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

[Eldan]

I'm not sure how much this helps, but Wiki says this:



Air Mines:
During The Blitz the Germans used naval mines dropped on parachutes as improvised blockbusters. They exploded on contact with a hard surface; as the bomb was not in a crater, the force of the blast would laterally disperse, causing extensive damage.[6][7] The large raid on Coventry on November 14/November 15, 1940 included the use of 50 parachute naval mines, which caused extensive blast damage. The British called these devices air-mines.[8] These types were used also during air raids on Malta, especially on its harbour areas.

[Yora]

This helped with my search. Apparently it's called a "mine" because it's designed to damage targets primarily by the pressure wave of the detonation instead of shrapnell or incendiary agents.

And the brittish did have a blockbuster bomb of such a design that weighted eactly 1,800 kg, which is probably how the disposal team got that number while the bomb is still on the bottom of the river.
But that was actually the smalest size these things came in. They had also ones in two and three times the weight. I know they are really making sure that nobody gets injured, but a two kilometer radius for evacuating half the cities population still seems really large. Must be lying right in the middle of a residential area.

[No brains]

I was thinking my stupid thoughts when I figured it might make more sense if crit ranges and multipliers were reversed in 3.5.

My reasoning for this is that even a short sword, like a viking sword, maybe a gladius, can skewer a lot of organs in one stab or even bifurcate with a strong swing (maybe more likely in longer swords). I also thought that while such spectacular injury is possible, it might be rare compared to the usual cuts that are made when fighting someone providing an alert defense.

I also thought that war hammers (picks as they are called in D&D) would only ever make so big a puncture wound. Similarly with a war axe, you might be able to behead someone, but it seems unlikely you could destroy several major organs at once or cut someone in half at the waist. I also thought that because of their top-heavy, intuitively used nature, they would be able to achieve their desired results more often.

I know at some of the levels of injury I'm describing, it's just overkill, but am I anywhere near historical accuracy with my assumptions?

[Spiryt]

Yes, it always occurred to me that criticals are probably quite a bit backwards in 3.5.

Axe maybe bad example, because most war axes trough history were producing terrible injuries.

But 'scimitar' or any cutting sword in general, like viking era ones, vs a pick is good example.

With warhammer with solid beak on the other side, one has good chance of bashing something squarely, even if it's armored well, and hit wasn't spectacular.

However, it will usually cause not particularly grievous injury.

At the same time, sword that strikes cuts mail, or even thick, slick clothing sloppily may very well do not much at all.

Clean sword strikes at undefended flesh.... Those obviously can behead, cut hands off, and sever a lot of skin and muscle at one go. Seems very much like critical x 4 to me.

However, with the level of abstraction damage in 3.5 is, there is without doubt tons of holes in this reasoning as well.

So it's not really that worth bothering.

[No brains]

Thank you Spiryt. I suspected as much.

I know battle axes are grossly misrepresented in fantasy; inferior to swords despite being heavy as hell. I do know that a real battle axe is very different from modern day wood axes. Battle axes had narrower blades that were better suited for slicing people than chopping wood, and were indeed fairly light given their wooden hafts rather than all steel construction (some were all metal).

Still, even a big axe head probably doesn't have enough blade surface to cut someone in half at the midsection. It would most definitely sever appendages and cut very deep into a body, but maybe not hew a person like a grass mat.

(this is mostly what I have observed and if I am wrong, I would welcome correction. :smallsmile:)

[Yora]

Medieval fighting in movies is usually as accurate as modern infantry tactics in an 80s action movie. You recognize some shapes of the equipment on screen from real world weapon and armor, and that's where the similarities end.

And when you get into anything where people get cut through, you completely left anything with a slight resemblance of reality behind.

[Spiryt]

This is certainly fair point, axes were always meant as mean of concentrating quite a lot of metal/other blade material in one place, so you can't have cigar and smoke a cigar.

Still, a lot of axes indeed had quite lengthy blades, and together with very broad, fast swing results probably could be disastrous.

And, no matter what weapon, cutting someone in half probably didn't occur often at all. It's pretty much definition of overkill, after all.

http://znaleziska.org/wiki/index.php/Topór_z_Łunowa

[Traab]

This is certainly fair point, axes were always meant as mean of concentrating quite a lot of metal/other blade material in one place, so you can't have cigar and smoke a cigar.

Still, a lot of axes indeed had quite lengthy blades, and together with very broad, fast swing results probably could be disastrous.

And, no matter what weapon, cutting someone in half probably didn't occur often at all. It's pretty much definition of overkill, after all.

http://znaleziska.org/wiki/index.php/Topór_z_Łunowa

Yeah, isnt it something like, you should only aim for 6 inches of penetration at most. (by penetration im counting hacks as well as stabs) Because anything past that is wasted effort and will just make you tired faster, and even have the potential to bind your weapon up in their body? Sure, chopping someone in half from crown to crotch is impressive, but I bet you cant do that too many times before your arms get tired. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

6 inches of penetration is still enough to reach almost every part of the body when the hit is at the right angle.
(Unless you're really fat, which was the reason gladiators were fed to get rather chubby.)

[deuxhero]

How would officers carrying both a sword and pistol place the holster and sheathe?

[gkathellar]

This is just a guess, but I assume you would keep you pistol on the same side as your main hand and your sword on the opposite side from your main hand, since those are the normal positions for each and they don't conflict with one another.

[Yora]

Without a shield, yes. And since having both weapons in the hand looks good on pictures, but is not actually useful, it also seems like the most practical solution.

[No brains]

This is certainly fair point, axes were always meant as mean of concentrating quite a lot of metal/other blade material in one place, so you can't have cigar and smoke a cigar.

Still, a lot of axes indeed had quite lengthy blades, and together with very broad, fast swing results probably could be disastrous.

And, no matter what weapon, cutting someone in half probably didn't occur often at all. It's pretty much definition of overkill, after all.

http://znaleziska.org/wiki/index.php/Topór_z_Łunowa

I've never heard have a cigar and smoke a cigar before.:smallsmile: I think you're mixing your metaphors; you say you were 'close, but no cake.' :smallbiggrin:

That is a long axe. How long of a haft would that have?

I am well aware that you're not likely to do fatalities to people in an historical fight, but critical hits are supposedly those rare incredible hits that you're not truly supposed to expect anyway. It's just that when I imagine axes and swords splattering people, I imagine swords could do a little more.

[Spiryt]

I've never heard have a cigar and smoke a cigar before.:smallsmile: I think you're mixing your metaphors; you say you were 'close, but no cake.' :smallbiggrin:

That is a long axe. How long of a haft would that have?

I am well aware that you're not likely to do fatalities to people in an historical fight, but critical hits are supposedly those rare incredible hits that you're not truly supposed to expect anyway. It's just that when I imagine axes and swords splattering people, I imagine swords could do a little more.

Possible me english be no much good. blurp.

As far as haft goes - beats me and pretty much everyone. Almost all hafts from before, say ~ 1450 are pretty much gone.

So there's a lot of guessing as far as what haft should match such a head.

With such a long cutting surface, pretty long, at least 4 feet handle would probably make most sense.


6 inches of penetration is still enough to reach almost every part of the body when the hit is at the right angle.
(Unless you're really fat, which was the reason gladiators were fed to get rather chubby.)

Or really big without fat - muscle and overall size.

Together with fact that right angle can be often a luxury.

[Fhaolan]

Is that level of training comparable to what a medieval warhorse would get? I suppose you train them to somewhat ignore fire - happens all the time at riots. But would they move into a hedge of pointed sticks (made impromptu from breaking a few banners), or is that case (rioters acting as somewhat organized infantry) so rare that it doesn't matter in training?

There are similar stuff that is trained, but dissimilar as well. A lot of stuff doesn't change much over time. Rapidfire gunshots, sirens, teargas are all realtively new. Pike formations and the like are so unlikely that they aren't normally trained for. Flags/banners, having stuff overhead (which most horses find terrifying), wood underfoot, smoke, smell of blood, things beating on the horse, people aggressing towards the horse, is stuff that's always been around and you have to desensitize horses to it for riot & combat.

One of the primary differences is that warhorses are trained to attack as well using hoof and tooth; police horses are usually trained to *not* attack, as it is difficult to use a horse in a non-riot situation once they think it's okay to attack. In the same way that police dogs are not trained to kill; they are trained to restrain and disable. They take out the arms and legs, not the throat, and are trained to hold when the target stops resisting. Once you train an animal to really attack people, it's very easy to accidentally trigger that behaviour in a non-combat situation.

[fusilier]

How would officers carrying both a sword and pistol place the holster and sheathe?

Assuming a right-handed officer (and all regulations typically assumed so):

The sword would be worn on the left hip, to be drawn by the right hand. The pistol would be worn on the right hip - butt forward - to be drawn with the left hand.

The sword required the use of the dominant hand, and could be an aid to give signals to the troops. Basically, it was drawn whenever leading the troops in battle. The pistol was for emergencies only, and was typically not expected to be used except at very close ranges. If you ran out of ammo, or the pistol malfunctioned, the sword was already in your hand to defend yourself.

[Brauron]

Can a sword of one style be reforged into another? One of my players wants to convert a looted longsword into a scimitar (the weapon he's specialized in), and I told him I would look into it. I'm not entirely sure why he doesn't simply sell the longsword and buy another scimitar -- I think he liked the description I gave of the hilt and pommel :)

[Spiryt]

Can a sword of one style be reforged into another? One of my players wants to convert a looted longsword into a scimitar (the weapon he's specialized in), and I told him I would look into it. I'm not entirely sure why he doesn't simply sell the longsword and buy another scimitar -- I think he liked the description I gave of the hilt and pommel :)

Well, obviously - that just means that one has to disassemble the blade from the rest and the reforge it into some new one basically.

Alternatively he can just buy scimitarish blade and mount it in hilt furniture he likes.

[Yora]

Which would include melting the blade down and forging a new one, which in most games would probably qualify as destroying all enchantments and special abilities the weapon had, that are not the result of the material it is made from.
If you have magic that can reshape metal object, that would work with a normal weapon and could work with a magic one as well, without destroying the enchantments.

Simply grinding it in a new shape like in the 13th warrior would most certainly destroy it or make it break once it hits something hard.

[Norsesmithy]

I think that if one were to anneal, work, and retemper, one could "reforge" the sword without having to melt it down and pour it into an ingot.

You'd be fairly limited in how much you could change its dimensions, (pretty hard to thicken it), but going from a arming sword to a shasmir shouldn't be out of the question.

[Traab]

Or really big without fat - muscle and overall size.

Together with fact that right angle can be often a luxury.

Even if your opponent had 6 inches of flesh between you and a vital organ or major artery, id still say a 6 inch deep stab or hack would be enough to at the very least ruin that muscle bound fellows day. Im asking for an example. Assuming you are fighting conan the fricking barbarian, or arnold in his mister universe days, where could you hit him 6 inches deep that WOULDNT cripple and/or kill him in short order? By which I mean, you puncture him and go 6 inches deep, or you hit him with a hack or slash that goes into his body 6 inches.

I mean, where there arent any organs there are arteries/veins, where there arent any arteries/veins there are ligaments and tendons, where there are none of them you have major muscle groups. No matter where you stab/chop someone, 6 inches worth of damage is going to ruin him for the fight if not outright kill him right?

[DodgerH2O]

I mean, where there arent any organs there are arteries/veins, where there arent any arteries/veins there are ligaments and tendons, where there are none of them you have major muscle groups. No matter where you stab/chop someone, 6 inches worth of damage is going to ruin him for the fight if not outright kill him right?

I have it on good authority (met a few guys who got stabbed) that a few inches of steel (pocketknives, not combat knives) into the gut hurts like hell, but both the guys are fine, and one of them never went to the hospital. Add several inches of belly fat and there you go. Not saying I'd want to be that guy, but I think this is the sort of thing that was implied here.

Plus if the other guy is trying to actively avoid being stabbed or cut you're unlikely to get a solid hit, as was mentioned. I don't know that I would have enough control when I'm pumped full of adrenaline to limit my use of force to "6 inches of penetration", I imagine at that moment I'd be more concerned with hitting something that will keep the other guy from killing me.

[Thiel]

Without a shield, yes. And since having both weapons in the hand looks good on pictures, but is not actually useful, it also seems like the most practical solution.
Actually from what I've read a muzle loaded pistol made a handy off-hand weapon once it had been fired.

[fusilier]

No matter where you stab/chop someone, 6 inches worth of damage is going to ruin him for the fight if not outright kill him right?

What about a stab to the thigh that misses an artery? I think it wouldn't be too hard to find a path that goes through six inches of flesh, avoiding bone and artery. Especially on a large bodybuilder. Then there's the question of how much muscle is cut by the blade, which would depend upon on the size and shape of the blade -- but there's a lot of muscle in the thighs. Somebody might be able to take a stab wound like that and keep fighting. The thighs aren't typical targets as far as I know.

[Knaight]

What about a stab to the thigh that misses an artery? I think it wouldn't be too hard to find a path that goes through six inches of flesh, avoiding bone and artery. Especially on a large bodybuilder. Then there's the question of how much muscle is cut by the blade, which would depend upon on the size and shape of the blade -- but there's a lot of muscle in the thighs. Somebody might be able to take a stab wound like that and keep fighting. The thighs aren't typical targets as far as I know.

I'd be looking at the lower leg, where it might well go all the way through the calf without instantly incapacitating. Granted, either of these are still bad news, but they are at least survivable, and if you are looking at modern medicine, they probably won't kill at all.

[Spiryt]

Even if your opponent had 6 inches of flesh between you and a vital organ or major artery, id still say a 6 inch deep stab or hack would be enough to at the very least ruin that muscle bound fellows day. Im asking for an example. Assuming you are fighting conan the fricking barbarian, or arnold in his mister universe days, where could you hit him 6 inches deep that WOULDNT cripple and/or kill him in short order? By which I mean, you puncture him and go 6 inches deep, or you hit him with a hack or slash that goes into his body 6 inches.

I mean, where there arent any organs there are arteries/veins, where there arent any arteries/veins there are ligaments and tendons, where there are none of them you have major muscle groups. No matter where you stab/chop someone, 6 inches worth of damage is going to ruin him for the fight if not outright kill him right?


What other said and:

I am 5'9'' and 155 pounds, and I can find quite a few places on my body where 6 inches of even pretty violent (broad blade, or whatever) piercing wouldn't do that fatal injuries.

Mainly in thigh, belly and chest region with blade coming at angle - but that's nothing uncommon in fighting at all.

Take much larger human being (easy enough) and you have even more options.

[Mike_G]

I've treated a lot of guys who've gotten stabbed and kept right on going. We got a call for a guy who was stabbed in the side of the neck, and then he ran upstairs and locked himself in his apartment. we actually followed the blood trail to find him. And he argued with us when we wanted to take him to the hospital.

A stab, regardless of depth, won't generally drop somebody instantly unless you hit something really vital. With adrenaline surging through you, you will probably keep right on fighting until your blood pressure drops too low.

You don't bother stabbing anybody 12 inches deep, since no matter how far out his back you shove that blade, he doesn't get any deader, but your sword gets stucker.

And he'll still likely keep fighting for a bit.

[Knaight]

I've treated a lot of guys who've gotten stabbed and kept right on going. We got a call for a guy who was stabbed in the side of the neck, and then he ran upstairs and locked himself in his apartment. we actually followed the blood trail to find him. And he argued with us when we wanted to take him to the hospital.

A stab, regardless of depth, won't generally drop somebody instantly unless you hit something really vital. With adrenaline surging through you, you will probably keep right on fighting until your blood pressure drops too low.

That said, broader stabs can seriously screw people up even without dropping them instantly. A great many people have been killed by spears, mostly due to being stabbed, and if you look at spear tip development you will notice some tips that get fairly broad eventually.

[Spiryt]

You don't bother stabbing anybody 12 inches deep, since no matter how far out his back you shove that blade, he doesn't get any deader, but your sword gets stucker.

And he'll still likely keep fighting for a bit.

That all depends, like you said, cause there's pretty much 10 inches from my right armpit to my heart, and my chest is more like drawer compared to many people that walk(ed) the earth.

So if one's stabbing someone in lammellar under the armpit for example, 12 inches could be just right, to have a chance to stab heart, liver, or whatever.

And many stabbing implement trough centuries were obviously starting to get really broad, after 10 inches or so.

[GungHo]

A stab, regardless of depth, won't generally drop somebody instantly unless you hit something really vital. With adrenaline surging through you, you will probably keep right on fighting until your blood pressure drops too low.
I look at it like a gunshot, a fall, a car wreck, or any other sort of instant trauma. Sometimes people crumple over right away and die, sometimes people keep fighting and may die later from bleeding/shock, sometimes people wander around and/or sit down and go into shock. It depends on the person and the circumstance, and even if you are able to stab/shoot the same size person in the same place every single time with the exact same wound channel (good luck with that), there are still other psychological and physiological factors as to whether or not that dude is going to keep going, if even for a short while, as well as the availablity of rapid trauma team response.

They instruct you to attack the torso and to favor certain sizes/types of weapons so you increase the likelihood of getting an effective wound, not because of any guarantee of getting an effective wound.

[Yora]

Attacking the torso also greatly increases the chance of landing a hit at all. Limbs and head are much smaller and can change the direction and speed of movement much faster than it takes to get the whole mass of the torso into motion.

[gkathellar]

That said, broader stabs can seriously screw people up even without dropping them instantly. A great many people have been killed by spears, mostly due to being stabbed, and if you look at spear tip development you will notice some tips that get fairly broad eventually.

It's also worth noting that some schools of fighting work to mitigate resilience to damage by twisting the blade as they pull it out, or pulling it out with a slashing motion (or both). People can stand up pretty well to a stab wound if it doesn't destroy any arteries, tendons, organs or cartilage, but a skilled fighter has the option of compensating for toughness by going out of his way to wreck the area surrounding the initial wound.

[Norsesmithy]

Dunno if that would or would not make a wound that much more grevious than one where one doesn't (yes, it will do more "damage", but whether the amount of extra damage it does makes any significant difference, I dunno), but working the blade like that as your try to withdraw it from a target certainly helps prevent the blade from lodging.

[Traab]

That all depends, like you said, cause there's pretty much 10 inches from my right armpit to my heart, and my chest is more like drawer compared to many people that walk(ed) the earth.

So if one's stabbing someone in lammellar under the armpit for example, 12 inches could be just right, to have a chance to stab heart, liver, or whatever.

And many stabbing implement trough centuries were obviously starting to get really broad, after 10 inches or so.

True, 10-12 inches from armpit to heart, but its significantly less to go armpit to lung. And yes, I suppose if you have someone with mr universe pecs, its easily possible to stab them in the boob from the side and penetrate 6-12 inches without hitting anything terribly vital, though i wouldnt be surprised if a deep stab wound to your pectorals weakened your arm strength significantly.

One final note, for those who mentioned modern medicine making gut wounds and such nonlethal. I was more referring to medieval times personally. Swords and axes carving 6 inches into you would have been a heck of a lot more problematic back then. I mean, were they even capable of effectively reattaching severed muscles, ligaments, and tendons back in the days of braveheart? Or reliably curing gut wounds?

[No brains]

Changing the subject before people start stabbing themselves to prove a point (hehe, point), I have a pretty bizarre, very left field question.

Even though advances in weapon systems such as cartridges, bolt-action loading, and scopes would not be perfected until well after the Renaissance was over, would the want for such niceties exist, and would people have the knowledge of machinery to make their possibility at least apparent to people in or before that time period?


...Or reliably curing gut wounds?

There is nothing cauterization and the proper level of badassery can't solve together! :smalltongue:

[Traab]

Changing the subject before people start stabbing themselves to prove a point (hehe, point), I have a pretty bizarre, very left field question.

