe or a mace could be used as an axe or mace, however the handles might be used in trapping limbs or even in choking maneuvers. The axe might also be grabbed at the head and used as a short dagger. As for short sword vs dagger, the shorter weapon will be easier to bring to bear when you're grappled enough to make swinging difficult.

Yes, I think I would agree with this analysis; that is to say I do think that a 'Dagger' would be the best of the D&D 'Light Weapon' classifications in a grapple, followed closely by the 'Short Sword'. Is there an optimum length, do you think?

Matt:

I'm going to presume that we're already in the grapple, because I'd wager the mace, shortsword, and axe equally effective in preventing a grapple. You can't get a good hold on someone with a ruined forearm.

Indeed.

Now, in the middle of a grapple, against a trained grappler, and you are not... Well, you shouldn't even be in this situation if you have one of the weapons above. But, in the situation given, I'd wager a shortsword, and dagger are just about equally useful. Both of these weapons can potentially be used for stabbing, and if you manage to give the fellow a nice draw-slice on the femoral artery, or some other big blood vessel, you will have a good chance of escaping comparatively unharmed.

It is important to note, though, that grappling is an important part of fighting with the dagger. And so a good grappler will pick up dagger fighting with ease.

Well, now; this is the crux of the question, isn't it? If a 'Dagger' and 'Short Sword' are equally useful in a grapple type situation, is there another explanation (beyond those already addressed in the above links) for why historical warriors generally carried a Sword and Dagger, rather than just two Swords of longer and shorter lengths? Indeed, is there evidence for the latter occuring (aside from the contentious Katana / Wakizashi dichotomy)?
As D&D currently stands, I can't see much of a reason for any Fighter type character to carry a 'Long Sword' and 'Dagger' in preference to a 'Long Sword' and 'Short Sword.' My real life hypothesis and rationalisation being that a 'Dagger' would be more useful than a 'Short Sword' when being wrestled / grappled.

So, in the circumstances of a grapple (admittedly, an undesirable position to be in, but perhaps this is exactly why one might carry a weapon suitable for one), one vote from Raum for the 'Dagger' being more useful than the 'Short Sword' and one vote from Edmund for them being of equal usefulness.

Raum

2006-08-03, 10:45 PM

Well, indeed, but this is a function of the grappler, rather than the weapon employed against him, wouldn't you say?
Absolutely. The way to win any contest / fight is to use your strengths against your opponents weakness.

Yes, I think I would agree with this analysis; that is to say I do think that a 'Dagger' would be the best of the D&D 'Light Weapon' classifications in a grapple, followed closely by the 'Short Sword'. Is there an optimum length, do you think?
If I were to choose a weapon solely for use in a grappling situation it would probably be a punch dagger style blade no longer than four inches. A punch dagger grip will allow some use of that hand without dropping the weapon and it's short enough to direct with wrist movement alone (while grappled).

It would of course be far less useful than a standard dagger/knife outside of a grapple. I'll also second Edmund's statement...if you have the longer weapon you're probably better off making sure the grapple never happens.

Mr Croup

2006-08-04, 08:40 AM

I'd be hesitant to carry a punch dagger into a grappling situation for a couple of reasons. One, depending on design, the guards running down the sides of the hand could significantly limit wrist movement, which could prove to be a major problem. Secondly, and I think more importantly, with a punch dagger, you lose the ability to change blade position and grip to any effective degree. When you're in a grappling situation, you'd want the ability to shift the blade direction depending on your hands orientation to your opponent.

For my money, I'd go with a single edged blade, thus allowing bracing the blade against your forearm for added leverage.

Once you're in a grapple, a short blade is really going to shine over a longer one, such as a short sword. It's about manuevrability of the blade, and in my experience it's easier to disarm someone of a larger weapon once you're locked in a grapple.

Fax Celestis

2006-08-04, 04:00 PM

josh_mang

2006-08-04, 10:11 PM

Alright, I'm a student/light teacher of Krav Maga. For those that don't know what it is, it's an Israeli system of self-defense focusing most efforts on disarming foes with anything from axes to shotguns.

Think about the opponents in a grapple. They're close, like REAL close. Most fights tend to boil down into this in real life rather than the stereotypical fantasy sword clanging 10 minute finesse fest. They turn into dirty, sweaty, pushing and grabbing and punching grapples.

So you're pressed up against a guy, right? First and most obvious thing you'll notice is that you do NOT have much room to maneuver. You can't easily bend your arms to get a longer blade into a stabbing position and good luck drawing enough force back to really cut into somebody. These efforts will also open you up to a right nasty punch in the face.

Axes and maces in a grapple? No way, friend. Assuming he's on top of you BEFORE you have the weapon out, you're not going to generate enough heft to really hurt him without either tossing him off of you, or getting really REALLY lucky and he opens his arms nice and wide for you. OR you pin his arms down. Whichever comes first.

So then you have a dagger. It's small, concealable, light, and easy to flick around. You don't need to maneuver too much to bring a nice, sharp dagger into a stabbing position even while the guy's on top of you. In fact, as long as you keep your dagger-handy arm free you can very easily slip it into someone's skin.

To find this out, go ahead and lie on your back and imagine a dude (or woman if you're scurrred of that kind of vision...) And hold a butter knife or what have you in your hand and see how little you have to turn and twist.

Therefore, dagger wins. I should know, because I've had to learn how to take them away in class. Baseball bats are FAR easier to take than that, even in mid-swing.

Matthew

2006-08-04, 10:18 PM

Fhaolan

2006-08-05, 12:19 AM

Horray! Nice to think that logical thought can sometimes mirror real life experience.
Have you any ideas on the Short Sword / Dagger dichotomy? [i.e. a lot better? a little better? no better?]
Any more opinions?

The problem really revolves around what you consider a 'short sword'. There are different weapon designs that could fall into that category, and they'd be very different in a grappling fight. A heavy-bladed chopping blade like a machete is very difficult to use in a close-quarters fight, no matter what the size. Thrusting blades have to be *very* small to be used effectively in a grapple, because you have very little room to maneuver. Sharp slicing blades are more effective, and can be relatively large.

In the training I have recieved, the instructors differenciated between a 'short sword' and a 'short-blade'. A short-blade being a very large knife, rather than a 'sword'. Swords as such were not kept as sharp as knives for various reasons. So a 'short sword' would not be as useful as a very large bowie or combat knife in this kind of fight.

Matthew

2006-08-05, 12:24 AM

Fhaolan

2006-08-05, 01:05 AM

Sorry, forgetting to define my terms. Roman 'Short Swords' are what I had in mind, which appear to range from 12-24" in length. The Pugio appears to have varied from 6-12", but I am sure there are exceptions in all cases.

Since we're comparing a gladius with a pugio, it makes my life a bit easier. :)

Because of the way a gladius is made and constructed, it was not kept 'sharp' the way a knife is. If it had been, the blade would have been quickly ruined as it's edge gets bent and chipped to uselessness. The pugio was not intended as a primary combat weapon, and as such was kept much sharper. The sharper the blade the more useful it is in true close-quarter combat.

In addition, the size difference between a gladius and a pugio is actually quite large when you actually hold them. As mentioned by other posters, the smaller the blade, the closer the combat can be and remain effective.

Matthew

2006-08-05, 01:10 AM

Horray! ;D

Sounds like a degree of agreement. I think I'll wait a bit longer before proposing a house rule in the appropriate section, though.

Dervag

2006-08-05, 05:14 AM

The pugio was not intended as a primary combat weapon, and as such was kept much sharper. The sharper the blade the more useful it is in true close-quarter combat.

And the more useful it is for a 'utility knife', which was probably what most legionnaires would use a pugio for most of the time.

Almost all armies routinely outfit their soldiers with knives- and not usually to fight with, though the knives are frequently designed to be effective in a fight.

Mike_G

2006-08-05, 10:14 AM

Everybody soldier, hiker, advemturer, etc, should carry a knife, however little you use it in a grapple. It's use in applications other than combat are myriad.

So, despite any statistical issues, every D&D character should have a dagger.

As far as using a weapon in a grapple, I have to agree with josh_mang and Fhaolan. A good fighting knife, like a K-Bar, with a sharp six to eight inch blade with a good point, is going to be far more useful than any two foot sword.

Plus, opening cans with a shortsword seems unwieldy.

Matthew

2006-08-05, 11:22 AM

Um guys, read back over the debate; the Pugio was no utility knife. The shape of it is totally unsuited to such purposes, plus Romans apparently had knives that they carried as part of their kit in addition to the Pugio.

Mind you, I should mention this is disputed elsewhere and that it may well be the case that the Pugio was used for a variety of tasks.

Can't find any evidence to back up assertion about the knife. I do remember reading it somewhere, but it might have been a one off. Personally, I would be quite happy to hear that the Pugio was used in such a way. Still, it's military function was, no doubt, most important.

Just remembered to mention Beowulf in this context. At the end of the poem, Beowulf has lost his sword in combat with the Dragon and finds himself trapped in it's maw. What trusty, but hitherto totally unmentioned, weapon does he produce and use to kill the Dragon? Why none other than his Seax.

Beowulf [Lines 2694-2709]

"Ðá ic æt þearfe gefrægn * * þéodcyninges
andlongne eorl * *ellen cýðan
cræft ond cénðu * *swá him gecynde wæs•
ne hédde hé þæs heafolan * *ac sío hand gebarn
módiges mannes * *þaér hé his mægenes healp
þæt he þone níðgæst * * nioðor hwéne slóh,
secg on searwum * *þæt ðæt sweord gedéaf
fáh ond faéted * *þæt ðæt fýr ongon
sweðrian syððan. * *Þá gén sylf cyning
gewéold his gewitte• * *wællseaxe gebraéd
biter ond beaduscearp * *þæt hé on byrnan wæg•
forwrát Wedra helm * *wyrm on middan.
Féond gefyldan * *--ferh ellen wræc--
ond hí hyne þá bégen * *ábroten hæfdon,
sibæðelingas• * *swylc sceolde secg wesan
þegn æt ðearfe.”

I heard that then at the need * *of the folk-king
the nobleman alongside * *displayed courage,
strength and boldness, * *as was natural to him;
he did not heed (the dragon's) head, * *though the hand was burned
of the spirited man, * *there he his strength helped,
that he the hostile outsider * *struck somewhat lower,

the warrior in his war-gear, * *so that the sword sank in
gleaming and golden * *so that the fire began
to weaken after that. * *Then again the king himself
gathered his wits, * *drew a slaughter-seax

bitter and battle-sharp, * *that he wore on his byrnie;
The Helm of the Wederas cut through * *the wyrm in the middle.

The foe they felled * *--their courage driving out life--
and then the both of them him * *had destroyed,
the noble kinsmen; * *so ought a man to be,
a thane in need.

Dervag

2006-08-06, 05:15 AM

Altair_the_Vexed

2006-08-06, 11:56 AM

Were-Sandwich

2006-08-06, 12:40 PM

Fhaolan

2006-08-06, 12:56 PM

Excuse my interrupting, but has anyone seen d20 stats for a kopesh? You know, that sickle-like sword of ancient Egypt.

As it's a long-handled weapon with the blade edge on the inside of a curve, I was thinking I might just rule that it uses the same stats as a scythe, and requires an exotic weapon proficients to use one-handed.

Any thoughts? Any insight into the special functions of the kopesh? I understand that it was often used to drag opponents to the ground.

While called a 'sickle-sword', there is apparantly good evidence that in later versions the blade was usually sharpened on the outside of the curve instead of the inside, although I've heard that earlier ones have been found that are sharpened on both edges. The khopesh is typically labled as an 'egyptian' weapon, but similar things have been found in archeological digs throughout the Middle East.

I've never handled one, so I can't add much more than that.

Altair_the_Vexed

2006-08-06, 01:06 PM

Arms and Equipment Guide.

Ah. I'm not buying a whole book to get one weapon...

josh_mang

2006-08-06, 02:22 PM

The Khopesh wasn't just designed for utility, mind you.

The long handle was made so you can spread your grip, so you can use your whole body's turn and weight to your strike. Not to mention that the blade itself was more than large, the bladed weapon somewhat functioned as a sharpened sledgehammer.

But the shape of the Khopesh was more religious than practical. Some of the first statues of Egyptian gods often displayed weapons of the sort, and people would love to mimic their gods in any way possible. This wasn't a very popular weapon in Egypt, either. When sighted, these blades were most likely in the hands of an elite guard of the Pharoah or the highest priests, as the most common weapon of Egypt was the spear.

Matthew

2006-08-06, 06:29 PM

I'm sure that military criteria went into designing the pugio, just as they went into the design of World War bayonets. That didn't stop soldiers from using their bayonets as utility knives, and I very much doubt it would keep them from using the pugio as a utility knife.

Almost any knife design that can be used to kill someone can also be used for utility purposes, and it probably will be.

I would be careful about making analogies between the Bayonet and the Pugio; the circumstances of their manufacture, distribution, intention and use are very different.
However, I'm not contending that people didn't use weapons for different purposes than they were intended, they certainly did. The question posed here is "why did the Roman Legionary carry a Pugio in addition to the Gladius, instead of some other combination or, indeed, a Dagger or Knife of a non-waisted design?" The idea that it is both weapon and tool is one that I initially found attractive and certainly thought was the case and explanation for pretty much any 'Sword and Dagger' combination, such as the 'Pugio and Gladius', 'Spatha and Semi-Spatha', 'Sweord and Seax', 'Tachi and Tanto' and so on...

