Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? III

[Orion-the-G]

I can almost hear the screams starting....

[Old_el_Paso]

Screams from what?

[SpiderBrigade]

Well, when I was a kid there were these "gimmick" baseball bats you could buy that had liquid inside them. The idea was that when you swung, the stuff would flow down into the end of the bat, changing the angular momentum and imparting more force to the ball.

That was the idea, similar to the idea behind Mercurial Weapons I think. So yes, with the right tech you could build something like that. But I doubt it'd do a whole lot for you in combat. Plus by the time you have the capability to make such a weapon, there's probably more powerful things you should be using than a sword with liquid in it.

[Edmund]

Would a mercurial weapon be possible in real life?

This has been covered in an earlier version of this thread. I think number II.

[Dudukain]

Okay, what the heck is a blackjack or something like that?

[Wehrkind]

It's a little lether sack on a stick, about the size of a child's tube sock, with something really dense in the end, like lead, or coins etc. Essentially you smack someone in the back of the head with it, and it knocks them out. How exactly it is used, I will leave up to someone else, but that is the gist to my understanding.

[Darkie]

Screams from what?
I believe the expected scream was "Run a search (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=search) before asking questions."

Kind of a nice gesture to make sure something wasn't asked before.

[Beleriphon]

In reference to the black jack.

Remember the episode of The Simpsons when Homer goes into space? Remember what the scientist keeps hitting Homer and Barney with? Thats a blackjack.

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

While I know the concept and make-up of both, I can't understand the expected difference in performence between dual-purpose rounds and jacketed hollowpoints. Can someone clear that up for me?

Also, how effective would diamond tips/edges be in weapons? I expect a diamond-tipped SABOT round would be more effective against armor, but I'm not so sure about swords and the like...

[Darkie]

While I know the concept and make-up of both, I can't understand the expected difference in performence between dual-purpose rounds and jacketed hollowpoints. Can someone clear that up for me?

Also, how effective would diamond tips/edges be in weapons? I expect a diamond-tipped SABOT round would be more effective against armor, but I'm not so sure about swords and the like...

Forgive my ignorance, but what are you referring to when you say "dual-purpose round"?

For melee weapons, I'd imagine diamond tipped piercing weapons may by useful, but as diamonds are brittle, it wouldn't be all that great an idea to have a diamond sword...

[lordbyronix]

Hey guys. When I was visiting the Castello de San Angelo in Rome, there was an exhibit of various 17th century weapons, including "gun swords." They were basically rapier-like swords with a thin smooth bore gun barrel running up the side of the blade connected to a wheel-lock (I think) and trigger built into into the hilt of the sword. My question is, were these built only for display purposes, or would they have had any use in combat?

[Fhaolan]

Hey guys. When I was visiting the Castello de San Angelo in Rome, there was an exhibit of various 17th century weapons, including "gun swords." They were basically rapier-like swords with a thin smooth bore gun barrel running up the side of the blade connected to a wheel-lock (I think) and trigger built into into the hilt of the sword. My question is, were these built only for display purposes, or would they have had any use in combat?

Oh, they made *all* sorts of weird-ass gun/weapon combinations: Pistol/rapiers, pistol/axes, pistol/hunting swords, etc. Because of the nature of black-powder weapons they would be used a bit differently from what modern gun-users would guess. You fire the gun as your first move, and then you can use the melee component. If you try to use the melee weapon before firing the gun, it's almost guarenteed that it will either prematurely go off, or misfire.

These were gimmick weapons, and while they might actually work once in awhile, they were simply too 'tricky' to see much real use outside of the up-man-ship stuff common with nobles.

[Raum]

While I know the concept and make-up of both, I can't understand the expected difference in performence between dual-purpose rounds and jacketed hollowpoints. Can someone clear that up for me?
Dual-purpose rounds are specially designed to have both Armour piercing and enhanced wounding effects. A hydroshock round, for example, has an expanding jacket wad cutter for damage and a center pin for limited armor piercing.


Also, how effective would diamond tips/edges be in weapons? I expect a diamond-tipped SABOT round would be more effective against armor, but I'm not so sure about swords and the like...
Probably not very. As Jeff mentioned, diamonds are brittle. They also have less mass than say a depleted uranium round.

[Brickwall]

Okay, I'll be simple in my request here:

Lightest functional body protection out there. What is it? I'm guessing it would be something like Padded Armor as described in the PHB, but what kind of materials do you use for that stuff? Is it, like, catcher's padding or something?

[Orion-the-G]

Are you talking about modern materials? And if so, effective against what?

[Zincorium]

Also, how effective would diamond tips/edges be in weapons? I expect a diamond-tipped SABOT round would be more effective against armor, but I'm not so sure about swords and the like...

Well, there is a process of depositing a layer of artificial diamond on the very edge of a blade, commercially named Diamaze, which allows a very, very sharp blade that has a very smooth surface at the cutting edge. Right now the only common use I'm aware of is surgery, where the goal is to do as little secondary damage as possible. Maybe making it not as effective a weapon, someone more familiar with swords should field that one.

You could, in a fairly high technology world, or one where the process could be duplicated through magic, create a sword of some stronger material (Steel, Titanium alloyed metal, Adamantine, whatever's available) and then on the very edge of it use the Diamaze process in order to have a weapon capable of slicing through ordinary materials more readily, due to the very hard edge initially presented.

Coating the entire blade seems like a bad idea, or even coating the entire edge, due to the aforementioned brittleness of diamond. Probably the best idea would be to have very small individual blades, microscopic scale maybe, up and down on the 'blade' of the sword, all coated with diamond. Wouldn't stand up to much use, but I imagine the effect on armor would be significant.

[Wehrkind]

Diamond edged/tipped weapons:

Would not work very well due mainly to the brittle aspect as mentioned. Diamonds work in cutting for things that grind away materials, like drill bits and wheels, or for very soft and pliable materials that won't break the diamond, like skin. Even if you just coated the weapon, chances are the coating would break off after a hit or two against metal.

