PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

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

The original thread (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1119641664 ) was started by Eric the Mad, and included contributions from many posters for both questions and answers. Once that thread hit critical mass, Version II (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1132964821 ) began, followed by Version III (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1140621716 ;start=0). This thread is Version IV.

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

With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!

jdarksun
2006-06-02, 04:30 PM
How does a person use a chain-based weapon effectively? From a street brawler with a length of chain from Home Depot to a "ninja" using a "kusara kama" / "shogei" (in quotes because I don't think real ninja ever used weapons like that)?

Sometimes in movies you see people thrasing about with various weapons on a length of chain (like the japanese schoolgirl wielded (http://yaya.design.ru/pics/yaya_killbill.jpg) at the end of the battle with the Crazy 88s from Kill Bill Vol. 1); is there real-world basis of this, or is it totally fiction?

Do you have to keep it spinning? Is a large amount of area required to use it effectively? How would being hit with a thing effect the human body (no need to be graphic, but would it tend to be blunt force trauma or what)?

Beleriphon
2006-06-02, 08:26 PM
I can answer the Home Depot aspect. The best way to use a length of chain is wrap it around your fist and forearm to provide weighted blows. You could use it to swing at somebody, but its not very effective given that it isn't designed or weighted to do so.

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

ScritchyPants
2006-06-02, 09:31 PM
I can answer the Home Depot aspect. The best way to use a length of chain is wrap it around your fist and forearm to provide weighted blows. You could use it to swing at somebody, but its not very effective given that it isn't designed or weighted to do so.

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

Heavy guage chains can be used as a flail.

The advantage is that it's hard to block a chain weapon. Things like a cahin type morning star or flail will wrap over the top of a sheild and have a good chance of hitting and hurting anyway.

Also, a chain gives you reach -- you can strike farther away, and even draw it in closer for some designs.

The injury is usually blunt force trauma, but a weighted end with spikes or flanges can cause penetration injuries as well.

Renloth
2006-06-02, 10:34 PM
I would agree that it would be hard to block a chain.

I think its main advantages are fluidity and reach. A chain can be spun to increase momentum and blocking a section of the chain does not block as effectivly as it would a solid weapon, allowing a continued strike using the block as a pivot point.

Other than that, one could wrap their arm in chain to both block incoming blows more effectivly than their arm alone, and for more foce in a strike.

Darkie
2006-06-03, 03:26 AM
The key about the "kusara kama" is that there's a handle...

From the forms of some of my seniors, it looks like you use it both ways. Not too sure though, as I only trained with kamas, and always thought twirling them around me wouldn't be great to start training with :P

Ryujin
2006-06-03, 04:17 AM
Heavy guage chains can be used as a flail.

The advantage is that it's hard to block a chain weapon. Things like a cahin type morning star or flail will wrap over the top of a sheild and have a good chance of hitting and hurting anyway.

Also, a chain gives you reach -- you can strike farther away, and even draw it in closer for some designs.


Adding to that, the shock of impact doesn't end up being absorbed by your arm.

Wehrkind
2006-06-04, 03:09 AM
It doesn't apply to D20 so much (or DOES IT?) but does anyone have a link to historic pictures or pictures of actual weapons that were fitted with a pommel spike? I am thinking two handed swords in particular. I know I have seen them before, but a friend of mine has my Talhoffer manual so I can't check that, and I can't think of any easy to find citations.

Thanks!

Kishkumen
2006-06-04, 07:40 AM
How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

draconic_swine
2006-06-04, 08:35 AM
How does a person use a chain-based weapon effectively? From a street brawler with a length of chain from Home Depot to a "ninja" using a "kusara kama" / "shogei" (in quotes because I don't think real ninja ever used weapons like that)?

Sometimes in movies you see people thrasing about with various weapons on a length of chain (like the japanese schoolgirl wielded (http://yaya.design.ru/pics/yaya_killbill.jpg) at the end of the battle with the Crazy 88s from Kill Bill Vol. 1); is there real-world basis of this, or is it totally fiction?

Do you have to keep it spinning? Is a large amount of area required to use it effectively? How would being hit with a thing effect the human body (no need to be graphic, but would it tend to be blunt force trauma or what)?

I think I can answer ththis. As far as I know, the kama was never swung about on the end of a chain, nor was it a "reach" weapon in the D&D sense. This is mainly due to the fact that the chain was attack to the haft just below the blade, not at the butt-end. You held the kama in one hand, attacking normally, and the chain in the other hand, using it to parry, disarm, or what have you.


How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

This won't be a big help, as I've never used a sling before and can't really give you any hands-on pointers, but I do know that the "swinging the sling around in a circle to build momentum before releasing" is a myth. Real slingers just whip it forward, as trying to hit anything after you've been swinging it around is, as you have discovered, all but impossible.

Sundog
2006-06-04, 11:27 AM
I don't know about methodology, but I do know that the sling was the most respected hand-held projectile weapon of the ancient world - primarily due to it's accuracy.

silentvengeance
2006-06-04, 12:28 PM
Most uses for a chain have been given, but the last one is useing it to disarm, for example wrapping the opponents weapon in the chain and yanking to disarmed, workes well with edged weapons because you wont get cut, you can also use a weighted chain to trip ect.
Peace
Silentvengeance

Scorpina
2006-06-04, 03:22 PM
The weapons table would have us believe that swords are more effective, overall, than any other kind of weapon.

True? False?

Maclav
2006-06-04, 06:06 PM
How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?

http://www.slinging.org/

and

http://www.slinging.org/21.html

Second link shows video of a few slinging techniques.

Raum
2006-06-04, 06:25 PM
The weapons table would have us believe that swords are more effective, overall, than any other kind of weapon.

True? False?
If you're referring to a game's weapon damage table, most, if not all, will admit they are unrealistic at best. Remember, unless you're playing a simulation, game mechanics are there for playability, variety, and balance. Not realism. :)

As for whether swords are most effective, that will depend on the situation. What is significant about swords is the mystique / legend / etc built around them. It is a weapon purely for killing other humans, so only the rich could afford swords until fairly recently. This made swords a symbol of status as much as anything else.

Dervag
2006-06-04, 09:02 PM
How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

The short answer, I think, is "Keep practicing for 5-10 years, then see how much your accuracy improves."

The human brain comes with a built-in ballistics computer evolved for throwing. Our simian ancestors made an entire way of life out of heaving rocks and pointy sticks at their enemies. So human being are quite good at assessing the trajectory of an object that gets all its oomph from a linear boost at the beginning of its flight path. This extends to throwing things, archery, and to firearms.

Slings, on the other hand, are much finickier because (as you saw) it takes split-second precision to send it in the direction you want it to go. A complete amateur slinger will be much much less accurate than a complete amateur bowman (if nothing else, the bowman is likely to get the arrow within ten to twenty degrees of the target point- the slinger isn't). But once you've been using that sling to chuck pebbles at stuff every day for months or years at a time, releasing the sling at the right moment becomes second nature.

Darkie
2006-06-05, 06:06 AM
It is a weapon purely for killing other humans, so only the rich could afford swords until fairly recently. This made swords a symbol of status as much as anything else. Well, nowadays, a good sword costs more than a good gun ;)

Maclav
2006-06-05, 08:46 AM
The short answer, I think, is "Keep practicing for 5-10 years, then see how much your accuracy improves."


Slings are actually very easy to get reasonably accurate, Much like pitching a baseball. After a few minutes of fumbling around figuring out the technique, it feels very much like throwing a ball. The sling itself gives you more velocity. after a bit of pratice most people with any co-ordination should be able to do decent groupings at 25-50 yards.

Mr Croup
2006-06-05, 09:17 AM
How does a person use a chain-based weapon effectively? From a street brawler with a length of chain from Home Depot to a "ninja" using a "kusara kama" / "shogei" (in quotes because I don't think real ninja ever used weapons like that)?

Sometimes in movies you see people thrasing about with various weapons on a length of chain (like the japanese schoolgirl wielded (http://yaya.design.ru/pics/yaya_killbill.jpg) at the end of the battle with the Crazy 88s from Kill Bill Vol. 1); is there real-world basis of this, or is it totally fiction?

Do you have to keep it spinning? Is a large amount of area required to use it effectively? How would being hit with a thing effect the human body (no need to be graphic, but would it tend to be blunt force trauma or what)?

Chain weapons were definitely used in many different forms. Probably the best the use of a "Home Depot" variety (ie a simple length of chain) would in fact be to simply wrap your fist and forearm in it to add weight to blows. However, a heavy chain can be used rather well as a simple flail at a short length (2-3 feet).

Most of my experience with a chain weapon is with chain whips of Chinese design, as used in wushu. Skilled individuals can get these things moving incredibly fast, and can strike very accurately with them. Chain whips consist of a handle at one end, several small bar like segments linked together, and either a weight or spike at the striking end. The chain whip is a very tricky weapon to use, as there is a high chance of striking yourself or becoming entangled. Many techniques are reliant on making quick stirkes from a coiled set up, either by having the length of chain compressed in your hand, or by having the sections held in a ready position by being wrapped around parts of the body in a manner in which they can quickly be released.

The type of attack you are making is what determines on whether you need more space and whether or not you have to keep the chain moving. Often, a small length of the chain would be kept moving, with the majority of the length held in ready, using the momentum of the smaller section to extend the weapon fully. In most applications, you would need more room to use it effectively than say a small sword though.

The type of damage done by a chain whip is generally bludgeoning and ensnaring. They are rather effective at delivering blows that could break bones, and when someone has been ensnared, tripping, disarming, or breaking/dislocating bones is relatively easy.

silentvengeance
2006-06-05, 09:46 AM
If you had three men, equally skilled, armed with a quarter staff, an axe and a sword,
the quarter staff would defeat the sword
the sword would defeat the axe
and the axe would defeat the quarter staff.
Put simply, the sword is a compartivly easy weapon to "master". weapons like quarter staffs are much hard to use effectivly, but the end result is much more effective.
Weapons like axes come with a "taint" and were considered a peasants weapon, obviously this bias continues to this day, the hand axe with commonly associated barbarians and other "wild" folk
Peace
Silentvengeance

Mr Croup
2006-06-05, 10:52 AM
The weapons table would have us believe that swords are more effective, overall, than any other kind of weapon.

True? False?

Neither. The fact of the matter that it's just too subjective. Beyond that, there are too many variables. What type of sword? Versus what type of other weapon? What are skill levels of the combatants? What specific styles and techniques are they using? What is the physical condition of the combatants? What of the weapons?

It's just not something that can be quantified.

Raum
2006-06-05, 07:47 PM
If you had three men, equally skilled, armed with a quarter staff, an axe and a sword,
the quarter staff would defeat the sword
the sword would defeat the axe
and the axe would defeat the quarter staff.
Do you have any evidence for this? And what type of armor, terrain, and surroundings are we assuming? Is this a solo duel, small group, or line of battle? On foot or mounted?

I think it's a stretch to say X would defeat Y. Until all the variables are specified you can't know which weapon will be able to use its strengths and which may be hindered.

For example, you put the staff man vs the swordsman in a duel inside a hallway and my money is on the swordsman. Add plate armor and it's even more onesided.

Weapon strengths and weaknesses are situational.

Wehrkind
2006-06-05, 09:25 PM
I have a hard time believing that a quarterstaff would defeat a sword in most situations, being that it was never considered a "real" weapon, but rather one that would do if you didn't have the cash or ability to carry a sword. That is not to say it is not a good weapon, it is very versatile, but I see no reason that it is more effective than a sword. It if were, swords would not be the dominant weapon in most cultures. Even in cultures where the sword was not dominant, it was usually the axe, spear or bow that was considered "best." In fact I can not think of any cultures where a staff was considered a weapon of choice without at least a pointy end.

ScritchyPants
2006-06-05, 09:43 PM
How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

It's like getting to Carnegie Hall -- PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE. Good sligers practived daily, like good archers. You had to do it to have any chance of success.

As some one already mentioned, you only really use a half circle swing or there-abouts. You kind of snap it around and let go, almost like a whip -- it's all in the wrist.

ScritchyPants
2006-06-05, 09:48 PM
Neither. The fact of the matter that it's just too subjective. Beyond that, there are too many variables. What type of sword? Versus what type of other weapon? What are skill levels of the combatants? What specific styles and techniques are they using? What is the physical condition of the combatants? What of the weapons?

It's just not something that can be quantified.


And it depends upon to enemy's armor, etc., as well.

For example, the European broadsword was effective in European battles with heavy cavalry and heavy armor, but relatively slow and cumbersome against the Saracens with their lighter and faster scimitars.

It was a product of their environments.

Darkie
2006-06-05, 10:19 PM
It if were, swords would not be the dominant weapon in most cultures.They're not. At least not in 'most cultures'.

The North American civilizations didn't (although that may be a symptom of availablity), but neither did the Asian cultures (Japan or China, at least), and it wasn't very widespread in Europe either (as 'dominant weapons').

endoperez
2006-06-05, 11:21 PM
A sword can parry, although shields were preferred for that, and kill via slashes, or thrusts. A sword (or some swords, at least) can be used in a formation, and is easy to carry as a back-up weapon.

A quarterstaff is a good defensive weapon, but won't penetrate armor, and won't slash through flesh and bone. It is hard to kill with a quarterstaff, at least in a hurry.

An axe is deadly, but I think it is poor as a defensive weapon.

Good sword is also much harder to do than a good staff or a good axe. Swords are made from metal, which has to be balanced, tempered, edges have to cut but be as resistant to chipping a possible, handle must fit the hand and offer as good leverage as possible, etc, and a failure at any one point means that the sword is of inferior quality, often worthless. The metal can be re-used, but not infinitely, and time has always been a very hard resource to come by. The few smiths who had enough metal, guidance and time to become good swordsmiths were very rare, much rarer than the carpenters who could shape wood exceptionally well. There are lots of reasons for swords being good weapons and the stuff of myths.

However, a sword is inferior to a more specialized weapon in almost every situation that could be imagined.

Wehrkind
2006-06-06, 02:10 AM
They're not. At least not in 'most cultures'.

The North American civilizations didn't (although that may be a symptom of availablity), but neither did the Asian cultures (Japan or China, at least), and it wasn't very widespread in Europe either (as 'dominant weapons').


I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not, but I suspect not.

In North America, availability was an obvious issue. Not having metal is a serious impediment to sword use, though the Aztecs were noted to have made "swords" from lining wood with obsidian or bits of animal tooth. It is also worth noting they didn't use quarter staves either, despite it being well within their technological level. Rather they used clubs, hatchets made from stone, and spears with stone or bone heads in melee.

In Japan the sword was considered a requirement for the upper classes, as well as bow and spear use. The quarter staff was again relegated to those too poor to own anything better. The same in China, where there is a plethora of weapons to choose from, most some version or spear or pole arm, or sword.

Swords were largely the prefered weapon in most of Europe from Greek times until extremely protective armor made them less useful to the upper classes, for both personal combat and field battles. That is not to say the spear, lance, axe and other melee weapons were not used, but the sword was considered superior as a general weapon. There is a reason people put up with the expense of a sword compared to a spear or axe. Even if you don't want to call it "dominant" in Europe, it certainly was not considered lesser than the staff. You also did not see people dueling with your mighty quarterstaff instead of a rapier or the like.

The only metal using culture I can think of who did not make at least extensive use of the sword in one form or another would be the Zulu and other african tribes, though their famed assegi was a lot more like a long handled sword than a staff.

Darkie
2006-06-06, 04:44 AM
Perhaps I'm thinking of mass warfare more - swords were, if we are speaking 'majority', secondary weapons. The much vaunted katanas in Japan were secondary weapons - samurai were archers first, horsemen second, and swordsmen last.

I'm aware of the 'saw' type of club the Aztecs used - but I wouldn't consider those swords. They certainly weren't even bladed.

I disagree with your assessment of European warfare, though I will be the first to admit I have no formal education in the area. The majority of European warfare seems dominated by polearms, not swords.

I'd started researching and typing up paragraphs, but grew tired/bored and it's late, and deleted it rather than have a half-finished history essay.

My point is that historically, the idea summed up in the following statement:
"Swords were the dominant weapon in most cultures"
is incorrect.
Rather, polearms, followed by ranged weapons, were the dominant weapons in warfare. There were certainly periods where a culture used swords quite a bit, but to name a few examples, Greece, China, Japan, India, Early Rome, the Macedonians and pre-Roman conquest Germanic peoples did not.

In the Classical period, polearms dominated (as swordsmithing was still an emerging art), but in the middle ages, while Knights dominated with lances and swords, they were vastly outnumbered by infantry who primarily had polearms. Even as ranged weapons began to dominate, fielding pikemen was still commonly done.

Swords were certainly common, but they hardly 'dominated'. Looking at the notable militaries in the ancient world, (the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Chinese, Macedonians, Romans, Indians, Gandharas, and Qins, Xiongnu.), the only class of weapons that truely stand out in proliferation are polearms.

Medieval warfare was the time when swords truely became notable, but that was also overshadowed by developments in armor and cavalry and ranged weapons. In this period also, due to anti-cavalry requirements, infantry (always the most numerous) primarily carried polearms.

I contest the notion that swords domainated warfare - rather, polearms did. Looking at cataphracts, janissaries, knights, and samurai (for example) support that notion.

Swords certainly are dominant in that they have the most influence , as well as being the most prominent. In terms of culture. However, in warfare, they were not.

Perhaps we're looking at the statement in different contexts.

Beleriphon
2006-06-06, 08:26 AM
Swords certainly are dominant in that they have the most influence , as well as being the most prominent. In terms of culture. However, in warfare, they were not.

Perhaps we're looking at the statement in different contexts.


I think thats the problem. Swords have been designed and created by nearly every culture in the world that used any significant amount of metal working. Exceptions include African tribes, the Australian Aboriginies, and the native tribes of North America, as well as a variety of South American cultures. In South America this is as much a function of not have good iron to work with as anything else. Generally speaking if a culture progressed to the Bronze age they had swords, even if they didn't need them or were wholely impractical.

Mr Croup
2006-06-06, 09:23 AM
I contest the notion that swords domainated warfare - rather, polearms did. Looking at cataphracts, janissaries, knights, and samurai (for example) support that notion.

I have one point of contention here, and that is including the samurai here. The use of polearms was not very prevelant amongst the samurai. Foot soldiers, peasants, and women often used yari (spears) naginata and other polearms, but the actual samurai did not in most cases. Traditionally, the actual samurai focused on archery and swordsmanship, as polearms were seen as "lesser" weapons.

Regarding the matter at large, I think that we can't really say that universally the sword or any other weapon was more dominant. It's too broad of a statement. Depending on the area, culture, and time period it varies to greatly. The sword is quite possibly the most iconic weapon in the modern day for a number of reasons. Amongst these are the elevated level of craftmanship attributed to the forging of swords (whether warranted or not), their ties to romanticized individuals or archetypes (the knight, samurai), and mythology.

I still posit that any quantitative comparison between different weapons types is impossible because of the many factors that contribute to how "effective" they are.

Wolf53226
2006-06-06, 11:20 AM
I seem to remember watching something a few years back in which a Master of the Katana, and a Master of the Bow Staff got together to determine which really was the better tool in a fight. It went on for quite some time, with little being accutually accomplished by either combatant. Eventually, they got to the point where both knew what the next move was, and that the sword would have made the killing blow, so they stoped and called the match. Although, both agreed that the combat would have gone quite differently if the Master of the Staff had used a Jo Staff instead of the Bo, as it is smaller and easier to whip around with more speed. I realize that this is just one example, and very specifically asian martial arts, but saying that a staff will always beat a sword, is very short sighted. It matters more on skill of the users, and the type of the sword vs. the type of staff as to who really would win the battle.

I don't remember where I saw this, but I could certainly look up the sources again if anyone truly cares that much, as I have a number of sources(friends) that study this stuff. Just PM me, I will be happy to find it for you.

Leperflesh
2006-06-06, 04:16 PM
Every human culture on earth, and indeed every discovered instance of pre-human ancestors going back through homo sapiens neanderthalensis and homo erectus has used the knife. The knife is the most widespread and utilized tool ever. No human culture has ever not used knifes. As a weapon, the knife is utterly ubiquitous. Virtually every modern and ancient army, warrior caste, and warrior kit has included a knife or knife-equivilant (such as a dagger or detachable bayonet) as part of the kit. Many weapons are used in preference, but always there is a knife to fall back on.

I contend that the knife is the most dominant weapon ever.

Secondary to the knife is the spear. What is said of the knife can almost be said of the spear. After the knife, the spear was the next major weapon development that we know of. Spearpoints and arropoints show up around the same time in neolithic history, but, not every culture developed or used arrows. Virtually every culture ever found or studied has made use of spears. Even in modern (20th century) armies, the practice of fixing a bayonet on the end of a rifle, to construct a kind of spear, was widespread.

Not every ancient army was dominated by spears and their cousins - highly mobile armies sometimes were composed of entirely mounted archers, for example - but almost every military tradition included large numbers of foot and mounted soldiers equipped with a spear or spear-cousin (such as a polearm or a lance).

FAR more than swords, spears have dominated. I believe it is accurate and correct to say that, after the knife, the spear has been the most important and dominant weapon used by humanity.

The third most dominant weapon used by humanity has been the bow and arrow. Note that all three of these weapons - knife, spear, and bow & arrow - are useful for hunting. This is not a coincidence. Bows and arrows are not 100% ubiquitous - a few cultures never used or developed bows. Sometimes these cultures made use of slings, or poisoned darts. Nevertheless, the bow was present and widespread from the neolithic, until the widespread use of gunpowder. Far more than swords, bows & arrows have dominated human battlefields.

I would guess, but cannot say for sure, that swords were more commonly uitlized than axes, taken as a whole. I wouldn't put a heavy bet on it, but I'll accept it. Keep in mind that, as with the spear, bow, and knife, an axe has non-combat use - making it a common occurrance among peasants everywhere that there are trees to be hacked apart. Swords are generally only useful as weapons.

As one final addition, I'd like to state that using traditional blacksmithing methods and working with steel, an axe can be just as difficult - or more difficult - to make than a sword. I am aware of two methods for constructing an axe head. In one method, it is necessary to forge-weld a wrap-around piece of flat mild steel or iron to a higher-carbon steel blade. This is a point requiring skill and time to do well. In the second method, it is neccessary to drive a drift through the heel of a solid axehead, in order to make a hole for the handle. This is a very tricky operation that is quite difficult to do correctly.

A sword blade, on the other hand, may be simply and easily drawn out from a plain billet of steel. While certainly there is an enormous range of craft and quality to be explored, I think it is fair to say that one can construct working, useable utilitarian swords with less skill required than making working, useable utilitarian axes.

-Lep

-edit-

I'll add for clarification that another reason I think axes may come close to swords, secondarily, is that axes show up in the neolithic, and also throughout the copper and bronze age. Swords as we recognize them started in the later parts of the bronze age.

Feeb
2006-06-06, 04:46 PM
I have a hard time believing that a quarterstaff would defeat a sword in most situations, being that it was never considered a "real" weapon, but rather one that would do if you didn't have the cash or ability to carry a sword. That is not to say it is not a good weapon, it is very versatile, but I see no reason that it is more effective than a sword. It if were, swords would not be the dominant weapon in most cultures. Even in cultures where the sword was not dominant, it was usually the axe, spear or bow that was considered "best." In fact I can not think of any cultures where a staff was considered a weapon of choice without at least a pointy end.

Speaking from experience (still yudansha after a solid 4 years Jodo (jo as in stick) / Aikido, I'd much rather have a jo than a sword.

I realize your point was in reference to a quarterstaff, but the thing to consider is in the hands of a skilled user, the entire stick, every last centimeter, is a weapon. With a sword, you get an edge, maybe two, and a point.

We have some very skilled practicioners who study the jo as well as those who study Kendo and Iaijitsu. The staff is usually a superior weapon, due to its speed, reach and versatility.

Mr Croup
2006-06-06, 04:55 PM
You are spot on about the knive, and it's many various forms. The most prevelant weapons are certainly those that were utilitarian, and served a function outside of combat, as you have stated.

Regarding axes, I would argue that swords, by and large are more difficult to craft than an axe, and the fact that they did not appear and flourish until later in time is largely because of this fact. I think a large factor in this is the quality of metal needed to make an effective and durable sword, and thus the technology to refine the ore comes into play. There is also the amount of metal involved in making a sword versus an axe or spear head.

A very effective axe can be made by cutting and shaping a strong piece of wood and binding a flint or obsidian head to it, both of which are easily fashioned. The same goes for the simplicy of creating most early weapons, be they spears, arrows, or even stone daggers.

But then, we're getting back into the dangerous realm of variables. Making a flint headed axe is of course easier than making a forged steel sword. But then, making a forged steel headed axe is easier than making a beaten bronze sword.

You know, I've sort of lost my train of thought. It's been a long day. Hopefully this is at least somewhat clear.

Mr Croup
2006-06-06, 05:00 PM
Speaking from experience (still yudansha after a solid 4 years Jodo (jo as in stick) / Aikido, I'd much rather have a jo than a sword.

I realize your point was in reference to a quarterstaff, but the thing to consider is in the hands of a skilled user, the entire stick, every last centimeter, is a weapon. With a sword, you get an edge, maybe two, and a point.

We have some very skilled practicioners who study the jo as well as those who study Kendo and Iaijitsu. The staff is usually a superior weapon, due to its speed, reach and versatility.

From my experience, I'd rather have a sword. But that is probably because the number of years I trained with a sword versus the handful of times I've trained with a jo, and even less with a bo. It comes down to ability and training just as much the characteristics of the weapons, in my opinion.

And don't discredit the hilt of a sword as an effective weapon. It's not seen much in Japanese traditions, but it's certainly a very viable striking implement in many western forms.

StGlebidiah
2006-06-06, 05:06 PM
When I was in Scotland, I think it was, I had the chance to see some specimens of early "swords". They weren't sharp. They were more or less thick, heavy, dull-edged, sword-shaped metal clubs used primarily to break limbs/joints and rendered obsolete by thick, padded armours (armours which could be cut through by a sharp edge reasonably easily).

Beleriphon
2006-06-06, 05:07 PM
And don't discredit the hilt of a sword as an effective weapon. It's not seen much in Japanese traditions, but it's certainly a very viable striking implement in many western forms.