However, in recent years I have begun to notice the distinct absence of the Dagger from Knightly tombstones and Medieval art of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries [Check out the Bayeux Tapestry, for instance). This got me wondering, "why on earth would anybody not carry a Dagger?" In seeking to answer this question, I have had to think about what the benefits of carrying a Dagger were. Personally, I suspect that the Dagger did not disappear at all and that the art of the period is misleading. Establishing that as a likelihood is quite a different matter
Many explanations have been offered for why someone would choose to carry a Dagger in addition to a Sword, and its potential as a tool has certainly been discussed. Indeed, I in no way dispute that it could be used for a variety of utilitarian tasks, only that this was not an intended function (at least in the case of the Pugio, especially given their poor utilitarian design, glamorisation on tombstones and the expense seemingly lavished upon them).
Currently, the fact that it was a much better weapon in the desperate circumstances of a grapple seems the most likely explanation to me. How this affects my view of the iconographical representation of the Dagger in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is another matter. I have a few ideas, but nothing concrete at the moment.
The twelfth century Brut has an amusing passage where a leader loses his sword and promptly runs away. I was expecting him to draw his Dagger, but it seems he would rather run off than be involved in a Dagger versus Sword fight or attempt a grapple of some sort. Conversly, during a duel in the fifteenth centrury Middle English Siege of Milan, Charlemagne loses his sword and promptly goes Dagger on Dagger with his opponent. A change in authorial and social attitudes? Different circumstances? Characterisation? I'm undecided as yet...

Wehrkind

2006-08-07, 01:03 AM

Oky doky, I am back.

Daggers vs. Shortswords in a grappling situation:
It has largely been said, but I want to agree that a short sword (gladius) is far worse than a knife or dagger when grappling. In my experience getting thrashed by my old man, some Markland folks, and just beat on my roommates, any weapon you can not position to stab (stab mind you) with only the distance from your palm to your mid arm is not very useful. It seems that a lot of the time your elbow is pressed against something, be it a body, the floor what have you, which is what makes it less than useful. So you only have your wrist to use to position and power an attack (assuming you are not going to somehow roll your opponant into the weapon, or push him into it and a wall.) So anything you can't line up for a stab with ~6" of space is going to be really awkward.
Slicing, that is another story. It doesn't seem easy to cut things while grappled. Getting the pressure to cut through a thick shirt or jeans with just the wrist when pushing against a fairly soft body is troublesome. Since one is to assume your arm is tangled at the elbow, you probably can't draw it very far, so you are kind of stuck.
Now, if I were to rank weapons in grappling effect, I would say dagger, mace, axe, short sword. The reason I chose maces and axes above a short sword is that you can choke up to just below the head, the better to make a short stab with the spike of the mace, maybe a cut or poke with the tip of the axe blade, or at least a hard, heavy thing to bash with in your fist. (All 3 are sub-par, however.)

The reason I assume your arm is bound at the elbow is that anything less doesn't really impair you. Having someone grab the shoulder of your arm is annoying, but not likely to be a real issue unless you have a very long weapon, especially if it is for thrusting (say a rapier.) If your weapon hand is free, I can attest to being able to strike someone very hard even if they are hugging your torso.

Now, when it comes to all melee's degenerating into grappling as opposed to taking shots with swords, I disagree. Sometimes they do, depending on the weapons. I find that two handed weapons lend themselves better to being grappled than one handed, and sword and shield (not buckler) makes for a terrible combination to try and grapple. The shield just is too handy at keeping an opponant at bay, allowing plenty of time to deliver a crippling shot, if not a straight out killing blow.
I would be curious to see some methods of disarming a two handed sword empty handed though. I suspect all of the bat removal techniques I have ever seen would not work.

Fhaolan

2006-08-07, 01:11 AM

When sighted, these blades were most likely in the hands of an elite guard of the Pharoah or the highest priests, as the most common weapon of Egypt was the spear.

Okay, what follows in my personal opinion. Take it all with a sizable grain of salt. :)

Possibly that statement is a bit misleading, as the most common weapon in any place, at any time before guns dominated the battlefield, was the spear. :)

I am under the impression that the reproduction khopeshes you can get now (thanks to the Scorpion King movie) are really very poor reproductions that do not match the historical khopeshes very well at all in mass or balance. Especially when compared to the ones found in Syria which had very slender blades relative to the Egyptian ones.

Unfortunately, I have to fall back on the statement that I've never handled one. However, my experience with weapons is that if a weapon historically used by a large number of people sucks that badly, we're probably using it wrong, or the reproductions we are using are made wrong. Real weapons that are that bad don't last to become popular.

The repros being made badly is usually due to an error that a lot of historians have made over the years. Most of the weapons that survive in near-perfect condition were cerimonial, because they weren't used much. Cerimonial weapons tend to be larger, heavier, and more elaborately decorated than their functional equivalents. The functional equivalents tend to be beat up and in poor condition because they were actually used, and so when discovered they were discounted and ignored as 'cheap' versions made my lesser-skilled smiths. Over the last fifty years or so, weapon historians have realized this mistake and are revising all the history written about old and ancient weapons. Many reproduction weapon makers haven't kept up with the research, and are churning out repros of cerimonial weapons and billing them as 'functional'.

Fhaolan

2006-08-07, 01:16 AM

I would be curious to see some methods of disarming a two handed sword empty handed though. I suspect all of the bat removal techniques I have ever seen would not work.

All the methods I've seen, that actually appear to work, rely on the fact that while you are unarmed you are still armored, and can take some limited punishment while doing the disarm.

There are others mentioned in period fight-manuals, but I've never seen them work, so I can't say. We may just be doing them wrong.

Wehrkind

2006-08-07, 01:23 AM

Yea, I have a feeling that usually such techniques are taught with the preamble "This is really going to hurt, but it is better than nothing." A friend of mine is just incredible with a two handed sword, and the thought of trying to take it from him with nothing to tangle it in makes me unhappy.

Ryujin

2006-08-07, 06:13 AM

Here's a bronze one from an Egyptian museum.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9431/khopesh9pt.jpg

Altair_the_Vexed

2006-08-07, 06:23 AM

Good find!
That's totally different to what I had in my mind's eye... More of an exotic scimitar / falchion / axe. The edge is clearly on the outside - even allowing for it being a ceremonial weapon.

Okay, I'm going to have two Kopesh types in my campaign: the Ty'itian Kopesh (scythe stats) and the Ayrean Kopesh (scimitar stats).

Dervag

2006-08-07, 11:00 AM

Fhaolan

2006-08-07, 11:33 AM

For some reason, that khopesh looks very much like a ceremonial weapon to me. In line with Fhaolan's remarks, it appears to be heavy and overdecorated. Particularly in the way that the tip flares outward and the grooves in the blade.

Not to disagree that it might be a ceremonial weapon, but the one pictured is a bronze weapon. In my experience, bronze weapons tend to have more decorative grooves and shapes, because it is cast instead of forged. Since you can churn out many bronze blades out of one mould, they tended to put a relatively large amount of effort in the creation of the mould. So, the level of decoration isn't as much of an indicator in this specific case as it would have been for a steel weapon.

Complex bronze weapons also tend to be 'overbuilt' compared to steel weapons, as bronze is a weaker metal. Bronze spearheads, daggers and the like are not that much different in size and shape as later steel ones, but swords and axes tend to be thicker and heavier in order to keep a functional edge. There's a reason why everyone switched to iron and steel when those materials became readily available. :) The khopesh might be one of those weapons that is based on the peculiarities of bronze as a weapon material and of bronze casting, and may not have survived the transition to steel.

I realize I'm being a bit vague here, but all I can do is throw out my own general theories and opinions on this one, due to my unfamiliarity with the specifics of a khopesh. So, I have to fall back on general experience with weapons, and bronze weapons in particular.

Just as a note, the khopesh in the lower middle image of that pastish is a slightly different than the one in the rest of the images. It's lighter-looking and has cleaner lines. If the fancier one is ceremonial, that one might be the 'functional' version.

Sundog

2006-08-07, 03:12 PM

On the "Why the Pugio?" question, I may have an answer.

I've been reading some of the histories of the Claudian Emperors (Augustus - Nero), and I was suddenly gripped by the sheer number of people who died "by the blade."

That particular phrase caught me, as some of the other works of the time seem to use the translation "died by the sword."

So, I did a little digging. According to several sources, the preferred method of suicide among Romans was by stabbing oneself with "a waisted dagger with a slim hilt or grip."

This made much more sense, as some of those noted as having killed themselves were women and children, who wouldn't have been expected to have a true sword lying around. But that description sounds very like the Pugio.

Perhaps they had that particular blade, not for use on the enemy, but for themselves in extremis..?

josh_mang

2006-08-07, 06:21 PM

We actually did learn how to take a two-handed, bladed object away from someone in class.

To take a bat is easy enough. You can wait to go just before a swing, as it initiates, or dodge and go after the weapon when the enemy is recovering. Most techniques for taking a bat in Krav Maga are NOT grabbing the weapon itself, but the hands that grab the blade and striking at vitals (like the testicles and throat or eyes) to cause horrible pain, THEN taking the weapon by twisting it out of their grasp.

Krav Maga's not a very kind or pretty style for any situation. It's dirty and bloody and fast.

The same techniques can be applied to the sword. Even more so, because you have more incentive to get the hell out of the way, and less incentive to grab the weapon itself.

Edmund

2006-08-07, 07:11 PM

I would be curious to see some methods of disarming a two handed sword empty handed though. I suspect all of the bat removal techniques I have ever seen would not work.

I think almost all techniques devoted to disarming an armed assailant unarmed (redundant, I know) revolve around either a) the assailant not knowing how to use a weapon or b) the weapon being an improvised one.

As the SOE syllabus (I refer to it far too often) puts it, on an entry about unarmed defences against the rifle and bayonet:

Explain that all the defences against a bayonet are apt to be extremely effective if you, unarmed, are exceptionally quick and if your opponent doesn't know his job

As for two handed swords: It would be ridiculous to attempt to disarm any competent swordsman unarmed and unarmoured. It is significantly more difficult to disarm a swordsman than a fellow with a spear (or its moddern equivalent) because the edge of the sword travels all the way to the hand, while the edge of the spear does not.

A quick thought or three on the Pugio: Perhaps a backup weapon? Possible but doubtful. Swords tend not to be lost unless the hand goes with them.

Perhaps a weapon for grappling on the battlefield? Possible, but again doubtful. As Wehr mentioned, shields are excellent for preventing grapples, and the legions of Rome had no shortage of these.

A new thought: Perhaps it's a type of sidearm, intended for use when the gladius and scutum would not normally be carried. Under your pillow, or in other similar circumstances. Like most people would carry the all-around 'utility knife' but designed for fighting so that even in equipment the soldier would have an advantage over some ruffian.

This is a shot in the dark.

I like Sundog's explanation too. It may not be absolutely certain, but it's got some classical flair.

Mike_G

2006-08-07, 07:30 PM

I think I have to agree with Edmund on the inadvisability of trying to disarm a competant swordsman.

However, if we're talking battlefield conditions, then one assumes that you may well be armored, making this move a bit safer, and only unamed due to losing your own weapon, making this move perhaps a necessary gamble. Further, if the swordsman in question is distracted by other opponents, then perhaps, in lieu of any better option, you could grapple him and disarm him. Or shank him with your dagger.

This is best done from the side or behind, on a distracted enemy, smaller than you and, if at all possible, by somebdy else.

Wehrkind

2006-08-07, 11:34 PM

I would be sad if my instructor told me "just dodge and grab at his hands after kicking him in the junk." Very, very sad. You are going to want to do better than that, because no reasonably competant swordsman is going to swing it like a baseball bat. He will just put it in your eye. Granted, I would suppose that most people you would encounter with a sword these days probably doesn't know what they are doing, and really, how often are you even going to encounter one, but still... that's pretty weak.

On the battlefield, I would be looking for some dead guy to disarm. Those put up a lot less resistance.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-08, 01:01 AM

True enough Wehrkind, I ended up disarming a man in a fight once (I think the story has already been told either early in this thread, or perhaps in the last one), and I still took the knife to my arm despite a stint of Krav Maga training, and I couldn't get it out of his hand until after I broke his arm (kicking him in the junk accomplished zero because of Meth).

I shudder to think what the result would have been had he been using a sword instead of a fillet knife.

Spears and other pole arms, are in my experience (admittedly nonlethal sparring) far easier to disarm than a slashing weapon.

Does this carry to lethal contests as well?

Wehrkind

2006-08-08, 01:15 AM

Well, I have seen some guys catch axe hafts to the shoulder, which is still unpleasant in armor, and wrench the item away, with similar results with other weapons. Again though, that is in armor, which really changes the dynamics.

Unarmored, a spear would probably be the easiest to dodge and then grab since you just need to move the point out of line, but still, that is showing some sack. Spear points can move very fast, and missing that dodge or parry is going to end you. Still, a shafted weapon is reasonable to disarm if you are desperate. A great sword is a very poor possibility.

josh_mang

2006-08-08, 01:33 AM

Are you serious?

Look, I'm a freakin' instructor on how to do things of this nature. What's sad is listening to people who don't know the actual adreneline-pumped feeling of combat and training and telling me how sad it is that I'm told to dodge and grab.

Think of something to do to take away a two-handed double-bladed sword that works better, then prove it for me. My technique has books and videos out for about 20 bucks both ways, and is adopted by the war-torn countries of the middle east.