Even though advances in weapon systems such as cartridges, bolt-action loading, and scopes would not be perfected until well after the Renaissance was over, would the want for such niceties exist, and would people have the knowledge of machinery to make their possibility at least apparent to people in or before that time period?



There is nothing cauterization and the proper level of badassery can't solve together! :smalltongue:

People always want improvements to their current weaponry. Im sure since the invention of the basic bow and arrow combo there have been thousands of years worth of effort into making the arrow fly just a few yards further and still be lethal. Same with the starter guns as well. They started out terrible and virtually useless, then they got modified, and modified, and the improvements got improved until they got as good as they could be, then they found some other way to make it better and started over. As for if the capability to have made those things existed back then if they only knew what they were? Damned if I know.

[Mike_G]

I look at it like a gunshot, a fall, a car wreck, or any other sort of instant trauma. Sometimes people crumple over right away and die, sometimes people keep fighting and may die later from bleeding/shock, sometimes people wander around and/or sit down and go into shock.


Bullets produce a hell of a lot more damage just from cavitation and energy dump than blades, which are very slow in comparison. The energy form a car crash is orders of magnitude greater than a stab. A stab disrupts the tissue it hits. The huge energy dump from bullets or massive impacts like crashes or falls disrupt much more surrounding tissue and can rupture organs not in a direct path. If a blade misses your organs and major arteries, even by a faction of an inch, it simply won't kill you quickly. A bullet might.

I'm not just talking out my butt. I was an infantryman, now I'm a paramedic. I've seen a lot of guys who had bad, eventually fatal stab wounds keep right on chugging. Bullets or vehicle crashes tend to make people stop, even if they survive.



It depends on the person and the circumstance, and even if you are able to stab/shoot the same size person in the same place every single time with the exact same wound channel (good luck with that), there are still other psychological and physiological factors as to whether or not that dude is going to keep going, if even for a short while, as well as the availablity of rapid trauma team response.

They instruct you to attack the torso and to favor certain sizes/types of weapons so you increase the likelihood of getting an effective wound, not because of any guarantee of getting an effective wound.

I do agree with the rest of this post.

As far as it being easier to attack the torso, no. It may be a more deadly wound, but it's not easier to hit.

It's bigger, but people protect it better. In a fight with a guy who is actively defending, you will hit the arms or legs much more easily than you'll get a good solid blow to the body. Arms get in the way, and legs are easier to hit and harder to defend, so if you have the reach, taking out a guy's leg is a good option.

[Knaight]

It's bigger, but people protect it better. In a fight with a guy who is actively defending, you will hit the arms or legs much more easily than you'll get a good solid blow to the body. Arms get in the way, and legs are easier to hit and harder to defend, so if you have the reach, taking out a guy's leg is a good option.

Moreover, you have to be closer to the person to hit the torso than to hit the arms. The hand and forearm tend to be closer, and often easier to hit (though some weapons have hand guards that are very good.

[Storm Bringer]

Changing the subject before people start stabbing themselves to prove a point (hehe, point), I have a pretty bizarre, very left field question.

Even though advances in weapon systems such as cartridges, bolt-action loading, and scopes would not be perfected until well after the Renaissance was over, would the want for such niceties exist, and would people have the knowledge of machinery to make their possibility at least apparent to people in or before that time period?



There is nothing cauterization and the proper level of badassery can't solve together! :smalltongue:


the big hold up for breech loading systems is the need for very exacting manufacture of the barrel and cartidge so they "mate" and seal properly. they had Breech loadeing cannon as far as Crecy, but they were forced to use mud to seal the breech*, which dropped the rate of fire down a bit.
The Navy of queen Elizabeth I had some breech loading cannon, but found that the advantages were not worth the downsides and the problems with poor breech sealing (which lead to loss of power, and hot gasses form the gunpowder leaking out everywhere all over the gunners and burning things...or setting off the next charge),

in the american revolutuionary war, the british fielded a unit of riflemen who were equipped with Ferguson rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle) that worked well enough to be a workable limited issue weapon. I think that a Renaissance master might have the skills to make something like it.


*unfortunatly, my scoruce for this is Bernard Cornwell, in his novel Harlequin. I assume he didn't make that detail up, and he seems normally very good about his historical research

[Bhu]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12030179&postcount=198
I got the tables for time, craft check dc and all worked out. If anyone thinks these are unreasonable lemme know.


Regarding the ferguson rifle its reportedly had some flaws

http://www.americanrifleman.org/GalleryItem.aspx?cid=22&gid=17&id=90

they also reportedly break quite a bit


Also: Samurai era Yakuza: thoughts on common weapons for them?

[Eldan]

Define Samurai Era. Heian? Feudal Era? Sengoku? Edo?

[Spiryt]

Origins of Yakuza date back to the second half of 17th century generally, so periods before Edo are pretty much out.

[Eldan]

Ah. Didn't know that. Good to know.

[gkathellar]

Dunno if that would or would not make a wound that much more grevious than one where one doesn't (yes, it will do more "damage", but whether the amount of extra damage it does makes any significant difference, I dunno), but working the blade like that as your try to withdraw it from a target certainly helps prevent the blade from lodging.

Think of it this way. If you stab someone, their flesh will form a pocket around the wound. When you twist the blade, you're twisting all of that flesh and muscle and quite possibly cutting or tearing it further if they're not compliant. And if you tear it out with a cutting motion rather than just pull the blade back, then you're getting two attacks for the price of one.


Even though advances in weapon systems such as cartridges, bolt-action loading, and scopes would not be perfected until well after the Renaissance was over, would the want for such niceties exist, and would people have the knowledge of machinery to make their possibility at least apparent to people in or before that time period?

Think about a stapler: the standardization of parts, the precision and uniformity of even such a pedestrian item are incredible — and mostly inconceivable without industrial technology. A master smith might be able to do it if you gave him lots of time and lots of resources, but even then ... probably not.

Guns? Guns are like a million times more complicated than that.


Also: Samurai era Yakuza: thoughts on common weapons for them?

Stabby things, most likely. Knives and swords. Guns if they could get a hold of them, which is unlikely and would have drawn too much attention.


Origins of Yakuza date back to the second half of 17th century generally, so periods before Edo are pretty much out.

Presumably there was organized crime before it acquired that particular name and face, however.

[Mathis]

Does anyone here have experience disassembling and assembling a gun for cleaning? I'm talking about how for example the military teaches soldiers to disassemble a gun for maintenance to avoid jamming and other problems that may arise from lack of proper cleaning.

How hard is it to learn how to do that with a variety of guns? Handguns, shotguns and rifles mostly, weapons a civilian might have access to. How difficult, or easy would it be to teach oneself this without guidance from a tutor?

[Yora]

Organized crime relies heavily on urban centers where you have a complex bureaucracy and some degree of anonymity, which many pre-industrial societies were simply lacking. In rural communities, you may have gangs of thugs who beat up the sheriff and demand the peoples monney and food, but modern forms of organized crime only work if you can hide a great deal of your activities from the authorities while having a complex legal system that allows you to find ways to bypass them without everyone immediately knowing who did it.
And urbanization in Japan really only kicked off in the Edo period. Before that you surely had lots of moonshiners who did certain things without a licence and kept their profits secret, or highwaymen who took the money of anyone who came by. But when you are a peasant, you can't just become one of the big fishes and make veiled threats to nobles. And the yakuza are to this day mostly people who are descendants of lowest-caste commoners and I think most of the organized crime organizations recruit their men from the very lowest ranks of society.

One thing I've frequently read about the origins of the Yukuza was a government reform, by which police would no longer be a responsibility of the central government, but transfered to the local administrations, who would have to pay all the expenses, which lead to the rise of neighborhood watches who did originally look out for the people and shop owners of their community, but eventually some of them realized you can run that job for big profits and expand into other territories as well.
From making a contribution to the funding of the local watch to a protection racket, it really isn't a long way.

@Mathis: Look at youtube, thre should be a number of videos were they go through the whole process and explain the steps. I think it shouldn't take more than half an hour to learn doing that all by yourself.
"Cleaning AR-15" should get you something for rifles of the type the US-Army uses.

[Joran]

Does anyone here have experience disassembling and assembling a gun for cleaning? I'm talking about how for example the military teaches soldiers to disassemble a gun for maintenance to avoid jamming and other problems that may arise from lack of proper cleaning.

How hard is it to learn how to do that with a variety of guns? Handguns, shotguns and rifles mostly, weapons a civilian might have access to. How difficult, or easy would it be to teach oneself this without guidance from a tutor?

Not a gun guy, but I've watched way too many shows on guns.

It probably depends on the gun. The old fashioned double barreled shotgun is very easy to dissemble and clean, same with revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

Auto-loaders are probably the most difficult. I remember seeing someone disassemble and clean a Colt Defender 1911 and there were a ton of small pieces.



Even though advances in weapon systems such as cartridges, bolt-action loading, and scopes would not be perfected until well after the Renaissance was over, would the want for such niceties exist, and would people have the knowledge of machinery to make their possibility at least apparent to people in or before that time period?

The one gun innovation that surprised me that it wasn't thought of and created earlier was the Minié ball. Of course, rifling wasn't around just yet in the Renaissance.

I think during the Renaissance, you could explain breach-loading ("You can put the powder and the bullet into the BACK of the gun") pretty easily. In fact, they came up with it in the 14th century for swivel guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech-loading_swivel_gun

It's just that the machining wasn't good enough to create the tolerances needed for it to be reliable without getting a face full of burning powder. Also, machining small metal cartridges was well beyond their technology.

The technology for scopes would definitely be within the capability of the Renaissance, but the guns weren't accurate enough for it to matter, so why bother? Scopes only matter when you can accurately hit something outside the range of your normal vision. Also, they were using black powder, so after a few volleys, the entire row would be covered in smoke anyway.

It could possibly work with a rifle given to a sharpshooter, but for your front-line grunts, scopes would be useless.

[Eldan]

From what I've read, even with 17th century muskets, the ball could come out at angles of around 30 degrees on some shots, so aiming was, really, often a matter of luck.

[Spiryt]

Of course, rifling wasn't around just yet in the Renaissance.

Rifled muskets were appearing as early as first half of 16th century.


From what I've read, even with 17th century muskets, the ball could come out at angles of around 30 degrees on some shots, so aiming was, really, often a matter of luck.

Probably with shots that had significantly lower caliber than barrel, other than that, it's hard to imagine.

Generally, it could be matter of luck, but one usually could improve his luck drastically. :smallwink:

Everything depended on general quality, matching powder and ammunition and proficiency and experience with weapon of shooter.


Even though advances in weapon systems such as cartridges

We have a lot of simple cartridges traces pretty early into the 15th century already.

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=4847&st=140&start=140

Just obviously, until primers, breach loading, easy and reliable firing systems, cheap and disposable cartridges all didn't came together in 19th century, cartridge itself wasn't that practical by itself, and most probably usually there was no point in bothering with it.

[Yora]

An object in motion stays in motion. When a ball travels through a barel at high speed, it will continue to fly at that direction unless something makes alter its path. 30 degrees to the side means a 60 degree cone around the muzzle. I'm not sure if there are any flashlights that project line in such a wide cone.

I'm not sure we have the technology in the 21st century to make a musket ball arc that much after leaving a tube that looks straight to the naked eye. :smallbiggrin:
Except when you use no powder and let it roll out of the barrel, than gravity might make a 30 degree arc downward.

[Eldan]

Spyrit is right, I looked it up again:
Sometimes, a ball would be a good bit smaller than the barrel, and would thus bounce around in it, so that the exit angle would be pretty much random. With a good ball, the shot would be a lot more exact.

[GungHo]

I'm not just talking out my butt. I was an infantryman, now I'm a paramedic. I've seen a lot of guys who had bad, eventually fatal stab wounds keep right on chugging. Bullets or vehicle crashes tend to make people stop, even if they survive.
Also an infantryman, though not a medic. There is no magic stopper sort of something that damages a real structure and subsequently makes an action no longer possible.

And I don't generally believe anyone is talking out of their butt unless they've demonstrated themselves to be butt-talkers :smallsmile:


It's bigger, but people protect it better. In a fight with a guy who is actively defending, you will hit the arms or legs much more easily than you'll get a good solid blow to the body. Arms get in the way, and legs are easier to hit and harder to defend, so if you have the reach, taking out a guy's leg is a good option.
I was really emphasizing the likelihood of inflicting an effective wound, and by effective, I mean one that ends the threat. I'm not convinced that arms are a priority target unless it's unarmed combat, where, yes, a good armbar works wonders. It may be easier to hit when dealing with armed combat, but that's not going to necessarily mean they're going to leave me be before they have a good chance of hurting me.

That being said, I get your point about the legs... I come from more of a firearms background, so I am biased toward those sorts of priorities.


Does anyone here have experience disassembling and assembling a gun for cleaning? I'm talking about how for example the military teaches soldiers to disassemble a gun for maintenance to avoid jamming and other problems that may arise from lack of proper cleaning.

How hard is it to learn how to do that with a variety of guns? Handguns, shotguns and rifles mostly, weapons a civilian might have access to. How difficult, or easy would it be to teach oneself this without guidance from a tutor?
First: Some of it's for maintenance and to avoid jamming, etc. But, in the military, it's also done for additional weapon familiarization (some of these kids have never been around that type of firearm before... if they'd ever been around one, and taking one apart is a good way to get to understand it and, honestly, to learn not to fear it) and discipline. You don't actually have to clean every part of an M-16 until it's absolutely spotless to make it run (though sand can eventually be bad in those). They make you clean it until it's spotless to make you learn to do it right and to learn to obey and you learn to take pride in it.. In that respect, it goes hand in hand with making sure the bed sheets have hospital corners and your uniform is pressed.

Second: Most firearms are easy and many are sold with clear instructions. If you bought a used one, you can usually ask the gun store owner or someone at the range to show you how to do it, and there's honestly only so complicated that it really gets.

That being said, some can be more a pain in the rear than others. Some makers require you to depress buttons (S&W) with little tools that get lost. Everyone has put an idiot mark on their first 1911. Doing basic maintenance on a AR-15/M16 is quite easy (two bolts and you're done with the big stuff), but when you get to disassembling the bolt itself or the trigger group, it can be a bit much for a newbie, especially if you're the kind of guy that puts together IKEA furniture and always ends up with miscellaneous parts.

Others are a dream. I can take apart most SIG220-series pistols or a Springfield XD in very short order and I'm sure as heck not a gunsmith.

Edit: That being said, you should keep your firearms clean and in service and if I'm recommending a firearm to someone, I recommend they get one that isn't going to be a PITA to service. Because, if it is, they won't do that and they'll end up ruining it after they shoot it until it's so filthy it starts binding.

[Mathis]

Thank you, what a great response! I'm not asking because I'm getting a handgun or some such myself, but because of a recent discussion about gun maintenaince and inexperience. Thank you though.

[Yora]

and discipline. You don't actually have to clean every part of an M-16 until it's absolutely spotless to make it run (though sand can eventually be bad in those). They make you clean it until it's spotless to make you learn to do it right and to learn to obey and you learn to take pride in it.. In that respect, it goes hand in hand with making sure the bed sheets have hospital corners and your uniform is pressed.
You don't have to fold all your shirts exactly to specification in order to dress yourself and you don't have to make your bed 8 times until it is spotless to be able to sleep in it.
It is done to get you into the mindset of doing things exactly as told even when seeing no reason why your superior officer would want you to do it.

[Bhu]

Stabby things, most likely. Knives and swords. Guns if they could get a hold of them, which is unlikely and would have drawn too much attention.
.

This would cover several time periods. Im doing a redesign of several of the OA classes, Samurai and Ninja among them, and wanted to get fairly well along in teh project before cross posting on gitp. The way I'm doing the class proficiencies for most of them is "choose x weapons from the Samurai list". I need to make some sort of list for the criminals as well.

List of weapons and preliminary weapons lists may be found here:

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=772.0;msg=4356

[Yanagi]

This would cover several time periods. Im doing a redesign of several of the OA classes, Samurai and Ninja among them, and wanted to get fairly well along in teh project before cross posting on gitp. The way I'm doing the class proficiencies for most of them is "choose x weapons from the Samurai list". I need to make some sort of list for the criminals as well.

List of weapons and preliminary weapons lists may be found here:

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=772.0;msg=4356

Iconically, Yakuza are associated (and often depicted with) Kaiken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiken_%28dagger%29)--that is a tanto mounted in the aikuchi manner (without a guard). This can be seen in Edo-era kabuki and Noh as well as woodblock prints. It still turns up in manga and films (like Koroshiya Ichi).

The heads of tekiya (peddlers) organizations (that along the gamblers and the bohachi, preceded the Yakuza) were permitted to wear wakazashi during the Tokugawa as a status marker. It's a detail you can pick out in period movies and anime.

Other than that? Anything they could get their hands on, anything that could be concealed (including shikomizue) and/or tools that doubled as weapons.

[Yora]

Iconically, Yakuza are associated (and often depicted with) Kaiken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiken_%28dagger%29)--that is a tanto mounted in the aikuchi manner (without a guard). This can be seen in Edo-era kabuki and Noh as well as woodblock prints. It still turns up in manga and films (like Koroshiya Ichi).
It's a fancy shiv. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Well, it looks like a prime candidate for having the same game stats as a dagger.

[Yanagi]

[edit] somehow my attempt to add something to my last post ended up as a new one....

Violence wasn't a standard part of operations, and most didn't walk around with much more than a knife. Like today, serious application of violence was subbed out to specific individuals with martial training--back then it just would have been a rounin or someone who'd served in the conscript military rather than a button man. If a feud was on, they'd bust out the secret cache of weapons--cheap swords, spears, clubs--and have at it somewhere where they wouldn't catch the attention of law enforcement.

[Mike_G]

Also an infantryman, though not a medic. There is no magic stopper sort of something that damages a real structure and subsequently makes an action no longer possible.


Agreed, there's no guaranteed stop, but the pressure wave and cavitation of a bullet can disrupt tissue near its path, even if it misses the organ or vessel, where a knife blade won't, so I don't put a stab in the same category as a gunshot or car crash.



I was really emphasizing the likelihood of inflicting an effective wound, and by effective, I mean one that ends the threat. I'm not convinced that arms are a priority target unless it's unarmed combat, where, yes, a good armbar works wonders. It may be easier to hit when dealing with armed combat, but that's not going to necessarily mean they're going to leave me be before they have a good chance of hurting me.


Yes, a body shot will be more likely to kill or incapacitate the enemy, and I'd always suggest that you aim there if you can. With a rifle, it's center mass anyway. But before you can stick a blade in an active enemy, you generally have to get his arms (and rifle, sword, shield, whatever) out of your way first. Even in foil fencing, where the body is a valid target and the arm isn't, so you'd never aim at it, you often hit the arm just because it's in the way.

Lots of dead from the battle of Visby had leg wounds, indicating that somebody had taken out their forward leg first, then killed them on the ground, or they bled out.

Nobody's going to make it easy to stab them in the heart. That's the goal, but I may have to cut or at least grab their arm first and yank it aside.

[Traab]

You don't have to fold all your shirts exactly to specification in order to dress yourself and you don't have to make your bed 8 times until it is spotless to be able to sleep in it.
It is done to get you into the mindset of doing things exactly as told even when seeing no reason why your superior officer would want you to do it.

Nah, the shirt folding and bed making and whatnot is part of the TI's means of always having a ready made excuse to make you do pushups or something. "You see that trainee? Thats DUST!" (there is no dust, but I wouldnt recommend arguing) "Drop and give me 20!" Im sure a part of it is also trying to enforce the habit of behaving as if "good enough" isnt. Noone wants a soldier doing a sloppy job, whether its guarding an empty storehouse, or dropping bombs on a target. Do it right, or you will do it again. Then you will do it 5 more times, to make sure the lesson has sunk in. God I love basic training.