Jacketed hollow points:
Jacketed hollow points are just hollow points with a harder metal around them. I honestly don't know why they do this. It would seem to just be a convenience thing since most people don't want to touch lead. The jacket isn't going to help go through anything. Since almost all bullets come jacketed, it is probably just a difference in how they produce them, perhaps making 1000 bullets at a run, and cutting out the tips for hollow points? I would love to find out, if anyone knows.

[Raum]

The jacket actually helps cut down on the residue left inside the gun barrel. A pure lead bullet leaves a significant amount of residue which must be cleaned...not to say a jacketed bullet won't leave residue, just that it leaves a bit less. This probably doesn't make a big difference in any sport application, but in a combat situation where you may fire several hundred rounds between cleanings it will matter.

[Wehrkind]

That makes a great deal of sense. You are right, someone like me doesn't shoot nearly enough to worry, but I can see that being a problem for my father's pistols he puts about 600 rounds through a week with non-jacketed ammo. I should ask him about that.

By the way, have you ever heard that you shouldn't shoot straight lead ammo out of a Glock? I had heard a rumor that it tends to lead to jams and explosions in the barrel, but never anything to back it up.

[Raum]

I don't have any direct experience with Glocks myself (they're too light for my taste) but I doubt they have any more difficulty with fouling than any other automatic. Remember, the Glock's barrel is still steel it's just the other parts that are made of polymer.

It is worth noting non-jacketed ammo is usually the cheapest (and most cheaply made) on the market so the problems you note may well be caused by the ammo itself.

[Fhaolan]

Okay, I'll be simple in my request here:

Lightest functional body protection out there. What is it? I'm guessing it would be something like Padded Armor as described in the PHB, but what kind of materials do you use for that stuff? Is it, like, catcher's padding or something?

I'll break this down into three parts:

Part 1) Lightest body armor: I'd have to say 'padded' as well. It had different names and terminology throughout the ages, but it all boils down to 'padded'. Even in the days of full plate harnesses, a relatively thin version of padded was still in use called the 'gambleson'.

Part 2) What is is made out of: Cloth, with some kind of filler, usually, though thin leather with filler wasn't that uncommon. The simplest version I've ever seen was two sheep hides with the wool still on, sown together with the wool inside. Canvas, corderoy (Yes, they did have corderoy, it was just a bit 'coarser' than modern stuff.), linen, silk, etc., everything was used. The filler could be wool, flax, horse-hair, heck I've heard of straw being used, strange as that sounds.

Part 3) What did it look like: Well, like you were wearing a overstuffed quilt. :) You can see similar stuff still with baseball umpire vests, vests for hunter/jumper horsemanship, etc. The modern stuff uses materials like kevlar and nylon, but it's still padded armor. :)

[Lapak]

Oh, they made *all* sorts of weird-ass gun/weapon combinations: Pistol/rapiers, pistol/axes, pistol/hunting swords, etc.
Indeed. One book I own has a photograph of a derringer/dagger/knuckleduster combination. The brass knuckles form the grip of the derringer, and there's a folding knife blade that can stick off the side of the knuckles when desired. As a practical thing, I can't imagine it was as useful as the three weapons would be separately, but it LOOKS impressive.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Hey all :) howsit going here?

I wanted to just leave a message to you all. I have to leave for a couple of months, my full attention needs to be elsewhere for a while. I'm sorry I couldn't finish my arguments for the superiority of two-handed weapons. When I return, I could fisnish it if there's still interest in the subject.

It was fun debating and arguing with you all. Thanks for everything and keep up the good work!

Goodbye all. Hold the fort while I'm gone! ;) I'll miss you nutters.


- Bug

[Edmund]

Okay, I'll be simple in my request here:

Lightest functional body protection out there. What is it? I'm guessing it would be something like Padded Armor as described in the PHB, but what kind of materials do you use for that stuff? Is it, like, catcher's padding or something?

Errr... Under what context do you mean 'functional'? Against guns? Against knives? Against axes, swords, and maces? Medieval or modern?

Now, let's assume the question is 'medieval' and 'against axes, swords, and maces'. I would say the simple light leather vest would outdo it. Of course, this is entirely dependent on what you mean by 'functional'.

If it's trying to prevent an axe blow from breaking a bone, you're going to have to step it up to maille and gambeson. Or perhaps even a steel cuirass, which might be lighter.

If it's trying to make a broadhead arrow not draw blood on a grazing shot, then a simple leather jerkin will do. If you want to stop perpendicular arrow shots from a high angle (arrow rain) your lightest option is the gambeson. It's all contextual.

Against knife slashes, again a jerkin is fine, because of the lack of mass in a knife.

Edit: So long, Bug-a-Boo. I'll miss you! *sob* Be ready to reply, though, when you get back. ;)

[Shlik]

Diamond edged/tipped weapons:

Would not work very well due mainly to the brittle aspect as mentioned. Diamonds work in cutting for things that grind away materials, like drill bits and wheels, or for very soft and pliable materials that won't break the diamond, like skin. Even if you just coated the weapon, chances are the coating would break off after a hit or two against metal.


You know, diamand is actually pretty tough. It isn't particularly brittle and, if cut right, can be incredibly tough. (http://users.lmi.net/drewid/pwr-diamonds3.html) Tough meaning resistant to shattering and breaking.

[Brickwall]

Thank you for your responses on the armor thing. As for what I was looking for:

Not getting killed upon impact of sharp things on the first few blows. Something that will be effective (not necessarily TOTALLY effective, but effective) against anything short of bullets, straight-on close range arrows, or very large things (like siege weapons or rams or...)

The responses so far have been quite informative. Now for a little add-on:

About how heavy is this stuff? 10 pounds? 15? 20?

[Wehrkind]

I expect a full essay Bug a Boo! I look forward to reading it with slavering excitement.