Particularly the basket hilt seen in more recent weapons iterations. Properly constructed you would not want to be puched by one.

Mr Croup
2006-06-06, 05:24 PM
Particularly the basket hilt seen in more recent weapons iterations. Properly constructed you would not want to be puched by one.

As someone who unfortunately was punched with one, albeit a glancing blow, I can't agree enough. Not what I would call happy fun time.

Darkie
2006-06-06, 05:41 PM
Hm, yes I'll agree with that ranking there.

Dervag
2006-06-06, 06:29 PM
When I was in Scotland, I think it was, I had the chance to see some specimens of early "swords". They weren't sharp. They were more or less thick, heavy, dull-edged, sword-shaped metal clubs used primarily to break limbs/joints and rendered obsolete by thick, padded armours (armours which could be cut through by a sharp edge reasonably easily).

How early is 'early'? Medieval swords, certainly, were fairly sharp. Maybe not 'cleave through a side of beef' sharp, but sharp enough that they would assuredly break the skin (and then some). Do you mean 'Bronze Age' early? Or what? Also, I would point out fairly clear historical evidence for sharp swords in a variety of Mediterranean cultures stretching back something like three thousand years, if not more.

Knives (and then spears) are dominant weapons in the sense that the majority of armed men in world history have had them available for use... though you could make an argument for the club (and its sophisticated descendants such as the mace).

For utility, you cannot beat a knife. Hands down. But as a weapon, either for fighting in a battle, or for single combat, it sucks. Because to use a knife you must bring your hand to within about a foot of your enemy, which is asking to get stabbed, clubbed, chopped, or simply disarmed. No army in recorded history has ever equipped its soldiers with knives as their primary weapon; and knives find a home as the primary weapon of individuals only because knives are ubiquitous and easy to conceal.
So knives are dominant in their commonness, but not in any kind of a fight. One would almost never prefer having one knife to having one sword in a fight.
In effectively all modern armies, every infantryman carries a shovel. This does not mean that the shovel is one of the dominant weapons of the modern era.

Spears, on the other hand, are ubiquitous weapons and fairly good weapons for battles and for single combats. The main disadvantage of a spear is that there is a zone close to the spearman that the spearman cannot attack effectively. If the spearman has a shield, this isn't as important; if the spear-and-shield man is surrounded by several hundred similarly equipped comrades, it becomes nearly irrelevant. So I would argue that the spear is dominant over the knife, simply because there have been more armies and warriors that used spears as their primary weapon than there have been armies and warriors that used knives as their primary weapon.

However, swords seem to edge out spears in single combat. While an army of spearmen might very well beat an army of swordsmen, a lone swordsman will tend, statistically, to have an edge over the spearman. Not 'swords beat spears every time under all conditions', but 'swords might win, say, 60% of the time, all else being equal- I'm not precisely sure.'

The military-cultural themes of most civilizations are determined by the ideal of single combat between champions rather than by the clash of armies. Thus, swords are the dominant weapon of the culture and the individual warrior, while spears dominate the battlefields and the armies.

Kelmon
2006-06-06, 06:52 PM
A sword blade, on the other hand, may be simply and easily drawn out from a plain billet of steel. While certainly there is an enormous range of craft and quality to be explored, I think it is fair to say that one can construct working, useable utilitarian swords with less skill required than making working, useable utilitarian axes.
And where do you get a "plain billet of steel" from? Eary swords (until iron casting was possible for large amounts and wide-spread in the late middle ages) had to be pattern welded. This means that small strips of different types of iron had to be twisted and welded together until you get a rough sword-shape. This is often confused with damasced steel.
I would think that an axe-head does not require this amount of work.

Raum
2006-06-06, 06:59 PM
It may be overstating the case to say they had to be pattern welded. Pattern welding was used because high quality steel was hard to find in any quantity. Folding multiple bars or pieces of steel into a single blade helped keep the steel homogenous.

By later years when techniques of purifying steel in quantity had been worked out it was quite possible to create a good weapon from bar stock.

Leperflesh
2006-06-06, 07:29 PM
And where do you get a "plain billet of steel" from? Eary swords (until iron casting was possible for large amounts and wide-spread in the late middle ages) had to be pattern welded. This means that small strips of different types of iron had to be twisted and welded together until you get a rough sword-shape. This is often confused with damasced steel.
I would think that an axe-head does not require this amount of work.



Your information is a bit inaccurate.

Certainly, pattern-welding was used during the first millenia CE as a means of combining the toughness and durability of low-carbon steel and iron, with the hardness and edge-retaining characteristics of higher-carbon steels.

However, pure-iron swords predate pattern-welded swords, many regions never used pattern-welding, and when it was used, it is almost always found concurrent with non-pattern-welded items as well. You can make a serviceable sword fairly easily with low-carbon steel (sometimes called 'mild steel' if made with modern material, or 'wrought iron' if it predates the invention of the blast furnace for smelting iron).

A billet of wrought iron or low-to-medium-carbon steel comes from a bloomery, which is a method of smelting iron from ore without having to bring the temperature up to iron's melting point. An iron bloom produced from a bloomery has high-carbon on its outside and pure-iron in the middle, along with lots of pockets of slag. A smith with one or two helpers hauls a bloom out of the liquid slag in his still extremely-hot bloomery smelter, and pounds on it, working the liquid slag out and shaping it into a billet. He may take a hot chisel to it and hack off smaller chunks, especially if he wants to keep the high-carbon stuff seperate from the wrought iron.

These billets are then the 'raw material' of iron used to make everything that is made from iron. Bloomery iron production is the default method of producing wrought iron and carbon steel for most of the ancient era, until blast furnaces were invented during the industrial revolution.

'Cast iron' or pig iron, on the other hand, is produced at melting temperature and poured into a mold. Cast iron is great for making pots and pans, but utterly useless for swords, because it is very brittle. I am not aware of any process ever used which makes swords by pouring molten iron into a mold.

Axes and swords are both thus forged from the same raw materials: some form of steel, ranging from ultra-low-carbon wrought iron, to fairly high carbon (2 to 3% maximum) steel, and everything in between. The raw billets used to make swords and axes are essentially the same.

The difference which I was focussing on is the amount of skill (not pure work, mind you) needed to construct a decent axe head, vs. the skill needed to construct a decent sword. I have personally tried both, and found my axe to be substantially harder (because it required forge-welding two different steels together) than making the sword blade. I'm sure that all sorts of other factors come into play, so I hesitate to make some kind of absolute declaration. I only want to highlight the point that it might be a misconception to think that axe heads are simple and easy things to make using traditional blacksmithing methods.

-Lep

Wehrkind
2006-06-06, 08:15 PM
Jeff:
I see where our disagreement occurs. I am thinking in terms of individual combat as well as small units/disorganized groups, not large formation battle. While the sword did make quite an impact (the Romans beat everyone that way post Marius) pole arms were more common. More on that later.

For single combat and personal defense, the sword has been seen as the better weapon. This is why it was largely banned by rulers who did not trust their subjects, which is what led to the use of the quarterstaff and other less obvious weapons.

My dominant statement was referring to personal choices for defense, where people carried some sort of sword if they could afford it. (I will admit my description of "sword" is pretty broad here, just about anything from a long knife like a scram-saxe to a great sword.)

Even if the carrier was not using it as a primary weapon in large scale combat, instead using a bow or a pole arm in formation, they nearly always carried a sword, short though it may be, as opposed to the "superior" quarterstaff. No where in the world did you find people carrying a staff as a back up weapon.

So I will definitely agree that the sword was not the win condition of mass combat, though it still made its mark, I would contend that it was partially due to the inexpense of arming large groups of people with spears and other pole arms, as well as the strong defensive properties of those weapons en masse. On a smaller scale, or once ranks clashed and order was impossible, the swords came out.

When looking at the Greeks, early Romans, Chinese and the others you reference, while it is true they all favored spears in large formations (Greeks especially), the Greeks and Romans also always carried a sword for close in work. The Romans also spanked the Greeks when they gave up the spear for the short sword. The Gauls were known for using mostly swords and axes as they were more individual combat oriented. Using polearms effectively in mass combat requires training and line discipline, something that isn't always easy to get in troops who are mostly levies.

So I agree Jeff, that a sword is not the most common weapon on the battlefield as a main, but it is the most common when someone feels they cannot rely on their buddies to help them out, whether on the field in the swirl of close melee, or in individual combat.


To those of you who love the staff, I am sorry, but it is just not as deadly as the sword. It is handy, don't get me wrong, but it does not kill as effectively. If it did, spears would never have been made. *Drinks potion of flame resistance.*

(Great information about smithing weapons too. I am glad this thread is back up and running hard!)

Fhaolan
2006-06-06, 09:11 PM
I am not aware of any process ever used which makes swords by pouring molten iron into a mold.


I was under the impression that there have been a few Celtic cast-iron blades found. What looked to be a couple of blades from the bronze/iron transition period, using similar (but not necessarily the same) molds and techniques they had become used to with bronze swords. Mind you, they probably figured out right quick that it didn't work very well, and there's a good possibility that these swords were ceramonial/decorative rather than combat-ready.

Of course, once you get past iron and into good consistant steel, casting sword 'blanks' that were to be cleaned up, heat-treated, and tempered, became viable again. Spain, for example, became well known for doing this.

Ryujin
2006-06-07, 01:48 AM
I'm aware of the 'saw' type of club the Aztecs used - but I wouldn't consider those swords. They certainly weren't even bladed.


The Aztec Maquahuitl was definitely bladed--ten obsidian blades mounted on a hardwood club. Spanish accounts of the time show that they had a healthy respect for this weapon's cutting power against unprotected flesh (and surgeons today would attest to the keen edge possible with obsidian).

There used to be one sole example at an Italian museum, but it was lost for some reason and only a drawing exists today.

Darkie
2006-06-07, 04:03 AM
The Aztec Maquahuitl was definitely bladed--ten obsidian blades mounted on a hardwood club.I see it as functioning like a saw... which... are... blades, I suppose... like a dinner knife.

Hm, I supposed I choose my words poorly. I still wouldn't call a club with nails in it a sword though, even if the nails were tightly packed enough to present a linear surface.

Wehrkind
2006-06-07, 04:57 AM
The difference between a club with nails and what looks like a wooden paddle with shark's teeth or obsidian is the functional damage. A club with nails damages by bludgeoning and piercing. An obsian edged weapon such as this damages by cutting, like a steak knife. Same idea as a European sword: get something heavy and make it sharp to slice through things. A club with nails resembles more of a pick.

Also keep in mind they were not lined the whole way around, just on two sides. You can also see extant versions in museums that the Pacific Islanders used, as well as in the Carribean.


edit: here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquahuitl

endoperez
2006-06-07, 10:45 AM
I don't see why making a sharp axe-head that withstands cutting is harder than making a much longer sword-blade of similar quality. I am aware that an axe can be made by having the blade be of better-quality steel, but wouldn't an axe-head formed from one material be good enough to cut soft targets such as skin?

Handle could also be fixed in various ways, although especially axes designed for battle would be much easier to destroy if the blade was held with twine, and the handle would probably be weaker.

Someone mentioned that if staves were good, they'd have been used in duels. Walking stick-sized ones were used, but I have no information about quarterstaves having seen any use as dueling weapons.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/4933/shillelagh.html
Some users have referred to them as Jo staves, as they are called in Japan, China, Korea or whatever country their Martial Art of choice is from.

I'd like to cite a European master of weapons, George Silver:
http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/GSilver.htm

The short staff.

26

Now for the vantage[advantage] of the short staff [8 to 9 feet, instead of the 12 to 18 :o ??? feet of the long staff!] against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question to be in any of these weapons. Whensoever any blow or thrust shall be strongly made with the staff, they are ever in false place, in the carriage of the wards, for if it at any of these six weapons he carries his ward high & strong for his head, as of necessity he must carry it very high, otherwise it will be too weak to defend a blow being strongly made at the head, then will his space be too wide, in due time to break the thrust from his body. Again, if he carries his ward lower, thereby to be in equal space for readiness to break both blow & thrust, then in that place his ward is too low, and too weak to defend the blow of the staff. Fir the blow being strongly made at the head upon that ward, will beat down the ward and his head together, and put him in great danger of his life. And here is to be noted, that if he fights well, the staff man strikes but at the head, and thrusts presently under at the body. And if a blow is first made, a thrust follows, and if a thrust is first made, a blow follows, and in doing of any of them, the one breeds the other. So that however any of these six weapons shall carry his ward strongly to defend the first, he shall be too far in space to defend the second, whether it be blow or thrust.


Also the short staff has advantage against two sword and daggers, or two rapiers, poniards and gauntlets, the reasons and causes before are for the most part set down already, [SNIP]

The short staff has the vantage against the long staff, and Morris pike, and the Forest Bill against all manner of weapons.

27

The reasons are these. The short staff has the vantage of the long staff and Morris pike in the strength & narrowness of space in his four wards of defence. And the Forest bill has the vantage of all manner of weapons in his strength and narrowness of space in his eight wards of defence. And the rather because the bill has two wards for one against the staff or Morris pike, that is to say, four with the staff, and four with the head, and is mote offensive than is the staff or Morris pike.

Another old book about fighting has few comments about the usefulness of staff, but mentions that
to have the use of a rapier to ride with, and staffe to walke a foote withall, for those which have the skill of these two weapons may safely encounter against any man having any other weapon whatsoever as hereafter you shall be sufficiently satisfied.
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/swetnam.htm

Staves need lots of space to use properly, are hard to use if the other gets close, and to kill or incapacitate your opponent you have to strike hard. It is possible, of course, and the length of the staff (it seems only one end was usually used) should give the strikes lots of power - but swords are much easier to carry, much easier to kill with, faster to kill with, and can be used in more varied situations.

Leperflesh
2006-06-07, 02:25 PM
I was under the impression that there have been a few Celtic cast-iron blades found. What looked to be a couple of blades from the bronze/iron transition period, using similar (but not necessarily the same) molds and techniques they had become used to with bronze swords. Mind you, they probably figured out right quick that it didn't work very well, and there's a good possibility that these swords were ceramonial/decorative rather than combat-ready.
That seems plausible.


Of course, once you get past iron and into good consistant steel, casting sword 'blanks' that were to be cleaned up, heat-treated, and tempered, became viable again. Spain, for example, became well known for doing this.
Do you have a link? I'd like to read more about this practice... I've been taught that until the industrial era, 'pourable' molten steel was always Cast Iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_iron), too brittle to use as weaponry. I'd love to read of an exception to that rule!


I don't see why making a sharp axe-head that withstands cutting is harder than making a much longer sword-blade of similar quality. I am aware that an axe can be made by having the blade be of better-quality steel, but wouldn't an axe-head formed from one material be good enough to cut soft targets such as skin?

Handle could also be fixed in various ways, although especially axes designed for battle would be much easier to destroy if the blade was held with twine, and the handle would probably be weaker.

The fundamental difficulty that I am aware of, is the forming of the axe's eye. You are correct, there are various ways to fix an axehead to a handle... stone axes were mostly made by splitting the handle and forcing the head through the split, and then tying it on. This is not durable enough to handle repeated heavy blows vs. wood, however. Every axehead design I've seen using a steel axe head has an eye, with the shaft going through the eye. Sometimes the handle is wedged at the end, and sometimes rivited through the head, and sometimes both.

Forging an eye onto a tool is challenging. There are different ways to do it, but they all have their difficulties. I don't want to over-emphasize the point, but this is an added complexity over the more fundamental practices which swords and axes have in common: smelting iron, making of good steel, drawing out of steel, tempering and hardening and polishing and sharpening.

-Lep

Fhaolan
2006-06-07, 03:50 PM
Do you have a link? I'd like to read more about this practice... I've been taught that until the industrial era, 'pourable' molten steel was always Cast Iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_iron), too brittle to use as weaponry. I'd love to read of an exception to that rule!


I do apologize. I have checked my sources (books, unfortunately, unlinkable), and discovered I had misunderstood. Apparantly Wootz steel (the steel that was the basis for true Damascus blades), *was* cast using a crucible-smelting process far ahead of it's time. However, the ingots where not 'sword blanks', but simple ingots that were shipped to the actual bladesmiths who forged swords as normal, but with far better steel than they had previously used. The casting/smelting process for Wootz steel was lost. We *think* we've rediscovered it, but rediscovery is always chancy. :)

Darkie
2006-06-07, 04:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaquahuitlI'm willing to call it a "sword-club" as your link does, but not a "sword" :P

Norsesmithy
2006-06-07, 08:31 PM
Someone mentioned that if staves were good, they'd have been used in duels. Walking stick-sized ones were used, but I have no information about quarterstaves having seen any use as dueling weapons.

I'd like to cite a European master of weapons, George Silver

I take exception to much of what Silver says, especially regarding quarterstaff and stave combat.

I came to the conclusion that in a fight, and not a suprise beatdown, between two armed and prepared men, the staff is insuficiently lethal to function as well for personal defense, as he says it does. I beleive that a man with a sword of most any kind could simply use a "Sacrificial Attack," letting himself be struck to open the opponents guard, to fatally wound an opponent and not worry about being similarly wounded in turn.

I came to this conclusion after being jumped by a basebal bat-weilding tough. It took him 3 blows to my head to incapacitate me suffiently to rob me. (mild concusion) :-[

Had I a rapier (or my bastard, thats more my style) I could have easily dispatched him after the first blow, and I think that a baseball bat hits harder than a quarterstaff, thanks to its heft and forward presence.

Against a man not willing to kill, various sticks are more than suffucent to beat him off, but a man unwilling to kill has no place drawing a sword in the first place.

Then again, maybe I am too hard to damage to make a statement on this sublect, and have it apply to everyone. I was hit by a car and run-over with no worse dammage than a tire-tread bruise across my chest for 2 weeks. ;)

Wehrkind
2006-06-07, 09:57 PM
Jeff,
[snooty Yale accent for purposes of humor]
I can accept a sword/club, but not a club/sword appelation. It obviously is made more to cut than to smash. It seems likely they desperately wanted it to cut, since adding that much sharpened obsidian would be a pain due to needing to replace chipped or removed peices after battle.
[/snooty Yale accent for purposes of humor]
Heheh it really wants to be a real sword so baddly. -singing- When you wish upon a star...

Others,
I have seen stick fighting like that. It is very common in the Philipines I am told, as well as other SE asian provinces. In Ireland (and I am a little fuzzy on the dates and need to see if I can find this) at the time of prevelance in gaelic stick fighting, I believe the English had outlawed the carrying of swords and other weapons by the general populace due to uprisings that happened every Thursday after tea, and twice on Sundays.
The statement about being able to take multiple hits from a staff is also true. As a staff trainer I spoke to in college pointed out, the strong parts of a staff are (in descending power) the tips (as in thrusts), at the hand (punching while holding), between the hands, just outside the hands, and then the ends (swiping with it.) As he put it "Two big guys can whale on each other with broom sticks all day and not be worse off for it. You have to hit with the right parts to make it work." I have felt this first hand, having taken a 7.5 foot rattan staff to my unarmored bicep, and not being too unhappy. It hurt, but it didn't slow me down. Cramped like a bear the next day though. That is the trouble with staff weapons though: they take multiple hits, or extremenly well placed hits, to be debilitating, let alone lethal. They are still handy, just not as handy as a sword.

Cerberus
2006-06-07, 09:59 PM
Hows this sound-A bladed bow...one second you shoot someone with it-the next your twirling it around like a dire sword.....Quick and effective?

Spasticteapot
2006-06-07, 10:06 PM
Hows this sound-A bladed bow...one second you shoot someone with it-the next your twirling it around like a dire sword.....Quick and effective?


Bows must be by nature flexible and under high-tension. Adding more tension will cause it to snap.

Cutting someone with a sword usually involves high tension on metal.


I've learned how to weld, and I'm now a pretty skilled metalworker; I'm going to have to try my hand at making something pointy this summer. (Admittedly, I'll have cheap steel, oxy-acetylene torches, and a MIG welder, but they'll be close enough.)

But now, for an entirely different question:

During World War II, both sides issued flamethrowers that expelled a napalm-like mixture of diesel fuel and a few other chemicals. It had no oxidizer, and much of the burning took place at a distance. In addition, it used up a massive amount of oxygen.

How much oxygen, exactly?

I've heard of these weapons knocking people unconcious simply because they removed all the oxygen from the surrounding air, Halon-style.

Cerberus
2006-06-07, 10:25 PM
who said it had to be metal? wood can be quite sharp...or some form of plastic...even wood with little metal razors taped allover it would work.

Norsesmithy
2006-06-07, 10:54 PM
Cerebus:
The nessary physical properties of a melee weapon and a bow still do not mesh, a blade or bladelike object will be fatigued towards a short life every time you pull the bowstring, and the bow will threaten to crack with evey solid hit the blade makes, theoretically you could make one,but you'ld have to have lots of spares, because they would break, and fast. (Not to mention how ridiculusly ineffective that sort of fighting style is)

Spastic Teapot:
Oxy-Acetalene is VERY expensive to use as heat for forging swords. I know, that's what I used before I made my charcol furnace. And if you are going to make swords by stock removal, You need to get a good bench grinder. Best of Luck!!!

Flamethrowers did often kill by oxygen depreavation, that is what made them so deadly against bunkers and cave complexes. If you make your own Flamethrower, a 50/50 mix of premium gas and desil burns very similar to the "Original Recipe" (just use caution so you don't end up "Extra Crispy").

Sundog
2006-06-07, 11:00 PM
But now, for an entirely different question:

During World War II, both sides issued flamethrowers that expelled a napalm-like mixture of diesel fuel and a few other chemicals. It had no oxidizer, and much of the burning took place at a distance. In addition, it used up a massive amount of oxygen.

How much oxygen, exactly?

I've heard of these weapons knocking people unconcious simply because they removed all the oxygen from the surrounding air, Halon-style.


I've heard the same rumours, but frankly I have strong doubts. Halon won't knock you out if you're exposed to it in the open air; too much mixing occurs, which is also why it's of limited use in fire-fighting in the same environment. Only in an enclosed space does the oxygen-depriving effects of the gas become useful, and I can't believe that WWII flamethrowers (even ones mounted on vehicles) had that much of an effect.

On the other hand, the mixes of chemicles they used in those flamethrowers were pretty hellish. They burned VERY hot, and released some really nasty byproducts. So our people falling unconscious may have done so due to:

Thermal Shock

Heat Prostration

Chemical Poisoning

rather than oxygen deprivation.

Edit: As Norsesmithy said, in a cave or enclosed area is quite different. I was speaking only of open-air engagements.

Wehrkind
2006-06-07, 11:07 PM
Cerberus: You definitely would break the bow the first time you let it get hit in melee. The string would also get in the way of you using it. In addition, bows don't weigh much for their size, so it might be difficult to do much slashing.
If you really wanted to, you could probably mount a long spike/rapier type blade on the front, coming off the handle. If it were about 8 inches long it might help balance like modern bow weights, and you might be able to stab someone moving in on you. If they were unarmed. And not wearing much armor. And you were stuck in a pantry with no escape...

Flamethrowers:
I recall reading in Victor Davis Hanson's "Ripples of Battle" that the Americans used flame throwers to empty out Japanese cave systems in Okinawa due to the sucking out of oxygen that occurs. A cup of gasoline poured on a really big anthill and lit works much the same way. Caves are very hard to ventilate as it is, so anything that tends to pull oxygen out of them is pretty effective.

Edit: Simuninja'd into redundancy.

Ryujin
2006-06-07, 11:40 PM
[/snooty Yale accent for purposes of humor]
Heheh it really wants to be a real sword so baddly. -singing- When you wish upon a star...

Apparently, the Aztecs thought so, too--from accounts of the time, they readily adopted captured Spanish blades whenever they had the chance.

IMO the Maquahuitl is one of those weapons that ought to have a category by itself (composite sword?!? Identity-challenged club?!?). ???

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/4615/maquahuitl9jv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Edit: Sure looks like a cricket bat. Any psychotic cricket players out there?

Wehrkind
2006-06-08, 12:11 AM
It's the club whose mom walked in him wearing her make up and nylons, and started screaming "Don't come in here! I hate you!" and then cried into his pillow that no one understands him.

Spasticteapot
2006-06-08, 12:45 AM
If you make your own Flamethrower, a 50/50 mix of premium gas and desil burns very similar to the "Original Recipe" (just use caution so you don't end up "Extra Crispy").

I'll take a pass on that, thanks. I value my life too much.

On the subject of weaponsmithing, I was hoping to be able to make the edges out of high-carbon steel ground very fine, and the rest of it out of something much softer. (Aluminum?) I've so far not done much work with smithing; I've mostly cast and fused so far.

I'm thinking that I'm going to go for a common flanged mace first. All I'd need to do is bend a few pieces of steel into the right shape, and weld 'em together with a MIG welder. Not exactly historically accurate, but I'd be copying some of the styles I saw in maces around the 12th to 14th century, and most forms of rennisance armor are useless against it. (Although chainmail cain disperse the impact a bit, a well-made mace can often bash right through armored plate, and even if it does'nt, you can still cause some damage from impact!)

Wehrkind
2006-06-08, 12:55 AM
I don't recall very well from highschool, but isn't aluminum and steel a bad combination oxydation-wise?

I am fairly certain that you cannot weld them together in any manner, however.

Maybe I am thinking of Zinc and Iron...

endoperez
2006-06-08, 07:32 AM
I have seen stick fighting like that. It is very common in the Philipines I am told, as well as other SE asian provinces. In Ireland (and I am a little fuzzy on the dates and need to see if I can find this) at the time of prevelance in gaelic stick fighting, I believe the English had outlawed the carrying of swords and other weapons by the general populace due to uprisings that happened every Thursday after tea, and twice on Sundays.
The statement about being able to take multiple hits from a staff is also true. As a staff trainer I spoke to in college pointed out, the strong parts of a staff are (in descending power) the tips (as in thrusts), at the hand (punching while holding), between the hands, just outside the hands, and then the ends (swiping with it.) As he put it "Two big guys can whale on each other with broom sticks all day and not be worse off for it. You have to hit with the right parts to make it work." I have felt this first hand, having taken a 7.5 foot rattan staff to my unarmored bicep, and not being too unhappy. It hurt, but it didn't slow me down. Cramped like a bear the next day though. That is the trouble with staff weapons though: they take multiple hits, or extremenly well placed hits, to be debilitating, let alone lethal. They are still handy, just not as handy as a sword.