Trust me, it works.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-08, 01:44 AM

Dude, have you felt the bursts of your own arterial blood gushing fom a new hole in your body, desperately wrestling with a man with murder in his eyes?

Don't tell me that your theoretical sparring practice can prepare you for the real deal. If you try to disarm someone with a weapon, you will get hit, it is just a matter of not dieing, and I know no way to teach someone that other than actual lethal combat.

And you will get sucker punched by the meth head's girlfriend, even though he attacked you first.

Wehrkind

2006-08-08, 02:03 AM

I am all for dodging and grabbing. Also, assuming I have no training is... well a very poor assumption to say the least. Someone who doesn't preface something like "dodge and grab the man with the two handed sword" with "This is seriously the last thing you want to try, only if you absolutely have to" is setting you up to be seriously injured.
You show me how to not get stabbed in the face by a man with a two handed sword and some skill. There is a reason people use weapons: They work. I have friends that can put their sword in your face while you charge with a shield and sword. You know the sword is there, you know he wants to hit you, but it doesn't matter. Sometimes you get the block, sometimes you don't.

Look at it this way, when you are unarmored that swords man only needs to put the weapon where your body is with a significant amount of force. That is really easy. They are going to make the attempt 2, probably 3 times by the time you close the space enough to grab them.

If your option is only "Dodge, grab their hands and kick them" you are going to be very unhappy after the fight. Surely there are some situations where it is possible, perhaps even likely, but those situations themselves are not very likely. A sword is not a baseball bat. Seriously.

My method? Don't try and take away the sword. It's too dangerous. Maybe you could use your environment to catch it on something, but honestly, going in there thinking "Nah, it's cool, I will just take his sword" is going to get you killed. It not killed, most likely maimed. Your best bet is to hope you run faster, and are good at spotting improvised weapons.

The next time you fight someone in the middle east with a big two handed sword, let me know how well you take it from them. I don't mean any disrespect to krav maga, which so far as I know is a very effective system of fighting hand to hand, but that idea is not a good one. Dodging bullets is also a poor plan. It might be the only course of action available to you, but even taking that course is likely to make you a corpse.

josh_mang

2006-08-08, 11:58 AM

The debate isn't about whether or not it's smart to take away the sword itself, it was about the best way to TAKE it. Meaning, I'm going to tell you the best way to take it, and there it is.

Have I ever used it in real combat? You bet your ass I have. I have one stab wound in my chest and another in my pelvis (which makes me have to pee every two hours at least), a very noticeable cut along the ridge of my eye and another along my throat from being held from behind.

I refuse to speak of things like this unless I have experience. And believe me, my friend in the ER can tell you I've had experience.

Matthew

2006-08-08, 12:04 PM

Hmmmnn. I think there has been a misunderstanding here; sounds like you are both saying the same thing to me.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-08, 12:58 PM

Looks like Mathew is right.

I just was a little touchy about the Krav Maga thing because my instructor berated me on allowing myself to to be stabed, so I showed him, with a Sharpie marker, how he was mistaken in believing that you could expect to not be damaged. He no longer teaches marital arts, and had let his certification lapse before I ever met him (he also failed to mention this to me).

Seeing as you have more experience in KM than I, perhaps you could tell me if that elbow sweep thing to get a gun off the back of your head works.

Fhaolan

2006-08-08, 01:01 PM

Yah, this sounds an awful lot like you're both saying the same thing, but you're both thinking the other is disagreeing.

To summerize what I'm reading: There are techniques and methods in various martial arts (Western, Eastern, and other) that are for disarming two-handed bladed weapons. However, they are not perfect, especially against a reasonably skilled opponent, and they require a certain level of training and skill on behalf of the disarmer.

You cannot go into a disarm situation (or combat in general, really) unless you are prepared to take a hit. Some of the techniques actually *require* you to soak a hit in order to gain control of the weapon. Anyone thinks that martial arts will make it so you can't be hurt has a superhero complex and will end up very badly injured when they try to pull this stuff.

How's that? Does that sum it up for all sides?

josh_mang

2006-08-08, 05:00 PM

That's basically right, Faolan.

Anyway, the elbow sweep is a good technique to use and practice with airsoft guns to check for validity. IT works if you're quick and kick it off right with whatever distractive move you choose to put out there.

I've screwed it up more often than I'd like to admit, but then again, it's also a slim chance you'll take a gun away from a guy and live to tell about it in the first place.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-08, 05:14 PM

I supose it is better than just waiting for the bullet, I will have to go practice.

Ahem, let me rephrase this.

Does anyone know the thickness of the door plate on a Bradley BMP IFV? I know my Barret can do an inch and a half of good steel at 500 yards, with the right loads, is it thicker than that?

Mike_G

2006-08-08, 05:40 PM

Does anyone know the thickness of the door plate on a Bradley IFV? I know my Barret can do an inch and a half of good steel at 500 yards, with the right loads, is it thicker than that?

Jesus!

Do you plan on engaging any Bradleys in the near future?

As far as I know, the Bradley is well armored against .50 BMG rounds. It's not steel, it's aliminum with some armor plate over it. Not really sure, the Marines don't have them.

Most Bradley kills are from big explosions. RPGs tend to only imobilize them, not punch through the armor.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-08, 05:43 PM

Not IRL, Maybe ingame, but it is always fun to know.

Besides, I'm not the only one with a Barret sniper rifle.

Sorry if I scared you.

Mike_G

2006-08-08, 05:50 PM

Well, it's a great weapon if you don't mind the weight.

And you want to shoot people in the next time zone.

Wehrkind

2006-08-08, 09:39 PM

Yea, I agree that it is a last resort. Honestly though, I think a lot of people do treat that as a reasonable alternative to, well, anything. I seriously think that if someone doesn't show you that with the preface that you want to avoid having to do it at all costs, they are doing you a diservice.
I suppose I am looking at it from a "How do I win the fight" perspective and not a "Ok, I absolutely must remove that weapon from his hands" perspective. If you have no other choice than to try and remove a two handed sword from someone's hands, there are certain methods that work better than others, and those are worth exploring.
If you are looking to win the fight though, and presumably with the least amount of physical damage to yourself as possible, taking it out of their hands with your bare hands is probably your worst bet.

To take a bat is easy enough. You can wait to go just before a swing, as it initiates, or dodge and go after the weapon when the enemy is recovering. Most techniques for taking a bat in Krav Maga are NOT grabbing the weapon itself, but the hands that grab the blade and striking at vitals (like the testicles and throat or eyes) to cause horrible pain, THEN taking the weapon by twisting it out of their grasp.

-snip-
The same techniques can be applied to the sword. Even more so, because you have more incentive to get the hell out of the way, and less incentive to grab the weapon itself.
emphasis mine

That is where the problem is coming from. You say taking a bat is easy (probably true) you describe how to take the bat (I imagine that works). The problem comes when you say the same techniques work for a sword, and even more so (what I contend to be not true). Perhaps it is an error in meaning transmission, but it looks a lot like you are saying the disarmament is easy, and at best like you are saying it is quite functional. I would disagree, and say that the only time something like that is likely to work is if you take your opponant completely unawares.

It is not a matter of expecting to take a hit in combat either. If you fight, you are likely to get hurt, that is very true, but the idea is to not attempt maneuvers that are exceedingly likely to get you maimed. There is a difference between dangerous and suicidal.

Zincorium

2006-08-09, 04:18 AM

Jesus!

Do you plan on engaging any Bradleys in the near future?

As far as I know, the Bradley is well armored against .50 BMG rounds. It's not steel, it's aliminum with some armor plate over it. Not really sure, the Marines don't have them.

Most Bradley kills are from big explosions. RPGs tend to only imobilize them, not punch through the armor.

The aluminum armor is actually a mixed blessing. I'm not army, but two of the people I work with are former army (Switched to navy for reasons they won't elaborate on), and they've told me that most deaths from bradley's getting hit were because the armor got lit on fire and the smoke is so toxic that the people inside died.

I'm no chemist, so it seemed to make sense for me. I mean, iron+aluminum is the composition of thermite, and that's not something you want burning in the immediate vicinity.

All that said, .50 bmg is slightly outdated as a tank-killing round, but I'm pretty sure they've got "not legal for civilians to own" ammo like APDS that could do the job in a pinch.

Ryujin

2006-08-09, 05:11 AM

All that said, .50 bmg is slightly outdated as a tank-killing round, but I'm pretty sure they've got "not legal for civilians to own" ammo like APDS that could do the job in a pinch.

That'd be the .50 SLAP ammo developed by the Marines in the '80's--a 0.30 tungsten penetrator with plastic sabot.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4404/sabot50hw4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Then there's also the Raufoss explosive ammo...$40-$60 a round for civvies!

Wehrkind

2006-08-09, 05:53 AM

That's really cool, I wasn't aware they made a sabot type round for rifles. Granted, it probably only is more useful for taking out machines, but still, that's just the nifty thing I was looking to learn today :)

Murky_Pool

2006-08-09, 06:03 AM

I always thought a sabot round was just a block of metal (as opposed to the normal explosixe tank rounds). Surely the basic round for hand gun, rifle etc is a Sabot? The bullet?

Zincorium

2006-08-09, 06:05 AM

Considering the stupidly fast velocity of the round, it'd probably suck out your internal organs through the exit wound if you were unlucky enough to get hit with one.

I'm actually surprised that they are legal for civilians to own, I'm not conversant with all the relevant legislation but it seems that would be a prime target for legislature. Me, I wouldn't mind the opportunity to see what one would do to an engine block. Pure scientific curiosity, of course.

'Sabot' only refers to the plastic covering, not the projectile. Normal bullets aren't sabots. And an explosive round can have a sabot around it too. What a sabot does is harness the full pressure of the burning gunpowder, and transfer it to a narrower, lighter bullet than normally fired. It increases the velocity drastically, which is important for piercing armor.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-09, 01:23 PM

Actually the load I used to hole an inch and a half of steel plate at the range was a full caliber round with a copper jacket and a tungsten carbide tip (homemade).

The Barret was initially developed to shoot down helicopters.

I have an uncle with a AR-50 that uses it to hunt elk with .30 inch saboted Nosler balistic tips.

For those of you with experience, how tight of a group does a 3-round burst make at say 150 yards?

Mike_G

2006-08-09, 02:34 PM

With what weapon?

Three round rapid on semi, or an actual three round burst from a selctive fire weapon on "burst"?

Norsesmithy

2006-08-09, 02:37 PM

The second.

Mike_G

2006-08-09, 03:16 PM

It depends a lot on the weapon, and how you are firing it.

A true LMG, using a bipod from a prone position, like the SAW or the M60 or even the BAR can put three rounds into a fairly small group, certainly under four inches at that range.

A rifle with burst capability, like the M16, fired from a good solid prone position could do a 6-8 inch group, but fired offhand, Rambo style, the group is measured in feet.

SMGs like the MP5, which can put the whole thirty round mag in the black at 25 yards, lose accuracy rapidly out at the ranges you're talking about.

josh_mang

2006-08-09, 03:26 PM

It also depends on how well you handle the recoil of the weapon itself. if you can hold it steady enough, then you can hit three bullseye's in a row.

But I sincerely doubt that's happened many times at that range in history.

lsfreak

2006-08-09, 11:17 PM

Norsesmithy

2006-08-09, 11:43 PM

The saboted (SLAP) rounds from .50BMG aren't capable of being fired in a standard Barrett rifle. The SLAP rounds are either slightly wider or longer than regular .50BMG rounds, neither of which you want to have happen if you're the one firing them >.>
Also, Rauffous ammo is 100% illegal for civilian use afaik... of course, it's also unbearably easy to get them on online gun auctions.

And if you insist on using a .50 for shooting at anything smaller than tanks (assuming in-game, that is), at least use something with more accurate that a Barrett... they've got 1.5-2MOA accuracy, whereas a McMillan is under .5MOA (MOA is minutes of angle, and one MOA happens to correspond almost exactly to one-inch five-shot groups at 100 yards, two-inch at 200 yards, etc). It was a McMillian TAC-50 that a pair of Canadian snipers rounded up the world's longest sniper kill at 2340 meters.

And about the 3-round burst... deadly accurate if you're using a G11 caseless. Bullets fire in burst mode at about 2200 rounds per minute, fast enough that the recoil doesn't hit until AFTER the third bullet leaves the barrel of the gun :P
Ahh, NO.

A SLAP round fits nicely in my Barret, however, it may be that my bolt rifle has a different internal clearance that the US militaries Semi-Auto, and the distance sniping record IIRC, as of June 11, 2006, is held by a US army sergent in Afganistan, 2404 meters, with a Barret M85, the semi automatic version of my Barret M95. I have shot third MOA groups at 2000 yards with my Barret, without the benefit of sandbags.

On the subject of Rauffous rounds, although I disagree with the ban on Idealogic grounds, I do not mind it, as I am personally capable of manufacturing better munitions.

Finally, I wouldn't want to have to live with a G11 in the field. One trip into a puddle, and all your rounds are duds.

lsfreak

2006-08-10, 12:10 AM

Didn't know about the newest sniping record, I've been out of reality since I got out of high school end of May ::)

And yea, listed accuracy is often different than actual (although it seems to go both ways), but McMillian guarentees .5 MOA or better :P Personally I'd prefer a .408 anywho, .50's lose too much energy imo.