Yea, I am honestly not too fond of my Glock either. I find the grib awkward, and the balance off. I much prefer the classic 1911 Colt .45. It just works. (Though the engineering on a Glock is pretty cool to look at.)

Diamond Blades: Tough they can be, no doubt, but there is a terrible amount of shock that goes into a weapon striking plate armor. Mail I could see it withstanding, but you wouldn't be able to keep up the pressure to really cut better I wouldn't suspect. Cutting through armor seems to be much more a factor of force and surface area as opposed to hardness. (Not that you want a squishy weapon.)

Light armor: I definitely agree with Edmund that a hardend leather jerkin is probably the best way to go if you want light and the ability to stop knives and non-direct arrows. Gambeson's are a pain to keep clean and get really icky after a while. Though some padding behind the leather is nice too. If you boil or wax the leather it makes a fairly hard shell too, so it helps a great deal against swords and clubs, assuming the sword can't cut it, which isn't outside the realm of possibility with 14-16 oz. leather (thick cow hide.) Leather from a buffalo will be thicker and a bit tougher, but kangaroo leather is much tougher for the same thickness compared to cow.

Weight depends largely on what you are covering. If I were to make armor for my torso and shoulders that had a good chance of keeping me reasonably safe against medium axes and swords and the like, and very safe vs knives, I would say 13 pounds tops.

I don't have a picture of my armor on the internet outside of a yahoo group, but I have a red leather scale hauberk that goes from shoulders to knees that wieghs ~15 pounds. I don't want to find out how well it will take a head on arrow, but it stops hard blows from 5 pound sticks well enough that I don't break things, and I can't hack through the scales with a sword (I put a few extra on my work bench and chopped at them with my gladius and a cheap katana. Bent the katana, but only cut a part of the way through the first scale.) Granted, the scales work well because they overlap and spread the impact. They also have a lot of the wax worked out of them now. They worked better when they were new.

If you want to cover your arms and lower shoulders, it would add about 5 pounds, maybe 9, depending on how redundant it is. My forarms and elbows, as well as my shoulders, only weigh about 6 pounds, but this leaves my biceps open for comfort.

I have full leather legs that weigh about 9 pounds I think. Less than the hauberk. They also are redundant at the thighs with the hauberk, so I could chop off 3-4 pounds if I desired.

All told you are looking at about 25-35 pounds, depending on how heavy and redundant you want it. 25 would be a fair estimate though.

[Ryujin]

Also, how effective would diamond tips/edges be in weapons? I expect a diamond-tipped SABOT round would be more effective against armor, but I'm not so sure about swords and the like...

No, a diamond-tipped sabot (it's not all caps) round will not be more effective against tank armour. The diamond tip will most probably shatter due to its crystalline nature--ever seen a diamond cutter at work?

There's a good reason why depleted uranium rounds are so effective, other than the density and low cost of the raw material. As a rod penetrator from a sabot round hits the armour of a tank, it pushes the armor material aside, but at the same time, erodes from the impact. Regular tungsten rods tend to go blunt as they penetrate, forcing the rod to expend more energy since it has to push through more armour material. DU rods, though, have excellent adiabatic shear properties--as it erodes, it does so in such a manner that it stays sharp and narrow, thus using less KE to go through an equivalent thickness. End result, DU penetrates further. As an added bonus, DU is pyrophoric--small fragments of it tends to burst into flame, like when the rod penetrates tank armour and bursts into the crew compartment.

Also note that, even though the M1A1 Abrams, for example, has a 120mm gun, the actual penetrator of its sabot round is only 23mm in diameter (yet weighs almost 5 kg). As Raum touched upon, a lot of the penetrator's effectiveness lies in the density of the material. Penetrators made with lighter materials also tend to have poorer overall performance--they're much more easily affected by air resistance, adverse winds, etc.

[pincushionman]

Diamond and other such edges aren't used in weapons because it would be a needless expense. A diamond tool would keep its edge really well, which is important when you want a controlled cut - when you want to cut something specific and stop without damaging something else - reliably, again and again.

With a weapon, however, you don't want or need that kind of control. With a weapon, your aim is to cause trauma/damage. For that, sharpness is not your friend, energy is. You can cut through your own foot pretty badly by accident with a single bad swing of a splitting maul, which is mostly blunt (it has an edge, but you don't sharpen it unless you've done something horribly wrong to the tool), but the sharpest knife in the world is going to have a hard time replicating that feat no matter how hard you try. And even if you sharpen the maul up, or use an axe (which should be sharp), it isn't going to cut off the foot any much more than the maul is. The energy in the blow more than makes up for the lack of sharpness.

So for a weapon, "sharp enough" is good enough. Any more capability just adds cost to the weapon, cost that could be better used elsewhere. This is even more important for single-use weaponry like bullets or cannon rounds, especially in high-volume applications. A diamond dip will make a more expensive round, but it won't be proportionally more useful than a depleted uranium slug or a full-metal jacket lead round.

[Jocko]

why do you need diamond finishing , when a well fashioned Katana,(or even properly used wakazashi) could cleave a man from the coler bone to the navel, with very little effort?

[Mr Croup]

why do you need diamond finishing , when a well fashioned Katana,(or even properly used wakazashi) could cleave a man from the coler bone to the navel, with very little effort?

One, you don't. As others have stated, a diamond edged weapon would confer no noticeable advantage over a regular weapon. Diamond coatings are usually used in industrial applications (drill bits, saw blades, etc) and Kevlimin mentioned surgical applications. I suppose some slight benefit could be had if it was applied to a straight razor, but not any actual weapon.

Secondly, cutting a person from collar bone to their waist with a katana, wakizashi, or really any other melee weapon for that matter, is not something that takes "very little effort." Sheering through over a foot of muscle and bone requires a sizeable amount of force, and is certainly not an easy task.