Two things - was that with short sticks, such as the shillelagh, and those used in the Jamaican/Indonesian/whatever martial arts? Those articles were still about the quarterstaff. It wasn't held as a "doulbe-weapon", but as a two-handed weapon.
http://www.thearma.org/Sw5.jpg

This picture from the Swetnam manual shows one stance. The length of the staff gives it much power.

Also, I did mention earlier that the staff wouldn't be as lethal. It can be, of course, quite lethal, and I think a staff would be extremely good as a defensive weapon.
http://ejmas.com/jmanly/articles/2001/jmanlyart_a-wp-w_0901.htm
As this page demonstrates, I believe a staff and be used to effectively block the strikes from many directions at once. It also gives this peculiar piece of advice:
"Before proceeding to the more technical portions of quarter-staff play, let me say that it is better to bar "points" in a friendly bout, for the weight of a stick, if only a bamboo cane, of eight feet long, is so great, that it is an easy matter to break a collar-bone or rib with a rapid thrust. In any case, remember to be well-padded and to have a good iron-wire broadsword mask on before engaging in a bout."

Below is another mention about blocking the thrusts of other quarterstaves. While there are withoud doubt major differences in how other weapons have to be blocked, if what Allanson-Winn, R.G. and C. Phillipps-Wolley wrote in 1898 is accurate, thrusts shouldn't be too hard to block either.

"Always remember, when guarding points, to do so with that portion of the staff which lies between your hands. This portion really corresponds with the "forte" of a sword or stick. If you have learned fencing with the foils it will be of the greatest possible advantage to you, for you will then understand how slight an effort brought to bear on the foible of your opponent’s staff – in this case it will be somewhere within two feet of the end – will suffice to turn aside the most vigorous thrusts."


I am not claiming that staff is superior to sword. I do believe that it can be a lethal weapon, and that it is not inferior to sword as much as it has different uses. It has better reach and momentum, and might be easier to parry with, but can't cut and is probably somewhat slower. It might also be slower at parrying thrusts, but I don't know if the increased reach allows a quarterstaff-armed fighter to parry the thrusts from farther away.

Dancing_Zephyr
2006-06-08, 08:59 AM
I think parrying thrusts at a distance would be awkward. As a weapon a sword is better than a staff only because it takes less force ot hurt the other person as it is bladed. However a sword is by no means the "best" weapon. IMHO the bow (you can kill someone from a distance) and spear (like a quarter staff only pointy) are far better as weapons.

Edit: Forgot the "y" in only.

Fhaolan
2006-06-08, 10:38 AM
The problem with comparing quarterstaff to sword now-a-days, is that few people have sufficient experience with either, and the people who do are rarely in real battles to the death with each other. (Lunatics with baseball bats notwithstanding.) Sparring in mock combat really don't show the quarterstave's strengths. It does show it's weaknesses, however.

What most people train with is a Bo staff, about 5' to 6' long. This is that twirly, spinny thing that is geared for speed. Jo staves, phillipene fighting sticks, Irish shilleligh run about 3' to 4' long, usually. A real quarterstaff is 8' to 10' long and usually considerably thicker than a Bo staff. A fullstaff is 12' to 16' long or so. These aren't twirly, spinny things. They're bludgeoning polearms that can be carried around without breaking any 'no weapons' laws. One quarterstaff I saw in a museum had one end drilled out and filled with lead, to give the weapon more impact while still looking just like a normal staff. Just like 'fixing' a baseball bat.

When using a quarterstaff for real, you have considerable reach on a sword. If you use that reach to poke the opponent in the bicep, you're not serious. If you're serious, you break their kneecap, their colarbone, or some other disabling blow. Then, while still at a distance and they are unable to get to you, you have the leisure to continue to pound at them until you crack their skull or something similar. It's slower method of killing than stabbing someone with a sword, but still effective.

If, however, the swordsman gets inside your reach, you're toast. Quarterstaves are far less effective close in, just like polearms. If the opponent is wearing any kind of padding or stiff leather armor that protects those vulnerable spots from bludgeoning attacks, you're toast. Heavy plate armor with articulated elbows and knees? You've got a chance but you have to concentrate on disabling those articulations.

Honestly, I believe this is a case of a weapon name being misapplied to a different weapon, causing popular confusion. What most people think is a quarterstaff really isn't one.

Deathbymonkey
2006-06-08, 11:45 AM
About bows as melee weapons: its been done.
If you ever read the missionary book called peace child, the native tribes would double thier bows, as spears, and had spearpoints on one end. Keep in mind also that as a semi-experienced archer, its a very bad idea to keep your bow strung when you arent using it (except for modern compound bows), as it weakens the wood, so the spear would have extra reach most of the time when the bow is not strung. still any significant impact laterally will most likey render the bow useless.

and as to the whole "best weapon" argument, I have heard it said that those who live by the sword... Get shot by those who don't.

Spasticteapot
2006-06-08, 02:20 PM
About bows as melee weapons: its been done.
If you ever read the missionary book called peace child, the native tribes would double thier bows, as spears, and had spearpoints on one end. Keep in mind also that as a semi-experienced archer, its a very bad idea to keep your bow strung when you arent using it (except for modern compound bows), as it weakens the wood, so the spear would have extra reach most of the time when the bow is not strung. still any significant impact laterally will most likey render the bow useless.

and as to the whole "best weapon" argument, I have heard it said that those who live by the sword... Get shot by those who don't.


I agree.

I also play Shadowrun.

I have seen situations with interactions between the PC's and NPC's go as following.

"My 1337 bow stick skillz will totally Pwn ! I have a billion dice, and a weapon focus, and j00 are t3h pwn3d! Die security duedz!"

At this point, he walks around the corner....

....into a turret-mounted antivehicular machine gun. With APDS ammo.


They had to clean him off the ground with a spatula.

Leperflesh
2006-06-08, 08:28 PM
On the subject of weaponsmithing, I was hoping to be able to make the edges out of high-carbon steel ground very fine, and the rest of it out of something much softer. (Aluminum?) I've so far not done much work with smithing; I've mostly cast and fused so far.

Aluminum is soft, won't hold an edge, is very flexible in thin sections, and cannot be forged (it must be cast). . You could make a weapon haft out of aluminum if you wanted to, and it will work (after all they do make airplanes out of the stuff)... it will flex up to a point, and then bend permanantly. If it is thick enough it will serve. You will need to get the shape you want at the start, such as by buying round aluminum stock.

Do not attempt to forge the aluminum. Also, grinding aluminum is dangerous, because it splinters and produces dangerous shavings.... and the shavings are highly flammable. Aluminum readily oxidizes when powdered or in thin section, and you can actually light aluminum foil on fire. Do not take a welding torch to aluminum unless you know what you are doing and have proper safety equipment!

You don't want to weld steel to aluminum (or copper or any other really different metal) because it forms a dielectric... meaning, a battery. It will corrode quickly in the presence of even the smallest amount of moisture, far faster than plain iron rusts.

You will also have a hell of a time, because aluminum melts at 1200 degrees... much cooler than steel's melting point.

You can readily cast aluminum, however, and this makes it a useful material. Sand-casting or lost-wax casting will work.

If you are looking for inexpensive material, though... go with mild steel. It's not all that expensive, especially if you can buy offcuts and scrap (you usually don't need a 21-foot standard length of round or square stock!). Mild steel is very tough, very durable, will readily weld, forge, and can be cold-shaped to some degree as well. You can forge-weld mild steel to high-carbon steel (in fact, you can do so at a mid-orange heat, cooler than forge-welding two pieces of high-carbon or two pieces of low-carbon together! Strange but true).

-Lep

-edits-
Here (http://www.key-to-metals.com/Article12.htm) is some good info on welding aluminum. It's all about welding two pieces of aluminum to eachother, however.

Norsesmithy
2006-06-08, 10:26 PM
yeah, Aluminum + Steel = Bad. If you want to make a light-weight sword, you should just do fullers.

Sundog
2006-06-08, 11:46 PM
Even thick aluminium would be too soft for a weapon haft. Aircraft hulls are made of Duraluminium, an alloy with copper, manganese and magnesium.

Wehrkind
2006-06-08, 11:56 PM
Two things - was that with short sticks, such as the shillelagh, and those used in the Jamaican/Indonesian/whatever martial arts? Those articles were still about the quarterstaff. It wasn't held as a "doulbe-weapon", but as a two-handed weapon.


He was referring to bo staffs, not one handed escarima or shillelagh. I have been hit (a lot) with a 7.5 foot rattan staff, max weight 6 pounds, used as a pole arm.

The over all reach of a quarterstaff I think is somewhat over stated. To use a long weapon two handed, you usually have to have your hands fairly far appart to have the leverage to control it and get it moving. The long it is, the more leverage we are talking, and thus the farther your hands need to be. Assuming, as the aforementioned article does, that you have your hands three feet apart, that allows at best 4-5 feet remaining (considering a length of 7-9 feet) This is a 1-2 foot advantage over a 3 foot sword, and assuming 2.5 foot arms, really only a 33% increase over all. Not bad mind you, but 1-2 feet is within easy stepping distance for most folks. As such, unless you have a trick to keep them at distance (such as 4 buddies with similar weapons raining blows), you have to debilitate them with your first shot, or be ready to be upclose and personal. Reach is just not as amazing as people often think when involved in personal combat (it is very nice in unit tactics, however.)


Bows as melee:
I agree that it could be done to put a pointy tip on one end of your bow and make a low quality spear. As well it is generally unwise to keep a recurve (or other non-compound) bow strung when you don't intend to use it. Neither of these facts fits the request of the OP if I recall, as he wanted a bow he could shoot with, then hop into melee with. The crux of the issue would be either taking a bow with a string on it into melee, risking slightly explosive damage on impact from another melee weapon as well as being impeded by the string, or asking your opponant politely to "Hang on while I unstring my bow." I say asking politely not to be rude, but because if you have the option of just doing it without permission, I would suggest just shooting them with another arrow. Or even drawing a quick backup weapon.

Spuddly
2006-06-09, 12:11 AM
On the subject of weaponsmithing, I was hoping to be able to make the edges out of high-carbon steel ground very fine, and the rest of it out of something much softer. (Aluminum?) I've so far not done much work with smithing; I've mostly cast and fused so far.

I'd like to reiterate Leperflesh here– making an aluminum/steel sword would be a bad idea. Aluminum + iron rust = thermite. That stuff can melt through an engine block. Not that it would go off like that in your hands, but the rusting would cause it to rot away quickly.

Also, harder metals on softer metals is generally bad. Anyone who has ever integrated parts of an aluminum bike with tougher parts of a steel bike will know how easy a steel screw will strip aluminum threads.

I'd recommend titanium, but that requires an oxygenless environment. Maybe you could just grind down tungsten-carbide? That would be incredibly hard, but very brittle. Even high carbon steel would be fairly brittle. Maybe carbide edged with a softer steel core to absorb shocks.

Wehrkind
2006-06-09, 12:17 AM
It occured to me that if you wanted to be REALLY cool, you could get a honeycombed steel interior to the blade, and weld the hard edge to the outside.

Then you could name yourself the "King of Bees" and have a thousand queen bees as wives. Your multitudinous brood would carry you from giant hive to giant hive upon a platform of wax, and all would tremble at the sound of the horde's wings swarming down upon them, for LO, the Prince of Stings approacheth, born on the backs of a thousand drones, and all pollen will be swept before him in a cloud of allergy inducing wrath dash the feeble hominids before him!


I was scared of bees as a kid.

Dervag
2006-06-09, 03:59 AM
I know that between the World Wars, the Washington Treaty imposed a limit on the weight of warships. To keep building deadlier cruisers and battleships, most of the world's navies came up with a lot of weight-saving techniques. One of them was to use aluminum for portions of the ship not intended to withstand battle damage.

My question is this:
How did they join the aluminum to the steel of the rest of the ship without having corrosion problems?

ScritchyPants
2006-06-09, 06:58 AM
I know that between the World Wars, the Washington Treaty imposed a limit on the weight of warships. To keep building deadlier cruisers and battleships, most of the world's navies came up with a lot of weight-saving techniques. One of them was to use aluminum for portions of the ship not intended to withstand battle damage.

My question is this:
How did they join the aluminum to the steel of the rest of the ship without having corrosion problems?

They're commonly called "bolts", or "rivets", depending upon whether the item would be commonly removed :-)

Seriously, though, a nice discussion of the Washington Naval Treaty is http://www.answers.com/topic/washington-naval-treaty, and it includes a few montions of the other ways they got around the wording of the treaty, either by creating new classes of ships that skirted the rules or by building the ships with the capability to have armor added after the fact.

There is always more than one way to skin a cat, or read a treaty :-)

pincushionman
2006-06-09, 12:22 PM
Don't weld your aluminum. You end up with unreliable properties, and in a high-stress application that is a Bad Thing. Assuming you don't oxidize the hell out of your metal to begin with.

If you really want to go bimetal, some of the other posters are right - go with a softer steel. It will be both easier and safer, and you will end up with a better product.

As prevalent as aluminum is in our aircraft, all the high-impact parts like landing gear are still made from steel, since it can hold up to high stresses much better. And anything you intend to hit stuff with will be under high stress.

Liliedhe
2006-06-09, 02:16 PM
Another question ;)...

http://www.f-shop.de/ShowProductPic.php?sid=&pid=8324&

Did swords like the one the woman on the picture is holding really exist or is this just the imagination of the artist? It looks like a straight katana...

Norsesmithy
2006-06-09, 02:44 PM
Yes, the predescesor to the katana was strait bladed, as were the shorter katana commonly carried by Shinobi. Finally katana were often made precisly to the samuria's specification, and some samuria wanted strait swords.

Fhaolan
2006-06-09, 02:51 PM
Another question ;)...

http://www.f-shop.de/ShowProductPic.php?sid=&pid=8324&

Did swords like the one the woman on the picture is holding really exist or is this just the imagination of the artist? It looks like a straight katana...

That is what people now-a-days seem to be calling a 'ninjato', 'ninjaken' or 'shinobigatana'. According to what sources I have on oriental weapons (which isn't much, others will have better), it is not historically accurate but is the way they've been depicted and reconstruted since about WWII on.

According to my sources, the actual shinobigatana was curved, similar to a gatana but maybe not quite so much, and was somewhat shorter. The saya (scabbard) would be a full-sized gatana scabbard. The idea being that there would be space for hidden stuff in the saya, the sword could be drawn faster than expected (because the opponent would be expecting a full-sized gatana), and could be used at closer quarters. The shinobigatana was also probably not quite so well-made as the gatana, in some cased simple metal bars with an edge ground onto them just so the wielder would have *something* and didn't have the time or the money to wait for a real sword.

EDIT: To reply to the above post. The swords prior to the gatana-types were straight to my knowledge, but looked more like chinese broadswords. The square hilt and chisel point doesn't fit the pre-gatana swords I've read about.

Raum
2006-06-09, 04:44 PM
In 1876 the Hairotei Edict all but banned carrying swords (in Japan). For a time samurai attempted to get around this by carrying a straight blade with little or no tsuba (guard) in a scabbard made to look similar to a staff. The rebellion and subsequent suppressing of the samurai pretty much ended the defiance of the samurai.

The law also put most swordsmiths out of work and when swords started to be made again in the early 20th century they were of a significantly lower quality. Swords from this period are typically called "gunto".

Ekaj
2006-06-12, 09:25 AM
How does every one here view the hammer? Anything from a small one handed hammer to the larger war hammer. I like them in D&D, but does anyone have some real world examples? Particularly if they were effective.

Fhaolan
2006-06-12, 10:22 AM
How does every one here view the hammer? Anything from a small one handed hammer to the larger war hammer. I like them in D&D, but does anyone have some real world examples? Particularly if they were effective.

Here's a few. These are reproductions off of museum pieces, rather than museum pieces themselves as they're easier to find on the 'net.

http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item005.html
http://therionarms.com/reenact/therionarms_c601.html
http://www.museumreplicas.com/webstore/eCat/Swords%20and%20Knives/Spiked%20War%20Hammer.aspx

Warhammers ranged from fairly small one-handed weapons all the way up to polearm-sized versions. The basic form is almost always the same, a long handle (usually wooden, but occasionally metal) with a metal hammer-head (sometimes with a flat face, sometimes a bit more 'spikey'.), backed by a pick. Some of my sources seem to indicate that 'hammer' and 'pick' were interchangable names because the RL weapon usually had both. It was rare that a hammer would not have a pick-end, or a pick not have a hammer-head. The larger poleweapon versions would likely have a spear-like spike as well. The lucern hammer and the bec-du-corbin are really just large warhammers, when it all boils down to it.

The height of warhammers in Europe was during the heavy plate armor period. The primary use of the warhammer was to puncture the metal plating with the pick, or bend the articulations in the armor to immobilize the opponent with the hammer.

Edmund
2006-06-12, 12:01 PM
How does every one here view the hammer? Anything from a small one handed hammer to the larger war hammer. I like them in D&D, but does anyone have some real world examples? Particularly if they were effective.


Fhaolan's got some good examples of reproductions. As for originals, look for online auction houses. I know of two places.

Hermann Historica http://www.hermann-historica.com/ has two examples (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/images50_gr/41332.jpg) that I particularly enjoy from the 15th c. The rest are from the 16th, 17th, or even 18th c.

The other is Czerny's International Auction House. http://www.czernys.com/
They have examples from the 17th c, and possibly earlier, but their other catalogues must be ordered. Look under the sections that say 'Asce e Mazze'

Wehrkind
2006-06-12, 07:56 PM
Warhammers are nice weapons, whether large or small, in my opinion. I think they get the shaft a bit in D&D relative to broad swords and the like. The downside I notice from using sparring replica's is that they are heavier than a similar length sword, and since all the weight is at the tip, they are a little awkward and slow by comparison. They do however hit like a ton of bricks, and so can wear an opponant down even when they block, as well as being able to blow through a weak defense with a lesser weapon. The angles are different as well, since you have a few extra inches with that pick, so opponants used to blocking swords often still take that to the dome (they block the shaft in a manner that is sufficient for a bladed weapon, but too close to their bodies for the pick.)

It is probably a little bit of overkill for lightly armored opponants, but against heavy armor it is the way to go it seems. There is a nice video over at Arma.org of a guy putting the pick part through a steel helmet. He has quite a wind up, but it makes a scary hole no matter how you look at it.

Ekaj
2006-06-12, 09:42 PM
Well, i know that Welsh archers carried them as a back up weapon. Hammer in one hand, dagger in the other. Clocked a knight on the helmet and made his ears ring. Then someone else crept up and slid a dagger between the metal plates of the knights armor. But I wasn't sure if the larger ones, like two handed, were commonly used.

Wehrkind
2006-06-13, 12:32 AM
I have read that two handed hammers were very commonly used by knights in full armor in the later periods, as they were pretty much the only weapon that could really threaten each other. Talhoffer is full of representations of them being used by German knights in full armor.

I really think that D&D give those weapons in particular the shaft (no pun intended). I am not talking mauls here, but rather the weapons that look like 5 foot claw hammers with one claw and a spike on top. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollaxe This article has a picture of what they call a pollaxe, but looks very much like the large hammer I am thinking of. The name of it escapes me unfortunately. I would love to see more of these in the game personally.

silentvengeance
2006-06-13, 09:36 AM
With a hammer you can wear as much armor as you want, but concussive damage still goes through. Especially with something like plate armor, while the hammer may never make contact it will still hurt, break bones, or kill the victim.
Peace
Silentvengeance

Fhaolan
2006-06-13, 10:26 AM
I have read that two handed hammers were very commonly used by knights in full armor in the later periods, as they were pretty much the only weapon that could really threaten each other. Talhoffer is full of representations of them being used by German knights in full armor.

I really think that D&D give those weapons in particular the shaft (no pun intended). I am not talking mauls here, but rather the weapons that look like 5 foot claw hammers with one claw and a spike on top. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollaxe This article has a picture of what they call a pollaxe, but looks very much like the large hammer I am thinking of. The name of it escapes me unfortunately. I would love to see more of these in the game personally.

The 'poll' of pollaxe refers to the hammer-head. If you deal with specialized hammers a lot in RL, you'll notice that the term poll gets thrown around alot when referring to the actual striking bit of the hammer. Not exactly common knowledge, and it's surprising how many medieval weapon 'experts' don't know that. :)
Because people have always gotten confused and think 'poll' refers to the pole part, the term 'pollaxe' gets applied to a wide variety of poleweapons, only a very small number of them being true pollaxes. It's one of those cases where medieval weapon nomenclature is a bit muddy. :)

Wehrkind
2006-06-14, 12:53 AM
Huh! That is 3 new things I have learned today! Though of the 3, that is the only one that is worth the headache I have been accumulating since arriving at work...

Funny, I have read SO many sources that refer to a pollaxe as an axe on a pole. So a pollaxe is not necessarily the same as a polearm? That's really wierd... though I can easily see why people would get that confused. I gotta admit that even though I logically know the D&D appelations for weapons are broadly incorrect, my heart yet pines for their simplicity.


I wonder how the modern word "poll" is related to the medieval use...

Ryujin
2006-06-15, 04:45 AM
I wonder how the modern word "poll" is related to the medieval use...

According to Edge & Paddock, 'poll' is supposed to be Ye Olde English for 'head,' so it could possibly be associated with head-counting.

Wehrkind
2006-06-15, 11:58 PM
Must... surpress... genitalia jokes....

Another random question for you:

Anyone have any information on the history of
Sub-Saharan Africa prior to English occupation? I have always been kind of curious why the Zulu were the first large power, mostly due to questions of what sort of combination of culture, environment and luck keep places like that very tribal and resistant to being united. I am also rather surprised that the Arab powers did as little colonization as they did.

At anyrate, any information or links to it about this half a continent I know little about would be great. Weapons, culture, history, that sort of thing.

LooseCannon
2006-06-16, 01:10 AM
The thing about Sub-Saharan Africa is that we don't know much about the power structures because who knows what happened there before the arrival of recorded history. I can tell you that a lot of the Sub-Sahara was involved in the trans-Atlantic and cross-Saharan slave trade. Generally powerful local rulers would raid inland tribes and sell the captives as slaves, either north to the Ottomans, or east to the Spanish, Portugese, and British/Americans. Weapons before the arrival of history were usually primitive, spears, with some metals. A lot of the 1600s powers traded muskets for slaves, and that solidified a lot of support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_africa#History_of_Sub-Saharan_Africa_until_1880_A.D.

Check that out.

Wehrkind
2006-06-16, 04:02 AM
Yea, I was kind of afraid that might be the case. Always struck me as odd that no one wanted to live there, even when they came from a desert. I guess until gold and the like was discovered there was just a lot of grass and animals that wanted to eat you.
Not much has changed.

LooseCannon
2006-06-16, 10:03 AM
Well, the real thing that prohibited Europeans from doing more than colonizing the coastlines of Africa was malaria. Until quinine was discovered in the 1800s Europeans died of malaria quite a bit. Once Dr. Livingston made his famous expedition, and once the Brits started using steaming riverboats for troop movements, the Sub-Sahara was suddenly opened up.

And don't forget, there were tons of civilizations there beforehand, we just don't have written records of them all.

Wehrkind
2006-06-19, 02:05 AM
Well, I figured Europeans would be less interested in the area since climate wise it is very different, so along with the malaria, it just would seem like too much effort. I am sort of surprised that those from the Middle East, Ottomans and the like, never really set up shop there. Granted, there were pretty notable kingdoms in Ethiopia and the area I am told, so I suppose that might have discouraged outsiders from invading.

LooseCannon
2006-06-21, 05:30 PM
Plus the Ottomans were rather busy waging war after war with Europe. Not to mention the giant desert between Turkey and the Sub-Sahara. As far as the Ottomans were concerned that whole area was nothing but a giant labour farm, and the Ethiopians (among others) were the agents of the labour exports.

Kineon_War
2006-06-22, 08:40 AM
This was a great thread as I enjoy reading everyone's theories about ancient weapons.

Some comments of my own based on my experience with Japanese swords, kusari-gama, weighted chains and staves as well as conversations with friends who have similar hobbies. I agree that sparring is no substitute for lethal combat but as we can only draw upon the experiences we have, we'll have to make do:

The main advantage that a spear or polearm has against a sword is reach. Staves should not be held in the middle but at one end to maximise this reach. When a spear is not set against a charge, it should be similarly held with the front hand steady as a fulcrum and the back hand used to whip it around quickly. (At least this is how the Japanese and Chinese do it). Theoretically a staff or spear should beat a sword due to the reach but it is not a 100% guarantee for success. Someone who is using a staff could attack the sword arm easily and disarm the opponent or strike with a killing blow to the head or neck. Armour does make this difficult but not impossible.

In my opinion with shorter sticks, you loose the reach advantage and so the sword will win. I had a duel with an opponent who had an axe handle, while I had a ninja-to. We had to stop because I could have stabbed him too easily and it was dangerous.

I liked the point about knives. Really, a spear is a knife on a stick. Spears were more readily available in the ancient infantry because they were cheaper to make. The ancient Germans sometimes just used spears of fire-hardened wood against the Romans. Knife is fun to train but my teacher told me that 80% of knife fights in the State Penitentiary where both fighters have a shiv, end up with both of them going to hospital. I have no link to prove this but this is what I was told and I usually prefer more odds in my favour.

By the way, according to the Chinese, all of you katanas and scimitars with one edge are refered to as knives, not swords.

Regarding hammers, I can't help much there. I had a friend who used to use a log-splitter in the SCA. He said it was brutal against shields and swords but it used a lot of energy because you had to keep it moving. If you could dodge and move through his initial barrage, he ran out of steam and then was vulnerable because the log-splitter was too heavy to move quickly from a standing start.

Chains are interesting but nothing like D & D. They really have to put some extra rules in with % chance of hitting yourself or accidentally hurting friends. Chains are good for reach but once they have lost momentum they are hard to get going again especially if you have a swordsperson running in to chop you and you have nothing to block with. Sure entangle is good but it doesn't work all the time, especially for weapons without fancy metalwork to get caught on.

Lastly, a question. Something has to be done about the D & D rules for shortswords. The Roman army used them with deadly force and yet in D & D they are more something you have to use because your a rogue and want to keep your stealth bonuses. Any thoughts there?