[Storm Bringer]

to be fair, Yora is partly right.

part of the point of basic is to make sure you obey orders, even those that you don't really understand (for example, shaving every day, or taking foul tasting tables to prevent some unlikey disease), becuase while the soldier may not see the point, his bosses do. for example, not stressing a vechicles engine too much, to extend its lifespan, or using proper radio procedure, which we use to reduce the effects of strong accents on comms, as well as misunderstandings.

most things we do in the army we do for a reason. that reason may not make sense to the boots on the ground, or even be in what they see as their best intrest, but their is a reason, and it's usually a good one.

[Xuc Xac]

Think about a stapler: the standardization of parts, the precision and uniformity of even such a pedestrian item are incredible — and mostly inconceivable without industrial technology. A master smith might be able to do it if you gave him lots of time and lots of resources, but even then ... probably not.

Guns? Guns are like a million times more complicated than that.


On the other hand, there are AK-47 knockoffs being made right now around the world in workshops that have only a medieval level of technology.

[Norsesmithy]

Well, maybe a 17th century level of technology. Their rifling jigs are essentially identical to the ones that made the gunsmiths of Pennsylvania colony famous for their rifled muskets.

[Incanur]

The arms absolutely constitute a primary target for unarmored combat with cutting swords.

[fusilier]

Changing the subject before people start stabbing themselves to prove a point (hehe, point), I have a pretty bizarre, very left field question.

Even though advances in weapon systems such as cartridges, bolt-action loading, and scopes would not be perfected until well after the Renaissance was over, would the want for such niceties exist, and would people have the knowledge of machinery to make their possibility at least apparent to people in or before that time period?



There is nothing cauterization and the proper level of badassery can't solve together! :smalltongue:

The short answer is yes. Breech-loading small arms were made in the 16th century. Breech-loading cannon had actually been a while for a while, but the systems of breech-loading for cannon were strange and somewhat clunky. Only the smallest cannon (swivel guns) retained such systems until sometime in the 17th century (my guess is late in the century).

I believe Henry VIII had a breech-loading rifle. Rifling, invented sometime in the late 15th century, seems to have been a major impetus for breech-loading weapons. They could be made with the technology of the time, but required a lot of careful hand crafting, as pieces had to fit perfectly.

However, black-powder is extremely messy, and until the introduction of metallic cartridges, there was really no way to keep the finely made parts from becoming caked with black powder residue. Eventually, it will gum up the works, and the weapon will have to be cleaned. This could happen very quickly. I'm always amazed at how messy the pan, flash-guard, and frizzen are after just one shot on my flintlock musket!

By the 19th century, close tolerances and good design could help a breechloading gun-powder weapon. The Hall rifle is a simple design that would be very difficult to gum up with black-powder residue. The Sharps carbine and rifle used a very tightly fitting sliding block that helped prevent residue from getting in between moving parts. The Prussians developed and used their Dreyse needle rifles, and later the French developed the Chassepot rifle. All those rifles use paper cartridges (although in the case of the Hall rifle, the paper was not inserted into the weapon).

Those weapons were not without their problems. A good seal to prevent gas leakage (obturation) when fired was always an issue. The Hall rifle didn't even bother -- it has a visible gap between the chamber and the barrel, and gas blows out in every direction! The needle rifles (Dreyse and Chassepot) were the most advanced, having primer within the paper cartridge, but obturation was a problem -- the Chassepot was better as it was designed later -- rubber seals and the like can wear out quickly. Metallic cartridges were the solution, and once they established themselves, and became cheap enough to manufacture (a major consideration), most weapons were converted to use them.

[gkathellar]

The arms absolutely constitute a primary target for unarmored combat with cutting swords.

For obvious reasons. If you cut up your opponent's swordarm, they won't have much left to fight you with.

The very first sword counter I learned was a low block with a sidestep into a slash to the elbow or forearm. The shoulder and bicep are especially good targets for a thrust, and have lots of conveniently placed arteries. Basically arms are incredibly vulnerable.


On the other hand, there are AK-47 knockoffs being made right now around the world in workshops that have only a medieval level of technology.

I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised when I consider that particular gun accepts things like tightly packed sand and M&Ms (exaggerating) as an acceptable substitute for bullets.

Of course, I expect they have more sophisticated casting and molding technology than you're saying, and I'd be surprised of they're not using industrial steel.

[skywalker]

Second: Most firearms are easy and many are sold with clear instructions. If you bought a used one, you can usually ask the gun store owner or someone at the range to show you how to do it, and there's honestly only so complicated that it really gets.

That being said, some can be more a pain in the rear than others. Some makers require you to depress buttons (S&W) with little tools that get lost. Everyone has put an idiot mark on their first 1911. Doing basic maintenance on a AR-15/M16 is quite easy (two bolts and you're done with the big stuff), but when you get to disassembling the bolt itself or the trigger group, it can be a bit much for a newbie, especially if you're the kind of guy that puts together IKEA furniture and always ends up with miscellaneous parts.

Others are a dream. I can take apart most SIG220-series pistols or a Springfield XD in very short order and I'm sure as heck not a gunsmith.

I would like to expand on this. While I think it is basically correct, the reference to IKEA furniture needs to be played up. If you are the type of person who puts together furniture without extraneous parts, if you are the type of person who can open the hood of your broken-down car and not make things worse, then you can expect to take your gun apart and clean it fairly easily. Some people (myself and it would seem GungHo) are in this boat. Call it "object-oriented intelligence" or being "mechanically inclined." If you are the type who understands how a firearm works and can expand on that basic knowledge, there is also an easier time of it. Knowing how one gun works can help you understand the others.

So if you were looking to learn this without a tutor, there would be a leap of faith somewhere (just as there is with all learning). For example, there is a point during Glock disassembly where one must point the (Gods make sure it's) empty gun in a safe direction and pull the trigger. That's a leap of faith that a lot of people might not be willing to make. Of course, if you're the type to attempt teaching yourself to maintain guns in the first place, you might be more likely to take that leap.

[Yora]

Once again there was an old world war 2 bomb found in Germany, but the term "Air Mine" (Luftmine) confuses me. What kind of explosive device could that be?

That bastard is huge, estimated at 1,8 tonnes. Removal is planned for Sunday with an evacuation radius of 2 kilometers, which affects 45,000 people. To make things worse, the extreme low level of the Rhine has also revealed other old bombs in the area as well.
We find old bombs around here all the time, but this thing is just huge. What kind of device is it? What I could find out so far is that it is a brittish bomb that was probably dropped in late 1944 or 1945, and one article says it has three "head-fuses" (Kopfzünder), whatever that is supposed to mean.
Small update: Here's the thing (http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-289829-galleryV9-xmxn.jpg), now that the water has drained enough.
Disarming is tomorrow. If it goes horribly wrong, you'll probably hear it in the news. :smallbiggrin:
Though I don't know of any case where disarming a WW2 bomb in Germany ended with the bomb going off. How likely is it actually, that such an old bomb could still work after 60 years under water?

[Storm Bringer]

Small update: Here's the thing (http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-289829-galleryV9-xmxn.jpg), now that the water has drained enough.
Disarming is tomorrow. If it goes horribly wrong, you'll probably hear it in the news. :smallbiggrin:
Though I don't know of any case where disarming a WW2 bomb in Germany ended with the bomb going off. How likely is it actually, that such an old bomb could still work after 60 years under water?

very dependant on the type of explosive used.

some "rot" and become mostly harmless, but others can become very shock sensitive, and thus go off much easier. I know that thier are some huge underground mines (as in, a long tunnel dug and then stacked with boxes of explosive) left over form the 1st world war along the line of the Western Front, which we know are thier, we know roughly how much explosive was put into them (freaking loads, around 21 tons of TNT), but we dare not go down thier to do anything with them, as we are afraid of setting off the charge.

[Knaight]

For obvious reasons. If you cut up your opponent's swordarm, they won't have much left to fight you with.

The very first sword counter I learned was a low block with a sidestep into a slash to the elbow or forearm. The shoulder and bicep are especially good targets for a thrust, and have lots of conveniently placed arteries. Basically arms are incredibly vulnerable.

It isn't just swords either. Arms and legs are great targets if you happen to be using a hewing spear, particularly as there is a chance you'll be able to get a torso strike in if your opponent is sloppy enough protecting their arms or legs. How sloppy that actually is varies - a spear used in two hands is a very fast weapon, and a person using only a sword against a spear is at a pretty bad disadvantage most of the time. The rest of the time, they are using a two handed sword.

[gkathellar]

In summary, any weapon you care to name can inflict tremendous damage by targeting the joints and limbs, destroying arteries, breaking bones, tearing cartilage, slicing tendons or cutting muscles away from the various anchors they need to function.

[GraaEminense]

In summary, any weapon you care to name can inflict tremendous damage by targeting the joints and limbs, destroying arteries, breaking bones, tearing cartilage, slicing tendons or cutting muscles away from the various anchors they need to function.
More importantly, you take what targets you can get. In melee, distance is everything and the arms (and to a lesser degree legs) are closer than the torso and head and therefore less risky targets -you don't have to commit yourself that much to hit them. Even if you may not incapacitate the enemy immediately, unless you are desperate the less risky option is preferable.

[Conners]

How good were Copper weapons? Also, how easy were they to produce?

[gkathellar]

Copper is softer than iron or bronze, but it's resilient enough to make a blade out of. It doesn't tarnish easily, so that's points in its favor. Still, copper isn't the toughest metal in the world, and it won't hold an exceptionally sharp edge.

Still, they could be quite good. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Goujian) is probably the finest example of a copper weapon known to man. Bear in mind that it has a lot of tin in the edges and trace quantities of lead, iron, sulfur and arsenic — all of which strengthen the overall composition.

In terms of production, a lower melting point requires less sophisticated forging technology and less labor, so copper was undoubtedly easier in general. Forging a complicated blade with lots of trace elements to strengthen it, though, requires a lot of time and energy. So, generally easier. Probably not so much for the Sword of Goujian.

[Spiryt]

Copper is softer than iron or bronze, but it's resilient enough to make a blade out of. It doesn't tarnish easily, so that's points in its favor. Still, copper isn't the toughest metal in the world, and it won't hold an exceptionally sharp edge.

Still, they could be quite good. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Goujian) is probably the finest example of a copper weapon known to man. Bear in mind that it has a lot of tin in the edges and trace quantities of lead, iron, sulfur and arsenic — all of which strengthen the overall composition.

In terms of production, a lower melting point requires less sophisticated forging technology and less labor, so copper was undoubtedly easier in general. Forging a complicated blade with lots of trace elements to strengthen it, though, requires a lot of time and energy. So, generally easier. Probably not so much for the Sword of Goujian.

Well, it actually looks like a bronze sword to me...

Blade alone has in fact somehow higher tin content than most "standard" bronzes, let alone the edge, which is barely in 50% composed out of copper.

Most of stuff from more 'prevalent' bronze alloys had whole lot more copper in it, so it's hard to call this sword a copper one.

[Knaight]

More importantly, you take what targets you can get. In melee, distance is everything and the arms (and to a lesser degree legs) are closer than the torso and head and therefore less risky targets -you don't have to commit yourself that much to hit them. Even if you may not incapacitate the enemy immediately, unless you are desperate the less risky option is preferable.

Note that "less risky" is highly dependent on context. If things are not going well and you are probably going to lose horribly anyways, a highly risky torso strike that will end the fight instantly may well be your best option. After all, if you only have a 20% chance to win at all, an instant where you can get 50% 50% is to be exploited for all it's worth.

Note that your ability to guess the probabilities won't actually produce numbers. In practice, this looks more like "I'm screwed" becoming "This is risky but might work".

[Conners]

You know how Fire Emblem has a Rock Paper Scissors thing going? Thing Spear beats Sword, Sword beats Axe, Axe beats Spear.
Is there something a bit similar in reality that could be described...?

I know there's stuff like cavalry trumps infantry, pikemen trumps cavalry, heavy infantry trumps pikemen (unless I'm mistaken).

[Spiryt]

Is there something a bit similar in reality that could be described...?

I know there's stuff like cavalry trumps infantry, pikemen trumps cavalry, heavy infantry trumps pikemen (unless I'm mistaken).

In extremely limited sense, one can come up with some stuff like that, but in general reality 'doesn't like' that. :smallwink:

There are plenty examples of cavalry beating pikemen (polish hussars rode trough Russian or even Sweden lines few times, even if it's not always clear if they stood their ground in the first place), then there's problem with definitions like "heavy infantry" too.

Many Swiss pikemen or Landsknecht bands had won the battles by advancing aggressively and engaging whatever they could, they were often well armored and generally ready for heavy fighting.

Do they count as "heavy infantry" then too?

And so on.

[Yora]

When speaking of pikesmen, it's important to note that they lacked the shields of ancient phalanxes. So if two groups armed with pikes got into rech of each other, there would be a lot of dying in the front ranks of either side. And if you're just some rablle with pointed sticks and comming towards you is a formation of swiss pikemen, morale would certainly not be on your side.
I've heard somewhere that discipline and who chickens out first would have been a major factor in who would win in a pike versus pike clash.

[Conners]

In extremely limited sense, one can come up with some stuff like that, but in general reality 'doesn't like' that. :smallwink:

There are plenty examples of cavalry beating pikemen (polish hussars rode trough Russian or even Sweden lines few times, even if it's not always clear if they stood their ground in the first place), then there's problem with definitions like "heavy infantry" too.

Many Swiss pikemen or Landsknecht bands had won the battles by advancing aggressively and engaging whatever they could, they were often well armored and generally ready for heavy fighting.

Do they count as "heavy infantry" then too?

And so on. Didn't realize there were a lot of examples of cav beating pikes. I guess the horsemen didn't have especially favourable circumstances?

Would have to work out attributes to what constitutes, "heavy infantry" exactly, to work that out. If it's just a matter of being heavily armed, then yes.

Hmm... was thinking there'd be more rock-paper-scissors elements in warfare. Maybe not...?



When speaking of pikesmen, it's important to note that they lacked the shields of ancient phalanxes. So if two groups armed with pikes got into rech of each other, there would be a lot of dying in the front ranks of either side. And if you're just some rablle with pointed sticks and comming towards you is a formation of swiss pikemen, morale would certainly not be on your side.
I've heard somewhere that discipline and who chickens out first would have been a major factor in who would win in a pike versus pike clash. Apparently, this is what Pawns on a chessboard are based off of. When two pawns come face to face, they go to a standstill and can't attack each other... because pike vs. pike is a bloodbath. That's why pawns need to flank, by attacking diagonally.

That's what I heard, anyways. Might be untrue.

[Spiryt]

When speaking of pikesmen, it's important to note that they lacked the shields of ancient phalanxes. So if two groups armed with pikes got into rech of each other, there would be a lot of dying in the front ranks of either side. And if you're just some rablle with pointed sticks and comming towards you is a formation of swiss pikemen, morale would certainly not be on your side.
I've heard somewhere that discipline and who chickens out first would have been a major factor in who would win in a pike versus pike clash.

They still have their pikes etc. to protect themselves though.

And most probably best armored dudes were anyway standing in the first rows, so it was not possible to just jab them anywhere to draw the blood.

Chickening out would be major factor in pretty much any clash ever, and differences between clash of two Germanic bands in 4th century and two lines of firing musketeers would be in so called 'details'. :smallwink:

[Yora]

I almost always hear so much good things about straight swords and curved swords almost only getting mentioned as cavalry weapons. Since I'm not very educated about the exact people and periods, let's make this about the troops commanded by Saladin. I see them usually depicted carrying curved swords and can't remember seeing a single one using a straight sword. And they probably were not all exclusively cavalry.

One reason why in a european context we almost always see straight swords could probably be the armor that protexts very well against cuts. But what are the reasons to use curved swords in favor over straight swords when one has the options to pick both. China would be an example where both types appear to have been common simulataneously.

[gkathellar]

You know how Fire Emblem has a Rock Paper Scissors thing going? Thing Spear beats Sword, Sword beats Axe, Axe beats Spear.

In an extremely limited fashion. Some weapons or weapons techniques were developed specifically for dealing with other weapons or techniques — the paired dao you see in a lot of kung fu flicks were an innovation to help get past a spearman's reach, for example.

Still, it really comes down to skill and experience dealing with the other guy's weapon. If you're using a spear and he's got a sword and you're both quite skilled with what you've got, the fight is often going to depend on whether he knows more about spears or you know more about swords.

[gkathellar]

I almost always hear so much good things about straight swords and curved swords almost only getting mentioned as cavalry weapons. Since I'm not very educated about the exact people and periods, let's make this about the troops commanded by Saladin. I see them usually depicted carrying curved swords and can't remember seeing a single one using a straight sword. And they probably were not all exclusively cavalry.

One reason why in a european context we almost always see straight swords could probably be the armor that protexts very well against cuts. But what are the reasons to use curved swords in favor over straight swords when one has the options to pick both. China would be an example where both types appear to have been common simulataneously.

Having trained with both dao and jian, the virtues of each lie in how the sword itself "wants" to behave. They're not called the "general" and "gentleman" of all weapons without a reason.

The dao has a heavy edge, and it really wants to keep moving forward at all times — it gathers a lot of momentum, and every slash and thrust you execute carries that momentum and weight. Curved swords are typically about mass and energy, and they like to maintain that mass and that energy. It's good for powerful chops, darting thrusts and broad, circular movement.

The jian, on the other hand, has a more relaxed feel to it. It doesn't give much in the way of guidance to the wielder, but at the same time its physical symmetry and more even distribution of weight make it more responsive to your technique (including the flaws in your technique). You can't use it to chop in the way you can with a dao, but the jian is great for smaller, sweeping cuts, long thrusts and intricate fencing.

From a more practical "how am I equipping my army" perspective, anyone can use a dao. They might not be able to use it well, but the internal logic is there: swing sword, kill guys. A jian, on the other hand, is described as "the sword of a thousand days" because learning to fight with it takes a lot of time and effort. It's an officer, scholar or nobleman's sword, not one for mass issue to your whole army.

[Spiryt]

One reason why in a european context we almost always see straight swords could probably be the armor that protexts very well against cuts. But what are the reasons to use curved swords in favor over straight swords when one has the options to pick both. China would be an example where both types appear to have been common simulataneously.

The thing is that straight swords of Europe up to the beginning of the 13th century were in overpowering majority cutting beasts as well. Some had somewhat more pronounced points, but overall geometry, harmonics and balance were predominately optimized for slashing.

Not to mention that armor that protects well against cutting existed everywhere.

As soon as someone clothing starts to be protective enough to hamper sharp things from harming the flesh, resist some impacts, etc. slashing weapons are pretty much always first to 'suffer'.


I almost always hear so much good things about straight swords and curved swords almost only getting mentioned as cavalry weapons. Since I'm not very educated about the exact people and periods, let's make this about the troops commanded by Saladin. I see them usually depicted carrying curved swords and can't remember seeing a single one using a straight sword. And they probably were not all exclusively cavalry.

Saladin troops most probably in vast majority had straight swords, among other weapons.

Curved sabres were weapons of migrating tribes from Asia, and in result gained real popularity in Levant, Arabia, etc. later, in 14th century and so on, when Ottoman and generally Turkish culture dominated the Near East.

In the Crusades era, Muslims from Africa and Near East generally used straight sword. Don't know that much about them, some seem to be fairly similar to blades popular in Europe back then, some were quite visibly different.

Depictions of predominately curved swords are as popular and inaccurate.

See this topic for some quick reference:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17520&highlight=islamic+swords

[Yora]

Okay, so not Saladin. But what are good reasons to go for curved when straight also is an option?

[Spiryt]

Okay, so not Saladin. But what are good reasons to go for curved when straight also is an option?

The same as to go for wooden houses, when pit houses are also an option, I guess.