[Jocko]

yes it takes force i agree on that, but for a person that is trained in the proper us of the katana, it isnt the most dificult thing in the world. hard to do yes, the most dificult...no

i have a question.

an opinion one more then anything.

sword or staff.

i have used both, and prefer the bo to the sword.

what are you opinions / thoughts on the bo and sword, what is your preferance?

[Ghost_of_Zashrak]

Sorry no real opinion on staff v. sword. I am self taught in "wing-nut karate" where our first principal is that a weapon is never more dangerous to you than when it is in your own hands. We were energetic in our training, if not elegant, and very deeply bruised most of the time.

On the diamond coating issue:

From a materials science/ crystallography standpoint, do you really keep a true diamond structure when you carbon coat steel. Wouldn't the carbon inclusions already in the iron, which make the iron into steel, tend to bond with the layers of carbon being laid down, thus extending the imperfect coal like crystal structure generally found in the carbon nodes?

On the issue of surgical uses, I think it odd that diamond is offered as holding a sharper edge. I would expect to do bette,r with greater stress concentration, with a very tight slip-plain angle, like you get from lapping and honing softer pseudo crystals, perhaps obsidian. I had heard some time ago that obsidian blades were preferred for very fine cosmetic surgery because the edge could be made fine enough to only rip through one cell thickness. Recall that at the tissue or cellular level a sharp blade still tears and rips, it is more efficient, focusing pressures into the protein structures that make up the cell walls, or the polymers that connect the individual cells, causing small rips that all tend to line-up. It only appears to cut (or "slice") at the macroscopic scale.

All of this suggests that crystaline coatings are best used to protect underlying metal from chemical damage caused by liquid or gas exposures. Or, as already suggested to grind or wear away softer surfaces during fine polishing or extremely fine tolerance machining.

[Thiel]

I dont now about cosmetic surgery but obsidian blades are used in heart and brain surgery.

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

why do you need diamond finishing , when a well fashioned Katana,(or even properly used wakazashi) could cleave a man from the coler bone to the navel, with very little effort?


AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! KATANA FANBOY ALERT!!!!


Seriously, cutting through that many bones: collar, shoulder blade, twelve ribs, heck, twenty four if you intend to cut as far as I think you are (which would be all the way through, point sticking out the back) and the pectoral and abdominal muscles, I think it is closer to "the most dificult" (you need another f) than "hard to do".

Sword vs. Staff? What do you mean? Because that question is way too vague for way too many reasons to apply to real life. You must mean a videogame, the only place where such extreme vagaries exist.

[Mike_G]

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! KATANA FANBOY ALERT!!!!




I really would like to see some evidence of how great the katana actually is.

Lots of people will tell stories of how it cut a machine gun barrel in two or cut through both of a guy's legs, or split the atom before the Mahattan Project, but I only ever see real video evidence of these masters cutting rolled tatami mats or bamboo stalks.

Would one of the Katana enthusiasts please take a video of yourself hacking a side of beef in two, or a rack of ribs or a frigging Sherman tank so we can believe these tales?

Because that would be awesome and I could stop rolling my eyes every time I read a Katana post.

[endoperez]

I really would like to see some evidence of how great the katana actually is.

Lots of people will tell stories of how it cut a machine gun barrel in two or cut through both of a guy's legs, or split the atom before the Mahattan Project, but I only ever see real video evidence of these masters cutting rolled tatami mats or bamboo stalks.

Would one of the Katana enthusiasts please take a video of yourself hacking a side of beef in two, or a rack of ribs or a frigging Sherman tank so we can believe these tales?

Because that would be awesome and I could stop rolling my eyes every time I read a Katana post.


ARMA has some videos of cutting meat with European swords.
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm
Frightening stuff. I think katanas were better at cutting through meat and bones then the European swords, but I also think that someone wielding a European sword might be able to cleave through body and bone as well.

They also have some articles about cutting, how the edge geometry works in different cases, etc. This article about the uselessness of arguing about the "best" sword is probably enough for this discussion, though:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm

It does mention that katana is very good sword for the way Japanese use(d) swords, but that there are different swords that suit other styles of fighting better.

[Mr Croup]

yes it takes force i agree on that, but for a person that is trained in the proper us of the katana, it isnt the most dificult thing in the world. hard to do yes, the most dificult...no

Well, in comparison to say cutting a redwood in half or some other such fantastical feat, then no it isn't the hardest thing in the world as it is possible. However, it is beyond simply "hard to do." I personally love the katana, and have trained with it for several years, but it is not the uber-weapon that it is often made out to be. Unfortunately there is an elevated opinion of the weapon based on fictional depictions of its strength, in everything from anime, manga, film, and folklore. Just because there are period accounts of amazing feats does not mean it is true. There are "historical" accounts of samurai that were burnt to death rising up out of the ashes to kill before succumbing to their injuries and crumbling into a pile of fine ashes.


i have a question.

an opinion one more then anything.

sword or staff.

i have used both, and prefer the bo to the sword.

what are you opinions / thoughts on the bo and sword, what is your preferance?

My personal preference is a sword, though that's largely based on the fact that I have precious little experience with a bo. As far as which is better, who could say. If we're talking about swords as a whole, there are simply too many different varieties to take into account. Beyond that, it's just too subjective of an issue.

[Mr Croup]

I really would like to see some evidence of how great the katana actually is.

Lots of people will tell stories of how it cut a machine gun barrel in two or cut through both of a guy's legs, or split the atom before the Mahattan Project, but I only ever see real video evidence of these masters cutting rolled tatami mats or bamboo stalks.

Would one of the Katana enthusiasts please take a video of yourself hacking a side of beef in two, or a rack of ribs or a frigging Sherman tank so we can believe these tales?

Because that would be awesome and I could stop rolling my eyes every time I read a Katana post.

Yeah, I'd love to see it as well. I think the most impressive things I've seen someone do with a katana were punch through a heavy steel breast plate and training dummy, and a couple of iaido demonstrations, where it really is just the speed and fluidity that is so impressive.