Cheers,

Lapak
2006-06-22, 09:35 AM
Lastly, a question. Something has to be done about the D & D rules for shortswords. The Roman army used them with deadly force and yet in D & D they are more something you have to use because your a rogue and want to keep your stealth bonuses. Any thoughts there?
I am not a scholar of ancient weapons by any stretch, but I imagine I can see part of the problem there. The Romans used short swords in bulk and in formation. If you have a guy on either side of you, all three of you have shields, and you're moving as a unit, the short sword is great. You've got a heavy-duty defense that's practically a moving wall, and you can use a short sword to slash or stab around the shields without hacking limbs off your companions. In that situation, it's great!

But how often do D&D folks run around in a shield wall? When you're acting essentially alone, I imagine the reach a longer, heavier weapon gives you is more useful - plus you can use that weapon more effectively since you have more personal space to do it with.

So basically, if any rules changes were made I'd hope they were in the direction of "make weapons work differently in an organized formation", and would probably apply to pole arms as well. But that's not the focus of the game, and I don't necessarily see the need for it.

Kineon_War
2006-06-22, 11:12 AM
Hello Lapak,

- How embarrassing, we have the same avatar. :)

Yes, I figure it is something like that too as well as the fact that the Roman gladius was developed during a time when the swords were weaker (i.e. descriptions of the Celts straightening their swords with their teeth).

The D20 Conan rules have a soldier class (read revamped fighter) in which if 3 soldiers with the same fighting style work together, they get bonuses to their attacks.

Although D & D is very much centred on single combat, it is not outside of the scope of the game to include group battles and therefore some sort of rules on the subject might be useful.

Of course, if you don't want to use them then don't. It is your choice.

Cheers

Edmund
2006-06-22, 04:45 PM
Given the overall simplicity of armed combat in D&D, the shortsword rules are fine, considering you can still kill a level 1 commoner with one attack from them.

The reason the Romans used them to such great effect was, quite simply, that they weren't playing D&D. The Romans were immensely effective, but their effectiveness lies, not in individual weapons, but use of individual weapons as a weapons system, along with other very significant factors, such as discipline, general skill with weapons, and aggression.

The Romans used shorter swords (the ubiquitous gladius) to great effect, but they only achieved such effectiveness because of their fighting style. The gladius was used in both thrusting and cutting, but always at very, very close range. The enemy was also softened up beforehand with a hail of pila, and would often be put at a general disadvantage in terrain, flanking, or cohesion of the unit. Gladii are also effective because humans are somewhat fragile without armour, so despite the lessend strength of stabbing around a shield at such close range, the Romans' often unarmoured enemies were still fairly easy targets.

Of course, I'm not the best at reciting Roman tactics, so I'm sure I'll be corrected on this (Matthew..?) but that's my understanding.


Edit:
A note I forgot to add. Stories of Celts straightening their swords after using them were lies designed to make the Celts seem inferior, technologically, to their Roman counterparts. Swords were indeed weaker because steel edges were welded onto a pattern-welded or iron core, which is not as good as a homogenous steel or damascus blade, but the difference does not nearly amount to swords bending and taking a set after hitting a hard object.

Matthew
2006-06-22, 05:48 PM
Yeah, the Roman Army is certainly a difficult animal. The main mistake people make when discussing it is in treating it as an unchanging uniform whole. The Roman Army of Scipio (as discussed by Polybius) is different to that of Marius, which is different to that of Caesar, which is different to that of Trajan and so on and so on... until Vegetius, who is discussing an army that no longer exists and who himself probably had little practical military experience.

Anyway, suffice to say that the 'Short Sword' (whatever that might be and here I'm going with 'any sword blade 12-24" in length) was not the uniform weapon of the Roman Army, nor, indeed, was the Pilum. However, it was a perfectly deadly weapon, as was the Pugio or Semi-Spatha or whatever else.

RomanArmy Talk is a nice place to discuss the subject:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/

Roman Soldiers did indeed benefit greatly from organisation and discipline, but they were likely perfectly good fighters when in isolation, as well.

The difference between the Short Sword and the Long Sword in D&D is pretty negligable (they ought both to be Slashing / Piercing, but that's another tale); personally, the Spear is the Weapon I find most in need of reform...

I think the "Complete Warrior" and "Heroes of Battle" contain extensive rules for group combat.

Interesting point about the Chinese Dao, reminds me of the Seax...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_%28sword%29

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

Leperflesh
2006-06-22, 06:20 PM
In Progress Quest (http://www.progressquest.com/), one can gain a weapon called a "bandyclef". A Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bandyclef&btnG=Google+Search) returns results only relating back to Progress Quest.

Did they completely make up this thing? Or has it any sort of (real or fantasy) precedent whatsoever? It does have a vaguely Jabberwocky sound to it...

-Lep

Fhaolan
2006-06-22, 06:48 PM
In Progress Quest (http://www.progressquest.com/), one can gain a weapon called a "bandyclef". A Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bandyclef&btnG=Google+Search) returns results only relating back to Progress Quest.

Did they completely make up this thing? Or has it any sort of (real or fantasy) precedent whatsoever? It does have a vaguely Jabberwocky sound to it...

-Lep

I've never heard the name before as such, and I can't find any images of what it should look like. It may be a variant spelling or something. There *is* a weapon known as a brandistock, a similar enough name that it might be the same thing. The brandistock was a concealable polearm, basically a spear-head or a spetum-like trio of blades that could deploy out of a staff handle and lock in place. Sounds like one of those ninja weapons everyone's brain-locked on, but in fact this was an European weapon from the 16th century.

Liliedhe
2006-06-23, 03:56 AM
I'd like to ask about firearms in the 18th century this time :).

When have pistols been invented? And revolvers? But I suppose revolvers belong to the 19th century. How difficult was it to fire such a thing - could an untrained person manage it with reasonable accuracy?

Did people already use pistols in duels around the time of the French revolution?

Dervag
2006-06-23, 04:56 AM
I know pistols were used in duels by that time. Revolvers are effectively useless wihtout machining technology that wasn't invented until the 1800s.

Knife-fights are really dangerous because it is very hard to instantly kill someone with a handheld knife in such a way that they don't inflict some kind of severe injury on you. Thus, both combatants will end up chopping and stabbing at each other, doing their best to kill each other... and by the time either of them succeeds, the other will have managed to cut him up quite severely.

Short swords are optimized for large-scale infantry combat; but they aren't very good for single combat between champions. For instance, one Gallic noble with chainmail, long sword, and probably shield would have a very good chance of beating one Roman legionnaire. But you never run into just one legionnaire, so it's a moot point.

D&D rules are about single combat between champions and slaying huge monsters, so they reward the use of weapons that are designed for single combat between champions (big swords, warhammers, battle axes) and for killing huge monsters (polearms, other weapons that give you reach, etc.).

The short sword, on the other hand, is really designed for gutting a poorly trained human warrior; in D&D terms, a first level commoner or warrior with relatively poor equipment compared to the banded armor and tower shields of the legions.

It's the legionnaires' AC that would give them an advantage in D&D terms, not their weapon damage.

endoperez
2006-06-23, 05:53 AM
Well, Shortswords and Handaxes are tied to the best place of Light Martial weapons. Fighting in formation with towershields would probably require a weapon that would, in D&D terms, be a light weapon. That's good enough for me, even though there are no rules making light weapons and tower shields a good combination.

Kineon_War
2006-06-23, 10:17 AM
I agree that the rules for spears might need some work.

Thanks for the feedback about short swords and Roman armies guys.

Fhaolan
2006-06-23, 11:26 AM
I'd like to ask about firearms in the 18th century this time :).

When have pistols been invented? And revolvers? But I suppose revolvers belong to the 19th century. How difficult was it to fire such a thing - could an untrained person manage it with reasonable accuracy?

Did people already use pistols in duels around the time of the French revolution?

Okay, let's see. Cannon was first recorded to have been used in 1327 by Edward III versus the Scots (called 'crakys of war' by Robert the Bruce).

A two-man cannon was first used in 1378 by the English during the seige of St. Malo, according to Froissart.

The first hand-cannon was apparantly used in 1430, used by the Lucquese when they were besieged by the Florentines, according to Sir S. Meyrick.

The arquebus (sometimes called a bow-gun) was invented in 1475. This is the first gun with a trigger.

In the time of Henry VIII, somebody came up with what was called a demihaque: an small arquebus with a semi-cicular butt (haque meaning 'hook') that was the first thing that could be recognized as a pistol-precursur. According to my sources it was still a fairly big thing, more like a small carbine.

The fire-lock, friction lock or wheel lock was invented in 1586 in Germany, but it was so unreliable and complicated in construction at first that in or around 1600 some poultry-thieves (called snaphausen, literally poultry-stealers) invented the snaphausen-lock (shortened to snaplock) which almost immediately was refined into the flintlock.

The cartridge was first used in 1586, but it wasn't like modern bullets. It was basically just a pre-packaged amount of gunpowder, a bullet wrapped up in thick paper that was used as the wad.

The percussion-lock and the percussion cap was invented by Rev. Alexander John Forsyth of Belhelvie, Scotland in 1807. Supposedly he wasn't the original inventor, but was the first one to file a patent.

The revolver was first patented in 1836 by Samuel Colt. Each chamber was still loaded with powder, percussion cap, and bullet individually, as the pin-fire 'expansive cartridge' didn't get invented until 1847.

And there my knowledge of guns ends. Not a topic I've really spent much time researching.

Mr Croup
2006-06-23, 11:40 AM
Okay, let's see. Cannon was first recorded to have been used in 1327 by Edward III versus the Scots (called 'crakys of war' by Robert the Bruce).

Actually the first recorded cannon is from China, and was called a Huochong, and the oldest extant example is from the late 13th century sometime.

Prior to that, the chinese used bamboo "fire lances," primitive cannon made from hollowed bamboo, that date back to the 11th century.

Ryujin
2006-06-23, 11:59 AM
I'd like to ask about firearms in the 18th century this time :).

When have pistols been invented? And revolvers? But I suppose revolvers belong to the 19th century. How difficult was it to fire such a thing - could an untrained person manage it with reasonable accuracy?

Did people already use pistols in duels around the time of the French revolution?

The introduction of the wheel lock firing mechanism in the early 15th century gave cavalry a firearm that was suitable for their use--the wheel lock pistol. Rather delicate, complicated and expensive, this weapon, along with the saber, made possible the development of lighter, dual-purpose cavalry in the form of the 'reiter'. Cheaper and more versatile than heavily-armoured lancers, reiters would eventually displace them on the battlefield.

An untrained person using a pistol before the introduction of revolver-type weapons would probably be hard-pressed to load it, let alone fire it accurately. As it was, muzzle-loading smoothbore pistols were pretty inaccurate to start with; pistol-equipped cavalry were effective because quantity had a quality all its own, they shot at pretty close ranges, and were bound to hit something when firing at a large target, such as an enemy army.

Prior to Samuel Colt's invention of what would be the root of all modern revolvers, most revolvers of the early 19th century were of the 'pepperbox' type, due to their appearance. Imagine up to 20 or more individual barrels/chambers stuck around a common axis at the end of a handle with a trigger; bulky & unwieldy, but it did give their owners more than one shot before having to go through the tedium of reloading.

As for pistol duels, they were definitely around during the time of the French Revolution. Though several years after, do note that Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson's vice-president, mortally wounded Alexander Hamilton, Washington's first secretary of the treasury, with one shot in a pistol duel on July 11, 1804.

Matthew
2006-06-23, 02:18 PM
Short swords are optimized for large-scale infantry combat; but they aren't very good for single combat between champions. For instance, one Gallic noble with chainmail, long sword, and probably shield would have a very good chance of beating one Roman legionnaire. But you never run into just one legionnaire, so it's a moot point.

No evidence for this I'm afraid. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary (i.e. that single combats between Romans and Gauls often ended with a Roman victory), but then again the evidence is from the Roman point of view.
As far as I know this is just a commonly held belief. The strength of the Roman Army did indeed lie in organisation, discipline and teamwork, but this in no way implies that they were inferior individual fighters.


D&D rules are about single combat between champions and slaying huge monsters, so they reward the use of weapons that are designed for single combat between champions (big swords, warhammers, battle axes) and for killing huge monsters (polearms, other weapons that give you reach, etc.).

That really depends on the campaign, not the system in my opinion. I have certainly had cause to play games of D&D that involved mass combat; indeed, I'm led to believe that Heroes of Battle and The Complete Warrior provide rules that emphasise teamwork. Great swords, War Hammers, Battle Axes and Pole Arms are all potentially useful in formation. The only rule of thumb in D&D is bigger = more Damage Dice; it has little to do with rewarding single combat.


The short sword, on the other hand, is really designed for gutting a poorly trained human warrior; in D&D terms, a first level commoner or warrior with relatively poor equipment compared to the banded armor and tower shields of the legions.

It's the legionnaires' AC that would give them an advantage in D&D terms, not their weapon damage.

I can't agree with the first part of this. We have little idea about what the 'Short Sword' was 'designed' to do, but as far as I know the Gladius Hispanicus was adopted precisely because of its effectiveness against Romans (though whether this really was a 'Short Sword' is now an increasingly open question). It certainly saw service against both armoured and relatively unarmoured adversaries.

Many things gave the Roman Soldier an advantage, being better armoured was certainly one of them, but 'Banded Mail' was not common. Mail was a much more common armour type, over the perod in its entirety. This was also an advantage enjoyed by many other organised military groups.


Well, Shortswords and Handaxes are tied to the best place of Light Martial weapons. Fighting in formation with towershields would probably require a weapon that would, in D&D terms, be a light weapon. That's good enough for me, even though there are no rules making light weapons and tower shields a good combination.

Be careful equating the Roman Scutum with the D&D Tower Shield. It's much closer to the Large / Heavy Shield, in my opinion, whilst the Tower Shield is more an abused moveable pallisade. Romans also used 'Long Swords' perfectly effectively in combination with their Scuta.
What exactly the reason was that a Shorter blade was adopted in the First and Second Centuries AD is a largely unanswered debating point. The Auxillary of the same period was more likely equipped with 'Spear', 'Long Sword' and 'Heavy Shield', and armoured with Helm and Mail. This type of soldier may have seen the brunt of the fighting, which implies that the 'Short Sword' may not have been a front line weapon.
Vegetius certainly does not have the 'Short Sword' in mind when he discusses the Roman Army and close order fighting. Nor, indeed, does he seem to have the 'Short Sword' in mind when he claims that Romans preferred the thrust over the cut.

Fhaolan
2006-06-23, 02:44 PM
Actually the first recorded cannon is from China, and was called a Huochong, and the oldest extant example is from the late 13th century sometime.

Prior to that, the chinese used bamboo "fire lances," primitive cannon made from hollowed bamboo, that date back to the 11th century.

Sorry, I should have specified that all my references were for European and New World usages. My Oriental and Middle East gun knowledge is almost non-existant.

Sundog
2006-06-23, 05:32 PM
I've seen a Pepperbox style revolver from the 17th Century, Thirty Year's War period. It used a Wheellock action, and required priming between shots, but carried eight full loads. It was made for one of the German Princes, but I have no idea which one. Oh, the display also mentioned that it cost the equivalent of 3.3 Million US Dollars to make.

I hesitate to call it a "pistol" though. "Carbine" or "Assault Weapon" is more fitting. Thing was huge.

Liliedhe
2006-06-23, 06:28 PM
Thanks to everyone for your very helpful answers :).

endoperez
2006-06-24, 06:07 AM
Be careful equating the Roman Scutum with the D&D Tower Shield. It's much closer to the Large / Heavy Shield, in my opinion, whilst the Tower Shield is more an abused moveable pallisade. Romans also used 'Long Swords' perfectly effectively in combination with their Scuta.

I'm not familiar with D&D Tower Shields; in this case, I borrowed the term from Dominions TBS series which have e.g. Principes with javelins, shortswords and tower shields. Not entirely historical, but I've always thought it was close enough as far as the Pythium (Rome-inspired) nation goes.

The use of longer swords kind of nullifies my point, though. And I quess they also used spears. It seems my idea wasn't as good as it seemed. I snipped the facts showing that 'short swords' were not as common in the legions as I had thought.

StGlebidiah
2006-06-24, 04:16 PM
Nobody wins a knife fight. Somebody loses worse.

Matthew
2006-06-24, 05:44 PM
Just to follow up on the Scutum / Tower Shield thing, I thought I'd provide my basic evidence from the SRD as to why the Scutum is no Tower Shield:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutum_%28shield%29

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_shield.htm

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#shieldTower

Shield, Tower
This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

The Scutum was not nearly as tall as a Roman Soldier (though it was pretty big), at least not to the best of my knowledge. Also, it was perfectly possible to use the Scutum in an offensive manner. It was not generally thought an encumberance to the soldier's fighting potential. Moreover, the D&D Tower Shield weighs 45 lbs (that's almost as heavy as Full Plate); even given the notoriously bad estimates for weight in D&D, that's a pretty severe estimate for a Scutum. What is being described here, to my mind, is more like the Pavise, otherwise known as portable cover for Cross Bow Men.



True enough about the Knife fight, I would suppose. I have been thinking a lot about the use of a Dagger or Knife on the battlefield recently and I have started to think it might have been a weapon for use when combatants have become entangled, for whatever reason. What do people think?

Mike_G
2006-06-24, 06:57 PM
On the battlefield, I'm sure the dagger was a backup weapon for when you got tangled up with your enemy, or you dropped or broke your main weapon. Or it was an M16 and jammed at the sight of dirt.

As far as a winner in a knife fight, I've gone to a few knife fights as a Paramedic, and sometimes it's pretty one sided.

The thing is, even a fatal knife wound takes a little while to incapacitate, so your opponent tends to use that time stabbing you.

Edmund
2006-06-24, 07:13 PM
I think you're spot on, Matt. Well, on the post-sword battlefield the knife is used for slightly more than that, but on the pre-post-sword battlefield (well, you know what I mean) it was primarily a *very* close quarters weapon.

Have a look at this bit of the Maciejowski Bible, for a number of daggers in use: The battle of Joab and Abner's men (http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf36/otm36va&b.gif)

Now, most of the men involved are killing each other, or have been killed. This lends credence to the statement that knife fights are hard to escape from defeated or dead.

As I see it, the commonness of both fighters dying is because
a) Knives are not good instruments for blocking, so there's a fair chance a thrust will hit its target.
b) In many knife fights the fighters are not able to use the knife to its fullest benefit because they aren't trained fighters (believe me, this makes a big difference)
c) Stab wounds and knife slashes often take a long time to kill you or incapacitate you, even if they will prove fatal if left unattended.
d) Most people will attack wherever they see an opening. This is often bad, because it leaves you exposed to counterattack since, as Mike mentioned, you can still stab someone after being stabbed.

Instead, disarming or otherwise disabling your opponent, then killing them, is often the better route.

From 61 recto to 71 recto is Talhoffer's dagger fighting (http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_hs_loebenr=2&p_sidenr=143&p_illnr=0 &p_frem=0&p_tilbage=0&p_navtype=rel&p_lang=eng)

Sadly, I cannot find Fiore's dagger fighting online.

Vadi, however, shows some good dagger-play. 29-37 (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Vadi.htm)

Norsesmithy
2006-06-24, 09:02 PM
I haven't read any manuals when it comes to knife fighting, but I have been in one fight involving a knife.

It was kinda like a sucker-punch only he had a knife, he went for my face, and I blocked the knife (a 7 inch filet knife) with my left forearm, I saw the knife come out of the back of my arm like 4 inches. (That was bad.) As he tried to withdraw the knife and stab again, I grabed his wrist and twisted his arm till I gave him a compound fracture of the Radius and Ulna.

Knife fights are not safe for anyone, even if you are the only one with the knife.

On topic, how easy, or dificult is it to disarm a spear/other pollarm weilder?

I have found it relatively easy to do so, but I doubt the skill of my sparing partners. (was using my 50 inch hand and a half)

Dervag
2006-06-25, 06:01 AM
I'm not sure I would call a pepperbox pistol a revolver. I mean, I suppose it technically does revolve, but it's more like a Gatling gun with no loading mechanism than like what we customarily consider a revolver.

One interesting feature of pepperboxes is that they had a nasty habit of chainfiring- the ignition of one chamber would set off all the others. That was hard on the shooter... but it tended to scare the living daylights out of the people on the business end of the weapon :o

Matthew, I don't mean that legionnaires were inferior fighters; I mean that their equipment was not designed for single combat. A skilled legionnaire would have a fairly good shot at beating a Gallic noble one-on-one, but I twould argue that the Gaul would have an edge on the basis of equipment alone. That might well not be decisive; the Roman would still have a perfectly credible chance. The equipment disadvantage would not be too hard to overcome given the right training and method of fighting. But all else being equal, I would bet on the Gaul, though not at more than three-to-two odds.

However, Roman equipment and tactics got more effective when there were more Romans present, so that each legionnaire was a lot more dangerous fighting in line than fighting alone. So the Roman weapon system was superior for army fights, though (I would say) marginally inferior in single combat.
The same thing would go for a pike phalanx, except that individual pikemen are at a huge penalty compared to individual longswordsmen, while individual legionnaires are at only a mild disadvantage.

Matthew, you have a point that rules exist in D&D that reward fighting in formation, but the core rule set isn't optimized for that purpose. It can certainly be adapted for that purpose, and for mass combat, without doing violence to it. But in its default state, D&D rewards knights in shining armor over disciplined, teamwork-oriented legionnaires. And it tends to reward larger weapons over smaller ones, at least for fighters. As you say, bigger = more damage dice. And more damage dice mean that your fighter delivers a more potent whumping. There are perfectly viable strategies that don't center on big weapons; it's just that they tend not to have quite the same raw murderous effectiveness. And they tend to run into trouble against monsters or hostile warriors with high Armor Class and a potload of hit points.

OK, my statement about the short sword is not correct. However, it was pretty clearly adopted for fighting the kinds of things that, in D&D terms, would NOT have a rack of hit points, though they might have quite a good Armor Class. You would never want to fight a big 'monster' (such as a bear or a bull or a boar) with a shortsword. And it would be a little risky to take a truly short sword (say, 18 inches) up against a highly experienced warrior with room to maneuver, good armor, a longer weapon, and a shield (the real-world equivalent of a high-level fighter with good AC and hit points).

Matthew, I suppose that the use of the word "Banded Mail" was ill-advised... but I'm not sure how to translate Lorica Segmentata from Latin into Dungeons and Dragons. And since Lorica Segmentata's protective power comes from a bunch of articulated steel plates... I used Banded Mail as an equivalent.

If I had to put together a bunch of legionnaires for my characters to fight, guys that would be immediately recognizable as Roman legionnaires, I'd give them banded mail, a short sword, some javelins, and a big shield. You're right that a 'Large' shield is a much more accurate fit than a 'Tower' shield; I agree with you now that I think about it, but I hope you see where I'm coming from here.

And in most battles where Romans squared off against non-Roman tactical systems in a straight-up infantry fight, I would argue that it was the difficulty of killing or crippling a Roman soldier in close combat that really made the difference. The Romans all had strong armor, big shields, and the cover provided by a shield wall; their enemies generally had much lighter armor. Once the legionnaires got in close (even neglecting the javelins), they would butcher unarmored troops like the peasant conscripts that filled out Gaulish forces; and be able to more or less match even well-armored enemies like the Gallic nobles.

Matthew, I would say, that daggers were used for situations that amount to 'grapple' or 'entangled'. For instance, medieval knights carried daggers that they would use against enemies in full armor, by getting in real close and trying to stab through the joints of the armor. English longbowmen did the same thing, except that they would first stun the knights by knocking them upside the head with a big hammer.

Mike_G, I would ask you what kind of knife fights those were that were 'one sided'? I suspect that many of those knife fights were fights where one guy did nearly all the stabbing, or where one guy got fortunate enough to pin the opponent's knife hand, or some such thing.

Norsesmithy, I would argue that it isn't a knife fight unless both guys have a knife, and that you were in a situation that, tactically speaking, was worse than a knife fight from your perspective.

Edmund
2006-06-25, 12:24 PM
For instance, medieval knights carried daggers that they would use against enemies in full armor, by getting in real close and trying to stab through the joints of the armor.
I disagree a little here. You would first try and knock down, trip, or otherwise disarm and immobilise your enemy. That way, the stab to the face (because of the issues of the dagger, the armpit was far less often aimed for) would definitely kill your opponent.


English longbowmen did the same thing, except that they would first stun the knights by knocking them upside the head with a big hammer.
Agincourt is the primary (only?) example of these lead-bound mallets.

It is far more likely that the mallets were weapons of opportunity, rather than an intended part of their arsenal. The English archers had to advance toward the French, then set up stakes, so the mallets would be close at-hand for those who chose to grab them.

Furthermore, the mallet is not a very good weapon because of its weight and the energy required to use it.

Fhaolan
2006-06-25, 12:27 PM
In my live-steel stage combat group (the Seattle Knights), the dagger is considered the most dangerous of the weapons we work with, more so that even the flail. It's far too easy to make a mistake and actually hurt our fight partner, while being far too small and fast for our audiences to see properly.

Now, for actual daggers in real combat: Daggers are only any good if you can get right up close and personal with your opponent. Especially if they have armor because you have to really pick and choose your targets. Getting the blade to slip through the joints of a gothic full harness is possible, but not easy. Getting that close means you have to pass through the reach area of the oponent's weapon, be it a sword or spear or whatever. Not fun. Once you're inside that reach, it's the area of grapples and daggers. Add to the fact that it's very easy to not hit a vital spot with a dagger and you're in for a long, drawn-out struggle in this very dangerous and unpredictable zone.

Disarming a spear: It depends on what you mean by disarm, really. There were many cultures where one-handed spear work was common training. Vikings, Norman, African tribes, etc. If you're up against an opponent that only has two-handed spear training, all you have to do is disarm one hand, and they'll have a great deal of difficulty controlling the spear. (In D&D terms, a high conditional penalty.) Once they're down to one hand, that hand is relatively easy to disarm.

Someone who has one-handed spear training, however, would probably come at you with spear-and-shield to begin with, the shield making disarm maneuvers a bit more difficult.