Tradition, technology, preferred qualities, and so on.

Curved blades will on 'average' be different in properties than similar, but straight ones, so we can guess that someone would prefer one over another from some reason.

[Yora]

And could you name some reasons? :smallbiggrin:

What I really want is to know is what reasons there are to make swords curved.

[Spiryt]

I'm pretty sure that no one had ever given really definite statement, and there were thousands of discussions like everywhere, from academic papers to Internet forums.

Basically, with some amount of steel in form of blade, one makes a curvature to change angles and geometry on impacts, which certainly has a lot of effects compared to somehow "standard" straight blade, when one sets his arm, wrist etc. to thrust or cut.

"Standard" theory is that curvature generally makes slicing cuts easier and more efficient in many cases. Curvature makes drawing blade along the target more efficient.

And at many angles curvature causes the 'effective' width of the blade to be greater than actual blade width at the impacting point - pretty easy to illustrate on piece of paper, among all other things.

[Conners]

With the attempts to let the blind see with technology, I was wondering something. Would it be easier to make them see in infra-red, or some other military vision?

Currently, they have problems getting things to look how humans see them, and it looks more like blurry grey shapes. Was wondering if there could be a military application for soldiers who lost their vision, where from then on they were given cybernetic eyes that let them see only in infra-red. Could make an interesting story.

[cucchulainnn]

And could you name some reasons? :smallbiggrin:

What I really want is to know is what reasons there are to make swords curved.


in the 19th century there where lots of debates on what are better curved or strait swords. the prevailing opinion seemed to have swung back and forth. as can be seen by the changes between the two in relation to military uniforms.

[Yora]

With the attempts to let the blind see with technology, I was wondering something. Would it be easier to make them see in infra-red, or some other military vision?

Currently, they have problems getting things to look how humans see them, and it looks more like blurry grey shapes. Was wondering if there could be a military application for soldiers who lost their vision, where from then on they were given cybernetic eyes that let them see only in infra-red. Could make an interesting story.
And once again Shirow is 30 years ahead of you.
http://www.megachan.net/cy/src/131067077946.jpg
Though today, we would actually make them look like normal eyes.

Since out entire world is made to function in visual light, seeing in the normal spectrum is absolutely required. Being able to distinguish colors can often be vital. Switching to infrared or other spectrums should be optional to be activated when neccessary.
However, the human brain is amazing in adapting to things, so I think it would be possible to create artificial eyes that can see in normal and infrared light at the same time with the brain being able to turn all the information into a single image.

[Joran]

And once again Shirow is 30 years ahead of you.
http://www.megachan.net/cy/src/131067077946.jpg
Though today, we would actually make them look like normal eyes.

Since out entire world is made to function in visual light, seeing in the normal spectrum is absolutely required. Being able to distinguish colors can often be vital. Switching to infrared or other spectrums should be optional to be activated when neccessary.
However, the human brain is amazing in adapting to things, so I think it would be possible to create artificial eyes that can see in normal and infrared light at the same time with the brain being able to turn all the information into a single image.

In William Gibson's Neuromancer, Molly has sunglasses permanently attached to her temples that could see in the dark/infrared.

I don't think there's much military application for people to only see in infrared. Most military night vision devices now, as far as I know, are low-light amplifiers, in that they only require ambient light and not infrared. Infrared has its applications, but I don't think as a sole way to view the world it works. As a separate and distinct mode, it could be extremely useful.

[gkathellar]

In William Gibson's Neuromancer, Molly has sunglasses permanently attached to her temples that could see in the dark/infrared.

Since William Gibson didn't even own a computer when he wrote Neuromancer, it doesn't say much about real world applications of anything.

[Thiel]

Since William Gibson didn't even own a computer when he wrote Neuromancer, it doesn't say much about real world applications of anything.
Err wut? Night-Vision goggles had been around for more than four decades by then and were already standard issue in a number of armies. The implications of being able to see in near-infra red were pretty well understood by then.

[gkathellar]

Err wut? Night-Vision goggles had been around for more than four decades by then and were already standard issue in a number of armies. The implications of being able to see in near-infra red were pretty well understood by then.

Eh. Brain not work. I was reading that as prosthetics adding infrared perception to neural function.

[Autolykos]

With the attempts to let the blind see with technology, I was wondering something. Would it be easier to make them see in infra-red, or some other military vision?

Currently, they have problems getting things to look how humans see them, and it looks more like blurry grey shapes. Was wondering if there could be a military application for soldiers who lost their vision, where from then on they were given cybernetic eyes that let them see only in infra-red. Could make an interesting story.
In short: No.
In long: The bottleneck is the connection to the optic nerve, not anything with the camera - and you need to "translate" the images anyway, since there is some "preprocessing" happening in the retina. Changing the working parameters of the camera doesn't make anything easier - it won't get harder either, though.
With anything currently possible, it wouldn't be of any use to soldiers - the resolution that can be given with the currently possible connections is just too poor.
Actually the group I'm working with at university (AG Neurophysik in Marburg) was researching exactly that stuff (we've moved on because there isn't much more basic research to be done - from now on it's mainly applications, which are a lot more expensive but less interesting - so we leave that to the engineers and/or industry).

[fusilier]

And could you name some reasons? :smallbiggrin:

What I really want is to know is what reasons there are to make swords curved.

One of the reasons I've heard, is that curved swords are easier to swing on horseback. I've never confirmed this, and the argument comes from the 19th century -- although even during that period there were straight bladed sabers.

[Spiryt]

One of the reasons I've heard, is that curved swords are easier to swing on horseback. I've never confirmed this, and the argument comes from the 19th century -- although even during that period there were straight bladed sabers.

Curved sabers tend to be connected to horsemen - from Mongols to 19th century cavalry, but as far as I can remember, arguments of theoretical 'superiority' come from the cutting properties, and so on.

Can't really imagine right now, why curvature would make it easier to swing, from horseback, or not.

Mass distribution makes curved swords minimally more "compact' - from obvious reasons - everything's closer to the hilt. But I would seriously doubt in significance of this effect...

[Raum]

What I really want is to know is what reasons there are to make swords curved.Multiple reasons exist, different cultures and different times had a variety of reasons.

1. Tradition. Particularly today but even in the past things tend to get done the same way your father did.
2. Technology. The katana's shape is caused by the way it's cooled.
3. Intended use. A curved blade slices easier, a point-heavy blade chops easier, and a straight blade allows more force behind a stab. Not that you can't do all of the above with any given blade but, all else being equal, the blade will perform its specialized function better than other types.

[Mike_G]

In theory, the curve of the sword helps to draw the weapon across the target as it is swung, since the arm will be swung in an arc anyway.

I'm not sure just how much difference this makes.

On a ride-by type slash, the sword is suppose to be easier to pull though the flesh and thus easier to retain, rather than getting stuck and yanked out of your hand. This is a big reason for arming cavalry troops with curved swords.

Again, this is all theory, and military theory is a dicey thing, as results are interpreted by the people who make the theory, and tend to be viewed through very biased glasses.

[fusilier]

Curved sabers tend to be connected to horsemen - from Mongols to 19th century cavalry, but as far as I can remember, arguments of theoretical 'superiority' come from the cutting properties, and so on.

Can't really imagine right now, why curvature would make it easier to swing, from horseback, or not.

Mass distribution makes curved swords minimally more "compact' - from obvious reasons - everything's closer to the hilt. But I would seriously doubt in significance of this effect...

For some reason, I thought the argument had to do with it's easier to swing, without accidentally hitting the horse. But I don't know, and I have doubts. In the US service, the light-artillery saber had a blade with more curve than the cavalry saber, and I seem to remember that mounted men preferred the light-artillery saber for it's handiness. What exactly made it "handier" I don't know.

The 1860s ordnance manual I have only talks about curvature of the blade in relation to how it damages in a cut.

[Traab]

For some reason, I thought the argument had to do with it's easier to swing, without accidentally hitting the horse. But I don't know, and I have doubts. In the US service, the light-artillery saber had a blade with more curve than the cavalry saber, and I seem to remember that mounted men preferred the light-artillery saber for it's handiness. What exactly made it "handier" I don't know.

The 1860s ordnance manual I have only talks about curvature of the blade in relation to how it damages in a cut.

I honestly think that the horse is a part of it, but not in that way. Basically, hitting someone with a straight edge sword as you gallop past them means you have to pull the blade back towards yourself to effectively not leave it behind in his body. A curved blade can actually slide off the target as you go by far easier so its less likely to get stuck.

[gkathellar]

In theory, the curve of the sword helps to draw the weapon across the target as it is swung, since the arm will be swung in an arc anyway.

This is part of it, certainly, but changes in how the sword is handled are also very important. The concentration of energy and weight in a curved blade is different than it is in a straight blade, which can change the effectiveness of many different techniques in many different situations.

Usually, curved swords get more out of energy and momentum (and thus more out of having a charging horse behind them), and straight swords get more out of (defined within very narrow parameters) precision and deftness.

[fusilier]

I honestly think that the horse is a part of it, but not in that way. Basically, hitting someone with a straight edge sword as you gallop past them means you have to pull the blade back towards yourself to effectively not leave it behind in his body. A curved blade can actually slide off the target as you go by far easier so its less likely to get stuck.

I was thinking about something along those lines myself (but wasn't able to articulate it). That the geometry of the blade and the style of attack used on horseback were somehow complementary.

[Conners]

Combat Movement

Most games, such as DnD, have this interesting view of moving while in a combat situation. The fastest person gets to act first, and everyone else waits politely until they're finished. This also means that you have a good idea of who is moving where, how easily you can get to them, and whether you can attack their flanks/rear... convenient.

Was wondering if you have had experience with sparring and encounters could describe more accurately how movement tends to work, when threatened by an enemy.

Have a friend who told me about this--but I think I should get some more perspectives, so as to flesh out my understanding ("scary" was a good word to describe things).

[gkathellar]

The short answer is that in a fight one guy gets a surprise attack, and then everything starts happening at once.

The long answer is that the actions and reactions you take during one-on-one sparring are equal parts reaction time, ingrained reflexes, awareness and strategy. Speed is a complex equation, including equal parts physical quickness and mental agility. Generally speaking, people will react relatively quickly to any action you take, including movement — although they may not react intelligently, or quickly enough. If you're much faster and/or more aware than your opponent, you may very well move while they're still thinking about what to do, catching them completely off guard even when they think they're prepared.

Unless you're much, much better than your opponent, this is something you have to engineer — and in lethal combat, or combat against multiple opponents, you may not have time or the mental agility to do so. Assuming you can it's a question of controlling the expectations of an opponent with feints and strategy, placing them in a bad position without them becoming aware of it, and making them think you'll do what you won't or won't do what you will so that they react to the wrong thing or don't react at all.

In the absence of this kind of strategic high ground, combat chiefly comes down to your speed, the nature of your ingrained reflexes, and the skillful execution of your techniques. But remember — one of the reason you see old martial arts masters pounding on their students (and not just in throwing styles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVnx0NHnekQ)) is because their reflexes and strategic senses are so ingrained that when it comes to their discipline, they actually think faster than most people are capable of.

[Conners]

Thanks gkathellar.

One added question: How tricky can it be to keep track of an opponent?

Is it possible to dash past each other for a brief moment? Or knock into each other accidentally? Could they get behind you, and leave you confused as to where they are?

Some of this is probably from misinformation I received.. just trying to work out how realistic some of that is.

[Spiryt]

Combat Movement

Most games, such as DnD, have this interesting view of moving while in a combat situation. The fastest person gets to act first, and everyone else waits politely until they're finished. This also means that you have a good idea of who is moving where, how easily you can get to them, and whether you can attack their flanks/rear... convenient.

Was wondering if you have had experience with sparring and encounters could describe more accurately how movement tends to work, when threatened by an enemy.

Have a friend who told me about this--but I think I should get some more perspectives, so as to flesh out my understanding ("scary" was a good word to describe things).

Uh.... This is not D&D "view of combat situation" it's simple turn system to make playing easy and not very confusing.

No one is "waiting politely" they're just acting more actively a bit later.

I don't think I've really seen more 'real time' attempt to solve combat in RPGs, it would probably be huge mess.

[Conners]

Uh.... This is not D&D "view of combat situation" it's simple turn system to make playing easy and not very confusing.

No one is "waiting politely" they're just acting more actively a bit later.

I don't think I've really seen more 'real time' attempt to solve combat in RPGs, it would probably be huge mess. I think Growlancer tackled this one pretty well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl_uGBSuCIo&feature=related
Gameplay starts at about 1:00 in. Not the best video to show it off.

Not picking on DnD, it has to keep things easy since it's a table-top game with pen-and-paper style. Just that LOTS of games follow that formula or politely taking turns.

[Spiryt]

I think Growlancer tackled this one pretty well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl_uGBSuCIo&feature=related
Gameplay starts at about 1:00 in. Not the best video to show it off.

Not picking on DnD, it has to keep things easy since it's a table-top game with pen-and-paper style. Just that LOTS of games follow that formula or politely taking turns.

Well, this is video game, so obviously it can be handled pretty well? :smallconfused:

There's metric ton of real time RPG or generally 'tactical' games, but with CPU to calculate it all, it's not that much of a problem.

I thought you were talking about table RPGs.

[Knaight]

I thought you were talking about table RPGs.

Tabletop RPGs have had simultaneous rules before, some of which worked quite well. It's confirmed (see: Fudge, Burning Wheel), so this derailment can end.

[gkathellar]

One added question: How tricky can it be to keep track of an opponent?

Can? It can be almost infinitely tricky to keep track of an opponent, if they're infinitely trickier than you are. How tricky can it be to keep track of a housefly?


Is it possible to dash past each other for a brief moment?

Accidentally? Probably not, unless you both try for a charging strike at the same time and both miss. I've heard (never actually read his book) that George Silver argued against rapier fencing on those grounds, actually, saying that too often a pair of rapier fighters will thrust at the same time, both miss, and collide in a big tangled mess.

On purpose, sure, but if someone were trying to dash past me I wouldn't reciprocate — I'd clothesline him as hard as I possibly could.


Or knock into each other accidentally?

Out of sheer stupidity or in a situation like the aforementioned, yes.


Could they get behind you, and leave you confused as to where they are?

If they manage to set up on you, yes. But setting up something like that is difficult, especially against an experienced fighter who is watching his opponent carefully.

[Spiryt]

Thanks gkathellar.

One added question: How tricky can it be to keep track of an opponent?

Is it possible to dash past each other for a brief moment? Or knock into each other accidentally? Could they get behind you, and leave you confused as to where they are?

Some of this is probably from misinformation I received.. just trying to work out how realistic some of that is.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is very broad question, and depends on what you exactly are referring to -

- two people dueling with rapiers? Few dudes brawling on the street? Something else?

If two people are fighting with rapiers, and they both, use a lot of lateral movement, and generally want to keep it on rapiers point, dashing past anything or colliding is unlikely to happen...

But take one guy, who instead is not feeling confident in his rapier at all, and would happily take rapiers out of question - then, depending on opponents stance on this, it can very well end in clinch.

And if people are fighting unarmed, clinch, 'knocking into' or whatever is pretty much natural and often inevitable, depending on circumstances.

In pretty much every striking competition dudes sooner or later end in tangled, and if it's striking only stuff, then ref is breaking them up.

If it's more 'complete' full contact stuff, or actual stuff, fight obviously goes on.

So it's all varied quite a lot.

[Yora]

And things get a lot more complicated when it's no longer 1 on 1. When there are other people running around who would also like to see you disabled or dead, you can't simply keep your eyes on one opponent as in a sparring match.

[Conners]

Thank you for explaining. I think I'm a bit more clear-headed on the subject now.


This question is stupid, but: I guess when there's a collision (accidentally), it will result in grappling 70% of the time? There would be exceptions, if no one is keen on staying up close, of course.

[Spiryt]

Thank you for explaining. I think I'm a bit more clear-headed on the subject now.


This question is stupid, but: I guess when there's a collision (accidentally), it will result in grappling 70% of the time? There would be exceptions, if no one is keen on staying up close, of course.

If two collided guys want to break up, and get away or generally do something else, then indeed they would just move away.

If at least one person wants to yank it and generally wrestle, then it ends in grappling in pretty much 100% of time, question is only for what time - at least for the time it takes for other guy to break it.

If dude who don't want it close is much better wrestler, either by virtue of actual skill, or just physical advantage, he can obviously made it very short, by, say, showing assailant away or on his ass.

So again, there huge variety here, obviously.

[Pheehelm]

According to Terry Brown (http://www.amazon.com/English-Martial-Arts-Terry-Brown/dp/1898281181), broadswords used to have almost parallel edges, which put a large proportion of the weight in the blade; two men dueling with them actually would tend to take turns swinging and either dodging or blocking with a shield. Eventually smiths discovered if they made swords that tapered towards the point, the weight would be balanced more towards the hilt, and the sword could be handled more quickly, which changed up swordfighting considerably.

(I may have oversimplified that; it's been a while since I've read it.)

[Knaight]

According to Terry Brown (http://www.amazon.com/English-Martial-Arts-Terry-Brown/dp/1898281181), broadswords used to have almost parallel edges, which put a large proportion of the weight in the blade; two men dueling with them actually would tend to take turns swinging and either dodging or blocking with a shield. Eventually smiths discovered if they made swords that tapered towards the point, the weight would be balanced more towards the hilt, and the sword could be handled more quickly, which changed up swordfighting considerably.

(I may have oversimplified that; it's been a while since I've read it.)

This is hugely unlikely for several reasons:
1) Worthless weapons don't get used heavily. Note that stuff like judicial combat and duels are exceptions, as worthless weapons are much more viable when your opponent is also using them. Even Having a bat'leth or ridiculous fantasy axe is only a disadvantage if your opponent has anything else. As such, the far more manueverable short sword (and for that matter clubs, axes, maces, etc.) would have seen use instead and the "broad sword" that one actually had to take turns swinging would have seen no use.

2) There are examples of weapons with near parallel edges that are highly versatile, and close to hilt balanced. Among these is the Chinese jian, which often has fairly minimal taper up until the end. Moreover, look at several incarnations of the japanese yari - its a spear, yes, but by the logic that leads to people taking turns swinging with edged clubs, it should be pretty bad as well. Yet, it really wasn't.

[Spiryt]

According to Terry Brown (http://www.amazon.com/English-Martial-Arts-Terry-Brown/dp/1898281181), broadswords used to have almost parallel edges, which put a large proportion of the weight in the blade; two men dueling with them actually would tend to take turns swinging and either dodging or blocking with a shield. Eventually smiths discovered if they made swords that tapered towards the point, the weight would be balanced more towards the hilt, and the sword could be handled more quickly, which changed up swordfighting considerably.

(I may have oversimplified that; it's been a while since I've read it.)

Don't want to argue with Brown to much, but it definitely seems oversimplified quite a lot, if not outright false...

"Broadswords" with quite a lot of taper of blade profile were being seen since forever, and swords with blade which edges were pretty much parallel up to the very end were being seen as late as 17th century.

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/albums/userpics/normal_90089g.jpg

It has quite a lot to do with "quickness" or whatever, but by no means is decisive as far as wielding goes.

There is swords thickness, tapering of thickness fuller, cross section, and other stuff that decided on how much blades weights, and what is weight distribution.

There were plenty of broad, spatulate bladed swords with relatively close point of balance, and many pointy swords with point of balance far from the hilt.

Continuing with the fact that PoB is by no means sole important factor on how "quick" is sword, this theory doesn't seem sensible at all to me.

Width and general profile of the blade dependent on intended function and characteristics of the blade, handling is quite a bit different matter.

[Knaight]

Don't want to argue with Brown to much, but it definitely seems oversimplified quite a lot, if not outright false...
Honestly, I'm not willing to label this arguing with Brown until I see some actual citations at the very least. As it is, it is Brown's opinion according to a memory of some time ago, and I suspect even Pheehelm would acknowledge that as a potentially untrustworthy source despite being in the least objective position possible to note such a thing.