[Edmund]

On the diamond coating issue:

From a materials science/ crystallography standpoint, do you really keep a true diamond structure when you carbon coat steel. Wouldn't the carbon inclusions already in the iron, which make the iron into steel, tend to bond with the layers of carbon being laid down, thus extending the imperfect coal like crystal structure generally found in the carbon nodes?

It would need a certain level of energy to bond with the nodes, and I'm not sure one would acquire such energy in the diamond-coating process.

Now, regarding swords splitting bodies in half: it has been done on the horizontal axis, because the blade only has to go through one or two bones, depending on the part of the torso that was hit. I've seen it done with a european sword on a pig carcass. (It was a two-handed blow with a type XIIa, for those of you with your Oakeshott charts handy.)

Depending on the type, European swords are either better, equal, or worse than the katana at a cutting blow. As I've said before, the katana's shape is ideal for slicing, but not cutting, per se, though they can kill you just as easily.

Many Euro swords (especially the early ones), on the other hand, are wide and fullered, having a thin cross-section. This means that there is less friction as they go through their meaty targets, and so can more easily remove a limb or limbs.

The problem with cleaving someone in half with a single-handed sword is that the blade is generally not long enough or heavy enough to get it done right. When I say 'long enough' I mean that because of the blade's relative shortness, to get it close enough that a large part of the edge will go fully through someone makes the cutting angle awkward. But if you move a few inches back and are not intent on severing the spine, you will find the blow easy to perform.

The exceptions to this concept are the long cavalry swords, which more closely resemble a two-handed sword with a single-hand grip. The task will still be difficult, but mass and cutting angle won't be so much of an issue.

Edit:
I would also like to further point out that if you're splitting someone from 'nave to chops', as Shakey put it, you are going to have to circumvent the sternum entirely, and only open him up, rather thans split him completely. It can be done, but it takes the right kind of sword and a really powerful blow.

[Harnryd]

Katanas do have some weak points.

For example: it's possible to break a katana by running it over with a heavy tank - but only if the driver is a ninja.

[reorith]

a katana cutting a bullet. it may not prove how awesome it is, but its still pretty slick (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/35217/strong_sword/)

[Raum]

Slick? I suppose. But then you'd use the same term to describe other items which can fragment partially melted lead, right? Things like bone, rock, hardened ceramics, many metals...and yes, even katanas.

[hyikim]

did a pope really ban crossbows at one time because they were too dangerous?

[Raum]

did a pope really ban crossbows at one time because they were too dangerous?

Pope Innocent II declared crossbows "hateful to god" and "unfit to be made use of among Christians" at the Second Lateran Council in 1139. This doesn't seem to have had much affect on its use. Pope Innocent III even renewed the proscription, again without much noticeable affect.

[Malachite]

Depending on the type, European swords are either better, equal, or worse than the katana at a cutting blow.

;D

Sorry, couldn't resist pulling this out. Good arguments though.

Mal

[Wehrkind]

Yes, as mentioned the Pope Innocents did ban their use against Christians. They were still encouraged to be used against infidels, however.

The reason was not so much their dangerous nature, but rather the fact that any schmuck could be trained to use one in an afternoon, and then bring down a knight or other noble. The idea that the common peasant could easily slay members of the aristocracy was an unpleasant one to said ruling class. The aristocrats themselves, for all their distaste, did not seem to dislike their use, so long as they were pointed at someone else.

Guns suffered a similar stigma for a bit, but by the time their danger to their users was less of an issue, Europe had by in large gotten over the "peasant killing a knight" issue in favor of "weekend training = teh winnzor." Not to be confused with "Teh Windsor."

[Yorick]

As we're in somewhat of a lull here I'll present another question.

At the moment I'm creating a campaign which contains a civilization that I'd like to basically model after some of the history of Russia and I have nearly all I need except for one thing, that being information about the tactics of early Russia. I've looked somewhat half-heartedly for some information about the weapons, armor in and around the time Prince Vladimir and later during Ivan IV Terrible's reign, but as of yet I've come up short. Is anyone familiar with any of these facets of medieval russian military history?

And a note, when I was grasping for something to go on, I thought about using the Cossacks as a foundation of the military. Presently, I'm trying to limit that influence, as they aren't really suitable to base an entire military off of. The kindjal and the sashka don't really seem like suitable weapons for an entire army either, more of weapons that would be used by the more experienced and/or honored of a unit, much like the falx.

[Orion-the-G]

Another question:

What is the smallest projectile weapon currently in existence that is considered reliably lethal?

It doesn't have to be a gun specifically, but something that is not simply thrust, swung, or thrown at the target.

[Wehrkind]

Orion:
I would think the best bet would be any one of the small, Deringer type firearms. If you wanted something with a few more rounds, there are a slew of pocket sized 9mm or so pistols out there. I can't think of any names off the top of my head, but a short trip to a gun shop or a web site would produce a few.

Yorick:
I don't know a ton about Russian military tactics, other than that they were something of a fusion of northern European infantry tactics with steppe horse archers. A term you might want to look up is boyars, who were the noble class of the Kievan Rus' kingdom that eventually morphed into Russia under the tsar. In general the flavor was a lot more eastern in terms of arms and armor than you saw in germanic areas.

[Ryujin]

Another question:

What is the smallest projectile weapon currently in existence that is considered reliably lethal?

There's this thing (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-10-06-lil-gun_x.htm), which could possibly be lethal if you loaded it with pellets containing ricin (google KGB poison umbrella) and shot him, say, in the mouth, and wait a few days for him to die. ::)

Intelligence services of various countries no doubt have all sorts of weapons fitting the bill, such as the KGB's 4.5mm 'lipstick pistol' (http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/1512/) and the aptly-named 'rectal pistol.' :P

Of course, in the case of these small-calibre weapons, shot placement and a bit of luck would determine lethality more than anything else.