Matthew
2006-06-25, 12:32 PM
This is becoming an increasingly abstract hypothesis; if everything else was equal (including physical condition and such), I grant you that six to eighteen inches of additional blade length may have made a difference in single combat between a Roman and Gaul; I wouldn't be inclined to give odds as to who would win, though.

Recent discussion about Roman Single Combat on Roman Army Talk:
(The people that frequent these message boards know a lot more about Romans than I; the links below are well worth the read)

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=8976

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5716&highlight=slashing

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=6345

Gladius Information:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html

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



However, Roman equipment and tactics got more effective when there were more Romans present, so that each legionnaire was a lot more dangerous fighting in line than fighting alone. So the Roman weapon system was superior for army fights, though (I would say) marginally inferior in single combat.

I would say that was true for almost any army; the Gauls are often characterised as individual fighters with no respect for discipline and emphasis on their own prowess. This is a bit misleading; they weren't as disciplined as the Romans, but it does not follow that they had no discipline or could not fight as a unit. The warband was a group that fought together as a unit habitually.



The same thing would go for a pike phalanx, except that individual pikemen are at a huge penalty compared to individual longswordsmen, while individual legionnaires are at only a mild disadvantage.

I don't agree; an individual with a Long Spear or Pike, in my opinion, would likely be fairly equally matched in single combat against an individual with a Sword and Shield, provided that there is sufficient room for them to manoeuvre and given that all else is equal. (I'm not just disagreeing for the sake of it, just in case I'm coming off that way, I think the Spear is a great weapon, as is the Pike, but I could be wrong).



Matthew, you have a point that rules exist in D&D that reward fighting in formation, but the core rule set isn't optimized for that purpose. It can certainly be adapted for that purpose, and for mass combat, without doing violence to it. But in its default state, D&D rewards knights in shining armor over disciplined, teamwork-oriented legionnaires.

I'm not sure I agree that D&D doesn't reward teamwork and formation fighting in its default state (i.e. core rules only), but I suppose that's a topic for another thread.



You would never want to fight a big 'monster' (such as a bear or a bull or a boar) with a shortsword..

Sure, but I wouldn't want to fight one with a 'Long Sword' or 'Battle Axe' either. If I were having to fight a Boar, Bear or other large creature in a 'real life medieval or ancient type situation' I would want a Spear or Pike and probably not just one.

The difference between a 'Short Sword' and a 'Long Sword' in real life is not as great as people make out (I'm not saying they're the same, only that they are not very different). Admittedly in 3.5 D&D (unlike in 3.0 D&D) 'Power Attack' is not very good in combination with a Short Sword (a bit of a silly change, in my opinion).

With regard to the experienced warriors, I would argue that: The 'Long Sword' has an advantage over the 'Short Sword' as you close with your enemy (i.e. an increased reach of six to eighteen inches), but the 'Short Sword' would be an advantage if the wielder can close with his enemy (i.e. can be swung or thrust at closer quarters with better effect than a longer blade); it's a trade off and a kind of fighting in which a large shield would be useful.



I suppose that the use of the word "Banded Mail" was ill-advised... but I'm not sure how to translate Lorica Segmentata from Latin into Dungeons and Dragons. And since Lorica Segmentata's protective power comes from a bunch of articulated steel plates... I used Banded Mail as an equivalent.

The point I was making was not one of nomenclature (Using the Victorian system there is nothing wrong with what you say Banded Mail = Banded Armour), rather just that Lorica Sementata was not the only body armour used by the Romans. As far as I am aware, it saw use in Rome for about three centuries (Late 1st Century BC to Early 3rd Century AD) and never entirely replaced Mail (Lorica Hamata) or Scale (Lorica Squamata) during this period, being most common in the late First and Second Century AD. Of the three, Mail was more common over the whole 'Roman period'.



If I had to put together a bunch of legionnaires for my characters to fight, guys that would be immediately recognizable as Roman legionnaires, I'd give them banded mail, a short sword, some javelins, and a big shield. You're right that a 'Large' shield is a much more accurate fit than a 'Tower' shield; I agree with you now that I think about it, but I hope you see where I'm coming from here.

Well, that would certainly be recognisable. All I'm saying is that this is only a partial and popular image of the Roman Army. Romans fought as a combined arms force (as do pretty much all successful armies) and there would be several types of infantry and cavalry deployed for an engagement. The Roman Legionary, armoured in a Helmet and Lorica Segmentata and armed with Pilum, Scutum, Gladius and Pugio is only part of the story.



And in most battles where Romans squared off against non-Roman tactical systems in a straight-up infantry fight, I would argue that it was the difficulty of killing or crippling a Roman soldier in close combat that really made the difference.

I largely agree, but the Gauls were not the only enemy of the Romans and the longer they fought the more they began to resemble one another. Indeed, Romans used plenty of Gauls in their armies at least from the time of Caesar.



The Romans all had strong armor, big shields, and the cover provided by a shield wall; their enemies generally had much lighter armor. Once the legionnaires got in close (even neglecting the javelins), they would butcher unarmored troops like the peasant conscripts that filled out Gaulish forces; and be able to more or less match even well-armored enemies like the Gallic nobles.

Again, you only seem to have the Gauls in mind here and it's worth noting that they also made use of the Large Shield and Shield Wall (For instance, Caesar, I think in his history of the Gallic Wars, claims that one of the uses of the Pilum was that could pin two Gallic Shields together, presumably only likely in a Shield wall type formation). I agree that the prevailance of armour on the Roman part is important, but the more armour they produced the more likely the Gauls and other enemies would have access to it. It's often felt that the image of the unarmoured barbarian horde is in large part a result of Roman propaganda. As for the fighting tactics of the Romans, see the above links.

Fhaolan
2006-06-25, 04:26 PM
Again, you only seem to have the Gauls in mind here and it's worth noting that they also made use of the Large Shield and Shield Wall.

Both the Gauls and the Goths used shield walls. They also fought in formations. They were just not quite as good at it as the Romans. It was a difference in training focus. A Roman leigionaire was a soldier, first and foremost. They may have received grants of land after their term of service, but during their time as a leigionaire they were expected to be a soldier and nothing else. A Gaul, a Goth, or heck, a Greek warrior was probably also a farmer, or herder, or blacksmith, etc. and couldn't devote all his time to soldiering. They may have been nobles, or members of the 'warrior caste', but that doesn't mean that's all they did. They still had responsibilities outside of soldiering. I believe that it was this lack of focus that led to their defeats by the Romans.

Roman equipment and tactics tended to be very focused. It was designed to deal with very specific attacks and defences, depending on what the oppenent was predicted to bring onto the field. Gaul and Goth equipment was very generalized. It was reasonably good at attack and defending in all situations, both formation and in one-on-one combat. And we all know how well a generalist stacks up to a specialist if the specialist gets to choose the contest. The few times the Romans suffered major setbacks was due to their oponents bringing specialized combatants onto the field, when the Romans hadn't had time to come up with their own specilized tactics for. The Dacian falx, for example.

(As for a sheild and sword versus a spear, given an infinite flat battlefield... My opinion is that the shield and sword fighter would carry the day, almost purely because of the shield. If it was spear versus single sword, then the spear takes it. The spear is amazingly versitile, but a shield makes a *big* difference. Bigger than D&D allows for, in my opinion.)

Raum
2006-06-25, 05:49 PM
I'd add logistics and long term strategy to the reasons why Rome was so dominant. Having a professional army you can field for long periods of time without needing to worry about a harvest or defense of your home makes a very big difference. Particularly when your opponent is a mixed feudal-tribal society who draws it's fighting force from it's primary labor force.

Wehrkind
2006-06-25, 11:31 PM
One other oft forgotten aspect of the Roman's vs. the Gauls, or Greeks vs. Persians in my more immediate example, is the very philosophy of what makes a good soldier. The Greeks and Romans focused much more heavily on staying in formation and supporting your fellows on either side as opposed to racking up kills and defeating individual opponants, which was the mark of the barbarian in their mind. The example was a Spartan named X-somethingorother who was thought of as a coward, and so to redeem himself ran out at the next battle stabbing wildly to kill as many as possible, only earning himself more shame in the eyes of his city. I will have to try and dig up that reference in more detail, but that is the gist.

When it comes to sword and shield vs. pike, the pike is always at a huge disadvantage (assuming 1v1 here). The trouble lies in the angles. The pike does get the first attack, but a decently sized shield is not terribly difficult to keep on the point. So while it is a toss up until the resolution of the first thrust, if the pikeman does not kill his oponant in that first attack, all is lost. You can not choke up sufficiently to allow for effective attacks due to the very length of the weapon, and blocking with a 15 foot weapon is tremendously difficult. Also, as the shield gets closer to you, the angle you must take to get around it gets more and more extreme until it becomes impossible to make with both hands. The same is true for many two handed weapons. The saving grace of a great axe or sword is to be able to hit hard enough to cleave or break a shield, or at least smash the arm behind it enough to make moving the shield difficult. A pike or spear can not put out that kind of impact, and as such has little answer to the problem of angles.

The question of whether a legionaire vs. a gallic warrior is going to lose is somewhat unanswerable. Simply examining their equipment does put the "typical" legionaire at an advantage, however. The Gaul likely would have a chain hauberk of some sort, with the legionaire using either chain or banded armor, banded being superior. The helmets would be similar, and their shields would likely be as well, though the scutum would be a bit larger and likely better constructed. When it comes to weapons, the Gaul might have a few different things, a one handed axe, a spear, but if he was fairly well to do, he likely had sword of varying length, anywhere from gladius size to spatha sized, and if Herodotus is to be believed it didn't thrust so much as hack. The legionaire would have the ubiquitous gladius. Is one better? Not really, considering that while the longer sword has a bit more reach, when shields come into play 6-10 extra inches do not excite. That is a length advantage that is eliminated by less than a step, and if you are swinging in an arc is no more or less difficult to block with a shield.
I will assume equal training as well, even though the Romans trained their legionaires with a well defined regieme, where the Gauls (as far as we know) were more "learn as you go" types without formal drills.

Edit: Forgot to mention that Raum is exactly correct.

Matthew
2006-06-25, 11:31 PM
Looks like we're straying back into the realms of 'what makes a warrior different from a soldier?' I had to disappear for a month when that subject was heating up, but it didn't seem to have gotten too far when I checked the thread afterwards.

I didn't mean to imply that the Celts / Gauls / Goths were as disciplined, organised or well equiped as the Romans, just that they were capable of fighting as a group and there is no reason to suppose that they did not. Certainly, the Romans were better at it.

However, I'm not sure I agree with Fhaolan that Roman tactics and equipment were specialised or focused significantly more than their enemies. Part of the success of the Romans lay in their military flexibility (though obviously this varied over time) and willingness to adapt the ideas of others. The Dacian Falx, in particular, is probably not a very good example of Roman specialisation being defeated by something unexpected; the Dacians weren't uniformally equipped with the Falx and there is no evidence I'm aware of that encountering it led directly to defeat.

Major Roman defeats in the early Republic were more often the result of a failure at the command level (conflict between Consuls). The defeats inflicted by Hannibal were not the result of Roman specialisation nor the destruction of Crassus' forces in Parthia during the late republic. The destrucution of the legions in the Tuteburg forest seems to have been due to incompetence on the part of the commander and the cunning of a German who had first hand knowledge of his enemies. Nor would I agree that specialised enemy forces often resulted in defeat. I guess I would like more evidence before accepting that view.

The Roman Army was on the whole better trained and better supplied than their enemies, at least once the Roman became a full time Soldier (i.e. after the reforms of Marius). However, the army was a composite and the practice of incorporating warbands and other native units wholesale into the Auxillary arm (which made up at least a half of total forces) must have had an effect (especially if it was Auxillaries who saw the most action).

Sadly, as is probably well known, we don't know much about Celtic social or military organisation (and least of all about the role the Druids played). We have some information, but it is very incomplete and may sometimes even be misleading.
It may be the case that a Celt / Gaul / Goth, etc... wealthy enough to equip himself for war didn't do very much beyond training for war, relying on slaves or servants to do the menial labour, or it might be the case that they truly were both farmers and warriors.

What is often forgotten about Greek and Roman Society is that it was founded on slavery and that it was they, not the citizens, who did the brunt of the labour. Given that this is the case, many wealthier citizens might actually have had plenty of time to focus on warfare, if they were so inclined. As far as I am aware, slavery was common practice amongst the Celts as well. It's all speculation, though.

As for the Spear versus the Sword and Shield, I defer to Fhaolan and Wherkind, but would be interested to hear other opinions...


I have got to get round to replying about the Dagger, but so tired...

Grey_kitsune
2006-06-26, 02:21 AM
How effective was a ww2 mortar at taking out light vehicles? and tanks?
Were there tank buster rounds and infantry shredders or was it all just mortar rounds?

Wehrkind
2006-06-26, 02:48 AM
Looking at Wikipedia is confusing. It looks as though there were some effective and purpose built mortars used for anti-vehicle purposes, but it is difficult to say since what we think of as a mortar (man portable tube) may or may not be exactly what it was then. The word mortar has covered a huge range of weapons, all that only have in common the high trajectory of attack of the propelled item. As such I am not too certain if the article refers to man portable units or self propelled or even set peice mortars.

I don't see why mortars en masse would not be effective against vehicles. I say en masse since hitting anything on purpose with a man portable mortar is a neat trick.

Dervag
2006-06-26, 05:01 AM
I disagree a little here. You would first try and knock down, trip, or otherwise disarm and immobilise your enemy. That way, the stab to the face (because of the issues of the dagger, the armpit was far less often aimed for) would definitely kill your opponent.OK, fair, and I stand corrected. Though I would point out that once your opponent is knocked down, tripped, or otherwise disarmed and immobilized, you are free to get real close and stab through, if not the joints, certainly the weak spots (like the visor). However, my description of the tactic was bad- I was actually thinking more or less of what you describe.


Agincourt is the primary (only?) example of these lead-bound mallets. I stand corrected. I could have sworn that the English longbowmen employed those hammers on multiple occasions.


I would say that was true for almost any army; the Gauls are often characterised as individual fighters with no respect for discipline and emphasis on their own prowess. This is a bit misleading; they weren't as disciplined as the Romans, but it does not follow that they had no discipline or could not fight as a unit. The warband was a group that fought together as a unit habitually.Sure, but they didn't develop as many advanced 'teamwork' tactics as the legionnaires. It's not that the Gauls didn't know how to fight in groups, it's that their fighting style wasn't focused on the assumption that there'd be guys on either side of you helping you out. The Roman system was based on that assumption- that you were fighting alongside a bunch of other legionnaires. The Gallic system didn't make each Gaul an 'interchangeable part' in the fighting machine, at least not to the same extent.

And I'm not saying that the Gauls were better individual fighters, my point was only that I think that a well-equipped Gaul (of which there weren't very many) using Gallic swordsmens' signature weapons, would have a moderate equipment advantage in a one-on-one duel. Doesn't mean they'd win, only that the legionnaire would be 'fighting uphill', so to speak.


I don't agree; an individual with a Long Spear or Pike, in my opinion, would likely be fairly equally matched in single combat against an individual with a Sword and Shield, provided that there is sufficient room for them to manoeuvre and given that all else is equal. (I'm not just disagreeing for the sake of it, just in case I'm coming off that way, I think the Spear is a great weapon, as is the Pike, but I could be wrong).Spears are great single-combat weapons; pikes, not so great.


I'm not sure I agree that D&D doesn't reward teamwork and formation fighting in its default state (i.e. core rules only), but I suppose that's a topic for another thread.I did not assert 'doesn't reward', which I can't prove; I only asserted 'rewards over', in that the rewards for being a knight in shining armor tend to be larger than the rewards for formation fighting.


Sure, but I wouldn't want to fight one with a 'Long Sword' or 'Battle Axe' either. If I were having to fight a Boar, Bear or other large creature in a 'real life medieval or ancient type situation' I would want a Spear or Pike and probably not just one.So would I. Even better, a bow and a lot of arrows.

But what I was trying to get at is that long swords and battle axes are weapons that are a bit more optimized for single combat between champions, while polearms like long spears are more optimized for fighting big monsters. And the 'default' rules for D&D tend to be more about single combat and fighting big monsters... so D&D tends to reward use of the weapons that are optimized for those tasks to a degree that realism might not warrant. Realistically, the advantage of a guy with a two-handed sword over a guy with a short sword and a large shield might not be nearly as great as it is in D&D with normal, non-magical weapons.


The point I was making was not one of nomenclature (Using the Victorian system there is nothing wrong with what you say Banded Mail = Banded Armour), rather just that Lorica Sementata was not the only body armour used by the Romans. As far as I am aware, it saw use in Rome for about three centuries (Late 1st Century BC to Early 3rd Century AD) and never entirely replaced Mail (Lorica Hamata) or Scale (Lorica Squamata) during this period, being most common in the late First and Second Century AD. Of the three, Mail was more common over the whole 'Roman period'.Sorry, I misunderstood.

Though I would still argue that the legionnaire's advantage over the statistical majority of the enemies they fought came in large part from the fact that it was very difficult to kill a legionnaire quickly because he was well-armored and covered by his own shield and the shields of his brethren; not so much because his weapon inflicted wounds more deadly than those of his enemies. Thus my assertion that in D&D, the legionnaire's advantage would be best modeled in terms of armor class.


All I'm saying is that this is only a partial and popular image of the Roman Army. Romans fought as a combined arms force (as do pretty much all successful armies) and there would be several types of infantry and cavalry deployed for an engagement. The Roman Legionary, armoured in a Helmet and Lorica Segmentata and armed with Pilum, Scutum, Gladius and Pugio is only part of the story.Thank you for pointing this out, seriously. It's well worth remembering. But the thing is that the Romans distinguished themselves with their heavy infantry in Lorica Segmentata, Scutum, Gladius, etc. Their other arms were important, but were not dramatically different from those of their opponents, except perhaps in training levels. This is perhaps not surprising, since the Romans often liked to hire cavalry, archers, etc. from other nations.

Since the frontline infantryman with his Lorica, Scutum, and Gladius is the guy who made Rome's name shine, it is perhaps understandable that discussions about the legions and the secret of their effectiveness tend to revolve around him.

[/quote]Again, you only seem to have the Gauls in mind here and it's worth noting that they also made use of the Large Shield and Shield Wall (For instance, Caesar, I think in his history of the Gallic Wars, claims that one of the uses of the Pilum was that could pin two Gallic Shields together, presumably only likely in a Shield wall type formation).[/quote]A good point.

I agree that the prevailance of armour on the Roman part is important, but the more armour they produced the more likely the Gauls and other enemies would have access to it. It's often felt that the image of the unarmoured barbarian horde is in large part a result of Roman propaganda.Also a good point. Of course, that cuts both ways- if the enemies of Rome can capture X tons of armor in battle, so can the friends of Rome. Even if the Romans didn't use captured armor (which I doubt), it would still tend to keep their enemies from being able to up-armor rapidly.

I'm not saying that the Gauls as a whole were unarmored, I'm just pointing out that the 'average Gallic frontline soldier armor class' was probably less favorable than the 'average Roman frontline soldier armor class'.




Both the Gauls and the Goths used shield walls. They also fought in formations. They were just not quite as good at it as the Romans. It was a difference in training focus. A Roman leigionaire was a soldier, first and foremost. They may have received grants of land after their term of service, but during their time as a leigionaire they were expected to be a soldier and nothing else. A Gaul, a Goth, or heck, a Greek warrior was probably also a farmer, or herder, or blacksmith, etc. and couldn't devote all his time to soldiering. They may have been nobles, or members of the 'warrior caste', but that doesn't mean that's all they did. They still had responsibilities outside of soldiering. I believe that it was this lack of focus that led to their defeats by the Romans.

Roman equipment and tactics tended to be very focused. It was designed to deal with very specific attacks and defences, depending on what the oppenent was predicted to bring onto the field. Gaul and Goth equipment was very generalized. It was reasonably good at attack and defending in all situations, both formation and in one-on-one combat. And we all know how well a generalist stacks up to a specialist if the specialist gets to choose the contest. The few times the Romans suffered major setbacks was due to their oponents bringing specialized combatants onto the field, when the Romans hadn't had time to come up with their own specilized tactics for. The Dacian falx, for example.
Thank you. That is an excellent elucidation of a point that I was only dimly conscious of. And the dimness of my consciousness was hurting my argument.


How effective was a ww2 mortar at taking out light vehicles? and tanks?
Were there tank buster rounds and infantry shredders or was it all just mortar rounds?A man portable mortar (or, for that matter, anything less than a really big artillery shell or aerial bomb) can only destroy a tank, even through the thin top armor, on a direct hit. As Wehrkind points out, it's hard to score a direct hit on anything with an infantry mortar.

Mortar bombs don't come down especially fast- their arcing trajectory means they pretty much coast to a near-halt going straight up and then come down at terminal velocity, which is lower than muzzle velocity for guns and mortars. Thus, even a solid 'slug' from a mortar would have trouble breaking through a tank's top armor. HEAT rounds might be effective if, again, you could score a hit in the first place.

As a rule, mortars were not a preferred weapon against tanks for the above reasons. They're not really very accurate compared to high-velocity direct-fire guns, and the direct-fire gun is also a lot more likely to kill the tank if it does hit.

The standard mortar bomb was an HE shell, designed to explode when it hit the ground and blow up a bunch of infantrymen. The other main function of infantry mortars was to throw smoke bombs, some of which doubled as incendiary rounds (such as white phosphorus). By and large, that was what mortarmen would be firing unless I am much mistaken.

Saihyol
2006-06-26, 05:54 PM
I had an introduction to mobile infantry in the British Army and meet various ‘specialised groups of soldiers when I worked with the MOD. Mortars are used to obscure a battle filed (smoke) or take out or scare off infantry and light vehicles (HE).

The (IMO) homicidal LAW men on the other hand take out tanks. They drive up in a open backed Range Rover, spot a tank/s, two guys jump of the back, fire a couple of shots at a tank, jump back on the Range Rover and drive off before the tank can shoot back at the huge puff of white smoke!!!!

:o :o :o :o

I’ve got to say that for all the continued discussion around the Romans here I’m surprised the Spartans aren’t getting more air time.

These were specialists full time soldiers (possibly the first?), unlike the rest of the Greek city states who trained in the spring fought in the summer (sometimes) and dealt with farming and merchant crafts the rest of the time. The Spartans trained or fought from early childhood till their 30th birthday. They used many of the same tactics being described about the Romans (big shields, compact formations and teamwork)

Thermopylae of course has to stand out in any discussion of them, I mean to get a massively overwhelming army (regardless of what the exact count of Xerxes’ army was) to refuse to face the virtually unarmed remnants of 300 soldiers is quite a feat. Also remember that a Spartan army wasn’t defeated in nearly 100 years.

Mike_G
2006-06-26, 06:14 PM
How effective was a ww2 mortar at taking out light vehicles? and tanks?
Were there tank buster rounds and infantry shredders or was it all just mortar rounds?


Mortar rounds are not very good at penetrating armor. They are good at dropping from high angles over obstacles, hitting dug in infantry behind a ridgeline, or even falling into a trench or fighting hole. Plus, they are easily portable (for a given value of "easy". We are comparing them to other artillery.) and can give a company or platoon comander his own personal artillery, which is really nice.

But a tank would ignore even a direct hit from most mortars unless it was a very, very lucky shot. Light vehicles would be vulnerable, both to a driect hit and to the fragmentation of a near strike.

Knocking out tanks requires armor piercing ammo, or very lousy tanks. You can immobliize a tank with plain old HE, assuming you can hit a track, but that's chancy.

Raum
2006-06-26, 09:09 PM
I’ve got to say that for all the continued discussion around the Romans here I’m surprised the Spartans aren’t getting more air time.

These were specialists full time soldiers (possibly the first?), unlike the rest of the Greek city states who trained in the spring fought in the summer (sometimes) and dealt with farming and merchant crafts the rest of the time. The Spartans trained or fought from early childhood till their 30th birthday. They used many of the same tactics being described about the Romans (big shields, compact formations and teamwork)

Thermopylae of course has to stand out in any discussion of them, I mean to get a massively overwhelming army (regardless of what the exact count of Xerxes’ army was) to refuse to face the virtually unarmed remnants of 300 soldiers is quite a feat. Also remember that a Spartan army wasn’t defeated in nearly 100 years.

It was 300 Spartans plus about 6,800 allies under Leonidas who stood off Xerxes. And while they stood off an army outnumbering them by as much as 20:1, they did so in a narrow pass from behind defensive works. To make it even worse, Xerxes blundered tactically. He sent repeated frontal assaults against a prepared position. Yes, it is an impressive feat. But it wasn't just 300 Spartans on their own. And it's at least as impressive a showing of Leonidas' tactical capabilites as it is a feat of arms or endurance.

The Spartans were also a slave based society, just as the Romans.

Wehrkind
2006-06-26, 10:44 PM
Knocking out tanks requires armor piercing ammo, or very lousy tanks. You can immobliize a tank with plain old HE, assuming you can hit a track, but that's chancy.

WW2 tanks were pretty lousy, depending on who made them. The German tanks were pretty powerful, if a pain to maintain, while the American and Russian tanks were comparatively pathetic. So in WW2 terms mortars really weren't too terrible, but you weren't going to do anything without a direct hit, and even then it wasn't likely a kill but rather a disabling shot.


It was 300 Spartans plus about 6,800 allies under Leonidas who stood off Xerxes.
The first two days, yes. After the Persians were made aware of an alternate pass by a Greek traitor, Leonidas of Sparta sent the other Greeks home. The only ones who stayed were 700 Thespians. (It turned out to be a bad move for the Thespians, as they don't even get remembered much for having about 40% of their adult male population there.)

The Spartans also did not fight in a unique way, but rather in the traditional hopilite manner of the Greeks. All Greeks fought this way until the Peloponesian war forced them to adopt a "less honorable," yet more deadly, what ever works method.


Also, when it comes to slaves, it is important to remember that pretty much every society was slave based to a greater or lesser extent for most of history. The Persians were pretty much all legally slaves of the emporer, while Greek slaves outside of Laconia enjoyed a rather large amount of legal protection. Helots, the slave population of the Spartans, were pretty much screwed. The Romans borrowed the over all Greek attitude towards slaves, though this changed over time as well. Even into the late middle ages the Ottomans were heavily into slavery, particularly of Christians. European serfs were really little more than slaves with the responsibility of taking care of themselves, sort of a raw deal you might say.
I don't mean to get off topic, but the issue of slavery has very little to do with who had them and who did not, since pretty much everyone did, but rather how they were integrated into society. The Spartan's helots and the Roman slaves were quite different, and resulted in very different issues for them militarily.