[Spiryt]

Eventually smiths discovered if they made swords that tapered towards the point, the weight would be balanced more towards the hilt, and the sword could be handled more quickly, which changed up swordfighting considerably.

I would also like to mention, that this is in general rather bad misconception - that swords and similar stuff were somehow getting "better" as time progressed.

Most stuff concerning blade properties etc. had been properly discovered thousands of years ago, and from that point different blade types, with different materials, balance, functions etc. had been going on trough centuries in different configurations, depending on culture, intended use, smith skills etc.

Most certainly though, functional, quality blade with mostly parallel edges and wide, spatulate point is by no means "easy" or "basic" thing to do.

If anything, history and simple practice suggests that making shortish, tapering "sting" ala early Bronze swords is much simpler concept.




Honestly, I'm not willing to label this arguing with Brown until I see some actual citations at the very least. As it is, it is Brown's opinion according to a memory of some time ago, and I suspect even Pheehelm would acknowledge that as a potentially untrustworthy source despite being in the least objective position possible to note such a thing.

Most possible and probable, that few misconception sneaked in from quoter side, but in overall even very knowledgeable people had written many stupid things on given subject - it's not anything bad IMO, it's, rather unavoidable in fact.

[Spiryt]

As interesting point :

It seems that La Tene continental 'celtic' swords in fact had gone trough pretty much opposite evolution.

From early stabby points often with strongly reinforced midrib and a lot of taper, to parallel edges, when more pointy swords were in minority.

http://www.gallicobelgae.org/la_tene_chronology.htm

Many sword used at twilight of 'original' Celtic culture were apparently pretty much 'pointless' (teeeehe). :smallwink:

[Knaight]

Many sword used at twilight of 'original' Celtic culture were apparently pretty much 'pointless' (teeeehe). :smallwink:

All swords are pointless. They are a waste of good spear iron. :smallamused:
Says the spear practitioner in jest. Also, it applies to bronze, and under some definitions of sword it applies to obsidian.

[gkathellar]

2) There are examples of weapons with near parallel edges that are highly versatile, and close to hilt balanced.

Agreed. It's just a question of correctly weighting the hilt relative to the blade. In a sword with a dense tang comprising the full length of the hilt, this is a lot easier than it would seem. As long as the blade is of reasonable quality and the guy making the hilt knows what he's doing, getting the point of balance to an exact mark along the blade is doable regardless of its shape.


All swords are pointless. They are a waste of good spear iron.

Well, not completely pointless. I mean, they make for much nicer belt accessories.

[Pheehelm]

Wooo, look what I got started.

Okay, I dug out my copy of the book. Let's see what Brown actually says...


The techniques of broadsword fighting were, over a period of several centuries, to expand considerably. This was because the broadsword itself the subject of considerable evolution. For the purpose of this book the main development in which we are interested is that from the blade with almost parallel edges (that is to say with a negligible taper on the blade), Figure 1, to the blade with quite sharply tapering edges, Figure 2.*

From a fighting standpoint this development brought about a radical change, perhaps we should say created radical additions, to the art of the broadsword. The weight of the sword with 'parallel' edges would, in use, focus towards the tip, whereas the weight of the tapered blade would focus nearer to the hilt. By this simple expedient the sword's centre of gravity was moved very much closer to the user's hand which allowed for greater speed and dexterity. The practical outcome of this development was that the more acutely tapered blade could be controlled by wrist actions, which in turn resulted in smaller and quicker blade movements. The former type, generally required larger movements of the arm to wield the sword. For this reason swords of the earlier type were almost always used in conjunction with a shield. Opponents would, in effect, take turns to deliver blows. After delivering an attack the fighter would defend himself with his shield until he had a chance to aim a further blow of his own. The development of the tapered (and comparatively lighter) blade led, eventually, to a fencing system in which the sword was used for defence as well as attack. In effect the sword assumed the defensive duties of the shield by blocking with the blade either prior to or immediately following an attack. There was considerable overlap in this development. In fact the methods of the earlier broadswords were never discarded because they could still be effectively used with the later, more acutely tapered swords.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4959/swords03.jpg

Because of the above mentioned overlap it was a long time before the shield disappeared from the scene. It was still to be found in use centuries later in conjunction with the 'new' swords though it was sometimes substituted by a dagger. That is to say the dagger assumed, as far as was possible, the defensive duties of the shield.


*The evolution of the broadsword was by no means as simple or straightforward as it might seem from the above text. Those readers interested in this subjct are recommended to read specialist books such as, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England by H.R.E. Davidson.So he admits he oversimplified things himself. (Let me also point out this book is about English martial arts, so whatever went on in other countries may not necessarily be relevant.)

[Spiryt]

Well, so it seems that he indeed meant that this way...

This is weird theory to say at least.

Presence or lack of shield is not by most account "choice" depending on sword or generally weapon qualities, but rather of context - shield due to it's certain bulkiness was instrument of war, conquest or protection of property, village, or whatever.

Swords used solo or with daggers, for defending as well as attacking were civilian causes, where one quite simply wouldn't drag a shield going somewhere.

Other than that, as mentioned, blades of later English, or whatever swords, weren't really "comparatively lighter" at all, in general.

"Dark Age" swords seem indeed somehow worse suited for use without shield, but it's not really matter of weight or similar stuff.

Mass distribution, thrusting capabilities, hand protection etc. were probably much more important matters.

[gkathellar]

Having used swords both very similar and roughly identical to the one depicted in the top picture, and controlled them mostly with wrist action, I must say I'm skeptical. So long as your point of balance is 4-6 inches from the hilt and you've got strong wrists and hands, fine control is perfectly feasible with a sword that has parallel edges.

EDIT: Also, his two example swords are 4.5 inches different in length. That would have far more effect on handling than how tapered either is.

[Knaight]

Plus, attributing the decline of the shield to the capacity to block better rather than changes in armor is questionable at best. One of the main purposes of the shield was to block arrows, and you aren't going to be pulling that off with your sword, regardless of how well made it is. Moreover, you want to have something in both hands, which means that shield-sword is not competing with sword-hand, but with sword-axe, sword-sword, so on and so forth. Even sword-spear, though that particular combination doesn't exactly compete well (as in: drop the sword, grab the spear with your other hand, be several times more dangerous). Arrows aside, shields have a lot of advantages, such as various ways to close a distance, the capacity for opponent's weapons to get stuck in your shield, and the sheer area larger shields cover.

[Matthew]

The apparent decline in the military popularity of the shield has never been satisfactorily explained, and so is bound to give rise to "odd" theories, it seems to me. For my part, I suspect that it had more to do with the increase in frequency and protectiveness of body armour, not so much that this lessened the need for a shield, but more that it increased the popularity of two-handed weapons for overcoming it. At the same time portable field fortifications, pavises and the like were increasingly serving the role of personal shield versus missile attacks (much as they long had a world away in Japan).

[Spiryt]

Shield had never really disappeared that much in the hands of less equipped combatants, knights and other cavalry, and as general mean of defense in close combat in pretty much battlefield situations.

The linked quite from book unfortunately pretty much mixes warfare in civilian context quite a lot....

It is rather obvious that one handed swords no matter from what time and place were often used without shield at all, because no one was ever able/willing to drag shield with himself whereever he went.

It doesn't mean that single "tapered' sword can by any means 'substitute' shield or in general work as well without it.....

[Mike_G]

My impression has been that the decline of shields in military use was directly related to the wider adoption of two handed weapons. It's hard to use a pike or halberd or poleaxe with a shield.

I don't know of any infantry who used a one handed weapon and no shield as their primary weapon. A sword as a backup weapon without a shield, sure, but usually because their primary weapon, be it a pike or bow or musket, was two handed.

[Knaight]

My impression has been that the decline of shields in military use was directly related to the wider adoption of two handed weapons. It's hard to use a pike or halberd or poleaxe with a shield.

I don't know of any infantry who used a one handed weapon and no shield as their primary weapon. A sword as a backup weapon without a shield, sure, but usually because their primary weapon, be it a pike or bow or musket, was two handed.

I'd argue that the wider adoption of two handed weapons was contingent upon armor development. There are easy answers to troops with two handed weapons that don't have good armor, and most of these answers are varieties of arrows. Many of the rest are variations on crossbow bolts, thrown weapons, and sling bullets.

[gkathellar]

It also seems that Brown is assuming straight-sword technique mostly consists of long, horizontal hacking motions that would focus more weight at the tip. In practice, there's a lot more intricacy to slicing with a straight sword, and no matter how you cut or thrust footwork and positioning are always going to make things more complicated than just "attack defend attack defend."

[Spiryt]

My impression has been that the decline of shields in military use was directly related to the wider adoption of two handed weapons. It's hard to use a pike or halberd or poleaxe with a shield.

I don't know of any infantry who used a one handed weapon and no shield as their primary weapon. A sword as a backup weapon without a shield, sure, but usually because their primary weapon, be it a pike or bow or musket, was two handed.

We can see a lot dismounted knights, or generally heavy infantry that seem to employ some sword, dagger, or similar stuff in one hand, while other hand serves to grab and generally control opponent.

Probably very useful implementation of "personal" weapon indeed, but again, in reality of medieval combat it requires said arm to be solidly armored.

[The Reverend]

From the discussion it sounds like their were a lot of small reasons that added up to make shields less and less attractive to soldiers.

[Knaight]

From the discussion it sounds like their were a lot of small reasons that added up to make shields less and less attractive to soldiers.

The sudden capacity to block just wasn't one of them.

[Mike_G]

I'd argue that the wider adoption of two handed weapons was contingent upon armor development.

No argument there. But I think the shield fell to the wayside so the infantryman could use a two handed weapon, not because he trusted his armor to save him and didn't need to block.



There are easy answers to troops with two handed weapons that don't have good armor, and most of these answers are varieties of arrows. Many of the rest are variations on crossbow bolts, thrown weapons, and sling bullets.

Yes, but that doesn't explain the decline of the shield. in fact, it argues for retaining the shield, at least for deployment against missile troops, and maybe slung or dropped for use of the main weapon. Or even giving the front rank shields and one handed weapons to protect the formation from arrows while the second rank carries polearms or missile weapons.

Unless you are arguing that better armor was the solution.

[Spiryt]

Without a doubt towards the end of 13th century and later, we see more and more of solidly armored combatants among 'lowly' peasant, militias, levees and so on.

http://blogimages.seniorennet.be/marcel2006/384039-d27773ef9301f5e9e70fb7b77ed0bb0d.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XoyW9IFka8M/ToH7uhfppdI/AAAAAAAABMQ/-WkytsZvEAE/s640/goedendag1.jpg

Gotland army of Visby was primarily composed of pretty much low born, peasants, yeomen, and so on, and yet obviously a lot of solid armor was found on them in famous archaeological find.

So certainly people who had a lot of metal and cloth on them, to be somewhat safe from a lot of deadly stuff, could employ a lot of pikes, voulges, godendags or similar weapons that greatly increase their "dangerousness" level.


Yes, but that doesn't explain the decline of the shield. in fact, it argues for retaining the shield, at least for deployment against missile troops, and maybe slung or dropped for use of the main weapon. Or even giving the front rank shields and one handed weapons to protect the formation from arrows while the second rank carries polearms or missile weapons.

Unless you are arguing that better armor was the solution.

As far as decline of the shield goes, as I mentioned, it doesn't really declines even close to completely at all, and it's pretty obvious that decline of stuff like shield over the years cannot be easily explained by few simple processes or choices.

More two handed weapons, armor, more effective and determined infantry armies somehow naturally changed proportion of arms in them over centuries.

Ideas like sending dudes with shields to the front, etc. obviously sound good, but probably weren't quite as obvious in Medieval realties - with generally not really strong 'head' command over such infantry blocks, and general "neighborhood", guild, relatives etc. clusters that most probably still were formed inside such squads...

Still, stuff like "send shieldmen to ye fronte' probably can be found in some sources, would have to take a look over paintings etc.

And, all in all, of course armor could be the solution.

[Conners]

Of course, sending shields to the front would have problems... For example, arrows will often fall down from on high on infantry formations (very unpleasant, when you don't know where the next arrow will fall).

Also, when you get close up to the other infantry units to fight, you'll want your big weapons at the front to smash through them (or else you wouldn't be using them). At that point, you're probably in the safest place when it comes to archers (hard to hit those who are right next to your own guys, unless you don't mind hitting your own guys).

[Autolykos]

Combat Movement

Most games, such as DnD, have this interesting view of moving while in a combat situation. The fastest person gets to act first, and everyone else waits politely until they're finished. This also means that you have a good idea of who is moving where, how easily you can get to them, and whether you can attack their flanks/rear... convenient.
Shadowrun (3e at least) has a solution to this "information problem". If it matters, the fastest guy can delay his action, so the second fastest guy has to declare his action first but the first can still act before him. He can technically also delay his action, so in the extreme case (actually quite common in encounters where both sides are surprised) the slowest guy has to declare his actions first, but the fastest gets to act first.
EDIT: This does usually result in the Charlie Foxtrot I would expect from two hostile sides bumping into each other without being prepared for this, so it seems to be a pretty sensible abstraction to me. I don't have any practical experience though.

[gkathellar]

This thread really isn't for discussing game mechanics (except perhaps so you can ask whether they have any bearing on reality).

I've got a question. Are there any fancy/complicated rope or chain weapons in Western martial arts? I'm thinking the rough equivalents of things like the rope dart, meteor hammer, nine section whip, weighted chain and so forth — the kinds you mostly encounter in East and Southeast Asian styles of fighting. Is there any record of equivalent weapons in Europe or the Middle East?

[Conners]

You know how three bullets hitting a person is meant to have a 98% chance of taking out the target? Does this take into account body-armour...?

Was wondering how realistic games like Modern Warfare are, with their HP and Regeneration. Don't know how well military combat armour stops bullets, so I can't guess.

[Yora]

If you are unlucky, a single bullet in an area that doesn't seem so bad can kill.
If you are very lucky, you can survive several bullets in the head and chest. It's really unpredictable. But saying that of those people who were hit by 3 rounds 98% died. Doesn't sound that far fetched. However, it doesn't account for where they were hit, by what they were hit, and what kind of emergency treatment they got.
Ballsistic vests against most handguns works extremely well. Even at point blank range they can turn a 9mm round into a bruise. And because of the construction they should work almost perfectly after being hit. So I guess you could take a whole magazine from a handgun into the chest without serious injury, but in that case it is very likely that not every bullet hits in an area protected by the vest.
Heavier body armor can also do a great job against rifles. There's a quite famous video of a soldier getting hit by a concealed shoter and he drops to the ground thinking "Oh god, I'm hit", but then he realizes he's fine, jumps back up, and gets to cover. Hit on the ballistic plate and a hit by an AK can be just fine. Hit just 10 cm higher and it goes through the cloth and hits you in the neck, which can be fatal in a few seconds.

Hit points in no health pack shoters? I'm not sure, it depends a lot on the difficulty you are playing at. But again, it does not calculate for where you are hit.
And regeneration is of course total bogus. When you're hit and injured by a rifle, it will be a few weeks in hospital before you do anything else again. Usually. Again, the whole thing is so random and unpredictable that soldiers have continued fighting with unimaginable injuries.

[Spiryt]

This thread really isn't for discussing game mechanics (except perhaps so you can ask whether they have any bearing on reality).

I've got a question. Are there any fancy/complicated rope or chain weapons in Western martial arts? I'm thinking the rough equivalents of things like the rope dart, meteor hammer, nine section whip, weighted chain and so forth — the kinds you mostly encounter in East and Southeast Asian styles of fighting. Is there any record of equivalent weapons in Europe or the Middle East?

I'm pretty sure that there's some pretty weird stuff like that in one, or few of the early Renaissance manuals, can't locate it now though.

It was probably one of Talhoffers....

[Conners]

@Yora: Thanks for clarifying on that.

So military vests (assuming bullets hit the armoured area) can be relied on to stop bullets most of the time--but the problem lies in bullets landing elsewhere. Rather different from the "armour as HP" gamey line of thinking.

[Storm Bringer]

agianst full power assault rifle cartidges, some vests can stop them point blank, and some of those can stop more than one.

The lighter, undercover "soft" vests that american cops wear can stop pistol rounds, but won't do anything against a AK round. for that, you need steel or solid kevlar plates. Kevlar is lighter, but can shatter, like any ceramic. i know some vets can be relied on stop one AK round, but not two, as they ablate and shatter, while other, more expensive ones can stop several, provided they don't hit too close to one another. As far as i know, no vest can stop two rounds hitting the same spot.

for headshots, no military, to my knowledges, has helmets that are built to stop a AK round. that doesn't mean they won't if the situation is right (long range, defected round, shot penetrated cover first, etc). I am sure thier dozens of stories about soldiers helmets stopping a AK round. but I am also sure thiers dozens of soldiers who got shot when the situation wasn't right, and the helmet didn't stop the bullet (though it would still take a lot of force out of the shot, possibly turning a fatal shot into a merely critically wounding shot).

the reason no one makes helmet that tough is that they'd be too heavy to wear for hours and hours in combat. same goes for arm and leg armour. the troops seem to prefer the risk of losing a limb, but having the freedom of movment, to armour that would significantly increase how emcumbered they were, and protect the limb.

however, assuming you can get medical aid to a casualty quickly, arm and leg wounds are (relitively) surivable. slap a tourniquet back form the wound, bandage and seal, and the he'll live, most likey. this is the reason the army trains every soldier in basic medical skills, so that theirs always someone thier to help you.

to answer the orignal question:



You know how three bullets hitting a person is meant to have a 98% chance of taking out the target? Does this take into account body-armour...?



No, i didn't, and No, it doesn't.

[Yora]

the reason no one makes helmet that tough is that they'd be too heavy to wear for hours and hours in combat. same goes for arm and leg armour. the troops seem to prefer the risk of losing a limb, but having the freedom of movment, to armour that would significantly increase how emcumbered they were, and protect the limb.
Which is where the development of powered exoskeletons will become interesting. I'm realy exited where that will get us in the next 10-20 years.

[The Boz]

It will gajilliontuple the cost of the soldier, and double, OR MAYBE EVEN TRIPLE the cost of the weapon to kill him.

[Traab]

It will gajilliontuple the cost of the soldier, and double, OR MAYBE EVEN TRIPLE the cost of the weapon to kill him.

I wonder how it will effect things like basic training. I mean, if the soldier is in his own power loader type of device, then does he really have to be capable of running 2 miles in 12-14 minutes? Or will they just add on an extra week or three of training in using the new power armor? Or it might be turned into a tech school type of job. Normal infantry, mecha infantry, etc etc etc. Like in the final matrix movie, you had normal guys with rocket launchers and what not, and the brigade of mecha users. Those types of devices strike me as the sort of in between device of early tank type machines. Basically, a mobile machine gun turret, with a metal plate for armor protecting the gunner up top. I mean, those matrix devices could dish out some serious bpm, but they were wide open from the front for any return projectiles.

[The Boz]

I wonder how it will effect things like basic training. I mean, if the soldier is in his own power loader type of device, then does he really have to be capable of running 2 miles in 12-14 minutes? Or will they just add on an extra week or three of training in using the new power armor? Or it might be turned into a tech school type of job. Normal infantry, mecha infantry, etc etc etc. Like in the final matrix movie, you had normal guys with rocket launchers and what not, and the brigade of mecha users. Those types of devices strike me as the sort of in between device of early tank type machines. Basically, a mobile machine gun turret, with a metal plate for armor protecting the gunner up top. I mean, those matrix devices could dish out some serious bpm, but they were wide open from the front for any return projectiles.