With the G11, you'd also have a fun time getting one, even in a game. That and the bullets are so small...

Now a question of my own: saw on wikipedia that arbalests (steel-constructed crossbows more or less) could have up to 5000 pounds of pull. Any idea how that would compare to an antimaterial rifle provided it used a tungsten carbide/DU shell? Granted, it'd be limited to very close range, but still... :P

Norsesmithy

2006-08-10, 12:13 AM

Seeing as how those same arbelests had as little as 30 inches of string travel (and this would really be more of a ballista, some had less than 18 inches of travel), they could only manage around 450 fps, but they could likely move your DU arrows at almost that same velocity.

They weren't terribly efficient.

Spasticteapot

2006-08-13, 02:05 AM

A "coilgun" may be the way to go for long-distance sniping. Unlike a railgun, accelleration is linear and controlled, and a coilgun's barrel can be infinitely long. Of course, gunpowder is more efficient, but why not?

A Coilgun works by using a series of coils, triggered one by one, to accellerate a ferrous (usually magnetic) projectile. As the projectile slides through the center of a coil, the next coil in front of it fires. A suitably long coilgun could easily accellerate a large finned projectile to well above the speed of sound.

On the other hand, I can build a weapon that will blow through a tank's armor from 2,000 yards with perfect accuracy. Just strap a shaped plastic explosive charge to the front of an inexpensive UAV, and dive-bomb the tank. If set to automatically detonate at the correct distance, a 1kg shaped charge (easily carried by a plane with a one-meter wingspan) can blow many locations in a tank's armor.

That, and there's my idea: The "Sticky Bun". Take a small, spherical explosive charge, with stiff piano wire sticking out of it forming a tetrahedral shape. Each end would have a neodiyum magnet on it, by itself capable of holding the weight of the entire mine.

All that would be needed is a pressure switch on the end of each "foot". If all four switches close (this would only happen if the explosive is stick to a metal object, like the underside of a tank), it goes boom.

Because of the design, one "foot" will always be sticking straight up, and catching whatever drives over it.

You know, I should make one to see how well it works.

Raum

2006-08-13, 11:47 AM

A "coilgun" may be the way to go for long-distance sniping. Unlike a railgun, accelleration is linear and controlled, and a coilgun's barrel can be infinitely long. Of course, gunpowder is more efficient, but why not?
There's a previous discussion on coilguns & railguns to which you may want to refer. If I remember correctly, there are about four items keeping them from being deployed. a power source.
rate of fire
limited reuse (the rails need to be replaced often)
limited tactical use - it's a LOS weapon unable to hit a target over the horizon
Detail can be found in the earlier discussion.

On the other hand, I can build a weapon that will blow through a tank's armor from 2,000 yards with perfect accuracy. Just strap a shaped plastic explosive charge to the front of an inexpensive UAV, and dive-bomb the tank. If set to automatically detonate at the correct distance, a 1kg shaped charge (easily carried by a plane with a one-meter wingspan) can blow many locations in a tank's armor.
There are existing weapons that accomplish this a bit better. A UAV is too easily interceptible compared to artillery shells and even rockets.

That, and there's my idea: The "Sticky Bun". Take a small, spherical explosive charge, with stiff piano wire sticking out of it forming a tetrahedral shape. Each end would have a neodiyum magnet on it, by itself capable of holding the weight of the entire mine.

All that would be needed is a pressure switch on the end of each "foot". If all four switches close (this would only happen if the explosive is stick to a metal object, like the underside of a tank), it goes boom.

Because of the design, one "foot" will always be sticking straight up, and catching whatever drives over it.
If you're using a presure switch, how do you deploy them without setting them off? If you have to deploy them by hand, why not a single switch on top?

Ryujin

2006-08-13, 08:37 PM

There's a previous discussion on coilguns & railguns to which you may want to refer. If I remember correctly, there are about four items keeping them from being deployed. a power source.
rate of fire
limited reuse (the rails need to be replaced often)
limited tactical use - it's a LOS weapon unable to hit a target over the horizon
Detail can be found in the earlier discussion.

The last two points are incorrect. Since this is a Coilgun & not a Railgun, the projectile doesn't come into contact with the magnetic 'doughnuts' which propel it. Also, the high velocities possible are one of the reasons that the US military is interested in mass driver weaponry--as very long range artillery permitting the engagement of targets hundreds of kilometers inland by a naval platform. The operating principles behind the coilgun permit it to adjust its power output--the projectile's muzzle velocity can be just sufficient to pop a shell over a nearby foothill--or a nearby mountain range. Any projectile weapon fires in a ballistic trajectory.

The first two points, which basically equate to a compact, high-output generator & high-capacity/surge discharge capacitor & compulsator are the critical stumbling block--you won't be seeing a coilgun or other sort of EM mass driver weapon on something smaller than a naval vessel for quite some time, much less a man-portable weapon, even with the latest developments in nanotube battery technology, although studies conducted in the '90's show that an AFV-mounted weapon would be possible, just not very practical considering the state of the art.

Imho, Hollywood & pop fiction are responsible for this misconception that a coilgun is strictly a LOS direct-fire weapon.

On the other hand, I can build a weapon that will blow through a tank's armor from 2,000 yards with perfect accuracy. Just strap a shaped plastic explosive charge to the front of an inexpensive UAV, and dive-bomb the tank. If set to automatically detonate at the correct distance, a 1kg shaped charge (easily carried by a plane with a one-meter wingspan) can blow many locations in a tank's armor.

Easier said than done, and not likely with the present generation of MBT's. Granted, a top attack will probably penetrate, given a shaped charge with proper cone diameter, but I'd rather take my chances with a top-attack ATGM like the Bofors Bill, Tow 2B or the Javelin. They have heavier warheads--more than 8 kg. for the Javelin. Also, can the UAV fly in excess of 400 mph?

Sundog

2006-08-13, 09:14 PM

Certainly, you could use a coil (or a rail) gun to fire a device on a standard ballistic course - but what would be the point? You're trading off the linear accelerator's sole advantage over conventional munitions - it's extremely high muzzle velocity - for a capacity to lob, which we already possess. You'd even have to use an explosive projectile, rather than relying on kinetic impact. Wasteful.

As to the limited reuse, yes, that is still a major problem with coil guns just as it is with rails. As I discussed in the railgun topic, energy efficiency of any type of linear accelerator is far less than 100%. Given the extreme levels of energy in use, that's a major drawback - because that energy has to go SOMEWHERE (good old Newtonian Physics - energy can neither be created nor destroyed).

The quantities of power used in modern versions give off so much energy as waste that it manifests not merely as heat, but as light. Lightburn literally burns away the barrels and workings of the accelerators - and coilguns would be even more susceptible to this, as their coils are lighter and less robust than a rail.

As I've said before, some of this problem should be alleviated when we get to use room-temperature superconductors. Unfortunately, we are, according to the experts, about ten years from that possibility - just as we have been for the past twenty five years...

Raum

2006-08-13, 10:02 PM

The last two points are incorrect. Since this is a Coilgun & not a Railgun, the projectile doesn't come into contact with the magnetic 'doughnuts' which propel it.
Even without contact the propulsion system doesn't last more than a few shots with current technology. The excess energy disipates as heat in the coils. As Sundog points out, efficient superconductors will be a prerequisite.

Also, the high velocities possible are one of the reasons that the US military is interested in mass driver weaponry--as very long range artillery permitting the engagement of targets hundreds of kilometers inland by a naval platform. The operating principles behind the coilgun permit it to adjust its power output--the projectile's muzzle velocity can be just sufficient to pop a shell over a nearby foothill--or a nearby mountain range. Any projectile weapon fires in a ballistic trajectory.
Yes, any weapon fires in a ballistic trajectory. However, a weapon relying on kinetic energy to do damage will only be successful with relatively flat trajectories. Given a steep trajectory it would be about as effective as a dud conventional round.

The first two points, which basically equate to a compact, high-output generator & high-capacity/surge discharge capacitor & compulsator are the critical stumbling block--you won't be seeing a coilgun or other sort of EM mass driver weapon on something smaller than a naval vessel for quite some time, much less a man-portable weapon, even with the latest developments in nanotube battery technology, although studies conducted in the '90's show that an AFV-mounted weapon would be possible, just not very practical considering the state of the art.
Last I heard DARPA was working on a tank mounted EM gun. Rumor (the internet) said they had one theoretically capable of firing once every six minutes. Not nearly good enough for combat. Westinghouse and DARPA were building one as early as 1980. More recent information can be found in articles about DARPA's Future Combat System.

Imho, Hollywood & pop fiction are responsible for this misconception that a coilgun is strictly a LOS direct-fire weapon.
Don't underestimate LOS weapons. It makes a good offensive weapon against aircraft and possibly (probably not any time soon) near space satelites. It also has potential as an anti-missile defense.

The Navy was looking at railgun technology for future destroyers in 2003. Their commentary on the different types of EM guns was interesting settling on railguns over coil guns and electrothermal guns. Their reasons were the higher muzzle velocity demonstrable by railguns and the relative immaturity of the other two technologies.

Spasticteapot

2006-08-13, 10:22 PM

Even without contact the propulsion system doesn't last more than a few shots with current technology. The excess energy disipates as heat in the coils. As Sundog points out, efficient superconductors will be a prerequisite.

Coilguns are inefficient, and have a limited ROF, even with superconductive coils.
(Note: The heat dissipated is proportional to both the total energy sent through the coil and the impeadance of the coil. A superconducting coil would put out less heat than a normal copper coil.)

They are, however, accurate at long range (if you build it right), and capable of accellerating unusually shaped projectiles.

There are existing weapons that accomplish this a bit better. A UAV is too easily interceptible compared to artillery shells and even rockets.

The big advantage of a UAV is that it DOES'NT go fast, and can putter around at low speed. If you don't know where your target is, you can simply fly about until you find it. It's also a great anti-personnel weapon; after all, you've got both reconnisance and bomber in one inexpensive, person-free package.

If you're using a presure switch, how do you deploy them without setting them off? If you have to deploy them by hand, why not a single switch on top?

First, a neodiyum magnet will produce a huge amount of pressure on anything between it and a ferrous material. Anyone who's had their finger sandwiched between two hard drive magnets will tell you this. You can't duplicate this amount of pressurre by simply squeezing it.

Secondly, we have this wonderful little thing called a "timer". They've been using them for over a hundred years, I heard.
:)

Raum

2006-08-13, 10:49 PM

The big advantage of a UAV is that it DOES'NT go fast, and can putter around at low speed. If you don't know where your target is, you can simply fly about until you find it. It's also a great anti-personnel weapon; after all, you've got both reconnisance and bomber in one inexpensive, person-free package.
If it's not going fast it becomes easily interceptible.

There has been discussion on arming UAVs but mostly for taking out stealthy targets. It becomes more of an assassination weapon than a weapon of war.

First, a neodiyum magnet will produce a huge amount of pressure on anything between it and a ferrous material. Anyone who's had their finger sandwiched between two hard drive magnets will tell you this. You can't duplicate this amount of pressurre by simply squeezing it.

Secondly, we have this wonderful little thing called a "timer". They've been using them for over a hundred years, I heard.
:)
That's all immaterial and didn't answer the question. If you're going to deploy them in mass (which is the only reason I can see for having the shape you describe and the multiple triggers) you'll need to scatter hundreds of them without setting off the pressure switch. If you're going to deploy them manually you only need a single trigger point...just train the deployers to point it up.

As for the timer switch, well that's possibly one of the more innefective ways of using mines. How do you know a target will be in range at the time of detonation?

Ryujin

2006-08-14, 08:47 AM

Yes, any weapon fires in a ballistic trajectory. However, a weapon relying on kinetic energy to do damage will only be successful with relatively flat trajectories. Given a steep trajectory it would be about as effective as a dud conventional round.

Why this assumption that the mass driver round has to rely on KE alone? The ability to strike a target at very long ranges is one of the reasons why the Navy was looking at mass drivers for their DD-X program.

Certainly, you could use a coil (or a rail) gun to fire a device on a standard ballistic course - but what would be the point? You're trading off the linear accelerator's sole advantage over conventional munitions - it's extremely high muzzle velocity - for a capacity to lob, which we already possess. You'd even have to use an explosive projectile, rather than relying on kinetic impact. Wasteful.

The point is range. Try doing that with conventional artillery of reasonable size, even with base-bleed & RAP shells. Or you could use a battlefield missile such as the SS-23 or TACMS, which would cost much more per round, and is much more interceptable to boot.

Don't underestimate LOS weapons. It makes a good offensive weapon against aircraft and possibly (probably not any time soon) near space satelites. It also has potential as an anti-missile defense.

Who said I was? Weren't you underestimating its use as anything other than an LOS weapon? I for one would like to see it in a tank gun role--the absence of propellant cuts down recoil by about 40% for a given amount of megajoules, among other things.

The Navy was looking at railgun technology for future destroyers in 2003. Their commentary on the different types of EM guns was interesting settling on railguns over coil guns and electrothermal guns. Their reasons were the higher muzzle velocity demonstrable by railguns and the relative immaturity of the other two technologies.

Looks like an evolution of the DARPA study as outlined in 1990. It was supposed to have been a step-by-step technological progression from electrothermal guns to railguns, then railguns to coilguns, and finally to an "advanced electromagnetic gun." Their findings suggested that, ultimately, coilguns would eventually have more potential for development than railguns.

As for the timer switch, well that's possibly one of the more innefective ways of using mines. How do you know a target will be in range at the time of detonation?