Raum
2006-06-26, 10:56 PM
I don't mean to get off topic, but the issue of slavery has very little to do with who had them and who did not, since pretty much everyone did, but rather how they were integrated into society. The Spartan's helots and the Roman slaves were quite different, and resulted in very different issues for them militarily.
This is what I get for not taking the time to detail why I brought it up, but I wasn't trying to single them or the Romans out as slave based societies. I meant to relate it back to earlier conversations on the Romans and why they were able to field a professional force of soldiers. Without slaves, both societies would have needed to use much of the able citizenry for farm labor instead of soldiers.

There were also a couple hundred Thebans on the third day. Of course they surrendered rather than fight to the end as the Spartans and Thespians did so I understand why you didn't mention them.

Wehrkind
2006-06-27, 12:00 AM
Even between the Romans and Spartans there were great disparities between how their slaves were integrated (not to mention differences between era's of Rome.)

The Helots were a complete people apart from the Spartans. They had their own communities which were policed by the Laconian upperclass, and were not the property of any particular individual so much as the entire city.
The Romans on the other hand had a much more private property approach to slavery, with slaves and their families belonging to Roman families.
The difference seems small, but while the Spartans continuously feared a Helot uprising and as such were unwilling to be away for more than a few months at a time, the Romans did not, and indeed only had a handful of slave revolts of note despite having legions in foriegn lands nearly all year round.
Being able to field an army for long durations also had as much to do with the city's economics and location as the set up of slavery and agriculture. Slaves were just not that defining a characteristic in general.

Exactly, it seems that Herodotus believes the Thebans intended to switch sides as soon as possible, as they had hostages held even before the last day to ensure loyalty.

Ryujin
2006-06-27, 02:46 AM
WW2 tanks were pretty lousy, depending on who made them. The German tanks were pretty powerful, if a pain to maintain, while the American and Russian tanks were comparatively pathetic. So in WW2 terms mortars really weren't too terrible, but you weren't going to do anything without a direct hit, and even then it wasn't likely a kill but rather a disabling shot.


It should be noted that, even in German tanks, the thickest that hull/turret top armour was ever made was in the region of 40mm for some Tiger variants. Dervag, Mike & Wehrkind have pretty much said it all.

But...

It's a different story in the present day, as there are mortar rounds specifically designed for the anti-tank role, with either laser guidance, IR or millimetric-wave radar homing systems. Tank armour is still thinnest at the top, and this is what the mortar rounds go after.

The majority of these mortar rounds are designed for 120mm heavy mortars and up; the smallest is the British Merlin round, a terminally-homing projectile using MMW radar and designed to be fired from an 81mm mortar.

Wehrkind
2006-06-27, 02:58 AM
That is interesting, I knew mortars were still in use, but I didn't know they were so fancy. I wonder how the guidance on those works... angling the fins I suppose.

That's why I love this board, between wierd story ideas and obscure military knowledge, I learn something new every day.

Dervag
2006-06-27, 05:24 AM
WW2 tanks were pretty lousy, depending on who made them. The German tanks were pretty powerful, if a pain to maintain, while the American and Russian tanks were comparatively pathetic.
I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say that. The Russians made tanks that were fairly close matches for their German counterparts, and some that were flatly superior at the time they came out (like the T-34/41). They weren't well handled in many cases, but they were good materiel.

Up to 1941, the Germans were building fairly light zippy tanks compared to what the British and French were producing. These early Panzers had light guns and thin armor, but they were well-handled and present in mass. Early-war Allied (non-Russian) tanks were typically either slow or very fragile, so that worked out OK.

In the original 'Blitzkrieg' doctrine, tanks weren't supposed to get into situations where they needed heavy armor and big guns; they were supposed to zoom around the flanks of strong enemy forces and get into the rear, bypassing anything powerful enough to kill them.

So the early German tanks were actually lightweights, but it didn't matter, because the Allied tanks they were fighting were either lumbering infantry tanks that were tough enough to fight them but too slow to catch them; or eggshell-armored cruiser tanks that were fast enough to catch them but even more vulnerable than the Panzers.

Meanwhile (this was before the German invasion) the Russians focused on building medium and heavy tanks that had a lot of slamming power (heavy armor, heavy gun, decent speed). The Americans actually tried to duplicate the original Panzer concept of relatively lightly armored but highly mobile tanks.

By 1941, the Germans were beginning to realize what the Russians had already known- that the best antitank weapon was another tank in those days. So they started building tougher tanks that could match the Russian armor in gun-to-gun combat.

Meanwhile, the US was trying to duplicate the Panzer concept with about a two-year handicap. So when US tanks first went into combat against the Germans in 1942, they were driving something little better than what the Germans invaded France with... but were going up against designs that had been created in response to the much stronger and tougher (but less mobile) Russian tanks.

Thus, the Sherman tanks that would have been quite effective against the Panzer IIF/IIIE/IVD mix that invaded France were severely inferior to the mix of IIIJ/IVF Panzers they actually fought... and as the Americans upgraded their Shermans, the Germans were busily introducing their Panthers and Tigers. So the initial US disadvantage in a straight tank battle never went away.

This left postwar Americans with an exaggerated impression of the quality of German tank design relative to everyone else. The Russians, for instance, were perfectly capable of designing a tank that could fight the Germans toe-to-toe, though it had severe mechanical reliability problems. Of course, they didn't have to ship all their tanks across an ocean, which reduced their size constraints.

Quite frankly, the worst tanks in the war were Japanese. British and American models weren't very good with a few exceptional high points. German tanks and Russian tanks were roughly equivalent in a straight fight, all else being equal; except for the Russians' reliability and training problems.

Wehrkind
2006-06-27, 05:43 AM
That is also interesting to know (been a good night for WW2 facts.) All my knowledge of WW2 tanks comes from the American experiences against German gear, mostly where American shells bounced off Panzer's in North Africa while being torn to shreds in return, as well as accounts of the Brits having similar luck. All I knew of the Russians was "they broke, a lot." I didn't realize the Russian tanks were comparatively ahead of their time, when they were running. I was vaugely aware the Japanese had tanks, but never had any idea of their use. Usually the passages describing their land forces read something like "Machine gun nest, machine gun nest, bunker, bunker, tank , tunnel, bunker machine gun nest" so I never paid it much mind.


Random aside, since Russian engineering came up, I would like to say that the AK-47 is a wonderful little weapon. I got to visit my parents and do some shooting drills with my dad's new AK, and it is really a nifty bit of equipment. Not built to the tolerances of a M-16 of course, but it is more than accurate enough to tag a human at reasonable range (or a rabbit for that matter), and the thing just works. Over and over and over. The only down-side is the slide doesn't stay open after that last round, so you pull a "click click click ****..." on long Mozambique runs. Still, I can't get over how nice it is. Not perfect, but still, Khalishnakov did some good work there.

Norsesmithy
2006-06-27, 12:48 PM
AKs are a joy to shoot, and they operate well in very dirty situations, even if you drop them in the mud, sort of like a good pump shotty. On the other hand, they foul from use faster than the lastest models of the unfairly maligned M16 line.

In a combat situation, though, I think I would rather have the American gun, because of the superior accuracy, and the increase in the amount of ammo I could carry. (a SCAR may be even better, but I have not ever fired one, so I cannot speculate on its properties)

I have little experience in the way of SMGs however, and I would like to know if the increase in rate of fire, in picking a 9mm parabellum SMG, is worth the reduction in stopping power (battlfield studies in WWII, Vietnam, and Afghanistan show that a .45 APC takes an average of 1.25 hits to incapacitate the subject, where as a 9 mm Para. takes an average of 2.25) compared to a .45 ACP, or a 10 mm BREN?

And if you think so, Why?

Mike_G
2006-06-27, 02:01 PM
The M16 is not unfairly maligned.

It's a good gun if you clean it religiously. I carried one in sucky humid conditions, and it will jam if you whisper "dirt" to it.

The M16A2 is a reliable gun, sort of, but can't take the abuse and neglect that the AK can. It's more accurate, longer ranged, and will whip the AK in every test assuming it fires. The first issue M16s in Vietnam were
very prone to jamming, due to poor maitenence eductaion and the supplier changing the ammo to a cheaper prpellant which gummed up the already shaky works.

You can bury the AK in a hole for a week, dig it up and use it. It's the perfect peasant rebel weapon.

So, in battle having a gun that goes "bang" when you pull the trigger counts for a lot. I trust myself to maintain an M16, but not everybody.

Saihyol
2006-06-27, 02:03 PM
The thing that sets the AK apart is simply it's simplicity. Simplcity to build, maintain, clean, repair etc.

Norsesmithy
2006-06-27, 02:45 PM
Well my uncle was in 'Nam, with the M16A1, which was the least reliable of them all, seeing as it had the original tolerance steel, with an after-thought of a chrome lining, which gave it a tolerance so tight it could jam clean, but he loved it, compared to a captured AK he used for a tricky bit of fighting when his CB outfit got abandoned and surrounded. (the whole outfit ended up fighting with captured weapons because they had failed to pack sufficient ammunition for a firefight)

He said, and I have found this to be true with Civy legal AKs, that it was very hard to jam, and would not break, but it's accuracy wasn't **** compared to his A1.

The A3 on the other hand has solved most of the reliability issues the previous model guns had, and although it'll jam faster than an AK if you pour sand or mud into the receiver, cursory maintenance is sufficient to keep it operating reliably. Most of the reliability issues reported in the last deployments related to the use of 35 year old damaged magazines.

Also, I recently heard that the pentagon is replacing the M9 side arm with of all things a gun that has "Single stack magazine of .45 APC" written in the requirements, though they also added a line saying it had to be a double action to keep the colt 1911 from being reentered as a competing design.

Pilum
2006-06-27, 05:38 PM
The good old AK-47 eh? 10 million terrorists can't be wrong... ;)

Please permit me to make the customary (and as far as I can see, as yet unmentioned) point that the German Sturmgewehr 44 is not a million miles away from the AK, or at least in basic physical appearance. Anyway - I remember a programme on the history of the gun that was on in the UK a while back, presented by Jeremy Clarkson, and he opened one up - seemed that the innards consist of the firing pin, the spring that drives it and, er, that's it. Perhaps not surprising of course when you examine the climate across the old Soviet Union. But as many have said, it was designed to be cheap to churn out, and simple enough to operate that even the dumbest conscript from the most isolated kholkoz could use it.

As regards it's accuracy, I believe that goes back to Soviet doctrine evolved from Stalingrad - that the job of the infantry is merely to throw enough lead down-range to keep the opposition's heads down as they close, the real killing is done by the machine guns, snipers, explosive rounds and hopefully the final assault. I'm a bit rusty on this point, and willing to be corrected, but as I recall it was something like that.

Tanks. Early Soviet armour wasn't wonderful, true, but it was adequate. Most of the deficiencies can be attrubuted to Stalin's purges in the 30's. But what they did have was the KV-1 and, of course, T-34. It's too easy to overstate the importance of these two designs (especially the latter), they certainly weren't as omnipresent in Barabarossa as some sources can lead you to believe, but the shock they gave the Wehrmacht is comparable to the Allies in Normandy, where every tank they faced was a 'Tiger', even when it turned out to be a PzIV...

Personally I'd argue the T-34 was, if not the first, certainly the direct ancestor of the MBT. Fast, well-armoured, powerful gun; I don't think it much of an exaggeration to say it was almost the embodiment of what later became called the "Tank Triangle". To those who fetishise over the later German models, I would simply point out one thing. Look at German designs prior to the Eastern Front (and in this I include the Tiger, she was on the drawing board at that stage) - very square, very boxy. Now put a Panther, maybe even a King Tiger, next to a T-34...

Not a million miles away, eh? :) And as far as I'm aware, the T-34 at least was considered quite reliable - compared to the horrors some German tanks went through, anyway, and for much the same reasons as the AK-47. I've even had the chance to get up close, very close,to the one at the Tank Museum in Bovington. Reminds me of a Ferrari - even standing still, a T-34 looks like it should be hacking along the steppe at full speed...

Funnily enough Wehrkind, I came across an anecdote about 'bouncing shells' some time ago: A captured BEF officer in charge of a Matilda II company in France is shown the gun that knocked out much of his command - an 88.
"Not very sporting to use an anti-aircraft gun against tanks."
"It's not very sporting to have a tank we can't kill with anything else!"

Right. Having written my new novel, I leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to tear it to shreds! ;)

LooseCannon
2006-06-27, 07:44 PM
The T-34 is probably the finest all around armoured vehicle from the Second World War, excepting, as previously mentioned, personel/repair problems which had to do with the quality of the crew, not the vehicle. But you have to look at the development of the T-34 to see where the real genius in armoured warfare came from. The T-34 was the final in a series of designs that started with a fellow named Walter Christie and his M1930 tank, which was disdained in the USA due to peacetime funding. The T-34 grew out of the BT series, which was built on the Christie suspension system, with a heavier armour plate and a stronger 76.2mm gun. Unlike any contemporary tank, which were designed to fulfill a specific role, the T-34 was what we call a "main battle tank", combining speed, armour, and power.

Soviet armour, itself, didn't really suffer too much in the purges. The employment of it did, sure (Tukahevsky (sp?) believed tanks should be deployed by squad!), but the actual development of a powerful tank was a priority for Russia, especially after the invasion of Poland. By 1939 the T-34 was on the drawing board, and it was the main battle tank of the USSR by 1942.

Wehrkind
2006-06-27, 09:24 PM
The Ak-47 is not as accurate at best as an M-16 at best, but it seems to me that under most conditions, it will do just as well. You are not going to be sniping with it in any case, but it would seem to me to be as accurate as most humans are going to be at 50-100 yards anyway, and under 50 there are no problems with head shots in under 2 seconds.

It is also just dead simple inside, and made to be abused to hell. I like that in a weapon. M-16s are nice, but I have read reports and stories of soldiers in Iraq who had all sorts of troubles with them jamming in the sand and the like. I am just not that careful with my equipment, so I gotta appreciate a gun that you can drop in the mud and have it work everytime.

Plus the ammo is dirt cheap now, and works for the Chinese SKS (a prime example of a gun being more valuable to a government than the people using it.)

I dunno, I just love weapons that work everytime, no matter what. As Mike said, you pull the trigger, it goes bang, and something down range has a hole in it. My Glock, aside from hating me for some reason when it comes to accuracy, jams all the time if you don't use factory ammo. That pisses me off to no end. Not that .40 S&W is too expensive, just that hand loads are cheaper, and I don't think a weapon should be so picky.


When it comes to the submachine guns, I had the opportunity to fire a MP-9 (I think), a little sub gun that fires 9mm pistol rounds. It was pretty cool, no real kick at all, so at 25 yards you could blow through a 30 round magazine in ~40 seconds and get all of them on the paper within a foot or so of each other for the most part. Past that though and I don't think the short barrel would really lend itself to decent accuracy. It would make a good house clearing weapon though, since you are easily going to put 2-5 rounds in a guy without thinking, and range won't exceed about 40 feet. I wouldn't want to use it for a larger scale bit of fighting though, since carrying enough ammo would be a problem, and longer ranges are an issue.

Ryujin
2006-06-27, 11:25 PM
The T-34 is probably the finest all around armoured vehicle from the Second World War, excepting, as previously mentioned, personel/repair problems which had to do with the quality of the crew, not the vehicle. But you have to look at the development of the T-34 to see where the real genius in armoured warfare came from....

By 1939 the T-34 was on the drawing board, and it was the main battle tank of the USSR by 1942.

Early models of the T-34 suffered a lot of teething problems--iirc, some of them had spare transmissions strapped to their decks because of frequent breakdowns while others had to make do with gasoline engines due to shortages. But then, what weapon doesn't go through teething problems?

The Germans thought very highly of the T-34, and at one time was seriously considering copying it. Instead, the Panther was developed as a result. The Daimler-Benz Panther prototypes in fact had a very strong resemblance to the T-34, but, after a bit of flip-flopping, Hitler decided on the MAN design for the Panther (having a T-34 copy would be unpatriotic, to say the least).


The Ak-47 is not as accurate at best as an M-16 at best, but it seems to me that under most conditions, it will do just as well. You are not going to be sniping with it in any case, but it would seem to me to be as accurate as most humans are going to be at 50-100 yards anyway, and under 50 there are no problems with head shots in under 2 seconds.

You might want to go looking for a copy of Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove. A great, well-researched yarn about General Lee's army coming into possession of AK-47s.

Wehrkind
2006-06-28, 12:35 AM
You might want to go looking for a copy of Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove. A great, well-researched yarn about General Lee's army coming into possession of AK-47s.

I feel that was the killing blow to my brain tonight. I have to go to the bathroom and piss it out now. Please excuse me...

Zincorium
2006-06-28, 05:27 AM
*snip*
I have little experience in the way of SMGs however, and I would like to know if the increase in rate of fire, in picking a 9mm parabellum SMG, is worth the reduction in stopping power (battlfield studies in WWII, Vietnam, and Afghanistan show that a .45 APC takes an average of 1.25 hits to incapacitate the subject, where as a 9 mm Para. takes an average of 2.25) compared to a .45 ACP, or a 10 mm BREN?

And if you think so, Why?

Biggest difference? Recoil. The difference between a .45 and a 9mm might not seem that big, but it adds up rather rapidly when you're firing more than five or six bullets in a string. There's a reason that the old tommy guns were designed heavy and with a stock as standard, to keep your aim at least in the general direction of the enemy.

Most submachine guns perform very poorly when fired without a stock, even machine pistols designed expressly to be used that way, because it's more difficult to keep the gun trained on your target without being able to brace it against something. Firing from the hip is horrible for accuracy, since you can't even see the sights of your gun, but it works okay for suppressive fire. Firing with both hands takes some practice, and actually hitting anyone on purpose wielding the theoretical sub-guns akimbo is nigh ludicrous with a 9mm or larger.

Smaller caliber guns, in something like .32 or .22, are better for mitigating recoil, but then you have to rely on an even greater number of hits to reliably take someone down. Alternately, the designers can reduce the rate of fire, something which is accomplished on the Uzi sub-gun by having a tungsten bolt.

Of course, all of the above, even .45 ACP, are easier to make multiple hits with than a mid-power rifle round like a .223, which is why they're common for conflicts inside buildings where manueverability is limited, confrontations occur rapidly, range is less of a factor, and ammo has to be in larger quantities on a simultaneously lighter and shorter gun.

Norsesmithy
2006-06-28, 01:28 PM
The recoil issue is the reason for the reduced rate of fire, though s'truth that akimbo Ingrams in .45 APC would be ludicrus (even with their heavy suppressors).


Recoil ain't a big deal to me, I am pretty burly and can control rapid firing of heavy shells. I can keep all 8 slugs out of my cousin's SA 12 gauge (Bennelli, awesome gun) on a 10 inch vital target in ~6 seconds. My CCarry gun is a Colt Anaconda, and I can double-tap with it.

Mike_G
2006-06-28, 03:06 PM
For a SMG, the HK MP5, with the shoulder stock in 9mm is pretty much perfect.

You can fire single shots or short bursts very accurately out to 50+ yards, and empty the whole magazine full auto inot the chest of a man sized target at 25 yards.

Without the stock you lose a lot of accuracy, and I can't see giving that much up for a wepaon that isn't all that much shorter.

Shooting from the hip or trying to use two weapons at one is just silly, and best left to Segal movies. If you want to clear a room and leave nothing but dead bodies behind, use the full stock MP5, shoot from the shoulder, double taps to the head on semi auto.

LooseCannon
2006-06-28, 04:16 PM
Or, to jump back to the AK, just sit outside the room with your Kalashnikov and shoot through the wall. An AK will punch through as much as 8 cms of cement at 50 metres, or a treetrunk at the same range.

Darkie
2006-06-28, 08:27 PM
Or, to jump back to the AK, just sit outside the room with your Kalashnikov and shoot through the wall. An AK will punch through as much as 8 cms of cement at 50 metres, or a treetrunk at the same range.
That's not really relevant, since the same could be said of the M14. That's almost entirely dependant on ammunition.

Norsesmithy
2006-06-28, 11:25 PM
Actually a M14 has a ton more power and penetration than a AK, a AK has similar penetration to an M16. The M14 was replaced (or at least they tried to replace it) by the M16 because it had a little too much power to be accurately fired on Rock-and-Roll Full-Auto by all but the biggest soldiers.

Mike_G
2006-06-28, 11:40 PM
Full auto is just a way to burn barrels and waste ammo.

I can put an M16 round through the bullseye at 500 yards under perfect conditions, easily at 200 yards under realistic conditions. The M14 was even better, since you could shoot through the bad guy's cover.

"Accuracy by volume" is a bad doctrine, and only useful to suppress the enemy so you can assault his position and kill him at close quarters.

One automatic weapon per fire team is plenty. Save your ammo, take your time to aim, and go for the kill, not suppression.

Darkie
2006-06-29, 01:39 AM
Actually a M14 has a ton more power and penetration than a AK, a AK has similar penetration to an M16.But this is the same fallacy I'm trying to point out! This is dependant on ammunition, not weapon!

Norsesmithy
2006-06-29, 02:09 AM
Its not really a fallacy, as all three of those weapons are fairly iconic ammunition wise.

7.62x39 for the AK-47, 5.56x45 for the M16, and 7.62x51 for the M14.

I, of course being the macho guy thinking bigger is almost always better, prefer the 7.62x51, also known as .308 Winchester, in the M14 or the AR-10.

Zincorium
2006-06-29, 04:33 AM
M14 is an awesome weapon, but I'm not nearly big enough to control one on full auto (Naval weapons training doesn't include firing anything on full auto except a mounted m60, so I can't say I've got much experience.)

Thing is, a lot of people refer to full power rifles, M14s, FN FALs, and the like, as battle rifles. The assault rifle concept took a while for the US to adopt, and we ended up with the M16. Which promptly became the new whipping boy.

As for the ammo, I think the distinction is between FMJ, which all armies use, and any kind of expanding bullet. Expanding bullets like hollowpoints make a nifty hole in the target, but they're not designed to punch through much of anything. That's what .50 bmg is for. I've always wondered what a glaser-type round of that size would do to something it hit. I'm thinking dinner plate sized hole in the panels of a car.

Norsesmithy
2006-06-29, 01:06 PM
I can answer that, as I have a Barret M95, a totally bitching .50 BMG sniper rifle. On a 24 inch diameter cylinder of balistic jellly, at 250 yards, it leaves a 25 inch exit wound.

On metal targets, it leaves a .6 inch entrance wound, and will split a 55 galon drum full of water the way a .22 LR wrecks a pop can. It will penetrate and destroy a steel truck engine at 2200 meters. All in all, you would need a SMAW to do more damage.

(Fun fact, the Barret .50 BMG rifles were origionally designed to shoot down helicopters.)

pincushionman
2006-06-29, 01:23 PM
...If you want to clear a room and leave nothing but dead bodies behind, use --
*interrupts Mike_G by covering his mouth, then completes the sentence for him*

-- grenades.

Mike_G
2006-06-29, 02:17 PM
*interrupts Mike_G by covering his mouth, then completes the sentence for him*

-- grenades.


Yeah. I'll give you that.

If you want to clear a room and leave just dead bad guys and safe, happy hostages, use the MP5 as previously indicated.

One of the reasons so many Special Ops groups and SWAT type units like the gun so much.

Deathbymonkey
2006-06-29, 11:56 PM
You might want to go looking for a copy of Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove. A great, well-researched yarn about General Lee's army coming into possession of AK-47s.

... ;D I gotta check that out

Sundog
2006-06-30, 02:54 AM
Do so. It's an excellent read.

On Pistols: I am not a big, burly guy, and frankly I find the .45 ACP hard to control, even in a big gun, I can't retarget fast like I can with a 9mm. Surely the best gun is the one you can fire accurately the best?

Zincorium
2006-06-30, 04:42 AM
Do so. It's an excellent read.

On Pistols: I am not a big, burly guy, and frankly I find the .45 ACP hard to control, even in a big gun, I can't retarget fast like I can with a 9mm. Surely the best gun is the one you can fire accurately the best?

Most definitely. There are very few situations where aiming isn't vital, and in those cases you are still going to want to be capable of accurate fire with the weapon that you have at hand, in case the situation changes. Any round can be useful when you simply need a gun. Heck, a .22 can kill a person reasonably quickly, as long as you can hit vital organs. Firing just at the center of mass with a bullet that small and relatively slow is eventually going to discourage someone, but it's not something I'd wager my life on.

Of course, there are a great many techniques/designs for reducing felt recoil, which how much motion is produced (messing up your aim or hurting your arm), not the actual energy placed on the gun. The simplest is to have a very heavy gun relative to the bullet you're shooting, so the energy gets absorbed by the mass of the gun. Many ultra-high accuracy sport shooting guns have weights in place on the muzzle to reduce barrel rise, but that's fairly uncommon on self defense weapons.

Custom or overmolded grips for handguns, and recoil pads for stocked weapons, make the gun more comfortable to shoot but probably won't affect the aiming difficulty of powerful rounds.

Muzzle brakes take out most of the problem, but they are LOUD, and sometimes unpleasant to shoot with due to the hot gases venting off to the sides. Some brands of suppressors (also called silencers) claim to act like muzzle brakes, but I can't verify the effectiveness of them.

Final thing, which you'll have to buy a completely new gun for, is the mechanism. Revolvers and lever actions, and other similiar systems, do nothing in and of themselves to reduce recoil. Recoil operated types use up a bit of the force, and often that helps. Gas systems are the best commonly used system for recoil reduction, although the benefit varies wildly based on design.

There are several types of guns, including the AA-12 shotgun and Ultimax M100, that use a 'constant recoil' system to improve hit rate on automatic fire, but such guns are a definite minority, and as far as I know there are no civilian-legal guns based on that principle.

Fhaolan
2006-06-30, 10:52 AM
There are several types of guns, including the AA-12 shotgun and Ultimax M100, that use a 'constant recoil' system to improve hit rate on automatic fire, but such guns are a definite minority, and as far as I know there are no civilian-legal guns based on that principle.