[YC]

I'm not that good with older weapons, but I can answer several of the firearms related questions.

1. The commercial round with the smallest bullet is the 17 HMR with a bullt .17" in diameter, weighing 17 grains (a grain is 1/7000th of a pound). If it hit you in the correct place, it certainly could kill.

2. Leading in a gun barrel is a function of how hard the lead is and how fast the bullet is driven. Lead ammunition can range from cheap plinking ammunition to very expensive target ammo. Last time I check, most international small bore records had been set using Eley Ten-X ammunition, with lead bullts.

3. Glock barrels tend to lead worse because they use a non-standard rifling. This also tends to result in poor accuracy when using lead ammunition.

4. The center post in Federal Hydrashock ammunition isn't for penetration, it's to promote expansion. A hollowpoint bullet expands because the body is mostly water, and the hydrostatic pressure created by forcing a hollowpoint through the body causes it to open. The center post in the Hydrashock bullets redirects the fluid to the sides of the hollow cavity, promoting rapid and reliable expansion, particularly in lower velocity rounds.

5. The jacket on hollowpoint ammunition serves a couple of functions: first, to allow the bullet to be drive to a higher rate of speed than is possible with pure lead. Second, to control the rate the hollowpoint expands at. With expanding ammunition, you have to face a compromise - the more the ammunition expands, the less it penetrates. Expansion is good, as it creates a bigger wound channel, but you need to penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs. By changing the thickness, jacket material, and how it is bonded to the lead, you can limit or promote expansion to suit your needs.

Hope this helps

YC

[YC]

A couple more quick point:

The metal jackets do help penetration by limiting expansion. When a bullet hits you have a limited ammount of momentum and kinetic energy carried by the bullet. Like any other 'thrust', the large the surface area greater resistance you have to penetrations, and the less depth of penetration you'll get for the energy you have. Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, like those used by the military, generally penetrate the deepest.

As far as manufacturing of hollowpoint, it is much more complicated than just cutting the top of a FMJ bullet. Various manufacturors do it differently, but one method involves 'punching' the jacket out of whatever material it is made from, producing a rough shape. The lead core is then forced in, and electrochemically bonded to the jacket. Depending on the desired end state, there are either finishing steps on other manufacturing methods, but that kind of covers it.

YC

[Sundog]

As we're in somewhat of a lull here I'll present another question.

At the moment I'm creating a campaign which contains a civilization that I'd like to basically model after some of the history of Russia and I have nearly all I need except for one thing, that being information about the tactics of early Russia. I've looked somewhat half-heartedly for some information about the weapons, armor in and around the time Prince Vladimir and later during Ivan IV Terrible's reign, but as of yet I've come up short. Is anyone familiar with any of these facets of medieval russian military history?

And a note, when I was grasping for something to go on, I thought about using the Cossacks as a foundation of the military. Presently, I'm trying to limit that influence, as they aren't really suitable to base an entire military off of. The kindjal and the sashka don't really seem like suitable weapons for an entire army either, more of weapons that would be used by the more experienced and/or honored of a unit, much like the falx.


The Cossacks were the Russian military's elite forces; while often deployed in relatively large numbers, they were not the backbone of their forces, at least partially because they were not trusted politically. After all, they were non-Russian - Cossack is also the name of their ethnicity. Back home, they were horse-nomads, similar to the Mongols.

The heart of the Russian Army was always the Levies. These were foot troops, usually spear or pike, and semi-professional - they worked their usual jobs during the week, then spent a day in training. Notably, they were usually led by either their liege lord or his eldest son.

The Russians never went in for Knights the same way the cultures farther west did, but they did have some.

[Edmund]

As we're in somewhat of a lull here I'll present another question.

At the moment I'm creating a campaign which contains a civilization that I'd like to basically model after some of the history of Russia and I have nearly all I need except for one thing, that being information about the tactics of early Russia. I've looked somewhat half-heartedly for some information about the weapons, armor in and around the time Prince Vladimir and later during Ivan IV Terrible's reign, but as of yet I've come up short. Is anyone familiar with any of these facets of medieval russian military history?

And a note, when I was grasping for something to go on, I thought about using the Cossacks as a foundation of the military. Presently, I'm trying to limit that influence, as they aren't really suitable to base an entire military off of. The kindjal and the sashka don't really seem like suitable weapons for an entire army either, more of weapons that would be used by the more experienced and/or honored of a unit, much like the falx.
Alright, this is my turf. I'm quite the Russophile, and know a good deal about the Russian military. One thing you must consider is what time period in Russia you're looking at.

Before the Mongol invasion, the Russian armies were composed of mixed forces, with more woodsy-types in the north (every household in Novgorod owned at least one axe, I kid you not), and a mixture of steppe mercenaries like the Pechenegs and wild Polovtsy. Their tactics, to some degree, resembled those of the vikings, but they had more devoted cavalry (the Druzhina and Boyars, perhaps mercenary Khazars) who acted as lancers. The steppe peoples were used in flanking manoeuvres, mostly. Russian weapons and armour will mostly be contemporary in style to their Western brethren at this point in time with certain Eastern flavours. Lamellar, horse archers, helmet styles, and saddle designs will all be suggestive of Eastern influence. During the entirity of the Russian period, Maille and Plate armour is used, called either a bakhterets, a yushman, or a kalantar', depending on how much of the body it covered, the ratio of plates to maille, and how it was fastened. There is also a very late type of maille and plate armour called a korazin or a krug, depending on what country you're from (the first name is Russian while the second is Turkish)

Now then, with the Mongol invasion you have even more eastern influence. The Pechenegs, Cumans, and Volga Bulgars have all been taken over by the Mongols, and the entirety of the Russian State as well as Lithuania is subordinate. During this period the Russian principalities are quite deeply divided after the reign of Aleksandr Nevsky. During the reign of he as Grand Prince, Russian tactics remain much the same, but at the battle of lake Peipus, during which the Teutonic nights were smashed thanks to more manoeuvrable Russian cavalry and mercenary Mongol horse archers, which flanked the Latin 'boar's head'. As you progress in this later period, the Russian army becomes increasingly Easternised, reaching an equilibrium between Western, Eastern, and Byzantine influence from the mid-14th to late-ish 15th c. During this time, you would find lamellar (both Eastern and Byzantine style), Persian and Mongol helmets and helms, Mongol saddles and bridles and all of that horse crap, and sabres mixing nicely with straight swords, estocs, milanese plate, heater and ribbed 'Lithuanian pavise' shields. Maces were moderately popular no matter which period you look at.