I think that what he means is a time delay before the detonator becomes 'live.'

lsfreak

2006-08-14, 03:33 PM

Most modern mines have timers, iirc. They arm themselves after deployment and usually self-destruct 24 or 48 hours later (well, at least they're *supposed* to).

Ryujin

2006-08-15, 12:21 AM

The big advantage of a UAV is that it DOES'NT go fast, and can putter around at low speed. If you don't know where your target is, you can simply fly about until you find it. It's also a great anti-personnel weapon; after all, you've got both reconnisance and bomber in one inexpensive, person-free package.

There is actually some justification for the use of a slow UAV for anti-tank purposes, given certain circumstances. Active protection systems for AFV's, such as the Russian ARENA, have their fire-control computers set to ignore slow-moving objects, such as rocks, birds, and the nearby CO-carrying jeep. Tanks utilizing such systems would be vulnerable to a slow-flying weapon, moreso because their crew would in most likelihood be buttoned up for fear of having their heads blown off by their own APS. While a better threat ID system would probably be developed, it'll be a while before it reaches the field, but that's all part & parcel of the innovation/counter-innovation game.

Still, it's a limited-use weapon for all that, and if the British manage to make a version of their anti-rpg electric armour system suitable for the field, then that's one more obstacle a shaped-charge weapon will have to overcome.

Dervag

2006-08-15, 07:41 AM

... and if the British manage to make a version of their anti-rpg electric armour system suitable for the field, then that's one more obstacle a shaped-charge weapon will have to overcome.How does that one work again?

Raum

2006-08-15, 06:57 PM

How does that one work again?
High currents can distort a shaped charge jet and make penetration of the armor more difficult. There's a PDF here (http://www.emlsymposium.org/13th_papers/docs/EML120G.pdf) with more information.

Edmund

2006-08-16, 09:53 PM

A quick question abot that strange bullet the Glaser Safety Slug.

What is it good at compared to other rounds? (AP, FMJ, and hollowpoint, for example)

Is it really worth the high price?

Zincorium

2006-08-16, 10:09 PM

A quick question abot that strange bullet the Glaser Safety Slug.

What is it good at compared to other rounds? (AP, FMJ, and hollowpoint, for example)

Is it really worth the high price?

It has horrible penetration and ungodly expansion, which is what it was designed for. It's going to do next to no percievable damage to enemies wearing body armor or who have cover.

Other than that, the wound channel is pretty nasty, it's basically a shotgun blast with a jacket around the pellets.

It's very useful in situations where a stray shot can do a lot of harm, like in an airplane or in a house with occupants you want to keep safe. In those circumstances, it's worth it's weight in freaking gold because, unlike a regular bullet, you can actually use them without fear.

Dervag

2006-08-17, 02:38 AM

Norsesmithy

2006-08-17, 02:53 AM

The fear that a Glasser Safety Slug allays is not the depressurization of the airplane, but rather over-penetration of a bad guy leading to the injury or death of a hostage.

The Glasser and other frangible are excellent in this regard, but unnecessary in most situations that you as a citizen responder would find yourself having to use deadly force.

A question: In a concealed carry situation, is the reduced killing power and loss of intimidation factor of a small gun like a .25 APC worth the gain in concealability?

Would you be better served with a larger more intimidating weapon when it comes to a self defence or defence of others situation?

Zincorium

2006-08-17, 02:54 AM

Bullet holes in the sides of large pressurized aircraft aren't nearly as dangerous as they're made out to be; a hole that size simply isn't going to have an appreciable effect on the plane's ability to maintain internal pressure.

Going by what I've been told by pilots (I'm in the aviation field, albeit as a technician) it's the fact that at higher altitudes, a small hole will be abruptly widened by the pressure difference trying to equalize. That will not be good if it takes you an hour or two to get a landing spot. Plus, you have the issue of a plane full of people panicking because you just put a hole in the airplane.

When all is said and done, far better to have a bullet which will simply put a dent in the fuselage than a hole. And it's rather hard to get even soft body armor past security, so it's unlikely for that to be a downside in the projected scenario.

Mike_G

2006-08-17, 12:12 PM

A question: In a concealed carry situation, is the reduced killing power and loss of intimidation factor of a small gun like a .25 APC worth the gain in concealability?

Would you be better served with a larger more intimidating weapon when it comes to a self defence or defence of others situation?

I don't think the .25 is a very good choice for defense, since, when attacked, you want to improve your odds of stopping your assailant as much as possible. Chances are when surprised, you won't be firing accurate, pistol range 2" groups that you can double tap with, but aiming center mass. A torso hit with a .25 may well keep coming at you.

As a concealed assassination weapon, the .25 is great, because you plan to shoot sombody in the head at close range and it's more important to get there undetected than have a hard hitting round.

Edmund

2006-08-17, 01:28 PM

Well, more to the point of my question, which I probably didn't make clear, is whether or not it's better at its job than similar high-expansion rounds like the various hollowpoint-style rounds (like the Hydra-shok), and if it is better, how much better, and is it worth the high price as a result?

Mike_G

2006-08-17, 03:50 PM

It has a bit less penetration that other expandidng type rounds, so it's worse against any armor, but better at not passing through the drywall of your apartment to inconvenience your neighbor.

It does a lot of damage to soft tissue, but penetrates even a body, especially a bony area, less well than a hydroshock.

So, it's different, and not a straight up better/worse round unless you have a very specific need to fill.

If not shooting anybody else do to through and through shot is the biggest issue, then it's better. If just dropping the guy is most important, it's not so much better.

Zincorium

2006-08-17, 04:07 PM

A question: In a concealed carry situation, is the reduced killing power and loss of intimidation factor of a small gun like a .25 APC worth the gain in concealability?

Would you be better served with a larger more intimidating weapon when it comes to a self defence or defence of others situation?

Double-barreled Derringer in .410, and they do make buckshot in that small of a shell.

A .25 is only going to discourage someone who wasn't all that interested in hurting you to begin with. A person who is mad enough can probably still close with you and attack or fire their own weapon for quite a while before they start feeling the effects.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-17, 05:29 PM

Thanks for the responses, that was what my gut was telling me, but I was unsure. People tend to look at me like I am crazy when they learn my carry pistol is a Colt Anaconda.

I was just looking for a little confirmation.

As for the .410 shot gun derringer, don't you need a 14 inch barrel to make a smooth bore legal?

Zincorium

2006-08-17, 06:46 PM

In the US? As far as I'm aware, since the .410 isn't above 50 caliber, it's still qualified as a handgun, and in any case you can use a .45 long colt in the same gun, which is still a workable defensive round.

A 16 gauge or above requires an 18 inch barrel to not be registered as a short barreled shotgun (if it has or had a stock) or an AOW (Any Other Weapon) if it never had a stock. An AOW is cheaper to transfer, 5$ vs. 200$.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-17, 07:22 PM

I don't think caliber matters, it is the smooth bore that is the issue, but I could be wrong. I have a friend that has a handgun in .410, but it has a rifled barrel, and he says that a smoothbore version (perhaps ideal for dove hunting) would be illeagal.

Zincorium

2006-08-17, 08:34 PM

Hm, well after reading over the ATF rules on the issue, I'd say that while it would be illegal to do so without filing the proper paperwork, said paperwork is available from the ATF, and you would need to contact them to get it.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/18usc_chap44.pdf

I know that it's a $200 fee to create a short barreled rifle, shotgun, or AOW, and then another 200 to transfer the SBR or SBS. This is a federal tax.

The .410 handgun with a smooth bore would fall under AOW, in that it is, quoted from USC 5845(e):

Any weapon capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell,
It goes on from there, but not relevant to the weapon mentioned.

And you probably wouldn't be allowed to use it for hunting, but that might depend on the laws involved.

If you think it's worth 200 bucks and a background check to carry one, and you can get the local sherrif or chief of police to sign off on you having one, it's not a bad choice.

Sorry for the long explanation, I was pretty much wrong before and I wanted to clear the issue up instead of muddying it further.

Darkie

2006-08-18, 03:02 AM

<Question about the safety slug>
As Mike said, the entire point of that round is pretty much so it won't go through drywall and accidentally kill your neighbour... that's it's selling point. Anything else, other rounds do better.

Going by what I've been told by pilots (I'm in the aviation field, albeit as a technician) it's the fact that at higher altitudes, a small hole will be abruptly widened by the pressure difference trying to equalize.. Not according to the Mythbusters...

Now, in their experiment firing holes in airplanes, the internal pressure of the airplane was severely increased, as opposed to having the external pressure severely decreased, but as the differences in pressure is about the same, I doubt that invalidates their conclusion. The bullets left bulletholes, with no visible 'widening' due to pressure differences.

When all is said and done, far better to have a bullet which will simply put a dent in the fuselage than a hole.Generally, dents mean ricochets, although not in the case of the round in question. Really though, it's an unnecessary expense. Air travel is expensive enough :P

lsfreak

2006-08-19, 01:43 AM

The problem with rounds overpenetrating in aircraft is possible damage to innocent passangers and the electronics.

About a .25... in my opinion, the bigger the better. Anything smaller than a 9mm, in my mind, has uses limited to target plinking, professional assassination, and in the event of a zombie apololypse (all of the above with .22LR, preferably silenced).
If you want concealability, get a small .357 magnum revolver. Personally, if I had a gun and the money for the (rather expensive) rounds, I'd carry a 10mm Auto loaded at or slightly above full-power (semiauto .41magnum anyone?). Adrenaline does funny stuff to the human body, and I'd rather plug one round that blows a nice big whole through the lungs than a bunch of little holes. And if you've ever heard a 9mm going off, they sound rather... pathetic. I mistook them for fireworks from a block away during a kidnapping attempt a year ago. If you want defense, a big part of that's intimidation, which means the size and the bang.

What I want to know is, is anyone else scared of the idiots who buy themselves a .50AE for self-defense?

Zincorium

2006-08-19, 05:06 AM

Agreed on the .22lr, and I'd personally add .40 and .45 to the list of reasonably defense calibers. The .40 is a good compromise round, you still have a large ammo capacity and recoil control, but the damage potential is better than a 9mm. The .45 is obvious but not always the best choice.

There is one situation in which I would worry about a .50 AE not being enough, and that's protecting yourself from grizzlies or polar bears. It'll do the job, but there aren't a whole lot of handgun rounds that will make you feel confident when something that large and dangerous is coming after you.

Sundog

2006-08-19, 02:10 PM

Actually, a friend of mine in the Ranger Service told me they don't consider anything smaller than a 12-gauge suitable for a Grizzly.

I certainly wouldn't use a .50AE gun. It would be more useles than a .22 - I might actually HIT with a .22.

Mike_G

2006-08-19, 02:34 PM

I certainly wouldn't use a .50AE gun. It would be more useles than a .22 - I might actually HIT with a .22.

Unless you plan to end your own misery with the .22, I don't see how it would help.

I wouldn't even consider a handgun to protect myself from grizzlies, unless the gun was made of meat and thrown into the bushes to distract the bear while I ran away.

Kevlimin_Soulaxe

2006-08-20, 12:53 AM

.500 S&W?

It was made for close range anti-bear combat.

Three times the muzzle velocity of Dirty Harry's "most powerful handgun in the world" goes a long way.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-21, 06:57 PM

Well like I said, my carry gun is a .44 mag, but the .500 S&W isn't that much more powerful, and the .50 AE is about equivilent.

Against Grizzes and polar bears, I would feel nekkid without some thing like a 7 shot .50-120 lever gun, or maybe a short barrel optical sight version of my Barret.

I wouldn't count on getting enough penetration with a 12 gauge.

Mike_G

2006-08-21, 09:13 PM

At close range a 12 gauge has quite a bit of penetration, and creates a huge and ugly wound.

Unless the Grizzly is wearing a vest, I think the penetration would be plenty.

Darkie

2006-08-21, 09:45 PM

Unless you plan to end your own misery with the .22, I don't see how it would help.
I've heard stories from ER personnel about a guy shooting himself four times in the head with a .22, to survive and get charged with firearms related offenses. So... not too useful there either
;D

Mike_G

2006-08-21, 11:13 PM

We paramedics make a lot of fun of the people whose lives suck so bad they can't even get suicide right.

Wehrkind

2006-08-22, 01:14 AM

I know periodically they kill kodiaks up in Alaska with bits of .45 and double aught buck lodged in their skulls with no apparent problems. I don't know how grizzlies stack up to kodiaks, but there you have it.

Zincorium

2006-08-22, 04:19 AM

Grizzly = particularly large variety of brown bear.
Kodiak = particularly large variety of grizzly.

Slightly different terminology for the various phenotypes. And you can screw up suicide even with a 12 gauge, all it means is you didn't figure out the most lethal way of pointing it at yourself before pulling the trigger.

Sundog

2006-08-22, 11:38 AM

Like the moron who missed with a 12-gauge in his mouth - no face left, most certainly still alive.

My Ranger friend says "solid slugs". I don't think a grizzly would survive that.

Zincorium

2006-08-22, 04:31 PM

Like the moron who missed with a 12-gauge in his mouth - no face left, most certainly still alive.

My Ranger friend says "solid slugs". I don't think a grizzly would survive that.

You're going to want some distance and time to aim if you want that to kill a grizzly. Magnum shells wouldn't hurt either. The thing about grizzlies is that they are covered by a very large amount of dense muscle tissue, and they have relatively small vulnerable areas. A slug into a grizzly's side might not kill it in time to keep it from ripping your head off, but a hit to the head would.