Automatic shotguns? I didn't know they actually made fully automatic shotguns. Semi-autos yes, but I thought there were serious design issues with fully automatic shotguns?

pincushionman
2006-06-30, 12:51 PM
..If you want to clear a room and leave just dead bad guys and safe, happy hostages, use the MP5 as previously indicated.

One of the reasons so many Special Ops groups and SWAT type units like the gun so much.
Totally agree. Especially in our modern close-quarter warfare.

Zincorium
2006-06-30, 10:50 PM
Automatic shotguns? I didn't know they actually made fully automatic shotguns. Semi-autos yes, but I thought there were serious design issues with fully automatic shotguns?

Most of the design issues stem from the fact that a shotgun produces a lot of recoil force, so not only does the mechanism have to be very, very durable to keep functioning, it also makes it hard to hit.

That said, at least four full-auto shotguns, the AA-12, USAS-12, H&K CAWS, and Pancor Jackhammer, that produced fully functional prototypes. Of these, as far as I know only the USAS-12 has so far been mass produced.

The advantage of the AA-12 is that the recoil is changed from a sharp, abrupt movement to a continuous push (thus, the term constant recoil), by way of a long spring so that the bolt carrier never hits anything, just slows down and moves back into position when it's kinetic energy has been expended. Also, from what I've read, the gas system has been specially designed to reduce recoil even further.

I've seen videos of it in use, and even when fired by a small person, it appears to have little to no kick or muzzle rise. Very impressive, the main reason it hasn't been adopted by US troops is simply that doesn't fit a current niche in our tactics.

Darkie
2006-07-01, 02:16 AM
'tis not so much a design issue nowadays than a lack of need.

I mean, what do you really need a fully automatic shotgun for? Clearing out roomfuls of undead?

It's worth noting that the H&K CAWS (at least) is a proof of concept weapon, not intended for actual service use. There's no real role for something like that, as had been pointed out...

Thomas
2006-07-01, 09:43 AM
Very impressive, the main reason it hasn't been adopted by US troops is simply that doesn't fit a current niche in our tactics.

I was under the impression there are international treaties concerning the use of combat shotguns? Something about the Hague Convention and certain types of shotgun ammunition?

Mike_G
2006-07-01, 10:45 AM
Yeah, but we've been ignoring those form the get go.

Shotguns have been used by US troops (in small numbers, perhaps) in every conflict this century.

It's just like the whole "Don't shoot the .50 cal at personnel" rule.

Sometimes, a shotgun is just what you want. They're very nice for close range combat in heavy brush, like the jungles of the South Pacific or Vietnam. They have a role in houseclearing as well.

Don't know how much use they'd be in the mountains of Afghanistan, but in urban warfare they have an application. Especially if you are worried about friendly troops or noncomabatants down range of the target, or on the other side of a wall. A miss with a .223 (or even a penetrating hit) will travel a lot further into the city than a shotgun blast.

Umael
2006-07-01, 05:45 PM
How realistic is the ninja-to? That is to say, is there some historical evidence supporting the notion of a sword that was used by the peasants of feudal Japan that was cheap, disposable, and yet highly useful (such as having a hollow hilt)?

(I know this was discussed earlier, but I can't seem to find it, and the existence of the ninja-to reared its head in another thread, so...)

Wehrkind
2006-07-01, 09:45 PM
I have never really had and problem with a .45 ACP in a 1911 Colt. Even firing one handed it wasn't too much of a problem to fire reasonably quickly and accurately at 25 yards. Granted, my definition of accurate was only being 4 down on 3 rounds on a torso silouette, so your mileage may vary.

Matthew
2006-07-01, 11:58 PM
How realistic is the ninja-to? That is to say, is there some historical evidence supporting the notion of a sword that was used by the peasants of feudal Japan that was cheap, disposable, and yet highly useful (such as having a hollow hilt)?

(I know this was discussed earlier, but I can't seem to find it, and the existence of the ninja-to reared its head in another thread, so...)

As I understand it, the short answer is no...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjutsu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjaken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja-To

...and the long answer is nobody knows for sure, for the Ninja are secret... and sometimes I wish they had remained so...

Norsesmithy
2006-07-02, 12:32 AM
Yeah, but we've been ignoring those form the get go.

Shotguns have been used by US troops (in small numbers, perhaps) in every conflict this century.

It's just like the whole "Don't shoot the .50 cal at personnel" rule.

Sometimes, a shotgun is just what you want. They're very nice for close range combat in heavy brush, like the jungles of the South Pacific or Vietnam. They have a role in houseclearing as well.

Don't know how much use they'd be in the mountains of Afghanistan, but in urban warfare they have an application. Especially if you are worried about friendly troops or noncomabatants down range of the target, or on the other side of a wall. A miss with a .223 (or even a penetrating hit) will travel a lot further into the city than a shotgun blast.

The Hauge Convention Never was interpretted to preclude the use of the .50 BMG on personell targets (and if it was, it shouldn't have been), as the Hauge conventions outlaw the use of weapons that causse undue suffering, and a tango eliminated by that Big Barret does not suffer, he is very dead very fast.

Also, the AA-12 is being fast lined for production for the Marines, it just needs to be redesigned to take 3 inch magnum cartriges (It currently only accepts 2 3/4 inch shells) in order to work with the new FRAG-12 line of munitions (which include totally awesome options like a High Explosive Armour Peircing round that can supposedly consistantly disable an APC).

Can you imagine what a force multiplier one of those babies with a 50 round drum full of HEAP and antipersonell grenade rounds would be in the hands of a squad mate? That is the kind of fire power I would want on my team.

Mike_G
2006-07-02, 12:41 AM
The Hauge Convention Never was interpretted to preclude the use of the .50 BMG on personell targets (and if it was, it shouldn't have been), as the Hauge conventions outlaw the use of weapons that causse undue suffering, and a tango eliminated by that Big Barret does not suffer, he is very dead very fast.


Now I was just a dumb grunt, so I don't know the Hague convention from a hole in the wall, but we were told very explicitly, with a knowing wink, that the .50 is for "equipment." Doctrine excludes the .50 cal from an antipersonell role. The Barret was designed to allow snipers to engage enemy vehicles. Wink wink.

Interpreting the enemy sniper's helmet or web belt as "equipment" has never, to my knowledge, been questioned.

Darkie
2006-07-02, 12:41 AM
The Hague Conventions has been interpreted by the US as banning .50 BMG against soft targets.

However, while the .50 weapons tend to have "Anti-Materiel" labels, nobody's really complained when they've downed tangos either.

And if they did, then it's very easily defended:

All he'd have to say is "The machine gun had the squad pinned, I had him in my sights, but all I had with me was this anti-materel sniper rifle... my pistol wouldn't have had the range." (Specifically, the Canadian sniper helping out the pinned US infantry squad over in Afghanistan a few months back.)

Mike_G
2006-07-02, 01:18 AM
I say just inscribe the address to send complaints on the projectile.

"This is an anti Materiel round. It is not designed for use against personnel. If you have been struck by this round, please write the address bellow. We thank you for your support."

I don't think many complaint letters would come in.

Norsesmithy
2006-07-02, 01:21 AM
^^Comedy gold!




Now I was just a dumb grunt, so I don't know the Hague convention from a hole in the wall, but we were told very explicitly, with a knowing wink, that the .50 is for "equipment." Doctrine excludes the .50 cal from an antipersonell role. The Barret was designed to allow snipers to engage enemy vehicles. Wink wink.

Interpreting the enemy sniper's helmet or web belt as "equipment" has never, to my knowledge, been questioned.


And that convoluted knot of policy originated because the policy makers would rather the line animal use a gun that shoots 3 cent ammo than a gun that shoots 35 cent ammo, then left the COs to justify the policy themselves, or so I was told.

A lawyer buddy of mine says that the legal aspect of the Hauge Convention is actually more critical or the 5.56x45 than the .50 BMG, as the former was implicitly adopted as a wounding cartrige, theory being that a wounded foe eliminates 3 men from the OpFor, rather than one for a dead foe.

AMX
2006-07-02, 10:50 AM
A lawyer buddy of mine says that the legal aspect of the Hauge Convention is actually more critical or the 5.56x45 than the .50 BMG, as the former was implicitly adopted as a wounding cartrige, theory being that a wounded foe eliminates 3 men from the OpFor, rather than one for a dead foe.
Except, of course, that little factoid is entirely incorrect.
(Heck, since medical assistance has to be renderd indiscriminately of friend and foe, you might end up reducing your own numbers more than the enemies'...)

There is actually a controversy about the 5.56, but that's because it tends to break apart inside the body, which can be argued to violate the ban on "bullets that expand or flatten easily within the body".

Regarding the .50, I'll simply quote myself from last time this came up...

(...) going strictly by (my knowledge of) international law, there's nothing wrong with using .50cals on enemy combattants, provided the ammunition used is not explosive, incendiary, expansive or poisoned.
There was a push for dropping the "expansive" prohibiton in favor of an energy maximum, but nothing came of that AFAIK.

Of course, standard ammunition for .50cals is usually HEI...

SpiderBrigade
2006-07-02, 11:02 AM
AMX, no offense, but mind going into WHY it's incorrect, instead of just dismissing it as a "little factoid?" Not only do those of us who aren't gun buffs learn something, you also don't sound so condescending. Win/win! ;)

Thomas
2006-07-02, 11:25 AM
I've never been able to find anything that says you can't use the .50 BMG round on soft targets (i.e. people). It's a machine gun round to begin with, and I'm pretty sure machine guns are intended more for soft than hard targets (not that the .50 BMG doesn't take out light vehicles; in WWII, a lot of the IFVs/APCs could be damaged out by it, too).

However, I've heard over and over that combat shotguns have some issues with international agreements. But, as AMX says, it's about the kind of ammunition used, not the caliber or the type of weapon. Slugs deform on impact, and would therefore violate the prohibition against expansive rounds, I imagine; buckshot (which is used in military shotguns, to my understanding, along with breacher rounds, which are meant for shooting doors) doesn't violate the prohibition. (There may be some confusion over that; Germany protested the use of combat shotguns - with buckshot - in 1918, because of its effectiveness. "Oh, mustard gas is fine, but for the love of god don't use shotguns!")

AMX
2006-07-02, 11:33 AM
AMX, no offense, but mind going into WHY it's incorrect, instead of just dismissing it as a "little factoid?" Not only do those of us who aren't gun buffs learn something, you also don't sound so condescending. Win/win! ;)
I'm almost sure we've already had this topic once - at least.

Anyway...
a) The theory didn't turn up until after the fact.
b) it simply doesn't work out:
- it relies on enemy soldiers (rather than medics, who don't fight anyway) retrieving their wounded comrade immediately (thereby risking their own lives), rather than securing the area first
- a dead soldier is out of the fight - a wounded soldier may be out of the fight, or he may still shoot at you
- as mentioned above, you're required to render help to everybody who needs it, not just your own - so the plan can backfire easily.
c) The actual reasons (weight, controlability, the little detail that "full powered" rounds are actually overpowered for typical engagement distances...) are well known, so there's no real need for an additional and rather questionable explanation.

Norsesmithy
2006-07-02, 04:58 PM
Never said that the "wounding cartrige" theory was correct, just that the procurment monkeys accepted it as such.

And I prefer a more powerful cartrige in a 3 round burst or semi auto battle rifle than a weaker cartrige in a full auto or burst fire assault rifle. (And I am not alone, seeing as the government is falling over itself to buy back the M14s it sold to smaller countries)

Mr Croup
2006-07-03, 09:06 AM
How realistic is the ninja-to? That is to say, is there some historical evidence supporting the notion of a sword that was used by the peasants of feudal Japan that was cheap, disposable, and yet highly useful (such as having a hollow hilt)?

(I know this was discussed earlier, but I can't seem to find it, and the existence of the ninja-to reared its head in another thread, so...)

It is realistic in the fact that swords slightly shorter than akatana, with less of a curved blade did exist. It is realistic that some assassins used shorter blades carried in full sized scabbards. Whether the techniques associated with this practice are historical or not, I can't say with any certainty.

As far as being a cheap, disposable peasant weapon, I doubt it. Cheaper than a noble's katana? Sure, but it seems unrealistic that someone would carry a flimsy sword that wouldn't stand up to more than one or two blows from a possible opponent's weapon.

LooseCannon
2006-07-03, 12:40 PM
And when you consider historical peasant rebellions in Japan, such as the revolts that occured after the Tempo reforms in 1841, most peasants used things like scythes and other farming instruments as weapons, or homemade spears (read: pointy sticks).

Mike_G
2006-07-03, 05:06 PM
I'm almost sure we've already had this topic once - at least.

Anyway...
a) The theory didn't turn up until after the fact.
b) it simply doesn't work out:
- it relies on enemy soldiers (rather than medics, who don't fight anyway) retrieving their wounded comrade immediately (thereby risking their own lives), rather than securing the area first
- a dead soldier is out of the fight - a wounded soldier may be out of the fight, or he may still shoot at you
- as mentioned above, you're required to render help to everybody who needs it, not just your own - so the plan can backfire easily.



There is the fact that, once you're dead, you no longer cost the Army time, effort and money. If wounded, the strain that the medical element puts on the logistics train is huge.

It's also necessary, since ignoring the wounded will send morale downhill real fast.

I wasn't all that afraid of dying as a Marine, but very afraid of being the legless homeless guy begging on the corner. Being wounded is bad enough, but if the nation you gave your health, youth and legs for tells you to piss off, that breeds mutiny.

So, arguably, hitting and wounding and enemy soldier will put a greater burden on the enemy war machine than killing one soldier.

Of course, this thinking was brought to you by the whiz kids that gave us Vietnam, so that ought to provide some perspective.

Thomas
2006-07-03, 07:18 PM
So, arguably, hitting and wounding and enemy soldier will put a greater burden on the enemy war machine than killing one soldier.

One would presume, though, that most considerations in choosing a weapon are tactical, not strategic on such a grand scale (so grand, in fact, as to appear nonsensical). That is to say, you want a weapon that will make enemy fighters into corpses, not slightly impaired enemy fighters. Corpses cost you a lot less lives.

Wehrkind
2006-07-03, 08:14 PM
Tactically it makes a certain amount of sense. Most weapons we now use were designed for fighting an enemy that fights a lot like us; ie. a Western power. Western Democracies tend to put a lot of emphasis on the well being of individual soldiers, and as such spend a great deal of time and money on medical supplies and training, as well as protective gear. This as compared to more Eastern militaries such as the Soviets or Chinese, where individual soldiers are more expendable.

At anyrate, in a standard "you guys stand there, we will stand here, and let's shoot at each other" fire fight there is a ideal point between wounding an enemy a little and splattering him across a wall where he is out of the fight due to injuries, but still screaming bloody murder and distracting and scaring his squad mates. When finding this point, it is better to err on the side of dead of course, but don't underestimate the large range of wounds that will keep a person from shooting back, at least for the next little while, and require his mates to help him out enough to stop scaring them.
Also, even if the team doesn't have a medic, there still will be someone bandaging the injured man's wounds to keep him alive, so if nothing else that removes another shooter for at least a little bit.

Now, for armies who consider their troops more expendable, this is not always ideal. Insurgents in parts of Iraq are known for suicide charges at American positions in the hopes of dying. They are fairly likely to keep shooting even if injured. The same is true for any troops that are doped up on various drugs, as is common in South America. So all in all it sometimes works very well, and sometimes works only fairly well.

Mike_G
2006-07-04, 01:55 AM
One would presume, though, that most considerations in choosing a weapon are tactical, not strategic on such a grand scale (so grand, in fact, as to appear nonsensical). That is to say, you want a weapon that will make enemy fighters into corpses, not slightly impaired enemy fighters. Corpses cost you a lot less lives.


I didn't say it was sound theory. Like I said, this came out of the Vietnam War theorists, who theorized a way for us, who had just defeated the highly advanced Wehrmacht and fanatic Japanese Empire, and fought the screaming Chicom Hordes to a standstill in the frozen wastes of Korea, to lose to a bunch of rebels in straw hats and tire sandals.

Thomas
2006-07-04, 02:04 AM
I can only quote...



c) The actual reasons (weight, controlability, the little detail that "full powered" rounds are actually overpowered for typical engagement distances...) are well known, so there's no real need for an additional and rather questionable explanation.

Wehrkind
2006-07-04, 02:04 AM
That's the theory that says you can win without making your enemy accept defeat at gun point, if I recall.

Dervag
2006-07-04, 12:56 PM
One would presume, though, that most considerations in choosing a weapon are tactical, not strategic on such a grand scale (so grand, in fact, as to appear nonsensical). That is to say, you want a weapon that will make enemy fighters into corpses, not slightly impaired enemy fighters. Corpses cost you a lot less lives.

Actually, quite a number of such choices have been made on the strategic level. The decision of "what gun I would want to carry into a firefight" is tactical; the decision of "what gun am I going to buy tens of thousands of to outfit my entire army" is often largely strategic. For instance, the Soviet World War II and postwar infantry firearms were selected in part on the basis of a strategic problem:

Most of their conscript soldiers weren't well trained. Training them extensively would be very expensive. Thus, instead of trying to train them, the Soviets made the strategic decision that it was cheaper to buy more bullets than to train their men in accurate, long-range shooting. So they built weapons optimized for rapid fire at close range (the PPsh 41 and AK-47), with the intent of putting so much lead in the air that it didn't matter if their troops couldn't shoot straight. Furthermore, they designed these weapons to be as simple as possible, because they wanted to make sure their troops were up to the task of maintaining them.

The low training levels of Red Army conscripts, and the ease with which the Russians could manufacture more ammo, were precisely the sort of strategic considerations that one sees with "a wounded man hurts the enemy more than a dead man."

I'm not going to say thing one about whether the theory is true or not. I'm just pointing out that strategic decisions do often go into determining what the individual infantryman will be armed with. Like that oldie-but-goodie:

"The war will be over by October, so we don't need winter clothing for our troops!"

Mike_G
2006-07-04, 02:58 PM
c) The actual reasons (weight, controlability, the little detail that "full powered" rounds are actually overpowered for typical engagement distances...) are well known, so there's no real need for an additional and rather questionable explanation.

I disagree with all these arguments.

Weight of combat load with the M16 (full auto) includes a lot more ammo than the M14 (semi auto, except for one autmatic per fire team) so you don't actually save muchn total weight. You blow through ammo so much quciker with a full auto weapon, that you either plan five minute battles or carry a lot more rounds.

Controlability is the same. With an M14 on semi auto you can reliably hit, or come close enough to suppress if the enemy is poorly seen, like a muzzle flash in the jungle, with a few shots. If you "rock and roll" with the M16, you just aren't going to hit anybody at anything other than very close range, so from a practical standpoint the weapon is less controlable.

The M14 round is not overpowered. It has more stopping power, and it's nice to be able to punch through cover. That's not a waste.

I'm just saying, if we have a twenty pound load limit for weapon and ammo, and you carry an M16 and use it on auto,while I carry an M14 and shoot semi, my (much less) ammo will last longer and hit more enemy.

The disadvanatges of full auto for every grunt is why the M16A2 upgraded version, adopted in the mid 80's by the Marines and the late 80's by the Army, is limited to three round bursts. Full auto with a weapon as light as the M16 is only accurate if you are having a shootout in a crowded elevator.

Wehrkind
2006-07-04, 08:31 PM
Dervag: Exactly. Nicely put.

Just to add a little more info, the Chinese SKS exhibits similar concepts taken a step farther. The does not have removable magazines like the AK or M16 (or more other "good" guns) but rather uses a top down loading magazine like old style WW2 Mausers and a "stripper clip", which is a slightly curved peice of metal that holds 10 rounds. You put the clip in the top, push down on the bullets, curse a bit, hit the gun, push down slightly differently, and then maybe have your weapon loaded. Why all this trouble? They are DIRT cheap. My dad has an SKS, and has actually found the ammo cheaper on the clip than he could find AK ammo loose (they fire the same round.) This is in part because the Chinese crank they stuff out like candy, but still it demonstrates the idea that they don't care to invest much in their soldiers, prefering just to have a lot.

TinSoldier
2006-07-05, 12:07 AM
I like the AK-47, but give me an M-4 any day. I would rather carry more rounds of ammo than have better "stopping power".

I think a 5.56 has plenty of stopping power. One unfortunate fact of combat is that people from both sides will "pray and spray" before they make well-aimed shots. I would rather be the one with ammunition left after such an encounter and begin thinking of such things as "well-aimed shots" when it gets to the end game.

Wehrkind
2006-07-05, 01:36 AM
If you want that to be the case, just keep your head down and stop putting lead everywhere but your target. Alternately pack a cartridge heavy enough to punch through the cinder blocks your opponant is hiding behind.

Mike_G
2006-07-05, 02:36 AM
I like the AK-47, but give me an M-4 any day. I would rather carry more rounds of ammo than have better "stopping power".

I think a 5.56 has plenty of stopping power. One unfortunate fact of combat is that people from both sides will "pray and spray" before they make well-aimed shots. I would rather be the one with ammunition left after such an encounter and begin thinking of such things as "well-aimed shots" when it gets to the end game.


It doesn't work as doctrine.

The M16 concept of "Give the squad twelve machine guns" was abandonned as a bad idea when we upgraded to the M16A2 and took awy the full auto setting. Even the Army caught on.

Full auto just burns barrels and wastes ammo. We expended 100,000 to 500,000 rounds (depending on whose numbers you trust) to produce an enemy casualty in Vietnam after the switch to the M16.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to hump a combat load of 100,000 rounds, even if they are light little 5.56 mm.

Take cover, take a deep breath and aim the rifle.

Studies with regular Army infantry showed that one man prone firing one magazine on semi auto got more hits at 100 yards than the rest of the platoon standing up emptying a magazine on full auto.

You get thirty times more hits by aiming the weapon.

What a concept.

Warlord
2006-07-05, 03:02 AM
Battlefield 2 is a great game. It quite realistically emulates the way a rifle fires in auto mode. Poorly, and upwards. The first shot is the most likely round to hit the target, followed by successive rounds going higher and higher, kicked in that direction by the recoil, rechambering mechanism (including the gas feedback that powers it) and the contained blast inside the firing chamber itself. This is coupled by the actual action of bracing for the shot and using your arms to force the rifle back down towards the target. Each shot simply gets dramatically poorer in its chance to hit the target.

In the game, you aim your first shot at the opponent's feet and only then will you likely kill him in a burst of fire. In real life, your first shot is still your best chance. So like Tin Soldier said, aiming is what it's all about. It's how I got my marksmanship badge in the armed forces. That's over 80 per cent accuracy at the range.

The USAF looks like the first ones to get the idea right. Nowadays bombs are guided and smart. It's way better than sowing the land with hundreds of bombs. Some of which are still being dug up decades after they were dropped - with many still live!

Wehrkind
2006-07-05, 03:48 AM
Come to think of it, the effectiveness of full auto weapons is one of the few things Hollywood gets right about combat. Expendable peons spraying 1,000s of round and never actually hitting the hero isn't too far from reality, depending on the situation.

Now, if only I could impress on them some basics of melee weapon use, I could sit through a movie without complaining.

LooseCannon
2006-07-05, 04:04 AM
The USAF looks like the first ones to get the idea right. Nowadays bombs are guided and smart. It's way better than sowing the land with hundreds of bombs. Some of which are still being dug up decades after they were dropped - with many still live!
I don't know if this is true. There's a difference between small-arms engagement and bombing. In particular, carpet bombing in WW2, which was exactly what you describe, basically bombers wingtip to wingtip saturating an entire area with hundreds of bombs, was excruciatingly effective at routing entire German divisions during the Normandy breakout. If you have a large enemy force, you're not going to do too bad to just unload cheap but effective explosives upon it.

The same applies to artillery. You teach your artillerymen to aim over distance and your quality improves. But you can also do the "artillery is the Red God of war" strategy, and create entire divisions of cannon designed not so much to kill precisely, but to kill...indiscriminately. The USSR created the Katyusha, which is the ultimate random artillery weapon, and used it to extreme effect.

The reason smart bombs became popular was because of politics, not efficiently. Unless you know *exactly* where the big bad evil bad guy is going to be, it's rarely worth your time to unload with a single smart bomb (ie, al-Zarqawi, but when was the last time they got, say, Saddam or Osama with a smart bomb?).

It all comes down to the situation, really. But if a land war ever occured again, not these small interventions/oil grabs/what have yous with insurgencies, we'd go back to indiscriminate carpet bombing. It's cheaper and just as effective. We'd use smart bombs, too, but hey, if we had to roll up a division, start from the air.

Wehrkind
2006-07-05, 04:22 AM
That's a good point. Bombs work differently because each covers a significant area which can overlap, and function across a single plane, the same as their target, whereas bullets cover a much smaller area with overlapping requiring an immense amount of firing to cover a reasonable area, as well as having to opperate in three dimensions.

To put it another way, 100 bombs of decent size could reliably kill everything on a flat plane say 200 yards to a side. 100 .50 cal bullets would be hard pressed to get the same relative coverage on an 8.5x11 peice of paper.

AMX
2006-07-05, 05:02 AM
I disagree with all these arguments.

Weight of combat load with the M16 (full auto) includes a lot more ammo than the M14 (semi auto, except for one autmatic per fire team) so you don't actually save muchn total weight.Lower weight per shot, geez.
Whether that's used to actually lower the net weight you've got to carry, or to give you more ammo, is a different issue.

You blow through ammo so much quciker with a full auto weapon, that you either plan five minute battles or carry a lot more rounds.Or teach the grunts when to use the auto setting (i.e., almost never) and when not to.
Or simply take away the full-auto capability and put in a burst mode instead.


Controlability is the same. With an M14 on semi auto you can reliably hit, or come close enough to suppress if the enemy is poorly seen, like a muzzle flash in the jungle, with a few shots. If you "rock and roll" with the M16, you just aren't going to hit anybody at anything other than very close range, so from a practical standpoint the weapon is less controlable.Yes, because it's absolutely impossible not to fire full auto with the M16... oh wait, it isn't.
Anyway, to elaborate on the "controlability" part: To get the same degree of controlability (in the same firing mode, of course) with a stronger cartridge you need a heavier weapon.
Conversely, a weaker cartridge allows building an equally (un-)controlable weapon with lower weight, or a weapon of the same weight that's easier to control.