Homework: Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein.
Further Reading: Armor by John Steakley

[Norsesmithy]

The lighter, undercover "soft" vests that american cops wear can stop pistol rounds, but won't do anything against a AK round. for that, you need steel or solid kevlar plates. Kevlar is lighter, but can shatter, like any ceramic. i know some vets can be relied on stop one AK round, but not two, as they ablate and shatter, while other, more expensive ones can stop several, provided they don't hit too close to one another. As far as i know, no vest can stop two rounds hitting the same spot.

for headshots, no military, to my knowledges, has helmets that are built to stop a AK round. that doesn't mean they won't if the situation is right (long range, defected round, shot penetrated cover first, etc).

to answer the orignal question:


No, i didn't, and No, it doesn't.

The composite armor plates are actually boron carbide ceramic (lighter than steel alloy armor but significantly thicker) or polycarbinate (even lighter and even thicker), not solid Kevlar, and repeat strike capability is something that essentially all of them made in the last decade or so share, though only alloy steel plates can still stop two hit in precisely the same area from any level III+ threat.

With regard to helmets, the MICH and newer helmets will protect you from solid hit from a 7.62x39 or equivalent ballistic threat at ranges greater than a hundred yards, and some of the newest helmets on the market (which civilians and contractors can buy, but which are currently undergoing the certification testing needed to allow the manufactures to attempt to sell them to the DOD) are purportedly proof to 7.62x39 style threats at point blank, and 7.62x54r type threats at intermediate ranges, and some of these helmets are available with modular add-ons to protect the wearer's face and neck too.

Helmets have come a very long way since the introduction of the old Kevlar "Fritz" style K-pot. (which was hard pressed to stop a good hot 9mm round at 15 yards, never mind a rifle anything).

Armor is getting lighter, thinner, and more effective. All the money in the armor market since initiation of hostilities in 2001 has made it so. Just tracking the development of alloy steel plates, for instance, a 2000 vintage NIJ level IV armor plate (proof to threats equivalent to .30-06 M2 AP, a 10.8 gram hardened steel penetrator at 878 meters per second, essentially muzzle velocity) weighs over 20 lbs, and is nearly 5/16ths of an inch thick. A 2010 vintage plate of the same coverage area tested to the same standard is less than 3/16ths inch thick,and is lighter than a 2001 era Boron Carbide plate at ~11 lbs.

Boron carbide plates have, in the same time period, gone from a plate that was finished after one hit anywhere on the surface, it literally wouldn't protect you from two consecutive pistol shots, even if it could protect you from one .30-06 Amour Piercing round, that weighed 14 lbs, and was so thick that the non-coms in units issued rifles without adjustable stocks were warned to be on the look out for soldiers "losing" their plates so that they could comfortably use the sights on their rifles, to currently being under 10 lbs, and capable of withstanding any number of shots, so long as no two hit the plate in the same location, and being thin enough that they don't affect your shooting anymore than the extreme cold weather system parka.

Now mind you, lots of folks are still using the outdated armor, particularly folks who aren't participating in a war overseas, but the the newest stuff really is quite amazing compared to the old stuff, and the preconceptions created by the old stuff.

Despite, however, the fact that one plate is now nice and light, one has to remember that a soldier isn't protected by one plate, he has a carrier system, a front plate, a back plate, two side plates, and a groin plate, none of which is breathable or moisture wicking, at least, if he utilizes the whole system for a leg infantry man. A roof turret gunner has a suit that adds a couple more plates (and pauldrons), but deletes the groin plate, and you're more likely to see that one, because generally the soldier can at least have his legs and genitals in air conditioned comfort. Actually, due to the poor standards of marksmanship and poor terminal performance of the small arms used by the opposition in the 4 (or is it five?) theaters of the current "notawar", most soldiers only wear the front plate, back plate, and helmet, and everyone who can gets a lighter weight and lower coverage civilian "plate carrier" instead of wearing the issue vest, despite the fact that a TT MAV or similar offers no standalone protection, compared the issue vest which offers protection from light fragments and pistol shots, because the plate in a civilian plate carrier protects just as well from rifle fire as the issue vest worn in this configuration, while being lighter, cooler, and less restricting; and because the primary threat to life and limb in theater is explosive attacks that tend to be massive affairs, unlikely to be any more survivable in the issue fragment vest plus plate than it would be in an "aftermarket" plate carrier and plate.


however, assuming you can get medical aid to a casualty quickly, arm and leg wounds are (relitively) surivable. slap a tourniquet back form the wound, bandage and seal, and the he'll live, most likey. this is the reason the army trains every soldier in basic medical skills, so that theirs always someone thier to help you.

Very true, and with stuff like Celox, you don't even have to tourniquet a limb wound that shows arterial bleeding, or even do an all hands evolution for an torso wound that shows arterial bleeding. It's not quite the magic video game heal foam (as seen in Halo and others), but it's close enough that the first time I saw a demo video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSf5Asa8rc) (caution, graphic, animal test), I was sure it was fake. And at ~$20US dollars a dose, zero restrictions as to end user, and so easy to use a cave man could do it, it's almost irresponsible to not have a pack in your glove box or range bag.

Between advances in trauma response and body armor, it's really no wonder that the people trying to kill our soldiers, by and large, choose big big bombs as their first resort, small arms require a very high level of skill and or a healthy leavening of luck to be successful.



You know how three bullets hitting a person is meant to have a 98% chance of taking out the target? Does this take into account body-armour...?

Was wondering how realistic games like Modern Warfare are, with their HP and Regeneration. Don't know how well military combat armour stops bullets, so I can't guess.
Good hits in vital places kill, whether it is one hit or many.

Poor hits in vital places kill, slowly. Whether it is one hit or many.

People can go into shock, this will incapacitate and even kill them even if they are not physically mortally wounded.

High end body armor is essentially proof to small arms fire within its limitations. The NIJ Level IV plates referenced above will essentially prevent severe injury when struck by most "reasonable" infantry small arms (high powered weapons used in an anti material and sniping role will probably defeat them, anything in .50 BMG (AKA 12.7x99mm) or 14.5x114mm will certainly do so, other weapons in caliber .338 Lapua mag and more powerful may do so as well, but it won't be so certain as with the heavier calibers). The alloy plates will even protect the user from dozens to hundreds of impacts.

Video games like COD et al are not at all realistic in nearly any way. I mean, other than the vaguely human shape of the characters and visual characteristics of the levels, nothing about them even attempts to pass for realistic.

[fusilier]

No argument there. But I think the shield fell to the wayside so the infantryman could use a two handed weapon, not because he trusted his armor to save him and didn't need to block.

I agree with Mike_G. First, during the 16th century pikemen and arquebusiers increasingly wore less armor. Certainly by the end of the 16th century, considerably less armor was being worn (at least the coverage could be much less when compared to the beginning of the century). Second, sword and shield infantry continued to be fielded into the 17th century, usually as a shock force when assaulting pike formations. There may have been some other factors, but I believe a change in the weapons and how they were used (i.e. two-handed) makes the most sense. Those who were still fighting single-handed were still using shields into the the Thirty Years' War.

[fusilier]

This thread really isn't for discussing game mechanics (except perhaps so you can ask whether they have any bearing on reality).

I've got a question. Are there any fancy/complicated rope or chain weapons in Western martial arts? I'm thinking the rough equivalents of things like the rope dart, meteor hammer, nine section whip, weighted chain and so forth — the kinds you mostly encounter in East and Southeast Asian styles of fighting. Is there any record of equivalent weapons in Europe or the Middle East?

I've seen some weird stuff in various images of riots/rebellions. I think it was in a documentary of some sort, and basically it was claiming that these kinds of "peasant" weapons/martial arts have been forgotten because nobody bothered to record them.

[Knaight]

Yes, but that doesn't explain the decline of the shield. in fact, it argues for retaining the shield, at least for deployment against missile troops, and maybe slung or dropped for use of the main weapon. Or even giving the front rank shields and one handed weapons to protect the formation from arrows while the second rank carries polearms or missile weapons.

Unless you are arguing that better armor was the solution.

I'm arguing that better armor was the solution. Or rather, that prior to the existence of sufficiently good armor shields were the only viable solution, and eventually armor was good enough to be a viable solution on its own, though not necessarily one quite up to par with armor and a shield for some time.

[fusilier]

I'm arguing that better armor was the solution. Or rather, that prior to the existence of sufficiently good armor shields were the only viable solution, and eventually armor was good enough to be a viable solution on its own, though not necessarily one quite up to par with armor and a shield for some time.

I don't believe that better armor would lead to the abandonment of the shield. As I noted above, shields were still being carried by soldiers equipped with a single-hand weapon, well into the 17th century. Shields were still seen as valuable and useful.

Instead, a change in the manner in which a soldier fought would be a more likely cause (at the very least the proximal cause).

There was a line of reasoning earlier, that argued that improvements to armor, necessitated the use of two-handed weapons, which led to a decline in the use of shields. But, I'm not so sure that this is the case, and besides shields didn't disappear completely, they continued to be used for hand-to-hand, seemingly dependent upon style of combat (or perhaps I should say, intended role in combat), and not armor.

[Knaight]

I don't believe that better armor would lead to the abandonment of the shield. As I noted above, shields were still being carried by soldiers equipped with a single-hand weapon, well into the 17th century. Shields were still seen as valuable and useful.

Instead, a change in the manner in which a soldier fought would be a more likely cause (at the very least the proximal cause).
However, that change couldn't occur without armor. If you don't have good enough armor, you basically can't abandon the shield, as projectile weapons will be fielded and kill everyone who tries to close without shields.

[Brother Oni]

Very true, and with stuff like Celox, you don't even have to tourniquet a limb wound that shows arterial bleeding, or even do an all hands evolution for an torso wound that shows arterial bleeding. It's not quite the magic video game heal foam (as seen in Halo and others), but it's close enough that the first time I saw a demo video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSf5Asa8rc) (caution, graphic, animal test), I was sure it was fake.


Even then there's stuff in development that is pretty much magic heal foam (Fibrocaps (http://www.profibrix.com/) for example). It's a spray on powder, so even easier to use than Celox and clots just as fast, if not faster.

[Conners]

However, that change couldn't occur without armor. If you don't have good enough armor, you basically can't abandon the shield, as projectile weapons will be fielded and kill everyone who tries to close without shields. Well, the Japanese had little in the way of shields. They used pavise for sieges, but it'd be harder to use those in field battles. Not sure how good their armour (which of course varied a lot) was compared to later European stuff, but it might be a good example for why shields became less dominant (of course, they still seem to be pretty dominant).

[Knaight]

Well, the Japanese had little in the way of shields. They used pavise for sieges, but it'd be harder to use those in field battles. Not sure how good their armour (which of course varied a lot) was compared to later European stuff, but it might be a good example for why shields became less dominant (of course, they still seem to be pretty dominant).

The standard ashigaru (peasant levee troop with a pike in most cases) was actually pretty decently armored in most cases. At the very least, lamellar would cover the torso area, with some covering of the upper arms, and pretty decent helmets - and this is for pretty far back.

[Matthew]

Well, the Japanese had little in the way of shields. They used pavise for sieges, but it'd be harder to use those in field battles. Not sure how good their armour (which of course varied a lot) was compared to later European stuff, but it might be a good example for why shields became less dominant (of course, they still seem to be pretty dominant).

They actually used "archer shields" or pavises on the battlefield relatively frequently. It is not too different from what was going on with the crossbow and pavise on the European battlefield. Armour, much like in the west, depended on wealth, both of the individual and the army support and command structure.

[fusilier]

However, that change couldn't occur without armor. If you don't have good enough armor, you basically can't abandon the shield, as projectile weapons will be fielded and kill everyone who tries to close without shields.

No that's not true.

Projectile weapons were fielded, quite effective ones too, and against troops who were increasingly un-armored! Pikemen often had nothing more than a helmet, and leather jack, and sometimes not event that much.

Much more effective firearms would be wielded against totally unarmored troops in later years, but that didn't stop hand-to-hand combat from occurring. Even in the carnage of WW1, with machine-guns and bolt-action rifles, assaults often resulted in hand-to-hand combat.

[Mike_G]

The original point, with which I disagree, is that more agile one handed swords became easier to use for defense, thus obviating the shield. I think this might have some relevance in civilian duels.

I can not think of any troops who used a one handed weapon without shield as primary weapon. If you have a one handed sword, use a shield. To do otherwise is just dumb.

If you think infantry is more effective with a two handed weapon, like a bill or pike or a longbow or a musket, then it's worth sacrificing the shield, armor or no.

There may be a chicken and egg situation where better armor means heavier weapons means no shield but the better armor makes up for it, but I really think that the phasing out of the shield was to let the infantryman use a weapon in two hands, not because he was armored enough to ignore crossbow bolts.

As fusilier has said, we have about two centuries of virtually unarmored infantry with decent missile weapons slugging it out in Western warfare, and attacks still succeeded. Pickett's charge wouldn't have fared worse against Genoese crossbowmen than double canister and rifled muskets.

[Brother Oni]

Much more effective firearms would be wielded against totally unarmored troops in later years, but that didn't stop hand-to-hand combat from occurring. Even in the carnage of WW1, with machine-guns and bolt-action rifles, assaults often resulted in hand-to-hand combat.

To be fair, the nature of trench warfare often results in the two sides being within arm's reach of each other.

However even in the more recent conflicts, I've read about soldiers ending up in melee combat with bayonets with insurgents during house clearing operations, so I suspect it's the terrain that's of critical importance.

[Bhu]

Shields were in use in Japan very early but they quickly fell out of favor. They were also used in Kobudo

[The Reverend]

Ok modern situation.

Preparation for Home defense. Your spouse doesn't like "guns" so no firearms, but strangely is ok with swords, mace, tazers, basically anything else is ok. Just no "firearms".

Keep in mind

•Space - weapons must be usable inside a modern house or apartment.
•Skill- the weapon choices should not require lots of training. I could kill an intruder with a rapier, but Very few other people could. An ax much simpler.

What is in your arsenal?

[Raum]

What is in your arsenal?A .45 and a different spouse. If that's not an option, a panic room. Third choice would be a combination of pepper spray and personal alarm.

[gkathellar]

What is in your arsenal?

What, am I expecting my house to get knocked over by the mob? Do I go around pissing off criminals? Who exactly do I have to defend my home from?

Hypothetically? Unless I live somewhere with a noticeably high crime rate, or have gotten myself into a heap of trouble, there's no good reason to have anything beyond a well-sharpened knife (for utility and pride more than defense), a nice big wrench in my toolbox, and whatever weapons I personally happen to train with. If I'm really justifiably nervous about a break in, a taser or a can of pepper spray would be acceptable, but only if I'm sure I can keep it out of reach of any kids I may hypothetically have in this hypothetical home.

[Conners]

A friend of mine reckoned kukuri's were pretty darned good. He uses them to cut his meat usually, I think.

[Knaight]

Hypothetically? Unless I live somewhere with a noticeably high crime rate, or have gotten myself into a heap of trouble, there's no good reason to have anything beyond a well-sharpened knife (for utility and pride more than defense), a nice big wrench in my toolbox, and whatever weapons I personally happen to train with. If I'm really justifiably nervous about a break in, a taser or a can of pepper spray would be acceptable, but only if I'm sure I can keep it out of reach of any kids I may hypothetically have in this hypothetical home.

You want more than one well sharpened knife. For one, dull knives are an accident waiting to happen, but you also want knives of the right size for different purposes. A small paring knife, a medium one for chopping vegetables, etc.

[Yora]

What is in your arsenal?
Don't know about the life situations of other people, but my first course of action would be to find a new home in another neighborhood ASAP.

[Joran]

Ok modern situation.

Preparation for Home defense. Your spouse doesn't like "guns" so no firearms, but strangely is ok with swords, mace, tazers, basically anything else is ok. Just no "firearms".

Keep in mind

•Space - weapons must be usable inside a modern house or apartment.
•Skill- the weapon choices should not require lots of training. I could kill an intruder with a rapier, but Very few other people could. An ax much simpler.

What is in your arsenal?

I live in a really safe area in a townhouse, so I have neighbors everywhere.

A taser and pepper spray should be sufficient if I really want to be able to defend myself. Baseball bat mostly in case of zombie apocalypse.

Why not crossbows?

P.S. When I was young, my parents took me to see Home Alone. That was a huge mistake. For a couple months afterward, I was convinced that someone was going to sneak into our house to rob it. So, in typical 8 year old fashion, I strung jump ropes across the stairs, placed balls, trucks, or other slippery items on the floor so that intruders would slip and fall. My parents ended up having to buy an alarm system to convince me that no one could break into our house.

[gkathellar]

You want more than one well sharpened knife. For one, dull knives are an accident waiting to happen, but you also want knives of the right size for different purposes. A small paring knife, a medium one for chopping vegetables, etc.

Oh, well of course — that's essential for any well stocked kitchen. Good to have a nice one for the mantlepiece, though, just so you can clean and sharpen it while you're thinking.

[Yora]

Question: Given what happens to rifle rounds when they hit water, can you shot guns through windows or does the glass render a bullet ineffective?

[The Boz]

Most rounds will deflect a tiny bit, but this depends on the thickness and nature of the glass, shape and weight of the bullet, angle of impact, range and velocity, alignment of the planets and the color of the target.
However, the effects are nowhere as dramatic as bullet vs water.

[Spiryt]

All things considered, 'normal' window or similar glass isn't even very good at stopping tiny >17 J airgun pellets, so I can't really imagine it doing much with actual bullets...

If somebody had somehow put some water into the layer as thick as window glass, it would most probably provide at least similar resistance. :smallwink:

[gkathellar]

Question: Given what happens to rifle rounds when they hit water, can you shot guns through windows or does the glass render a bullet ineffective?

I seem to remember that even the most powerful guns can only propel a bullet 10-15 feet through water, though the bullet will move in a relatively straight line until it stops. Very thick, strong or reinforced glass might slow a bullet or change its trajectory.

[Autolykos]

Ok modern situation.

Preparation for Home defense. Your spouse doesn't like "guns" so no firearms, but strangely is ok with swords, mace, tazers, basically anything else is ok. Just no "firearms".

Keep in mind

•Space - weapons must be usable inside a modern house or apartment.
•Skill- the weapon choices should not require lots of training. I could kill an intruder with a rapier, but Very few other people could. An ax much simpler.

What is in your arsenal?The more likely scenario seems to be a government being irrational about guns, but further discussions of this would probably violate board rules (and might turn this thread into a flamewar)...

I'd suggest the same as everyone before me: Use the weapons you're trained with, or can easily get training with. Never, ever carry a weapon you don't know how to use, it's fricking dangerous.
If you're not trained with anything and can't get any training, use other tools and/or be prepared to improvise. Don't buy any of the stuff sold to scared, unexperienced guys, most of it won't work, or perform worse than improvised weapons. Plus, it might scream "aggressive nutcase" to the judge later. For example, a can of spray paint will do a much better job than pepper spray (the stuff won't be deflected by wind*, and makes it very easy to identify the attacker afterwards).
For close combat, pretty much anything sharp, pointy or hard works fine, as long as it's not too heavy. You might get away with a crowbar, but a ten-pound sledgehammer is waaay too slow. Just take a few objects, swing them around and hit some stuff you don't mind to damage with them and take what feels most natural to you. You won't have long distances in the house anyway, so you don't need any ranged weapons. Throwing some stuff as a distraction to close in should be all you need.
But the same thing applies here: Don't go into close combat if you're not trained in it - if the other guy has some experience, you will lose. Just having the right reflexes and not needing to think about what to do next goes a long way. And even if you have training, fighting should be the last option (the guy might have more experience, friends, hidden weapons, etc...).

*Yes, I know that this is only a factor outside. It is just an example.