Or you could just acquire a KS-23 shotgun. I think a 4-gauge shell would do the trick. Heck, that might be the reason a civilian version of it exists.

Kevlimin_Soulaxe

2006-08-22, 10:53 PM

...but the .500 S&W isn't that much more powerful...

Three times the muzzle velocity. It's a fact.

Oh, and to all KS-23 (that piece of work deserves a thread all it's own) users, my condolences go to your shoulder and your butt. Your shoulder because it may or may not dislocate should you not hold it perfectly, and your butt, 'cause you'll be falling on it a few times.

Zincorium

2006-08-23, 04:48 AM

Norsesmithy

2006-08-23, 09:44 AM

Three times the muzzle velocity. It's a fact.

Oh, and to all KS-23 (that piece of work deserves a thread all it's own) users, my condolences go to your shoulder and your butt. Your shoulder because it may or may not dislocate should you not hold it perfectly, and your butt, 'cause you'll be falling on it a few times.

No, it doesn't, three times the cronograph verified muzzle velocity of my .44 mag would be 4200 fps, that would make the .500 S&W one of the fastest round, ever created, faster than the .50 BMG, which I have cronoed throught my Barret at 3100 fps

The .50 Bmg is stupid bigger than .500 S&W, there is no way there is enough powder in the .500 S&W to accomplish that ridiculus muzzle velocity.

The Shooting Times says .500 S&W reaches around 1650 FPS, which is only 250 fps faster than my .44 mag.

Muzzle energy is a bigger diference.
The hottest .500 S&W loads create around 175% of the muzzle energy of my .44 MAG loads.

On the subject of the KS-23, does anyone know its muzzle velocity? I can't imagine firing a 4 oz load of shot (or slug) at a good velocity, accurately.

lsfreak

2006-08-24, 01:45 AM

As I recall, 4-guages were mounted on boats for mass bird slaughter.

The only time you should ever have to defend yourself against a bear is when you surprise it and vice versa and so you'll be firing at something just a few hundred feet away from you, if that.
Were you to take one on, you'd want something with heavy penetration. It's hard to stop a charging bear because of the thick skull (thicker than most politician even!) and the situation of the brain within the skull. The muscle and gristle is such that you also need heavy penetration in order to get into vital organs. As such, for taking on a bear, I'd think some nice magnum rounds would be in order (.300WM or .338 lapua). Magnum handgun rounds might work, although I'm not sure... I'm not sure I'd trust anything short of a .44mag to stop a bear, and even that I'm not entirely sure of.

There's always large pepper spray aerosols which spray chili pepper oil out to a few dozen feet. Assuming adreneline kicks in, you should easily be able to get out of sight, considering how fast a person in fear can run :P

BTW, it's a common misconception of a bear's "intent" when mauling. When a person gets mauled, the bear is basically engaging in a half-assed catfight, it's just that humans are among some of the squishiest and most defenseless beings on earth. A similar display against another bear might result in minor scratches, not much more.

EDIT: The .500S&W does deliver about 3 times the muzzle energy of a .44mag, but certainly not the velocity.
Also, EDIT: got rid of something irrelivant, as I misread.

Norsesmithy

2006-08-24, 11:10 AM

The .500 S&W does not produce 3 times the anything of a .44 mag. If you take the hottest loads available for a .44 Mag and for a .500 S&W you will find that the .500S&W is about 50% more powerful, not 200%.

If you compare weak .44 MAG loads to the most powerful .500 S&W loads, only then do you find that the .500 S&W is three times as powerful, but it won't be a fair comparison.

The hottest loads available for a .44 mag have around 2200 ftlbs of muzzle energy, the hottest loads available for a .500S&W have around 3300 ftlbs of muzzle energy. NOT 6600.

Just how effective were RedEye shoulder fired SAMs?

Kevlimin_Soulaxe

2006-08-24, 08:24 PM

Okay, so maybe it wasn't a fact. But that's what I get for trusting an S&W ad.

KS-23 with no stock? That's absurd.

Goumindong

2006-08-25, 07:15 AM

Agree on the .500 S&W. It's pretty insane for a pistol round.

And as for the 4-gauge, I'd rather have a dislocated shoulder and bruises all over my backside than get mauled by an angry grizzly. Less painful. Oddly enough, there's a version of the KS-23 that has no stock, just a pistol grip. I'm unsure how it's supposed to be controlled, but at least your shoulder isn't going to bear the brunt of the impact.

You only get one shot in, just kinda... let go of the weapon as it flies past your head.

Gorbash Kazdar

2006-08-26, 12:30 AM

You only get one shot in, just kinda... let go of the weapon as it flies past your head.
See, I'd be concerned about it intersecting with my head as it flies by... After it, you know, shatters my wrist.

As for dealing with bears, I have the best solution - stay out of the frakking woods! ;) (I know, the bears don't neccessarily stay there...)

Someone asked about the FIM-43 'Redeye' missile. The FIM-92 'Stinger' is definitely a much better weapon, but mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan managed to down some SU-25s with it, plus a number of Mi-24s and Mi-8s, so it sounds like it did a decent enough job - certainly better than no man-portable air-defense missile (which means trying to hit the things with dumbfire rocket systems like the RPG-7, which the mujahideen actually managed to do).

Anyways, here's a question about older weapon systems for the first time in a while - does anyone know much about traditional Sikh weapons? I know the chakram is one, but I've heard tell of some other rather interesting examples as well.

Raum

2006-08-27, 11:57 AM

The main Sikh symbol, the Khanda (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/eastern/bldef_khanda.htm), incorporates three traditional weapons. It shows a vertical double edged sword with a broad blade (a Khanda) bracketed by two curved swords (Kirpans) laid over a quoit (chakker or chakram). The primary Sikh martial art (originally Shastar Vidiya now Gatka...there is some modern controversy surrounding the martial arts) relies heavily on teaching weapon usage. Primarily the sword.

In addition to the sword, Gatka teaches use of lathi (bamboo sticks from 1-3 meters long) and various flexible weapons (whips and chains). Shastar Vidiya is credited with also teaching quoits (chakram), barsha (spear), choori (large knife), and a few other weapons.

One of the primary swords is the Indian Tulwar. This site (http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/23728-popup.html) shows the typical construction of a Tulway with the Panjab (or Punjab depending on translation) names for various parts.

extraclassiclite

2006-08-28, 02:21 AM

How accurate is the RPG, and how effective is it in an anti-personnel role? (For all warhead types.)

Is there any substantial difference between the various RPG models other than the warheads available?

Were-Sandwich

2006-08-28, 08:10 AM

To anyone who's seen any of the Tremors movies: What do you think would be the most effective weapon against Graboids? My brother thinks an RPG, but I think a SPAZ-12. What do you weapons experts think?

Norsesmithy

2006-08-28, 12:24 PM

Though really cool looking, the SPAZ-12 is overweight and unreliable.

If I had to fight Graboids, I would want a helicopter, but barring that, I would think a AA(Atchinson Assault)-12 in 3.5 inch magnum, firing the new FRAG-12 line of munitions would be the hot ticket.

Although a RPG 7 would definately kill the graboid, it is too slow firing for those times where several go for you at once, and far to dangerous to the user at short range.

Sundog

2006-08-28, 03:32 PM

RPGs are fair-to-middling as anti-personnel weapons. They were originally designed as a an anti-armour weapon, but modern armour has tendency to sneer at them, even on light vehicles.
In many ways, they're exactly what they claim to be: a rocket propelled grenade. Dangerous to anyone in the blast radius, and lethal in an enclosed space.

Gorbash Kazdar

2006-08-28, 04:14 PM

RPGs are fair-to-middling as anti-personnel weapons. They were originally designed as a an anti-armour weapon, but modern armour has tendency to sneer at them, even on light vehicles.
Barring the HEAT rounds, of course, which require special kinds of armor to protect against. The M1 Abrams has such armor, but even some of the US's newest light armor vehicles - such as the Striker - lack integral anti-HEAT armor, though it can be added on to provide protection against at least the first few HEAT rounds fired at them. Of course, some of these armors can't stop all HEAT rounds, either - tandem-charge HEAT rounds, for example, were specifically designed to defeat reactive armor. Of course, very few such rounds are in the hands of the various groups US and allied armed forces are currently facing. Still, many armies still use older model vehicles vulnerable to the RPG.

Plus, back in the 80s Afgani mujahideen figured out how to hit helicopters with RPG rounds (one trick is that the rounds self-destruct automatically at a certain distance, which can produce an airburst effect if fired properly) and this technique has spread since then. Even the most modern helicopters lack the armor to survive an RPG hit to a rotor (as seen in Mogadishu).

It should be noted that RPG actually stands for Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomet (Handheld Anti-tank Grenade Launcher). It's just a rocket launcher using different terminology, and was designed from the start to be an anti-tank weapon. But anti-personal rounds do exist, and they are at least if not more effective than a grenade - fly farther and more accurately and have a bigger explosive charge. They're effective enough in this role that the Chechnyan militias reportedly switched their fire teams from three men with automatic rifles and one with an RPG launcher providing heavy fire support to one man with a rifle providing close range protection for three men with RPG launchers.

extraclassiclite

2006-08-28, 05:40 PM

Armor sneers at the RPG? Maybe the RPG-7. RPG-29 is being attributed kills against the Merkava in Lebanon.

Ryujin

2006-08-29, 03:54 AM

Armor sneers at the RPG? Maybe the RPG-7. RPG-29 is being attributed kills against the Merkava in Lebanon.

The casualties appeared to be Merkava Mk IIs, which are more than 20 years old and have a different armour fit than the latest Mk IV model. In close country and built-up terrain, it's not really surprising that the Hezb can sneak up and pot-shot a tank's flank or rear with a squad's worth of RPGs, especially when its crew's buttoned up and there's no helicopter overwatch or sufficient infantry support.

With regards to the RPG-7's accuracy, it's vulnerable to crosswinds, and can't really be trusted beyond 300 or so meters...but it's cheap and plentiful. ::)

Gorbash Kazdar

2006-08-29, 10:15 AM

With regards to the RPG-7's accuracy, it's vulnerable to crosswinds, and can't really be trusted beyond 300 or so meters...but it's cheap and plentiful. ::)
As Papa Joe once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

300 meters is enough to get the job done in an urban or particularly mountainous environment, and still better than a grenade - but certainly there are far more effective man-portable rocket and/or missile systems for killing armored vehicles. The problem with most of them is that they tend to be expensive and somewhat bulky.

As for the Merkava Mk IIs being over 20 years old, most such systems are upgraded over time - and the M1 Abrams is at least as old. The M1 is probably better protected between its Chobham-type armor and depleted uranium mesh on the front, but since the exact capabilities of the armor on both tanks are classified, I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence.

That guerillas took down a Merkava Mk II with RPGs may be less impressive than taking down a Mk III or Mk IV, but it's still no mean feat.

Sundog

2006-08-29, 12:34 PM

The RPG-29 is superior in every way to the RPG-7, but it still tends to bounce off any type of laminate armour. It's a question of energy density; you can only put so much power into so small a space before the resulting weapon becomes unmanageable. You can get better effects by using specialised rounds, like a HEAT charge, but then you've got cost problems.
I was in ex-Yugoslavia just after the war there, and I noticed the Russians we were working alongside all had standard models. The officer I asked about it said that the HEAT models were too expensive to deploy.

Oh, one point: While the M1 Abrams is a bit over 20 years old, the M1A2 and M1A3 models are of much more recent vintage. We don't use the M1 any more.

lsfreak

2006-08-31, 11:31 PM

I'll point out that RPG's with thermobaric warheads are particularly nasty to personnel in closed areas. It releases an aerosol of high explosive material (such as jet fuel) and then ignites it, which becomes very problomatic for those in enclosed areas, such as caves.

How effective is the 60mm mortar in the Merkava? Is it really used that often?

Ryujin

2006-09-01, 04:54 AM

How effective is the 60mm mortar in the Merkava? Is it really used that often?

Israeli tank crewmen apparently found them very useful whenever they had an excursion into Southern Lebanon in the last two decades. Asides from frequent anti-personnel missions, they often fired flares from it in order to blind enemy night-vision equipment.

Interesting how this was preceded in WWII by the German 'Nahverteidigungswaffe.'

lsfreak

2006-09-01, 06:05 PM

Interesting how this was preceded in WWII by the German 'Nahverteidigungswaffe.'

Wasn't the Uzi prettymuch made so that Israel had an alternative to the HK MP5, not wanting to buy weapons from a German company? Personally, I'd rather have the MP5, but whatever :P

Norsesmithy

2006-09-01, 11:43 PM

No, the Uzi was developed long before the MP5, before we even let Germany start to manufacture weapons again.

They had to make their own, because at that point we (being the US) had an arms embargo against Israel, and since Britain stopped production of the Sten gun, the only place to go for reliable sub machine guns was America or the USSR, and the USSR had thrown its lot in with Isreal's enemies.

Aereshaa_the_2nd

2006-09-03, 01:02 AM

Fhaolan

2006-09-03, 01:26 AM

In a campaign I am running, I have a nation whose elite soldiers wear extremely heavy armour, and wield equally heavy lead maces, also striking with their fists, in lead gauntlets. what would be the damage, critical, etc. be for such maces, guantlets?