The M14 round is not overpowered. It has more stopping power, and it's nice to be able to punch through cover. That's not a waste.It has capabilities that are never actually needed, but are paid for with higher weight and recoil.
It is, by definition, overpowered for a primary infantry weapon (for support weapons, on the other hand, it's actually a bit on the weak side).

Plus, I've been hearing rumors that it has a tendency to simply zip through people at very close ranges, actually showing less "stopping power"...


I'm just saying, if we have a twenty pound load limit for weapon and ammo, and you carry an M16 and use it on auto,while I carry an M14 and shoot semi, my (much less) ammo will last longer and hit more enemy.And if I actually use my brain and fire semi, too, more ammo will last longer, and maybe even leave me some leftovers to burn on auto to break up a charge.


The disadvanatges of full auto for every grunt is why the M16A2 upgraded version, adopted in the mid 80's by the Marines and the late 80's by the Army, is limited to three round bursts.Yep, that's what happens if you don't teach your guys when to use which firing mode.

Full auto with a weapon as light as the M16 is only accurate if you are having a shootout in a crowded elevator.A bit of an exaggeration, that - although the original M16 was noticeably underweight.

Zincorium
2006-07-05, 05:23 AM
*snip*
Plus, I've been hearing rumors that it has a tendency to simply zip through people at very close ranges, actually showing less "stopping power"...

Yeah, well, that's something to worry about with any kind of FMJ ammo, regardless of caliber, or power or whatever. They are explicitly designed not to expand, so that kind of leaves no option besides 'zipping through'. Smart people don't use Full Metal Jacket rounds to hunt animals.

The thing to remember here is that you have to shoot the enemy in the gut or graze them in order for the bullet to not hit some kind of bone, and if you haven't considered the damage from that splintering and going through vital organs, might want to do so. Even if it hits nothing but soft tissue, any round at close range is going to rip that up very badly, causing shock.

As far as the 7.62 nato being overpowered for the most common or average use, yeah. But if you happen to need that extra range or penetration, you're not going to be happy with being equipped with an inappropriate caliber.

AMX
2006-07-05, 05:42 AM
Yeah, well, that's something to worry about with any kind of FMJ ammo, regardless of caliber, or power or whatever. They are explicitly designed not to expand, so that kind of leaves no option besides 'zipping through'. Smart people don't use Full Metal Jacket rounds to hunt animals.
Well, my "source" (if you can call it that - rumors, ya know?) claimed it was a lot worse with 7.62x51 than 5.56x45.


As far as the 7.62 nato being overpowered for the most common or average use, yeah. But if you happen to need that extra range or penetration, you're not going to be happy with being equipped with an inappropriate caliber.
And that's where aforementioned support weapons come in.
I may not be happy about spotting an enemy I can't engage effectively, but I'd be perfectly content watching the GPMG rip him to shreds.

Wehrkind
2006-07-05, 05:46 AM
And that is exactly the problem with using a little round: It works when you don't need something heavier, but it doesn't when you do. A heavier round works all the time, overkill or no.

(I personally think that not allowing expanding bullets is a little silly, since these boys are out to kill each other, and I would rather be killed definitely by a hollow point than merely severely wounded and likely to die by a FMJ. I prefer a fast resolution in that regard.)

And I suspect the Army spent quite a bit of time teaching their grunts to not piss away all their ammo on full auto, then decided it was just not possible to get that into their heads in the heat of combat, and took away the option.

Edit: Simuninja... to answer your point, it is better to have everyone have a little more penetrating power than having to rely on one man. If it can be accomplished without putting overbalancing problems in the way, it should be done. It's sort of like saying only one man in the platoon needs to carry a kabar, since everyone can borrow his and avoid the extra weight.

TinSoldier
2006-07-05, 10:44 AM
It doesn't work as doctrine.

The M16 concept of "Give the squad twelve machine guns" was abandonned as a bad idea when we upgraded to the M16A2 and took awy the full auto setting. Even the Army caught on.

Full auto just burns barrels and wastes ammo. We expended 100,000 to 500,000 rounds (depending on whose numbers you trust) to produce an enemy casualty in Vietnam after the switch to the M16.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to hump a combat load of 100,000 rounds, even if they are light little 5.56 mm.

Take cover, take a deep breath and aim the rifle.

Studies with regular Army infantry showed that one man prone firing one magazine on semi auto got more hits at 100 yards than the rest of the platoon standing up emptying a magazine on full auto.

You get thirty times more hits by aiming the weapon.

What a concept.

Mike, I'm not disagreeing with this concept at all. You can still pray-n-spray on semi-auto though, and even well-trained troops do it. Plus it's difficult for anyone to breathe/relax/aim/stop/squeeze when the bad guys are aiming suppressive fire your direction.

I'm all for accurate single shots or double-taps. With that as a baseline I would rather carry an extra mag or two of lighter ammunition.

I agree about full auto -- don't do it. I don't even like firing on burst really. Even machine guns shouldn't be fired full cyclic -- what, isn't it supposed to be 7-10 round bursts? I can't remember now.

Mike_G
2006-07-05, 12:56 PM
Lower weight per shot, geez.
Whether that's used to actually lower the net weight you've got to carry, or to give you more ammo, is a different issue.
Or teach the grunts when to use the auto setting (i.e., almost never) and when not to.
Or simply take away the full-auto capability and put in a burst mode instead.




AMX, I'm going to address your whole post, but I was having issues with my cut and paste as far as keeping my arguments organized, so I'm just going to write one chunk:

Ok, the point I'm making, and I think TinSoldier is on the same page on this point, is that if you give someone a full auto weapon, he will use it that way.

Yes, you can fire the M16 on semi. I put rounds in the black at 500 yards at Parris Island on semi with the M16. But when you have the capability to fire full auto, and the adrenaline of combat, people tend to go that way.

The Army study I quoted earlier from Vietnam was by two Army snipers who noticed that all the grunts they were training fired full auto. That's when they took the one guy aside and showed how his twenty eight aimed rounds (the crappy M16 mags can't be loaded all the way or you weaken the spring) did more that the rest of the platoon's hail of lead.

As far as "controllability" that isn't an issue. You can't control it on full auto, but it isn't used tht way. One rifle per fire team could fire on auto, and thet one had a bipod for use as a Squad Automatic Weapon. From a bipod, you can use the M14 full auto.

The early M16 was used full auto almost all the time, so even though you can carry more ammo, you blow through it faster. That's a fact. Give every guy in the squad a machine gun and say "Now, listen up Marines! You will only use the automatic setting when necessary!" is like handed each of them a twelve pack of beer and saying how you expect them to ration it out at one per night. That's why they took the option away on the M16A2.

The M14 is heavier. And the ammo is heavier. But it is more reliable, better range, can penetrate cover and the round causes much more tissue damage and likely incapacitation than the weaker round. A 5.56 will kill you, no argument, but it does tend to pass through and leave people standing, as illustrated in Somalia, and it won't hurt you if you are on the other side of a log or cinder block wall or dirt berm. A 7.62 is more likely to drop you as it has a lot more energy, and even if it does pass through soft tissue, the wound channel and cavitation is much greater. Plus, if all you can see if a guy's head, it hard to hit him. It's impossible to hit him on automatic. But if you aim at the space below the windowledge, your M14 round will punch through the wall and your enemy.

I agree that the reasons you cited, weight and controlability, were probably how the M16 was sold to the military. I just think they were oversold as advantages which did not turn out to be all that much better in the field, and worse if anything.

Thomas
2006-07-05, 04:14 PM
Most longsword fechtbuchs seem to include pictures of fighters holding the blade of the sword (while half-swording and when morte-striking) with a bare, apparently ungauntleted hand. Was this actually feasible - that is, could it be done without cutting one's hand, or are the images incorrect, and the trick was actually only done with a gauntlet or mail-palmed glove?

I've read that a rapier (a proper, 4' + medieval/renaissance rapier, not a foil or similar toy) can be grabbed and snapped with a bare hand without uncurring injury to the hand, provided one does it right, but it seems less likely the blade of a longsword would serve as a handle without cutting the hand that holds it.

Edmund
2006-07-05, 04:33 PM
Thomas:

Yes, it is possible, but the person in question must have calluses aplenty.

It must also be done very carefully, depending upon the type of sword. Type XVIIIs, for example, tend to be more cut-and-thrust rather than the thrust-oriented XVs and XVIIs.

These latter two, in particular, have poor edge geometry for the cut, and so are (a little) safer to grab with bare hands. Of course, there is always the risk of getting cut, but if you grip it properly, it can be done.

Of course, if you don't have lots (and I mean lots) of thick calluses, you're far better off with a simple leather gauntlet. Besides, the two techniques described are much more often preferred for armoured combat.

Many rapiers are nearly edgeless (especially the later cup-hilt varieties) and so one can quite easily grab and (addendum) with a good deal of effort snap the blade of one of these.

Mike_G
2006-07-05, 04:37 PM
Many blades had a ricasso (sp?) or unsharpened section of the blade near the guard. You could grip that without a problem.

I can't see being able to snap a rapier blade with your bare hand, at least not easily. Catching and trapping it, sure. The style of rapier fighting would have the point extended toward you where you could grab at it, and even if the blade were sharp, if you get a good grip on the flat sides with your thumb and fingers, you should be able to hold it without getting cut.

At that point, I'd think you'd just stab your opponent while his blade was out of action, rather than trying to snap it.

Fhaolan
2006-07-05, 04:48 PM
European longswords were sharp, but they weren't as sharp as razors and the like. If you know what you're doing, half-sword is feasable with bare hands, because you don't actually touch the edge. Instead, you press the flat of the blade with palm and fingers so that the edge is a good distance away from you fingers. Friction does the rest. Most people probably wore leather gauntlet/gloves at the time. Many of those illustrated fight manuals left out clothing details, either to better show positioning of legs and arms, or just because they don't tell you *everything*. Afterall, if you can learn all you need form the manual, there's no reason to come to the academy itself to learn. Slicing your own hand open is a good indication that you need to attend the academy. :)

Oh, modern note: Touching a sword-blade with your bare hand is bad for the blade. The oils on your skin are acidic. If you don't clean your blade after touching it, your fingerprints will etch into the blade after about a day or two.

Snapping a rapier: RL rapiers are considerably tougher than people seem to think. You can trap an opponent's blade with your bare hand, but snapping it is difficult. A real rapier should be able to withstand being bent like that. There were 'swordbreaker' off-hand weapons, but from personal experience, I think that's a case of enthusiastic advertising rather than actual usage. These swordbreakers (and bare-hand catch techniques) seem better suited to delaying your opponent's blade long enough to make a strike of your own.

Darkie
2006-07-05, 09:48 PM
But when you have the capability to fire full auto, and the adrenaline of combat, people tend to go that way.
<snip>
That's why they took the option away on the M16A2.You're a marine, right? Aren't current issue M16 varants full auto capable?

TinSoldier
2006-07-05, 10:09 PM
You're a marine, right? Aren't current issue M16 varants full auto capable?
I don't know about current Marine Corps issue, but the M16A2s we had weren't. In the Army Guard we had M4s which were also 3-round burst. Well, until we had to leave them in Kuwait.

(Served in Marines and Army...)

Mike_G
2006-07-05, 10:58 PM
You're a marine, right? Aren't current issue M16 varants full auto capable?


Not since the M16A2 replaced the old A1.

Full auto wasn't useful. That's what the SAW is for. The newer M16 is semi auto or three round burst. The SAW is heavy enough that it doesn't dance around too much when firing auto. It's still better served with short bursts.

TinSoldier
2006-07-05, 11:03 PM
Mike -- you ever use an M4? They seem small at first but once you get used to it you think the M16A2 is huge!

Mike_G
2006-07-06, 01:55 AM
Mike -- you ever use an M4? They seem small at first but once you get used to it you think the M16A2 is huge!



I fired one on the rifle range, but never carried one as standard issue.

I like it, since you get carbine size for a full powered (for a 5.56) round. It's a nice compromise and a good weapon for vehicle crews, anti armor or mortar guys.

TinSoldier
2006-07-06, 09:45 AM
I fired one on the rifle range, but never carried one as standard issue.

I like it, since you get carbine size for a full powered (for a 5.56) round. It's a nice compromise and a good weapon for vehicle crews, anti armor or mortar guys.
And urban fighting and room clearing (it's small size make it easier to handle in small spaces.) However your concerns about small round size still apply.

Mike_G
2006-07-07, 01:57 AM
Doesn't the M4 fire the same 5.56 round?

With its size you can still use it in close quarters, but it doesn't have a pistol round like most SMGs, which are fine in house clearing but lousy at 100 yards.

The MP5 is great for CQB but useless for long range. The M4 is a nice compromise for both.

TinSoldier
2006-07-07, 02:00 AM
The MP5 is great for CQB but useless for long range. The M4 is a nice compromise for both.Yeah. That's what the point I was trying to make.

Ryujin
2006-07-07, 03:55 AM
Yeah. That's what the point I was trying to make.

Or go the bullpup route, if you don't mind the problems of overpenetration in an urban environment or a hostage situation.

Zincorium
2006-07-07, 04:10 AM
Overpenetration is just something you have to deal with when you're using any kind of round appropriate for killing people, and given that the army isn't supposed to use frangible rounds, or other rounds with a similiar function, which are designed to minimize overpenetration, you're denied the ability to do much about it.

Bullpup design is an excellent idea as far as purely technical, but in terms of ergonomics and training they're a bit iffy. Most bullpup weapons cannot be used well by left handed people, due to the ejection port, and it's more difficult to put an adjustable stock on a bullpup, since you're right on the receiver as it is. Also, the reloading and balance are completely different on a bullpup. You basically would have to retrain all of the troops to get them up to their previous ability.

As far as the M4 goes, I've heard different opinions on the effect of the short barrel on the effectiveness of the round, either that it's almost no different from an M16, or that it's marginally worse than a .22 due to recoil. Somebody with experience mind letting us know where between the two it happens to be?

Sundog
2006-07-07, 04:59 AM
Apparently the Australian Army didn't have much trouble adjusting when they went from the M-16 to the Steyr AUG. And the AUG switches from right to left hand use in about thirty seconds with the correct kit.

There was a problem with AUG's safety system, but that seesm to have been solved now.

Zincorium
2006-07-07, 05:46 AM
Well, I did say most. I'd be interested in hearing how that went for the Diggers (Australian Army). Saw a couple of them in Miramar a while back, but obviously it did not occur to me to ask them then.

TinSoldier
2006-07-07, 09:59 AM
As far as the M4 goes, I've heard different opinions on the effect of the short barrel on the effectiveness of the round, either that it's almost no different from an M16, or that it's marginally worse than a .22 due to recoil. Somebody with experience mind letting us know where between the two it happens to be?I never noticed much recoil difference when firing it. The smallness of it takes some getting used to but that doesn't take long.

You lose a little bit of range but since most combat takes place much closer than 500m that doesn't matter as much.

Wehrkind
2006-07-07, 11:14 PM
I don't know about the M16/M4 trade off, but I know that with 357 magnum soft lead rounds fired out of a 1894 Winchester and a revolver, you lose about 500 fps using the revolver, which greatly reduces penetration and (I would suspect) range. Same rounds, ~18" shorter barrel or so (running from memory estimate, didn't measure it at the time.)

Now, the M4's barrel isn't THAT much shorter, but the % difference is probably reasonably similar given they are using the same long burn powder.

I might have mentioned this experiment before; I just think it was really cool how the same rounds bounced off a T6 aluminum shield at ~800-900 fps out of a revolver, and drove through at ~1400 fps out of a rifle.

Ryujin
2006-07-08, 04:22 AM
Apparently the Australian Army didn't have much trouble adjusting when they went from the M-16 to the Steyr AUG. And the AUG switches from right to left hand use in about thirty seconds with the correct kit.

There was a problem with AUG's safety system, but that seesm to have been solved now.


Nor the French, it seems, with the FAMAS. The Israelis are re-equipping too, with their homegrown IMI Tavor (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html).

An aquaintance of mine who currently makes sound suppressors has always regretted not purchasing a FAMAS when he had the opportunity to do so.

On the other hand...

Seeing the manual of arms performed with a bullpup will evoke a few snickers. Also, a friend of mine had an embarrassing experience more than a decade ago with the early production version of the L85--it was all too easy to hit the magazine release accidentally during a simulated assault with MILES equipment, leaving him unknowingly with but a single round up the spout, and the magazine a dozen meters away on the floor.

But that's more a problem with the designers at Enfield, and not with the bullpup layout itself.

Thiel
2006-07-08, 04:51 PM
There was a problem with AUG's safety system, but that seesm to have been solved now.
As far a I know, they solved it by introducing a training doctrine that said: If you handle the weapon, check the Safety. Thats why on many pictures of Australian troops you will see at least one soldier looking down at his weapon.

ScritchyPants
2006-07-08, 11:06 PM
Yeah. I'll give you that.

If you want to clear a room and leave just dead bad guys and safe, happy hostages, use the MP5 as previously indicated.

One of the reasons so many Special Ops groups and SWAT type units like the gun so much.

If ypou want to clear a room, use a twelve guage pump and follow up with a M1911 for the survivors ;)

Ain't nothing like a scattergun for tight spaces, and unlike a grenade, you can control the direction of the scatter.

[edited for typos]

ScritchyPants
2006-07-08, 11:22 PM
I don't know if this is true. There's a difference between small-arms engagement and bombing. In particular, carpet bombing in WW2, which was exactly what you describe, basically bombers wingtip to wingtip saturating an entire area with hundreds of bombs, was excruciatingly effective at routing entire German divisions during the Normandy breakout. If you have a large enemy force, you're not going to do too bad to just unload cheap but effective explosives upon it.

It was also very effective during Desert Storm. Entire Iraqi divisions were rendered ineffective due to either death, terror, or burial in a sandy grave when the BUFFs (B-52s) carpet bombed the Iraqi positions.

Zincorium
2006-07-09, 05:23 AM
I'd say use a 12-gauge semi-auto like a Saiga-12 or somesuch instead of a pump shotgun in a close quarters situation, mostly due to the strong possibility there will be multiple people encountered at once.

Yeah, it takes a very short time to cycle the action on the pump shotgun, but that entire time the enemy is well aware of your presence, and is probably firing back. The Saiga has an incredibly rapid rate of target nuetralization, and if you need to, you can hose down the entire room as well. The biggest plus would be the fact that it is clip fed. I would not want to be inside an enemy controlled building feeding individual shells into the action.

ScritchyPants
2006-07-09, 06:17 AM
I don't know about the M16/M4 trade off, but I know that with 357 magnum soft lead rounds fired out of a 1894 Winchester and a revolver, you lose about 500 fps using the revolver, which greatly reduces penetration and (I would suspect) range. Same rounds, ~18" shorter barrel or so (running from memory estimate, didn't measure it at the time.)

Now, the M4's barrel isn't THAT much shorter, but the % difference is probably reasonably similar given they are using the same long burn powder.

Don't forget that the revolver also loses pressure through the barrel/drum gap, which has a signifigant effect on muzzle velocity. A well made revolver reduces thi considerably, but the loss still occurs.

Were-Sandwich
2006-07-09, 10:10 AM
A quick question: Were any of the following weapons ever actually used by anyone: Double axe, two-bladed sword, dire flail, urgrosh.

The dire flail seems ridiculous, though. swing it over to attack and smack youself in the crotch.

sapphail
2006-07-09, 11:44 AM
The double axe is possible. I highly doubt the rest are based on reality, though I suppose anything's possible when you consider the range of weaponry different cultures have developed over the milennia. Maybe the two-bladed sword was an Asian weapon.

Fhaolan
2006-07-09, 12:13 PM
A quick question: Were any of the following weapons ever actually used by anyone: Double axe, two-bladed sword, dire flail, urgrosh.

The dire flail seems ridiculous, though. swing it over to attack and smack youself in the crotch.

Quick answer: Nope. All of them are fantasy.

Double weapons in general are silly. There are a few examples of such things in RL, mostly martial arts weapons like the 'Full Moon' and the Indian madu.

The madu (basically a buckler with projecting blades in various directions) was more a parrying weapon than an offensive one.

The full moon is basically a quarterstaff that happens to have blades on either end. I think most double-ended weapons will boil down to this, if they actually work at all.

I have a friend who built a double-ended bec-du-corbin for sparring. It 'works', but it doesn't gain any real advantage over a normal bec-du-corbin. He says now that's he's worked with it, it may make a very flashy crowd-pleasing kind of demo weapon, but if he was going for effectiveness he'd have been better off just mounting a spike on the butt end like they actually did back then.

Darkie
2006-07-09, 04:29 PM
I might have mentioned this experiment before; I just think it was really cool how the same rounds bounced off a T6 aluminum shield at ~800-900 fps out of a revolver, and drove through at ~1400 fps out of a rifle. When firing that round out of your revolver, I'm willing to bet you get a considerable excess of propellant gases flashing out of the barrel, a flaming trail, as it were. That's what accounts for the difference - same amount of propellent, but when the barrel ends, it no longer accelerates the projectile (much) and becomes undirected.

The different barrel lengths (5.5 inches or so?) accounts for a difference of about 80 fps. (M16A2 vs M4).

Wehrkind
2006-07-09, 11:55 PM
Yes, I figured the length of the barrel was the main factor, since you have more time for the powder to completely burn and the resultant expansion to accelerate the bullet. Something good to think about when statting different sorts of firearm's damage.

Lapak
2006-07-14, 01:39 PM
Quick question about modern firearms: how much ammunition is it reasonable for a person to be carrying? I mean, extended firefights with infinite reloads are all very well in action movies, but how does that translate to reality (or a realisitic game?) How many rounds would a typical soldier be carrying, and how - loose? in magazines? in a larger container?

What about a police officer, or a SWAT team member? I'm trying to get a feel for both how much CAN be carried without impeding someone as well as how much various armed people would probably have on them.

Thomas
2006-07-14, 01:59 PM
Finnish soldiers carry 3 mags in a magazine pocket and 2 in their pack, I think; that's the instructed minimum. If you're light on the survival equipment, even 10 mags might be quite reasonable.

Mind, ours aren't exactly small mags, at that; 7.62x54 mm rounds for a rifle modelled on the AK series (mags are compatible between the rifles).

Zincorium
2006-07-14, 03:49 PM
7.62x54 is the same as the Dragunov, I believe. And yeah, it's going to be a lot heavier than smaller ammo. I've seen tactical vests that will carry something like 12 different pistol clips of ammo, and the companies are still in business, so someone decided that they needed the ability to carry that much.

Anyway, I think it would vary a lot depending on what role you were in, and what type of gun you had. A swat officer could probably carry quite a bit of ammo, but I'd think they'd carry a lot more ammo if they had a submachinegun as opposed to a shotgun. Shotgun shells are bulky, and most police departments use pump actions so the shells have to be loose and loaded individually into the gun. However, one or two shots should be sufficient for each target, whereas with a submachine gun the rounds are small enough that I wouldn't want to put fewer than three bullets into any individual target, that, and misses with an automatic weapon use more ammo than semi-auto in any case.

Darkie
2006-07-14, 04:36 PM
The local police all have one loaded, two clips spare (if you look, you can easily see.)

The Glock 17s that I believe are in use by the local police carry 19 or 17 rounds each, giving roughly 57 to 51 rounds.

The Glock 23s I believe our provincial (Canada) officers use carry 13 rounds, giving roughly 39 rounds.

Of course, since their gear is modular, they could always add on another clip to their belt. I haven't seen any officer with less than two spares, though.

I don't have my reference here, but off the top of my head, US riflemen carry around a hundred rounds of ammunition (one magazine has 30 rounds) for thier M16. And of course, that's subject to individuals, as their loadouts are also modular.

Edit: It's worth noting that four M16 magazines give 120 rounds, and five M14 magazines give 100 rounds...

So the soldiers all tend to have at least a hundred rounds.

Thomas
2006-07-15, 02:22 AM
7.62x54 is the same as the Dragunov, I believe.

D'oh, silly me, you're right; that's the "sniper rifle caliber" (Mosin-Nagant, Dragunov). Our Rk 62 (and later models) use 7.62x39. Same as AK-47, AKM, RPK, and a few others.

Piotr_Zak
2006-07-15, 02:59 AM
In the same vein as the question about double weapons: does the mercurial greatsword have any basis in reality? Clearly WotC didn't invent the concept, since Severian's sword in Gene Wolfe's New Sun books is described the same way, but is the D&D sword a borrowing from Wolfe or are they both based on a historical weapon that my cursory research hasn't turned up?

Thomas
2006-07-15, 03:11 AM
In the same vein as the question about double weapons: does the mercurial greatsword have any basis in reality? Clearly WotC didn't invent the concept, since Severian's sword in Gene Wolfe's New Sun books is described the same way, but is the D&D sword a borrowing from Wolfe or are they both based on a historical weapon that my cursory research hasn't turned up?

This has been answered before. No, they don't have a basis in reality. The concept is ludicrous. Someone almost certainly picked the weapon up from the books you mention, yes.

Piotr_Zak
2006-07-15, 04:06 AM
This has been answered before. No, they don't have a basis in reality. The concept is ludicrous. Someone almost certainly picked the weapon up from the books you mention, yes.
Ah, sorry. I did a search, but it didn't turn up anything in this thread.

I suspected that would be the case.

Mike_G
2006-07-15, 08:49 AM
Quick question about modern firearms: how much ammunition is it reasonable for a person to be carrying? I mean, extended firefights with infinite reloads are all very well in action movies, but how does that translate to reality (or a realisitic game?) How many rounds would a typical soldier be carrying, and how - loose? in magazines? in a larger container?


The "standard" combat load in the Marines (for a rifleman) was seven thirty round magazines for the M16. Actually, since the magazines suck, you have to short load them with 28 rounds to not weaken the spring.

That's 196 rounds, which isn't all that much if you get in a prolonged fight. Carrying extra ammo if you can get it is pretty standard. As much of it as is practical should be in magazines, since loading a magazine in combat proabbly less fun than it sounds. Ammo comes in boxes before being loaded in magazines, so if you can't get extra mags, you can probably pack a few boxes of ammo to reload magazines from.

If you watch your fire discipline on semi auto, that ammo can last a while. When the first M16s were issued in Vietnam with full auto, and the seven magazine load was standard issue, you pretty much ran out three seconds after spotting an enemy, or the wind moved a bush and you thought you saw an enemey, or the weapon jammed.