And a tiny nitpick: I don't believe a totally untrained person is better served with an axe than with a rapier. It might be easier to get someone to acceptable skill with an axe or knife, but everyone has somewhat correct preconceptions about how to use a rapier, but probably totally wrong ones about axes (or knifes for that matter). This usually results in long pauses between attacks and a lot of telegraphing, which in turn results in losing (and probably dying).

[gkathellar]

And a tiny nitpick: I don't believe a totally untrained person is better served with an axe than with a rapier. It might be easier to get someone to acceptable skill with an axe or knife, but everyone has somewhat correct preconceptions about how to use a rapier, but probably totally wrong ones about axes (or knifes for that matter). This usually results in long pauses between attacks and a lot of telegraphing, which in turn results in losing (and probably dying).

This is probably close to target. Axes, like most late European dueling swords, run into trouble if their weilder can't control distance in the fight. An untrained person could be dangerous or completely ineffective with either depending on luck.

[Yora]

An axe or rapier would probably not make much of a difference in the hands of someone experienced with other forms of fighting.
But I think someone completely untrained like me would feel a lot more confident blindly hacking away with an axe than trying to figure out how a rapier works while I have to fight for my life. I image you could still cause serious injuries in a paniced brawl with an axe, but with a rapier, what would I do with it when things get close? Probably drop it and use bare fists.

[Spiryt]

If you're "blindly hacking away" with an axe, though, chance that someone will just time it and get close are pretty good too.


Plus, it might scream "aggressive nutcase" to the judge later.

Well, it may indeed get political, but any normal judge should allow you to be as nutcase as you only want, if somebody is threatening you in your own home. Not always the case though. :smallfrown:


Either way, even roughly armed man who manages to maintain at least a bit of cold blood will pretty always have huge advantage over unarmed assaulter, so it all depends on situation.

[gkathellar]

But I think someone completely untrained like me would feel a lot more confident blindly hacking away with an axe than trying to figure out how a rapier works while I have to fight for my life. I image you could still cause serious injuries in a paniced brawl with an axe, but with a rapier, what would I do with it when things get close? Probably drop it and use bare fists.

Once your opponent is inside the arc of the axe's swing, there's not much difference. The fencing sword might even be better in that situation — it leaves you with a steel shaft instead of a wooden one, and if it's got a full, well-defined guard you can belt someone in the face much, much harder.

Of course this depends on the size of the axe, but smaller axes are also a lot less intuitive in a fight.


any normal judge should allow you to be as nutcase as you only want, if somebody is threatening you in your own home.

It really depends on the self-defense laws of your local jurisdiction, which (not you specifically, Spiryt) you should learn if you have any intention of armed self-defense. If you and anyone else in danger have the opportunity to get away, many jurisdictions would much rather you did so and let them clean up the mess, for everyone's safety. And even in a situation where self-defense is permissible, they generally have to determine whether your use of force was excessive (which means whether you continued to hurt your assailant even after they were disabled 99% of the time). Generally, the courts look on trained fighters or armed defenders a little less kindly in these situations, because they expect you to be responsible for the use of your skills/armaments.

[fusilier]

Question: Given what happens to rifle rounds when they hit water, can you shot guns through windows or does the glass render a bullet ineffective?

I don't know if this is actually at the root of this question, but I mention it just in case.

It is a myth that glass is a very slow moving liquid (a very common myth when I was in high school). The source of this myth appears to be from looking at old panes of glass that are thicker at the bottom than at the top. This is because the glass was made by spinning, rather than the modern technique of floating it.

Thick glass can actually be pretty resilient, and bullet proof glass made from layers can be very effective.

[Knaight]

I don't know if this is actually at the root of this question, but I mention it just in case.

It is a myth that glass is a very slow moving liquid (a very common myth when I was in high school). The source of this myth appears to be from looking at old panes of glass that are thicker at the bottom than at the top. This is because the glass was made by spinning, rather than the modern technique of floating it.
On a side note, a tiny sheet of water about as thick as the typical glass pane is going to be absolutely useless at bullet stopping.

[Norsesmithy]

If you're not trained with anything and can't get any training, use other tools and/or be prepared to improvise. Don't buy any of the stuff sold to scared, unexperienced guys, most of it won't work, or perform worse than improvised weapons. Plus, it might scream "aggressive nutcase" to the judge later. For example, a can of spray paint will do a much better job than pepper spray (the stuff won't be deflected by wind*, and makes it very easy to identify the attacker afterwards).

Could not disagree more. Good pepper spray will shoot a jet of adhesive capsasin gel better than 20 feet. It is MUCH less affected by the wind than spray paint, and probably only about a thousand times more effective.

But I don't think there's any such thing as unable to get training, even burning 10 bucks to test your pepper spray etc. once is going to give you an advantage over the person without.

And if you are worried about identifying him later, FOX Blue has BTB in its gel, which will dye him right and proper.

Where I in a relationship that precluded the ability to defend my domicile with firearms, my first reaction is to disobey her. If she's even remotely rational and cares about me at all, she'll understand (and if she isn't/doesn't, it's inevitable than we break up).

If I'm in a municipality that bans defensive firearms, my first reaction is to use an illegal firearm. After all, I'd rather go to prison than to the morgue, and there's always the ability to fight the law via jurisprudence.

If Aliens have evaporated all guns and all knowledge of guns, I'd probably go with a good club and a big knife.

[Hawkfrost000]

My personal arsenal includes:

3 knives
several obsidian points (2 arrows, a knife and a spear)
and a 16th century cut and thrust sword similar to the one bellow. With accompanying buckler.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7gFnHuU_nDks6pKSLEfIa0NdfuMxNM ZrZWhZVrBSg9Hv-OeSVdA

The sword is blunted but i have the tools to sharpen it and the training to use it.

No guns or bows, i leave that to my (gun nut) friend.

DM

[The Reverend]

A lot of the high end pepper spray and tasers come with a laser and/or high powered flashlight. I remember talking to a group of cops and all of them agreed that when targets see the red dot on their shirts almost all will just surrender, not counting those that are drugged up. I gotta look that up and see if anyone has done a study on it.

Gotta agree with Norsesmithy, some of the high end pepper sprays will spray gel 20-40 feet, leave dye markers and contain CS gas as well as OC and other irritants.

I actually used to be acquainted a guy that killed someone with a Katana. It was a stupid incident of that guy stole from me and it was later ruled by the court it was a premeditated setup to provoke the guy into attacking so he could use his Sword and kill him. Still in prison I think. Used a cheap flea market katana, broke off in the guy.

[Autolykos]

Could not disagree more. Good pepper spray will shoot a jet of adhesive capsasin gel better than 20 feet. It is MUCH less affected by the wind than spray paint, and probably only about a thousand times more effective.Wow. Then you get much better pepper spray in the US than we in Germany do. The stuff legally sold here (without special permissions) is so extensively safety-tested it is pretty much harmless (or at least ineffective enough that I wouldn't trust my life on it). It won't stay in a cohesive beam for more than a few feet, and the cloud might blow in your own face with strong wind. Plus, the concentration is low enough that people who regularly eat spicy food will probably not be out of the fight unless you spray the better part of the whole can into their face point-blank while they have their eyes open (ok, that might be a bit of an exageration, but not much).

EDIT:

Of course this depends on the size of the axe, but smaller axes are also a lot less intuitive in a fight.And larger axes are so slow (at least for untrained users) that they'll only have one chance at getting the distance right before being underrun. That's why I say axes are a poor choice for noobs.

[Yora]

We're talking about these things here.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/26/nyregion/pepper-533.jpg

[Conners]

How important is it to capture a population, in this day and age? I mean, these days you have neutron bombs. Would an invading nation be better off to just wipe out all the people and bring in their own populace?

[Yora]

I don't even understand the question. What do you mean by capturing the population? What population and for what purpose?

[Lapak]

How important is it to capture a population, in this day and age? I mean, these days you have neutron bombs. Would an invading nation be better off to just wipe out all the people and bring in their own populace?Even assuming you have a weapon that reliably kills people behind physical barriers without damaging anything else (which we don't) you'd have two unbelievably huge problems with internal and external dissent. Externally, full-scale genocide is one of the few things that will almost universally get you on the bad side of third parties, so every other nation might line up to take shots at you. It's one thing in the eyes of the world to invade someone and claim that you have a prior right or that you're doing it for their own good or whatever; it's another to openly mass-murder civilians.

Internally, you'd have to assume your own army is made up of fanatically loyal people, or that you've engaged in a massive propaganda campaign to de-humanize your enemies. Otherwise you're going to find that very few ordinary people, including ordinary soldiers, are okay with just slaughtering every man, woman and child on the other side indiscriminately.

EDIT: All of this, of course, is aside from the fact that the leader in question would have to be an amoral, heartless monster to give such an order in the first place.

[The Reverend]

Actually the stuff I'm talking about is a lot more cohesive, like silly string kind of, but the stuff the cop is spraying has a higher OC content than a civilian can purchase. My wife has a can of spray that has OC, CS, and CN all in one gel stream.

Im waiting for some bright mind to develop a two in one taser gun/pepper spray. Probably already out there.

[Spiryt]

How important is it to capture a population, in this day and age? I mean, these days you have neutron bombs. Would an invading nation be better off to just wipe out all the people and bring in their own populace?

Well, aside all other complications, it's pretty damn hard, to "bring in" some people to populate wasteland with thousands of bodies lying everywhere at least...

[The Reverend]

So for ****s and giggles I've been researching the more exotic arts weapons of the east. While a lot of the less recognizable weapons initially looked rather....impractical and specialized requiring a lot of training, upon further research they seem much more realistic. For example the Deer Horn Knives were developed to counter spears and polearms, disable them, and quickly eliminate their wielder. The meteor hammer has actually had a fair amount of research done on it and basically can deliver a strong kick or punch's worth of force at a distance. How realistic do you think the usage of the more exotic eastern weapons were? How much more training did they require to be used and was it worth it?

[Spiryt]

I guess that every weapon had some nifty use in mind, but while researching for them in the Net, and not only you've got to be careful - a lot of schools, dojos, or whatever dealing with them very often cultivates something that can be called an art for artsy purposes - and can't really tell much on how such particular weapon had been used.

IMHO sentences as " developed to counter spears and polearms, disable them, and quickly eliminate their wielder" should in particular cause eyebrow to rise. :smallwink:

As generally most 'serious' weapon were designed to possibly quickly eliminate opponent, but I can't honestly see as those deer horn things could be particularly useful against polearms, as opposed to, say, maces....

Not to mention that 'polearms' is rather huge category.

[Joran]

How important is it to capture a population, in this day and age? I mean, these days you have neutron bombs. Would an invading nation be better off to just wipe out all the people and bring in their own populace?

Actually, we don't have neutron bombs, no one does. As far as I know, no countries have fielded one. Using nuclear weapons is bound to draw in other nations and international outcry. The move has been towards trying to use more precision strikes in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties rather than using a really large weapon to obliterate all the civilians.

[Norsesmithy]

Actually, we don't have neutron bombs, no one does. As far as I know, no countries have fielded one. Using nuclear weapons is bound to draw in other nations and international outcry. The move has been towards trying to use more precision strikes in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties rather than using a really large weapon to obliterate all the civilians.

Yes, no one currently has Neutron bombs, but we did have them as recently as 2003 (W79Mod3), and it would only be the work of a couple weeks to assemble new ones.


So for ****s and giggles I've been researching the more exotic arts weapons of the east. While a lot of the less recognizable weapons initially looked rather....impractical and specialized requiring a lot of training, upon further research they seem much more realistic. For example the Deer Horn Knives were developed to counter spears and polearms, disable them, and quickly eliminate their wielder. The meteor hammer has actually had a fair amount of research done on it and basically can deliver a strong kick or punch's worth of force at a distance. How realistic do you think the usage of the more exotic eastern weapons were? How much more training did they require to be used and was it worth it?
The problem with "exotic" weapons is that they were developed by people who dedicated their lives to mastering their minds through mastering their bodies via combat. I'm sure that they aren't absolutely worthless in their intended role, that'd be stupid, but the thing is that they are designed primarily for use by folks who are, in large part, relying on their reputations to keep out of trouble (after all, no matter how formidable the individual warrior monks were, they would be so outnumbered in a conflict that their skill would be meaningless), and so a big part of the effectiveness of such a weapon is going to be their impressiveness. After all, if the peasant spearmen are convinced that going up against "Deer Horn Knives" or "Moon and Sun Blades" et al means instant death for lowly spearmen, you're going to have a harder time ordering those selfsame peasants to storm the monastery.

Of course, once you're up against the theoretical equal party, that doesn't really mean anything.

Which is why, I think, that those same martial arts consider the fairly pedestrian straight bladed Jian and the plain old fashioned spear to be the two best weapons in their arsenals.

[fusilier]

Yes, no one currently has Neutron bombs, but we did have them as recently as 2003 (W79Mod3), and it would only be the work of a couple weeks to assemble new ones.


The weapon you refer to is sometimes called a "neutron bomb", but it doesn't actually match the performance of what a neutron bomb was originally supposed to be. It may have been an enhanced radiation weapon, but the physical destruction was still very high. I think it was just a bit of propaganda, to make it sound as if it was a radically different (and new) weapon, rather than just another nuclear bomb.

[Joran]

The weapon you refer to is sometimes called a "neutron bomb", but it doesn't actually match the performance of what a neutron bomb was originally supposed to be. It may have been an enhanced radiation weapon, but the physical destruction was still very high. I think it was just a bit of propaganda, to make it sound as if it was a radically different (and new) weapon, rather than just another nuclear bomb.

Basically, what fusilier said. It seems like Conners is suggesting the propaganda version of the neutron bomb, a bomb that kills an entire population of a city with radiation and leaves the buildings and infrastructure intact. As far as I know, no country has fielded such a weapon yet.

What a couple countries have fielded were enhanced radiation weapons that were supposed to be used at the tactical level, like the W79, which is an artillery shell (Thanks to Norsesmithy. I could have sworn that these never were created and were banned by treaty, but I would be wrong). These still have a good amount of yield, so it'll end up damaging or destroying buildings anyway and have a very limited lethal range. Oddly enough, the justifications for the W79 were that it could be used NEAR populated areas to prevent a Soviet armor invasion.

P.S. Want a city with its infrastructure intact without any of those nasty people we don't like? Use a chemical or biological weapon. That'll go over just as well with the international community as a neutron bomb would.

[Storm Bringer]

How important is it to capture a population, in this day and age? I mean, these days you have neutron bombs. Would an invading nation be better off to just wipe out all the people and bring in their own populace?

as others have pointed out, no, a invading nation would not be better off just wiping out all the people.

it would be better served by convincing the people that the invaders cause is just ("We are protecting you form your own corrupt/inept goverment"), that the invaders care about and respect the invaded peoples culture and rights ("yes, of coruse you can pass though this checkpoint to go to church and pray. this is a political war, not a relgious one"), that the invaders and the conquered peopl have much in common, and should focus on those things rather than what seperates them ("Why, yes, I support Manchester United as well!! it is a pity they lost that last match...."). "Hearts and minds" is a big part of any post invasion occupation, and operations related to it should start during and before the actaul invasion itself.*

the chinese got this very right in the past. they cultrally assimilated dozens of once independant cultures, and brought them into the fold, using cultural Homogeneity as the glue that held their empire together.


*if any of this sounds very simmilar to what is happening in several modern day conflicts, that is becuase it is. I will say no more for fear of crossing the political discussion line.

[deuxhero]

Also a Roman thing as well.

[WhiteHarness]

That no nation ever fielded units of soldiers wielding "deer-horn knives" and "meteor hammers" should stand as strong testimony to their lack of effectiveness versus more traditional swords, spears, bows, and axes.

[Yora]

I'm not saying that they actually are super effective weapons, but that line of reasoning is flawed.

If armies use a piece of equipment as standad issue for all soldiers in large battle, that just means that it is a very practical and effective solution for the situation of equipping large armies for battle.
You don't see entire armies being equipped with high caliber sniper rifles, but they still have their uses in a much smaller niche of situations.

[Conners]

Thanks for that. Was wondering if it would be plausible in a story.

Wasn't aware that Neutron bombs were exaggerated so much.

[Spiryt]

That no nation ever fielded units of soldiers wielding "deer-horn knives" and "meteor hammers" should stand as strong testimony to their lack of effectiveness versus more traditional swords, spears, bows, and axes.

Well, because those definitely strike me as "civilian", "dueling", "self improvement" weapons, or whatever else, definitely not that practical for weapons.

Don't know much about Chinese army in, say, 18th century, and knowing who fought in battles and on what terms would give some insight on if a weapon like that could appear on the field.

No one would be crazy enough to search people with meteor hammers and make some "units" out of them, but that doesn't mean that someone couldn't use one in battle from some reason.

Not to mention that they would most probably "compete" with firearms in this period, not swords and axes.

[Storm Bringer]

not sure if i'm making this up or not, but i seem to remember someone suggesting that a lot of these exotic chinese martial arts weapons were "used" to train and demonstrate mastery of some specfic muscle group, or a combat principal. the idea is that using these hard to master weapons, you can either show your skill by being good dispite being armed with a hard to use weapon, or demonstrating your excellence at one facet of combat, such as trapping a spearhead, or disarming. in effect, they were "showcase" weapons that let you show how good you are at X, rather than general purpose battlefield weapons.

[gkathellar]

That no nation ever fielded units of soldiers wielding "deer-horn knives" and "meteor hammers" should stand as strong testimony to their lack of effectiveness versus more traditional swords, spears, bows, and axes.

The problem with "exotic" weapons is that they were developed by people who dedicated their lives to mastering their minds through mastering their bodies via combat. I'm sure that they aren't absolutely worthless in their intended role, that'd be stupid, but the thing is that they are designed primarily for use by folks who are, in large part, relying on their reputations to keep out of trouble (after all, no matter how formidable the individual warrior monks were, they would be so outnumbered in a conflict that their skill would be meaningless), and so a big part of the effectiveness of such a weapon is going to be their impressiveness.

Exotic weapons of this type were rarely deployed on the battlefield for three principal reasons: difficulty of use, incompatibility with formation fighting, and design favoring a civilian dueling environment. Most professional martial artists in historical China were not professional soldiers, nor were they monks. They were mostly village sifu who probably taught the local boys some tricks to fight off bandits, and got provided for by the villagers in return. Some style do claim a military origin, and these tend to focus more on spear and sword technique.

The influence of the Shaolin styles often gets overstated, but even those can be quite effective in their undiluted form (which is next to impossible to find).


I guess that every weapon had some nifty use in mind, but while researching for them in the Net, and not only you've got to be careful - a lot of schools, dojos, or whatever dealing with them very often cultivates something that can be called an art for artsy purposes - and can't really tell much on how such particular weapon had been used.

The real, serious martial-art-for-art's-sake schools tend to know what they're talking about, at least with regards to good technique — but 99% of all martial arts schools are awful, and 99% of self-proclaimed "masters" are full of it. Ergo, the good technique required to wield complex weapons gets lost.


How realistic do you think the usage of the more exotic eastern weapons were? How much more training did they require to be used and was it worth it?

It really depends. Weird stuff can be used very effectively, but that use will always be intricate and complicated, which can be good or bad. On the one hand, it can be difficult to counter — on the other hand, you can add intricacy to any weapon, but not all weapons are versatile enough for simplicity.

In other words: the only way to kill someone with a rope dart is fancy. The only ways to kill someone with a jian or dao are fancy, and not so fancy. The battlefield typically favors versatility, but a duel may not.

[Traab]

In other words: the only way to kill someone with a rope dart is fancy. The only ways to kill someone with a jian or dao are fancy, and not so fancy. The battlefield typically favors versatility, but a duel may not.

Pfft, how complicated can a jian be? As Alejandro Murrieta says, "The pointy end goes into the other man." Doesnt get much simpler than that. (Internet cookie for whoever knows where I got the quote from.)