Also, the opposing nation is a barbaric folk, who use long-bows from atop horses, using flaming arrows. What would be different for flaming arrows?

If the maces/gauntlets are the same weight as normal steel maces/gauntlets, they'd use the same statistics. If the mace is that much heavier than normal, it would move up a category. i.e. if you add more weight to a light mace, it becomes a heavy mace, etc.

There are two types of flaming arrows I have run into. One, the classic flaming arrow, is some flammable material wrapped around the arrow near the base of the arrowhead. This works similarly to normal arrows with a reduced range, and the flame will only catch on flamable material such as sails, thatch roofs, etc.

The other type is a bulb arrow, the builb replacing the normal arrowhead and filled with something similar to greek fire. This lights *everything* but has a really sucky range because the liquid filled bulb is considerably heavier than a normal arrowhead.

Wehrkind

2006-09-03, 11:01 AM

Flaming arrows also don't fly straight. You will want to impose a to hit penalty, but perhaps tack a small bit of fire damage to make up for it, say 1 point. Historically flaming arrows were mainly fired en masse into towns and ships for lighting thatch or sails, or fired at troops to scare the piss out of them. The attachment of a burning wad of pitch and cloth screws up the accuracy enough that hitting a particular target smaller than a mass of men or a building isn't likely.

Now, if your barbarians worship the Princes of the Elemental Plane of Fire, and thus have their arrows enchanted to do bonus fire damage that way, it would be worth it, but firing from the back of a horse is hard enough without firing flaming arrows. Also, keep in mind that long bows are VERY difficult to fire period, much less from a horse. The eastern people who really mastered horse archery tended to use short composite bows. They also didn't shoot fire arrows because keeping a source of fire lit on horse back is very difficult. So really the whole idea of barbarians shooting flaming arrows from long bows on horse back isn't going to make much sense.

Raum

2006-09-03, 01:17 PM

Lead is too soft a metal to be used as the primary material of a melee weapon or armor. Varous types of saps are about the weapon I can think of that may use significant amounts of lead. A typical sap would be a leather sock filled with sead shot. Less typical, but viable, include leather gloves with lead sewn into pockets above the knuckles.

Making a piece of metal meant to hold it's shape out of lead is an excercise in pointlessness. Articulated metal guantlets of lead would probably be useless after hitting someone once.

Deadmeat.GW

2006-09-03, 01:55 PM

Belkarseviltwin

2006-09-03, 03:19 PM

If they have lead in their weapons or armour they will be quite rapidly in trouble.

However weapons and armour as said with insets with lead might be plausible.
Think Shillelagh for example.

Now I am not sure but for weight ratio perhaps brass might be better?
Anyone got a metal density/weight chart anywhere nearby?

I have not been working with metal castings in years so I am pretty rusty on it.
I think brass or copper are heavier then the same quantity of iron or steel but I am not sure.
Also, either are not as tough as steel and copper is fairly malleable so as a weapon or armour it has limited uses when facing better weapons with higher tensile strength.

Perhaps some copper embossements and embellishments might do the trick in making heavy, heavy armour without reducing the actually defensive capabilities to a laughable level.

Densities (g/cm3)
Lead = 11.34
Copper =8.92
Tungsten = 19.35
Brass is lighter than copper
So if these guys can actually work it, tungsten would be ideal- a piece of it 4 inches by 4 inches by 4 inches weighs about 40 pounds. It's also very hard, so it wouldn't bend like lead. Platinum would be almost as heavy, but very expensive, and much softer. However, if tungsten had to be worked by magic...

Gorbash Kazdar

2006-09-03, 11:08 PM

In a campaign I am running, I have a nation whose elite soldiers wear extremely heavy armour, and wield equally heavy lead maces, also striking with their fists, in lead gauntlets. what would be the damage, critical, etc. be for such maces, guantlets?
Comrade Gorby: Please keep in mind that this thread is for answering questions about real-world weapons in real-world terms, and this does not include game stats.

From the first post:

This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

That being said, the discussion about how heavier-than-normal weapons might function in real life and which materials would be suitable for such items is perfectly fine.

Norsesmithy

2006-09-04, 03:11 PM

So if these guys can actually work it, tungsten would be ideal- a piece of it 4 inches by 4 inches by 4 inches weighs about 40 pounds. It's also very hard, so it wouldn't bend like lead. Platinum would be almost as heavy, but very expensive, and much softer. However, if tungsten had to be worked by magic...
Having worked with tungsten and tungsten carbide, I think that they would be better served by a double thick steel suit for their "extra heavy" armour, as tungsten and tungsten carbide are to brittle in my opinion to make better armour than steel in a weight for weight basis.

Belkarseviltwin

2006-09-04, 03:13 PM

Having worked with tungsten and tungsten carbide, I think that they would be better served by a double thick steel suit for their "extra heavy" armour, as tungsten and tungsten carbide are to brittle in my opinion to make better armour than steel in a weight for weight basis.

I was thinking more of tungsten-weighted gauntlets (with a steel coating around it).

Stephen_E

2006-09-05, 02:00 AM

I vaguely recall hearing of some quite hard Paltinium alloys.

Depleted uranium is nice and heavy, and I don't think it's particuly soft. Of course it does have one small downside for anyone wearing or weilding it. :P

Stephen

Norsesmithy

2006-09-05, 12:16 PM

A DU steel alloy would be quite nice for armour, at least when it comes to being impervious to assault, but it would burn terribly if given the chance, the stuff reacts to fire like magnesium does.

Also it would be way fricken heavy.

Does anyone know anything about that new Taurus P1911? Is it worth $650?

Dervag

2006-09-05, 02:26 PM

Stephen_E

2006-09-05, 08:39 PM

Depleted uranium isn't a radiation hazard (it's actually used in some applications to absorb radiation). But, as Norsesmithy notes, it's extremely flammable. I believe the technical term is 'pyrophoric'.

Actually, that would make it interesting from a gaming standpoint... nigh-unbreakable armor that happens to be dangerously vulnerable to fire.

Actually I was thinking that TTBOMK it is poisonous in very minute quantities. Hard as it is, I wouldn't want to bet on combat wear and tear in DU Armour/Weapons not creating enough detrius capable of getting swallowed, breathed or in wounds, to have unpleasant long term health effects.

Then again leathal combat isn't the healthiest of activities. :-/

Stephen

Dervag

2006-09-05, 11:00 PM

Is it really seriously more dangerous than lead (which people have been living and working with for millenia)?

Belkarseviltwin

2006-09-06, 01:28 PM

Is it really seriously more dangerous than lead (which people have been living and working with for millenia)?
Yes. Much. Lead itself is not poisonous, it's only the lead salts, which only really form when in contact with water, as lead is unreactive. Uranium, on the other hand, spontaneously combusts into a toxic form- not to mention the low-level radiation.

Norsesmithy

2006-09-06, 01:40 PM

The low level radiation isn't really worth mentioning though, it is like living in Austraila compared to the US.

Toxicity wise, it is very similar to lead, but it burns, making it an airborn hazard, and is much easier to accidentally be exposed. With lead, you practically have to eat the stuff.

It was thought that DU caused Gulf-War Syndrome, but lots of people who got that never were sent over, and in fact had no contact with DU, so it was probably caused by something in a batch of vacines.

Rumor has it that it may have been caused by an agent introduced at vacine production, by a Chinese operative, but that would be classified so deep it will never see the light of day, and so this is just rampant speculation, and probably has no basis in fact. ;)

Anyone know anything on WP (White Phosphorus) rounds for infantry weaapons?

Zincorium

2006-09-06, 07:48 PM

Anyone know anything on WP (White Phosphorus) rounds for infantry weaapons?

It seems like they'd only be slightly effective against enemy personnel, based on the idea that they'd have a very small amount of WP or the ballistics would go all to hell. Not to mention it'd be nowhere near politically correct to use them. I'd also worry a lot about armor penetration, since white phosphorus isn't as hard as lead, let alone copper.

One situation I can see them being useful would be against buildings or ahead of enemy movements when fired from a LMG. Lots of little fires, easily distributable and very hot. It'd be fricking crazy for troops to move through an area that was just lit up like that. There is also the psychological element getting thrown in there, little puffs of dirt getting thrown up or pieces knocked off of buildings are less threatening than lines of white hot fire approaching your position.

Norsesmithy

2006-09-06, 07:51 PM

I meant like granades and grenade lanchers and such, but your idea kicks ass.

Dervag

2006-09-06, 09:39 PM

I know that a number of armies have used white phosphorus in mortars- the US Army used them for 'illumination and smoke' in the 107mm mortar during World War Two. So I don't see why a medium to large grenade launcher couldn't carry a small-but-worthwhile charge of the stuff. I'm not sure it'd be better than other incendiaries for the purpose, though.

Mike_G

2006-09-06, 10:30 PM

Sundog

2006-09-07, 08:01 PM

There is a WP round for the standard M203 grenade launcher. It's basically a smoke round. Works just fine for that. It will also catch dry brush on fire, so that's a concern.

Put in among troops, it won't kill anybody, but can cause a lot of burn casualties.

I know a guy who dropped one in an enemy fighting hole and then he and his squad picked them off as they ran out, screaming and patting themselves down.

I'm sure it's not an approved use of the round, but he came home and the enemy didn't, so, for what it's worth, it'll flush people out of cover.

That's a definitely non-approved use. The US military classifies WP grenades (either launched or hand) and WP arty shells as either "anti-material" or "smoke causing". Neither is technically supposed to be used against personnel.
OTOH, I've never heard of anyone even being reprimanded for actually doing so...

Mike_G

2006-09-07, 09:18 PM

That's a definitely non-approved use. The US military classifies WP grenades (either launched or hand) and WP arty shells as either "anti-material" or "smoke causing". Neither is technically supposed to be used against personnel.
OTOH, I've never heard of anyone even being reprimanded for actually doing so...

It's no different than shooting infantry with the .50. We aren't supposed to, all the manuals state how it is to be used against materiel, but no commander is going to complain about you killing the enemy.

They won't ever say that, but I'm sure they'll be much happier with a squad of live Marines and a bunch of dead enemy at the end of the day than a law-abiding, rules following squad with two thirds casualties while the enemy got away clean.

So, take if from an old grunt, nod politely when you are issued your "smoke" rounds, but know that they can be used to drive an enemy sniper out of his hole so you can waste him.

Beleriphon

2006-09-08, 12:16 AM

Lead is too soft a metal to be used as the primary material of a melee weapon or armor. Varous types of saps are about the weapon I can think of that may use significant amounts of lead. A typical sap would be a leather sock filled with sead shot. Less typical, but viable, include leather gloves with lead sewn into pockets above the knuckles.

Instead of lead you would want to use sand. A buddy of mine has a pair that he got in Saudi Arabia. They have just enough of the stuff to almost completely fill the pockets. Sand if fun stuff since under extreme pressure is absorbs and disappates the force, but also becomes very dense. So imagine hitting somebody with brass knuckles, but you can't feel the impact on your hand.

Zincorium

2006-09-08, 06:25 PM

Instead of lead you would want to use sand. A buddy of mine has a pair that he got in Saudi Arabia. They have just enough of the stuff to almost completely fill the pockets. Sand if fun stuff since under extreme pressure is absorbs and disappates the force, but also becomes very dense. So imagine hitting somebody with brass knuckles, but you can't feel the impact on your hand.

If the sand actually absorbs enough of the impact so that you don't feel it, it's not going to be as effective for wearing an opponent down as the lead shot, since the other person can apparently block it with a forearm and not feel an impact either. Cushioning works both ways.

It would still be effective at delivering blows to the jaw, nose, solar plexus and any other areas where the motion inward is more effective than the actual pain of impact. And it would still be able to break bones. It just seems that having the effectiveness of brass knuckles along with padding isn't going to be accomplished by a single layer of material, correct me if it is otherwise and you have some non-anecdotal evidence on your side.

lsfreak

2006-09-08, 07:58 PM

They won't ever say that, but I'm sure they'll be much happier with a squad of live Marines and a bunch of dead enemy at the end of the day than a law-abiding, rules following squad with two thirds casualties while the enemy got away clean..

I wish they'd do that with this (http://armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2005_side1). :/

AMX

2006-09-09, 07:31 AM

I wish they'd do that with this (http://armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2005_side1). :/

Ah - LeMas.
Maybe this link will be enlightening...
Tactical Forums (http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=78&t=001189)

Deadmeat.GW

2006-09-09, 10:24 AM

I fired some of those and I fired some SS90 ammo in a comparisson test.

The Lemas is a piece of <censured>.

It does not do what it is supposed to do under proper testing with all the stuff to make accurate readings.

If labeled properly it does what you expect of it but then when you are buying something to do a specific thing you want it to do that.

lsfreak

2006-09-09, 08:28 PM

Hehe, yea, that explains a bit... havent' really read anything about it for a year or more. Thanks :P

Sundog

2006-09-09, 08:31 PM

The link AMX gives shows clearly that the LeMas bullets are illegal for military use. And the Full Metal Jacket/No Fragmentation rule is one the US military certainly DOES enforce.

Mike_G

2006-09-09, 10:27 PM

Yeah, because you can't actually buy the illegal rounds and have any deniability.

You can buy anti-materiel weapons, and deploy them as such, and if a bad guy stops one, hey, fotunes of war.

Like nobody is going to cry if an anti tank round hits an enemy rifleman by accident. That's just a bit ineffficient, not really a war crime. Buying and deploying a weapon that we expressly agreed not to in a treaty is a bit tougher to justify.