After this point Ivan the Great absorbs more of the Steppe peoples, and the Byzantine commonwealth collapses completely. More Turkish, Persian, and Mongol armour begins to appear, like the krug mentioned above (and here's a picture! http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/albums/userpics/13507/normal_DSC01094.JPG

Guns also become widespread, spreading perhaps more quickly than in the West. Russian handguns (as opposed to cannons) were shorter than their western counterparts, and were apt to fire, blunderbuss-style, a spray of projectiles rather than a single one. Arquebuses (imported from the East and West are mentioned in Russian chronicles from 1408 onwards) yet, interestingly, the Arquebus never takes a central role in the construction of an army as it did with the Swiss and Germans in the later 15th c. It is used, instead, primarily during sieges. This may be because the Russian nobility were all trained in the use of the bow by the time guns were really widespread (about the late 15th c. Before this, Russian nobility would prefer a lance. It's that Eastern influence, again), and so were not quite so afraid of being cut down before they could reach attacking range. (at ranges where a shower of arrows is still effective, a shower of musket balls will be far less so)

During Ivan the Terrible, Cossacks finally appear. They were not particularly famous, except as being excellent light cavalry. In reality, they weren't any different from the Polovtsy mercenaries that preceded them, except in their ability to use guns and, more importantly, the fact that they were a permanent part of the army.

Peasant levies are rarely called upon throughout the course of Russian military history. The biggest exception to this is Kulikovo, where Dmitrii called upon huge Russian levies to fight the horde of Mamai. The levies were recruited from the middle and lower classes, and were equipped with spears, axes, perhaps a maille hauberk and almost all had a gambeson and shield. Crossbows and compound recurve bows (made from birch and maple wood, wrapped in birch bark) were used quite avidly, but the battle was basically won by a contingent of Boyars held in reserve that broke Mamai's troops and sent them running.

I hope I've answered your question. The Russians' strongest asset, I think, is their adaptability and their versatility, especially in regard to their manoeuvrable, medium/heavily armoured Boyars.

For more weapons-related stuff, this site (http://www.xenophon-mil.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/parti.htm) is actually reliably accurate.

[Yorick]

And here I was worried that no one would be able to answer my question, thanks very much Edmund.

If it's ok with you I'll ask another question, as I'm quite interested in Russian history as well. Through reading various things about the Russians and their military history, the more notable attacks (Napoleon, Hilter) seem to get stopped in part by the fierce Russian winter. Was this also the case during the battles against the Mongols? And how would the krug (or any armor for that matter) be modified to protect against such harsh conditions? Did they just put a greatcoat on over their amor, or did they not use any at all?

[Were-Sandwich]

I'm thnking of starting a campaign with 1800's level tech and high psionics. What I need to know, is would quartz bullets work? I mean would they shatter in the barrel, shatter in flight or work normally

[Edmund]

If it's ok with you I'll ask another question, as I'm quite interested in Russian history as well. Through reading various things about the Russians and their military history, the more notable attacks (Napoleon, Hilter) seem to get stopped in part by the fierce Russian winter. Was this also the case during the battles against the Mongols?
Not at all. The Mongols themselves were used to such cold weather, and were well prepared for their campaign westwards. The capital of the Golden Horde, after all, was Sarai in Siberia.


And how would the krug (or any armor for that matter) be modified to protect against such harsh conditions? Did they just put a greatcoat on over their amor, or did they not use any at all?

Well, in the Middle Ages barely any fighting took place during the winter, because cold makes steel more brittle.

But if they were to fight in cold conditions, it wouldn't really be any different. The quilted nature of the gambeson keeps in a fair deal of heat while generally being airy enough to keep the body at a comfortable temperature. Fur-lined boots, and rag wrapping to seal off any gaps in clothing (like between glove and sleeve) would also be used. That's about it.

[Zincorium]

Hm, since we seem to have a large number of people with more scientific knowledge than I could locate, I had a thought a while back, and I'd like to see what people think.

Alkali metals tend to react explosively with water. Due to the human body being mostly water and also having a higher Ph, I'd think that it would do horrible things if it got into the body.
Granted, the expense of even sodium would be fairly high, let alone the crazy stuff like Rubidium, but for a situation when only one shot would be possibly, it seems like it might be good insurance for making sure the person shot died of the wound.
Now, the question is really twofold. One, would this even be effective? And two, what would be the best way to ensure the material contacted the blood and so on while not inhibiting the performance of the bullet?

[Mike_Lemmer]

I'm thnking of starting a campaign with 1800's level tech and high psionics. What I need to know, is would quartz bullets work? I mean would they shatter in the barrel, shatter in flight or work normally

I saw something similar in Cowboy Bebop. I believe they added lead plating to the back of the crystal bullet for cushioning and integrity. Or perhaps something more complicated, like a metal framework that carries the quartz with just the tip sticking out. I'd say anything involving some "reinforcement" with metal will sound good enough to your players for suspension of disbelief.

[Fhaolan]

Hm, since we seem to have a large number of people with more scientific knowledge than I could locate, I had a thought a while back, and I'd like to see what people think.