Deadmeat.GW

2006-09-10, 06:25 AM

I fired some of those at a target at 60 meters and I was less then impressed with it.

There was even some fragmentation BEFORE we got to the target and that at 60 meters.

Not exactly a huge distance for rifle bullets.

When a bullet that is slated as a cross between an smg and a rifle bullet beats it on all aspects at that distance...

We had a single Kevlar vest with inserts attached to a block of 50 by 50 cm balistic gel and we had some fragments of the LeMas go through the top of the block...i.e. actually missing the vest.

The quality was so scattered it was scary, 250 rounds and 15 rounds had premature fragmentation.
That is abysmal.

When they do work and stay together the overcharged bullet does its job quite well but when you are expecting this and it does not happen every shot (and going of their claims about the consistancy) that is not that great.

We were looking forward to trying it even since we had heard some good reviews :(.
Shows you can't allways trust people to say the truth.

MaN

2006-09-10, 09:08 PM

Lead is too soft a metal to be used as the primary material of a melee weapon or armor. Varous types of saps are about the weapon I can think of that may use significant amounts of lead.
I've been using a lead-headed five pound hammer for around seven years now. I work as a machine operator and use it to set raw stock and grey iron castings into fixtures or chucks. The largest/heaviest part is a hydraulic pump housing that weighs in at 160 lbs which usually lifts on one side when I close the chuck jaws on it. After hammering these monsters down for two years I finally had to have the hammer head recast as it had peened over into an almost spherical shape.
Lead is quite a bit harder than marshmallow. It would take a lot more than a few medieval era battles to ruin a blunt instrument made of it.
I can see lead (or any other cheap, soft metal) as being a very good choice for mace or hammer heads on a real-world battlefield. The handles of real maces and hammers were usually made of reinforced wood anyway. They would be effective, cheap, and easy to recycle when damaged

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-10, 11:05 PM

Lead is far too heavy for the job. A proper medieval warhammer or mace is not a heavy weapon. Hell, most who have picked up one in a museum are often surprised at how light one can be.

Raum

2006-09-10, 11:33 PM

I can see lead (or any other cheap, soft metal) as being a very good choice for mace or hammer heads on a real-world battlefield. The handles of real maces and hammers were usually made of reinforced wood anyway. They would be effective, cheap, and easy to recycle when damaged
How effective they'd be will be dependent on the era they were used in. Against steel armor, particularly plate, they'd be relatively useless. You will note, I hope, that bronze weapons were a bit outdated by the time steel armor was common. And bronze is harder than lead.

As for weapon handles being made of reinforced wood, certainly they were! But they weren't expected to withstand repeated direct impact from steel weapons. And they weren't reinforced with lead either.

If you want to convince me that lead can be the primary material of a melee weapon you'll need to cite some historical references. Not references to wooden handles with some vague reinforcement.

Fhaolan

2006-09-11, 12:03 AM

Okay, some facts to throw into the mix here about lead.

1) Lead was one of the first metals ever extracted by man, as it is one of the easiest metals to refine.
2) However, Lead is rare, relative to iron. It's far more common than gold, but it is still difficult to accumulate large amounts of it, when compared to iron.

While lead hammers and the like would seem obvious, most warhammers had spikes, or crenelated polls, or something similar, which would deteriorate significantly if made of lead.

What *would* have been done, if it was worth it, is doctored maces and hammers. Much the same as doctored bats back when wooden baseball bats were common, you drill a hole in the wooden handle and fill it with lead to increase the weapon's weight.

Mind you, maces and warhammers weren't that heavy because they had to be moved fast. You had to be able to whip then around and change targets really quickly with them, because they were so very short compared to other contemporary weapons. The closer you have to get to your target to land a blow, the faster you want to move. Speed, as well as weight, becomes very important.

When heavy armor was used, the mace/hammer was not really to blow right through the armor, although it did happen on occasion, but to bend the articulations around the knees and elbows, leaving your opponent effectively immobile. Afterall, in that era, anyone wearing that much armor was much more valuable as a hostage than dead.

Wehrkind

2006-09-11, 07:54 AM

To further demonstrate this point, well made by Fhaolan, pick up a 5 pound sledge hammer and try swinging it one handed. Even if you are pretty big, it is very difficult to move it quickly, as well as being very difficult to put in any particular place. Do that for ten minutes, and you would be completely spent.

The main striking force for hammers and maces comes from where the weight is more than how much there is. Swords tend to be balanced down by the handle, while maces and hammers are balanced towards the tip. Makes them slower and more clumsy, but hit harder (all relatively speaking of course.) They don't necesarily weigh more.

Edmund

2006-09-11, 08:52 AM

Mind you, maces and warhammers weren't that heavy because they had to be moved fast. You had to be able to whip then around and change targets really quickly with them, because they were so very short compared to other contemporary weapons. The closer you have to get to your target to land a blow, the faster you want to move. Speed, as well as weight, becomes very important.

This is true, but there are exceptions.

Islamic maces tended to have very long handles, as did Byzantine and Rus'. This is for the simple reason that the weapons were often used on horseback, especially in the case of the Byzantines (Klibanophoroi and Kataphraktoi). It was also sometimes the case that the heads were hollow, and so the weapon was still rather light, but because of the concentration of mass, it was still quite good for cracking skulls (though a solid-headed mace would be highly preferred for breaking helmets and other armor, due to the hardness of bronze vs. tempered steel).

When heavy armor was used, the mace/hammer was not really to blow right through the armor, although it did happen on occasion, but to bend the articulations around the knees and elbows, leaving your opponent effectively immobile. Afterall, in that era, anyone wearing that much armor was much more valuable as a hostage than dead.

Well... This is true and not true. This is the absolute truth for the Italian city-states during the mid-late 15th century, where the armies were composed entirely of mercenaries, and where your enemy one day was an ally the next. In these circumstances, casualties between armies would be minimal.

However, when you get circumstances like Towton, you want to break bones (often of the cranial kind), or pierce the skull with the spike end.

Take, for example, Fiore's section on fighting in armour with the pollaxe (or pollhammer) (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/getty/pollaxe.html)

The plays tend to end in an attack to the head, whether a thrust with the top spike or a swing with the hammer or spike.

This is, however, under the assumed circumstance of an armoured duel, which has a few obvious differences from battle.

However, these pollaxe plays do show that when you do want to kill your plate armoured opponent with an impact weapon (hammer, axe, or mace) you should go for the head or, as the Posta Breve Serpentina suggests, thrust into the chest.

MaN

2006-09-11, 09:03 AM

How effective they'd be will be dependent on the era they were used in.This is true of all weapons.

As for weapon handles being made of reinforced wood, certainly they were! But they weren't expected to withstand repeated direct impact from steel weapons.I would expect a shield to withstand repeated direct impact from steel weapons. I would expect a mace to be able to withstand repeatedly impacting against whatever armor the wielder's opponent was wearing.

If you want to convince me that lead can be the primary material of a melee weapon you'll need to cite some historical references. Not references to wooden handles with some vague reinforcement.I would cite historical references if I was trying to convince you that lead-headed maces were actually used as medieval weapons, however, that was not my intent.

To further demonstrate this point, well made by Fhaolan, pick up a 5 pound sledge hammer and try swinging it one handed. Even if you are pretty big, it is very difficult to move it quickly, as well as being very difficult to put in any particular place. Do that for ten minutes, and you would be completely spent.I didn't mean to imply that I was recommending 5 lbs be the weight of the mace. Believe me, I know how tiring swinging a 5 lb hammer is! I was just describing my real-life experience in as much detail as I could.

Wehrkind

2006-09-11, 09:49 AM

I didn't mean to imply that I was recommending 5 lbs be the weight of the mace. Believe me, I know how tiring swinging a 5 lb hammer is! I was just describing my real-life experience in as much detail as I could.

Sorry, I was not as clear as I should have been. What I meant was that an extra heavy weapon is not really desirable, so there is little reason to use lead over iron, being as lead is less durable and less common. If you wanted a mace with a relatively compact head, it might be good to use lead, but in general iron or even stout wood with iron bands work better if you just want a heavy club with no flanges or barbes (which are impossible with lead).

Fhaolan

2006-09-11, 11:41 AM

pollaxe (or pollhammer) (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/getty/pollaxe.html)

Pollhammer? Interesting, I've never heard that term before. It's like saying 'hammer hammer'. Not saying that it isn't a proper term, it just reads funny to me. :)

Belkarseviltwin

2006-09-11, 04:33 PM

Dervag

2006-09-11, 04:42 PM

Physics Interlude:
It's not just the endurance of the wielder or the need for rapid direction changes that means that war hammers were light. It's also this little formula:
E=1/2mv^2
In other words, the kinetic energy of the hammer (what hurts your opponent) is proportional to its mass, but proportional to the SQUARE of its velocity. So a hammer swung twice as fast hits four times as hard, but one which is twice as heavy only hits twice as hard. Thus, fast, light hammers hit harder.To add to the physics note:

The force that your arm can provide to a given object in a hurry is roughly fixed. That force will be proportionate to the acceleration of the mace.
Because of this, a lighter weapon will get more acceleration in the same time. For instance, suppose you have one half second to accelerate the mace-head from rest into your opponent's helmet, swinging as fast and hard as you possibly can. If the mace weighs, say, six pounds, you will get a certain amount of acceleration in that time. That translates into a certain speed at impact. If the mace weighs only three pounds, you will be able to apply more acceleration and get the mace going faster in the same length of time- or in the same length of stroke. Thus, the mace will be going significantly faster at impact.

If you're so strong that a six-pound mace is little harder to use than a three-pounder, then it won't make much of a difference. But for those of us who aren't Mr. Universe, it makes a big difference.

Edmund

2006-09-11, 04:45 PM

There is evidence for *some* lead weapons, or at least lead-cored ones. And I'm not just talking about sling bullets.

Take a look at the first page (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1132964821 ) of GaWoAQ Mk. II

And Belkarseviltwin, you forget the fact that to some significant degree, the power of the warhammer is also determined by the fact that it, and all swung weapons, are some kind of weird lever, so weight has a significant effect on the force generated by the head. Of course, this swings both ways, and as such it also has a significant effect on the force required to wield it, even by small increases of weight.

Overall, weapon dynamics are a huge complexity of equations all over the place, especially with the Human factor.

Edit: Editted for grammar.

Raum

2006-09-11, 06:56 PM

I would expect a shield to withstand repeated direct impact from steel weapons. I would expect a mace to be able to withstand repeatedly impacting against whatever armor the wielder's opponent was wearing.I think we had a discussion on shields in one of these threads previously, I'll try and find it again. Briefly, shield durability depends on it's construction, use, and the weapon it opposed. Shields lasted anywhere from a few blows to several combats before needing major repair.

A mace head should certainly with stand repeated hard impacts of all types. However you originally referred to mace handles which are reinforced to withstand indirect blows and allow parrying. Reinforced or not, wooden handles weren't meant to take direct blows from an edged weapon...though a well built handle would probably take a couple such blows and remain usable.

I would cite historical references if I was trying to convince you that lead-headed maces were actually used as medieval weapons, however, that was not my intent.Possibly I misunderstood your intent then. I'm simply pointing out that using a lead melee weapon is impracticable against armored foes and an inferior choice even against unarmored foes. With the exception of saps, which aren't expected (or desired) to hold a rigid shape, I can't think of any examples of lead melee weapons.

I didn't mean to imply that I was recommending 5 lbs be the weight of the mace. Believe me, I know how tiring swinging a 5 lb hammer is! I was just describing my real-life experience in as much detail as I could.The lead headed hammer you mention is made specifically to prevent marring the machinery it's used on. Not exactly the intent of a weapon.

Dhavaer

2006-09-12, 05:27 AM

Zincorium

2006-09-12, 06:29 AM

Not exactly weapons or armour, but: in the spell description of Electromagnetic Pulse there is a reference to a process called Tempest Hardening, that supposedly grants electrical devices immunity to EMPs. Is there actually such a device, or is it fictional?

I have no idea whether such a thing exists, but I work on EMF-generating gear for a living, and it's pretty much the same effect as a pulse. EMPs function by creating voltage in all of the electron paths present in a given device, of random direction and unfortunately of quite a few amps.

Simply put, an EMP is a radio signal so strong that everything acts as an antenna, and gets smoked. A well built device, with isolated sections and lots of ground points, might still be usable when exposed to an indirect pulse, but only if it was turned off. If the circuits were energized then you're out of luck.

There is no magic process to protect from EMPs that I'm aware of, just overly cautious engineering like that found in the pentagon or other 'hardened' installations that have a reason to worry about getting hit by an EMP or the similiar pulse created by a nuclear weapon going off.

AMX

2006-09-12, 06:37 AM

Raum

2006-09-12, 09:19 AM

I worked in a TEMPEST room for a few years while in the military. It's essentially a grounded cube with copper on every wall. Ventilation, power entry, and the door all have specific set ups as well. A good room will provide 80+ dB in shielding.

The room I worked in was set up so we could test aircraft telemetry systems without interfering with aircraft operations. However, as AMX pointed out, it can also be used to prevent accidental radiation of potentially sensitive data.

Similar setups can be done on a smaller scale to protect specific pieces of equipment as long as you're willing to pay the cost...not just dollars either, there's a significant weight and size addition.

As for protecting against EMP, it would probably help. But a powerful targeted pulse might have enough power to fry electronics even through the shielding.