Alkali metals tend to react explosively with water. Due to the human body being mostly water and also having a higher Ph, I'd think that it would do horrible things if it got into the body.
Granted, the expense of even sodium would be fairly high, let alone the crazy stuff like Rubidium, but for a situation when only one shot would be possibly, it seems like it might be good insurance for making sure the person shot died of the wound.
Now, the question is really twofold. One, would this even be effective? And two, what would be the best way to ensure the material contacted the blood and so on while not inhibiting the performance of the bullet?

I'd have to say no, this wouldn't be as effective as you'd think.

In my experience, sodium is a relatively fragile substance, fragmenting down into powder fairly easily. There might be a way to produce a hard enough lump to survive being fired from a gun, but then that would slow down the sodium/water reaction. You'd have to coat the lump with some kind of shell which could survive firing, but still disolve in bodily fluids. Because of the extra barrier, the sodium/water reaction would again be slowed down. It would still generate a lot of heat, but it wouldn't be really 'explosive'. I'd be more worried about toxic effects than explosive ones. :)

[Fhaolan]

I'm thnking of starting a campaign with 1800's level tech and high psionics. What I need to know, is would quartz bullets work? I mean would they shatter in the barrel, shatter in flight or work normally

Go shotgun... sorry, 1800's... blunderbuss or carriage-gun. My great-aunt always kept a shotgun loaded with rock-salt handy. Quartz is similar in hardness and toughness to rock-salt I beleive, so this should work.

Mind you, I've been told that rock-salt *hurts* but it's not as lethal as buck-shot unless you were very up-close and personal. Kinda like light bird-shot.

[Mr Croup]

Go shotgun... sorry, 1800's... blunderbuss or carriage-gun. My great-aunt always kept a shotgun loaded with rock-salt handy. Quartz is similar in hardness and toughness to rock-salt I beleive, so this should work.

Mind you, I've been told that rock-salt *hurts* but it's not as lethal as buck-shot unless you were very up-close and personal. Kinda like light bird-shot.

I must agree with Fhaolan, that's the only situation in which I could see that being possible. And for the record, rock salt fired from a shotgun can do some very nasty damage, though the effective range of the weapon is reduced somewhat. With the use of a crystalline ammunition, like rock salt or quartz, because of the cleavage of such materials, the fragmentation is like to cause more secondary damage though.

[Norsesmithy]

Hm, since we seem to have a large number of people with more scientific knowledge than I could locate, I had a thought a while back, and I'd like to see what people think.

Alkali metals tend to react explosively with water. Due to the human body being mostly water and also having a higher Ph, I'd think that it would do horrible things if it got into the body.
Granted, the expense of even sodium would be fairly high, let alone the crazy stuff like Rubidium, but for a situation when only one shot would be possibly, it seems like it might be good insurance for making sure the person shot died of the wound.
Now, the question is really twofold. One, would this even be effective? And two, what would be the best way to ensure the material contacted the blood and so on while not inhibiting the performance of the bullet?
As I see it, there would be three issues with rare metal bullets, besides rarity.

First, deterioration over time. Now matter what your bonding/coating method, water vapor in the air will slowly deteriorate the bullets, or even cause them to spontainioly combust.

Second, low penetration. The bullets will be lightweight and soft. They will expand rapidly and have little penetration. They will deal the fire and chemical damage only on, or near the surface.

Third, erosion in flight. The shock of firing and the force of air friction will start to loosen the jacket, as the jacket opens, air, and therefore vapor, invade the bullet and erode the bullet, unevenly. This will destabalize the round.

There is a reason that they store these metals in kerosene.

[ScritchyPants]

I'm thnking of starting a campaign with 1800's level tech and high psionics. What I need to know, is would quartz bullets work? I mean would they shatter in the barrel, shatter in flight or work normally

Just out of curiosity, which part of the 1800s are you thinking of? The technology in 1810 was much closer to that of 1710 than to that of 1890.

In the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s there were huge leaps in metallurgy and other technology that make the latter half of the century very different from the earlier half.

[Were-Sandwich]

Just out of curiosity, which part of the 1800s are you thinking of? The technology in 1810 was much closer to that of 1710 than to that of 1890.

In the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s there were huge leaps in metallurgy and other technology that make the latter half of the century very different from the earlier half.

Late 1800's. Its has revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles, but no automatic weapons or explosives. Except dynamite. How ever, a lot of things are taken care of by commoners with the hidden talent feat. Control flame for firefighting, control object to power trains etc. I had fun finding a use for all the 1st level powers. For instance, some of the city guards will have hidden talent(crystal shard), or energy ray to take down fleeing criminals easily.

[SpiderBrigade]

That sounds like a really cool campaign, actually. Sort of like what you might get 100 years after Orson Scott Card's Tales of Alvin Maker series. Everybody's got this little spark or knack, which makes the world a lot different.

So I would guess that the reason you want quartz bullets is so they can be used for psionic purposes? At that point I think you can safely leave the realm of "real-world" weapons, and just assume that they've figured out a way to reinforce the crystal enough that it doesn't shatter apart during firing. Or it's a special extra-tough psionic crystal. Best of luck!

[Raum]

Late 1800's. Its has revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles, but no automatic weapons or explosives. Except dynamite. How ever, a lot of things are taken care of by commoners with the hidden talent feat. Control flame for firefighting, control object to power trains etc. I had fun finding a use for all the 1st level powers. For instance, some of the city guards will have hidden talent(crystal shard), or energy ray to take down fleeing criminals easily.
You'll need to set it prior to the 1860s if you want to avoid automatic weapons. The gatling gun saw some limited use in the US civil war. While the government didn't purchase any until 1866, Maj Gen Butler purchased 12 and used at least two on the Petersburg front in 1864.

[Orion-the-G]

yeah, psionic crystal could be used as a bullet with no more real problem than using it as a weapon. After all, you can use it for swords and hammers and whatnot. It seems to be about as strong as steel. If anything, you'd need to reinforce the gun's barrel, not the bullet to prevent the super-hard crystals from destroying it.