[gkathellar]

Pfft, how complicated can a jian be? As Alejandro Murrieta says, "The pointy end goes into the other man." Doesnt get much simpler than that. (Internet cookie for whoever knows where I got the quote from.)

About as complicated as any other sword can be.

My point isn't so much that jian-fighting is inherently complex: it's that you have the choice to make it complex or not, and you have more choices within each of those options.

As you say, most weapons actually only have three or four, maybe as many as six or seven, actual ways to hurt someone else (jian attacks mostly consist of stab, slice, chop and very rarely pommel, for example).

Versatility lies more in the variety of strategic and technical options available to the wielder, and simple weapons tend to have more of those than complicated weapons, because complex weapons are usually built around one or two particular strategies or techniques.

A sword offers unparalleled versatility because there are so many approaches one may take with it — a rope dart, on the other hand, is very good at its two or three viable approaches, but it only has those two or three. You can see why, ignoring the space and skill requirements of the complex weapon, one might be fundamentally useful for a shifting battlefield.

[Traab]

Heh, I was kidding, I am fully aware of the many options for angles of attack available to a sword like the jian. I just remembered that quote and couldnt resist using it.

[Autolykos]

not sure if i'm making this up or not, but i seem to remember someone suggesting that a lot of these exotic chinese martial arts weapons were "used" to train and demonstrate mastery of some specfic muscle group, or a combat principal. the idea is that using these hard to master weapons, you can either show your skill by being good dispite being armed with a hard to use weapon, or demonstrating your excellence at one facet of combat, such as trapping a spearhead, or disarming. in effect, they were "showcase" weapons that let you show how good you are at X, rather than general purpose battlefield weapons.That certainly sounds plausible - I'd love to see a good source for this.


It really depends. Weird stuff can be used very effectively, but that use will always be intricate and complicated, which can be good or bad. On the one hand, it can be difficult to counter — on the other hand, you can add intricacy to any weapon, but not all weapons are versatile enough for simplicity.That's the point. Any idiot can make stuff bigger, more complex and more expensive. The genius lies in doing the opposite while retaining its effectiveness.

[gkathellar]

That's the point. Any idiot can make stuff bigger, more complex and more expensive. The genius lies in doing the opposite while retaining its effectiveness.

Don't underestimate what you can do to someone with these complex dueling weapons. A well used nine-section whip is a blindingly fast instrument of death and is very difficult to defend against. A rope dart can smash bones and entangle limbs. A pair of Deer Horn Knives can immobilize a blade long enough to chop an enemy up quite thoroughly, or execute grappling techniques where non-compliance = severed arteries and tendons. A shaolin spade can deal enormous trauma with one end and has a solid repertoire of grappling and defensive techniques on the other.

The issue is really that none of these weapons are versatile, and very few of them have inherent superiority over simpler weapons once you get past their unique tricks. That doesn't mean these weapons are necessarily worse, either — it just means they're specialized for a dueling environment where tricks matter more. It's not as if the Europeans didn't do similar things. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Dague-trident.jpg)

[Spiryt]

The issue is really that none of these weapons are versatile, and very few of them have inherent superiority over simpler weapons once you get past their unique tricks. That doesn't mean these weapons are necessarily worse, either — it just means they're specialized for a dueling environment where tricks matter more. It's not as if the Europeans didn't do similar things. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Dague-trident.jpg)

Actually, all those seem pretty damn versatile to me, offering the options you can't really have with 'just' and axe.

The problem is simply with wielder's margin of error and general sheer 'average' effect of maneuvers and general actions compared to effort put in it.


Don't underestimate what you can do to someone with these complex dueling weapons. A well used nine-section whip is a blindingly fast instrument of death and is very difficult to defend against. A rope dart can smash bones and entangle limbs. A pair of Deer Horn Knives can immobilize a blade long enough to chop an enemy up quite thoroughly, or execute grappling techniques where non-compliance = severed arteries and tendons. A shaolin spade can deal enormous trauma with one end and has a solid repertoire of grappling and defensive techniques on the other.

Because you can smash bones with solid stick found in the grove, and many other things, but with rope dart you usually would have to swing it with supreme timing, distance feel etc. so dart traveling unsupported on the end of flexible string to have sufficient energy and land cleanly enough to do really heavy trauma.

With deerhorn knives and any sort of "hammer" gripped blades etc. there's problem with a lot of precision required, while a lot of precision is hard to achieve with such mechanics, lack of reach, no easy chance to grab etc. with any hand if it's handy....

And so on. All definitely deadly stuff (SSeagal copyright:smallwink:) and useful one, but somehow risky and erratic in actual use.

As far as Crescent Spade goes, while somehow unorthodox, it's probably hard to call it really complex or "funky" - polearm with more pronounced secondary end, and somehow unique "main" blade.


That certainly sounds plausible - I'd love to see a good source for this.

Well, as mentioned, I think the source is that all those weapons are, traditionally often employed in all forms of kata, drills, dances, improvisations, etc. showing off agility, control, finesse, and what else without.

"Self improvement", self control, achievement, merit, perfection, precision for the sake of being "better" is cherished in pretty much unnumbered Eastern martial traditions.

[gkathellar]

Well, as mentioned, I think the source is that all those weapons are, traditionally often employed in all forms of kata, drills, dances, improvisations, etc. showing off agility, control, finesse, and what else without.

"Self improvement", self control, achievement, merit, perfection, precision for the sake of being "better" is cherished in pretty much unnumbered Eastern martial traditions.

You're partially misunderstanding the purpose of forms. Certainly, forms are an end unto themselves up to a point — but traditionally, forms existed for the cultivation of skill and physical ability which would eventually translate to combat application. Many advanced forms are, by design, incredibly strenuous to execute, and require tremendous precision and skill to execute correctly. Thus, if you're training the forms, you're training those attributes.

Then, at least in theory, you take the strength and the technique you've gained from forms and you apply it to combat training.

[Storm Bringer]

That certainly sounds plausible - I'd love to see a good source for this.


No Kan Du*, I'm afriad. like i said, i am stating a half remembered comment, mostly likey form this thread's predecessors, or it's kin on other forums.


*sorry, i just couldn't resist.

[GM.Casper]

Working on an alternate cold war setting. How viable are space stations/weapons platforms that carry nuclear missiles for ground bombardment and some point defence to counter ASAT weapons. Or would it be more practical to just use FOBS to put warheads in stable orbits, ready to deorbit on their targets when ordered.

[Raum]

Working on an alternate cold war setting. How viable are space stations/weapons platforms that carry nuclear missiles for ground bombardment and some point defence to counter ASAT weapons. Or would it be more practical to just use FOBS to put warheads in stable orbits, ready to deorbit on their targets when ordered.Armed satellites are both viable and an extreme threat...which is why they're currently banned by treaty. Point defense is a bit more difficult. Mostly because it's very mass intensive and probably not very effective against small inert items which can still destroy or disable a satellite.

[gkathellar]

That said, orbital kinetic weapons would be far more cost-efficient than missile satellites.

[Norsesmithy]

Any weaponized space stations possible with realistic technology, in a conflict between equal powers are going to be produced with an eye to enemy space denial. Orbital bombardment is only marginally faster than ballistic missiles, and much much more expensive to employ.

[Autolykos]

Point defense is a bit more difficult. Mostly because it's very mass intensive and probably not very effective against small inert items which can still destroy or disable a satellite.I'd go a little further here. Point defense is only viable when combined with armor and/or evasion, as it will kill warhead or engine of the projectiles (if present), but not change the momentum of the projectile very much. Armor and spacecraft is mutually exclusive right now, and a large space station will have a hard time evading fast-moving projectiles shot from another satellite. If a "dumb" cannonball will easily kill your satellite, point defense is a waste of time.
I pretty much agree with Norsesmithy here - unless it is vitally important to scrape off another few minutes from your (or your enemies) reaction time, orbital bombardment is a phenomenal waste of resources right now.

Edit: While a satellite that shoots nukes to the ground may be pretty stupid, a satellite that *is* a nuke, flying in low orbit, could wreak serious havoc on enemy communications (and probably other infrastructure as well) without even a second of warning.

[Traab]

I'd go a little further here. Point defense is only viable when combined with armor and/or evasion, as it will kill warhead or engine of the projectiles (if present), but not change the momentum of the projectile very much. Armor and spacecraft is mutually exclusive right now, and a large space station will have a hard time evading fast-moving projectiles shot from another satellite. If a "dumb" cannonball will easily kill your satellite, point defense is a waste of time.
I pretty much agree with Norsesmithy here - unless it is vitally important to scrape off another few minutes from your (or your enemies) reaction time, orbital bombardment is a phenomenal waste of resources right now.

Edit: While a satellite that shoots nukes to the ground may be pretty stupid, a satellite that *is* a nuke, flying in low orbit, could wreak serious havoc on enemy communications (and probably other infrastructure as well) without even a second of warning.

True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.

[Storm Bringer]

True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.

pretty much. you get the height right, a single nuke can spread it's EMP over the entire of the USA.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.

Can I have a link to this article? It sounds pretty cool!

nevermind, found it.

[fusilier]

I'm not aware of nuclear tests that have fried satellites, but there was a high-altitude test in the early 1960s that caused street-lights to fail (along with other electrical problems) in Hawaii, around 900 miles away! The EMP effects of a nuclear weapon are apparently complex, and involve the local electro-magnetic field.

[fusilier]

I stand corrected: the test I referred to that disturbed streetlights in Hawaii, did knock out three satellites and damaged three others. However, it's not clear to me if it was an EMP that damaged the satellites or the radiation itself. Also, it should be remembered that this was 1962, and there weren't that many satellites up there.

[No brains]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.

[Traab]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.

Not very, Hell, I taught myself to throw knives in a couple of hours (Not straight, god your arm burns after awhile, it was a couple hours total over the course of a few days) a solid 10-15 feet to hit the target 8 times out of 10. Im sure there are better ways to do it, but it worked. Each weapon has its own balance that will need to be learned, but a bit of practice, and maybe a few tips and anyone can learn the basics quickly. After that its just more practice to get good at it.

Stars are a joke. A one eyed mentally handicapped 6 year old could throw them accurately. Axes arent that hard to learn to throw, hammers are fairly simple too I believe, rocks? If you can throw a baseball you can throw a rock. And I dont know many people who cant throw a baseball. Nets I dont know about, do you even throw them? Most of the time I see them being used its being held in one hand and swung around to tangle your opponent more than being tossed like a frisbee to wrap around someone 20 feet away. Or dropped on top of someone in a trap. :p Spears I cant speak for, but id imagine throwing spears are fairly easy, just think of them as heavier darts. :smallbiggrin:

[Hawkfrost000]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.

Two of my freinds know how to throw knives, stars and axes. Its not that difficult, one of my friends has several years experience with them and will regularly send 3-5 knives at me during a sparring session.

I always take a shield as a secondary when i'm fighting him.

DM

[Dervag]

Yes, no one currently has Neutron bombs, but we did have them as recently as 2003 (W79Mod3), and it would only be the work of a couple weeks to assemble new ones.Not in the quantity needed to carpet-murderbomb whole countries, though; that would be the work of years for the would-be genocidaire. Also...


How important is it to capture a population, in this day and age? I mean, these days you have neutron bombs. Would an invading nation be better off to just wipe out all the people and bring in their own populace?I'm gonna go with "No." For one, if you turn out to be a genocidal maniac while trying to conquer territory with neutron bombs, if any other nuclear powers exist they will try to hit you while you're still busy dealing with the first country you attacked.

For two, neutron bombs are still huge nuclear blasts that knock down buildings for a mile or more around; it's not like the country gets off with no infrastructure damage.

For three, in a real modern society, birth rates are low enough that trying to genocide a neighboring population and waiting for your own population's kids to fill up the space means you're in for a hell of a long wait... during which time other people will probably destroy you to keep you from getting the same idea about their land.


True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.Eh, it wasn't that bad- Cracked probably exaggerated.

Also, it was in 1962, so "every satellite on that side of the freaking globe" was about six scientific research packages or something...

EMP has to be done very carefully to have anything like the desired effect, and in a lot of cases all it will do to things like industrial infrastructure is flip a circuit breaker. Oh, horrors, the production line shuts down until we send a guy down into th basement to flip the breakers!


Working on an alternate cold war setting. How viable are space stations/weapons platforms that carry nuclear missiles for ground bombardment and some point defence to counter ASAT weapons. Or would it be more practical to just use FOBS to put warheads in stable orbits, ready to deorbit on their targets when ordered.The others are right- against an enemy with equivalent capability, these systems are more trouble than they're worth. They're in orbit, so they fly on known trajectories that can be plotted; they probably orbit low, so they're in reach of advanced ABM systems (which really ought to be in play by the time orbiting missile platforms with point defense are).

From what I know, you're actually best off with (believe it or not) bombers. Fast bombers. ICBMs and orbiting weapon platforms have the inherent limitation that their course can be predicted, which makes tossing a nuclear warhead into the path of the oncoming threat relatively easy. Manned bombers* are harder to predict, and at the kind of Mach 2 to 3 speeds that are acheivable, defending against the bomber starts to become quite difficult. You run into troubles because of the large area that any given bomber can occupy, and because of the flexibility with which they can change course, dodge incoming fire, exploit gaps in your radar and defense coverage created by previous attacks, and potentially shoot back at your fighters and missiles.

It's tricky.

*(potentially including some kind of orbiting space plane, but also high speed high altitude jet planes, if they're fast and high enough)

[gkathellar]

For three, in a real modern society, birth rates are low enough that trying to genocide a neighboring population and waiting for your own population's kids to fill up the space means you're in for a hell of a long wait... during which time other people will probably destroy you to keep you from getting the same idea about their land.

Also, as has been demonstrated by the facts-on-the-ground international politics technique, you don't need to eliminate the other population. All you need to do is insert your own.

[Spiryt]

Throwing stuff is as hard to learn as jabbing something with spear, wielding a shield, swing sword around...

On the very base it's easy, doing it effectively under different circumstances takes experience and talent, like pretty much everything else.

It sounds obvious, but what's more to add really?

[Autolykos]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.Depends a lot on what you mean by "effectively". It is speculated that the part of our brain concerned with geometry and spatial orientation has (at least partly) evolved that way so we can accurately throw stuff - so everyone basically knows how to do it. Hitting a target at some distance (or hitting a small target) requires some practice, depending entirely on how good you want to get (and the flying characteristics of your projectile. Killing or severely hurting the target (especially when wearing armor) also depends a lot on the weapon used - with some it will probably be near impossible, while it is rather easy with others (spears for example).

[fusilier]

I've done a little bit of axe throwing, it's not terribly difficult to learn. You want no wrist movement, and the trick is having the right distance -- otherwise you will hit the target with the handle. The people who taught me axe-throwing, were generally of the opinion that it's a neat trick, but in combat you are throwing away a perfectly good hand-to-hand weapon! :-)

[Lapak]

I've done a little bit of axe throwing, it's not terribly difficult to learn. You want no wrist movement, and the trick is having the right distance -- otherwise you will hit the target with the handle. The people who taught me axe-throwing, were generally of the opinion that it's a neat trick, but in combat you are throwing away a perfectly good hand-to-hand weapon! :-)This guy has a theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCbL_y3zTM) about at least one particular kind of throwing axes after throwing some of them around: a properly-designed throwing axe can have terrifyingly random ricochet behavior that is disruptive to a formation targeted by them. Probably only useful in volleys, but it's an interesting idea!

[Wardog]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?

[gkathellar]

I'm no archer, but I would assume it's not nearly as stupid because part of the problem with firing guns sideways comes from the complexities of recoil and the weighting of the firing mechanism.

Still, I would imagine that aiming a bow sideways, at the very least, would be more difficult because you can't line it up with your body. Also, you'd have a much greater chance of hitting yourself in the arm with the string, and the angles on your body (especially your wrist) would be all off.

[Spiryt]

It's certainly possible, and certainly suboptimal in most cases.

Would have it's uses, but for what are they worth about 'technicalities" medieval illustrations, for example, suggest classic usage even in situations where such "horizontal' grip could have been useful.

http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/SiegeFrench14th_copy.JPG

http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/image106.png

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/battleofsluys.jpg

[Autolykos]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?You can't reach full draw length (at least on a longbow), because your body gets in the way of the string. But that probably doesn't matter much anyway, because you won't have the force to pull a bow adjusted to your strength in this rather awkward position. And aiming it correctly would be next to impossible, because your eye would be pretty far away from the arrow and you won't be able to hold it consistently in the same direction.
The only use I can see for this would be a very low ceiling, where you can't hold the bow upright (but even then I'd try to hold it diagonally and still keep the upper body parallel to the bow, so I can aim the way I'm used to - well, mostly).

[DodgerH2O]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?

Completely sideways (as in parallel to the floor) I have never tried or seen, but several very good archers I've witnessed will angle their bow diagonally across their body instead of straight up and down. I believe all of them were hunters, but the context was in a practice situation.

(poor) Illustration:

Normal: I
Comic-people: --
What I've seen: /

[gkathellar]

Might it be possible to get a weird curve on a shot by holding the bow diagonally? Like a curveball-esque thing? That would explain why hunters might do it.

[Spiryt]

I would rather bet on simple necessity to find a right angle in bush/ otherwise cramped space where one can shoot and limbs won't ram into some branch or other obstacle on arrow release.

I don't think any angle would really change much in arrows path on any bigger scale.

[jaybird]

I suppose you're hidden better if there's no two meter stick poking out over your head.

[Spiryt]

With traditional bow without arrow rest, a bit of titling to the right (in case of arrow resting on the left side of staff) obviously can help with keeping arrow firmly in right place.

Hell knows if it really makes much difference for experienced archers though.

[fusilier]

I believe there is something called a "foot bow" which is used precisely in that manner (i.e. sideways, or horizontal). A cross bow is obviously configured that way too. I've also heard of people who were too weak to properly use a regular bow using their feet in a foot bow manner (in cases of exigency).

I think what others have said make sense about using a bow, while holding it sideways. Historically, archers are considered to have had trouble "taking cover", meaning that if they had cover, they typically had to expose themselves to shoot. For example, aboard ships archers were more exposed than crossbowmen. That's probably a good indication that it is impractical to use a bow sideways.

[No brains]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?

Oh! I can be useful!

The poster below who noted that diagonal bow use is correct. Holding a short bow diagonally does help you line up your shot. The arrow can rest and you can see the line right to the target in a comfortable position.

I actually got the chance to play with a bow once. I had zero practice. When i tried a full vertical bow, my shots were far, FAR off the the side. When I switched to a more diagonal shot, however, my shots were absolutely perfectly straight. I only messed up in terms of elevation. This might have been because the arrow was tilted slightly upward from where I was aiming, but assuming I had more time to practice, I could probably get really accurate!

I kid you not, a diagonal shot fired by me went perfectly on line with the bulls-eye! It just went behind the target or into the dirt.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Which is why hunters tend to shoot this way...

You tend to get only one good shot in with a bow.

[Partysan]

While we're talking about bows, I recently rewatched Avatar (the Cameron thing) and noticed the Na'Vi were gripping the bowstring with a turned hand, i.e. the thumb facing down. Does that make any difference?

[fusilier]

Ok, that was something that bothered me about Avatar:

I don't have too much experience with bows, but I was told to nock the arrow in such a way that as the bow string pulled on my fingers, encouraging them to "unfurl", the rotational motion (i.e. the rotational motion of my fingers opening) would help press the arrow against the bow. -- Not sure if that makes sense or not, or if someone with more experience can correct me. -- Anyway, if this is correct, then using a reverse grip is fine, if you nock the arrow to the outside of the bow (i.e. the bow is in between the arrow and your body). But in Avatar they nock the arrow on the inside of the bow and use a reverse grip.

EDITED -- I got my "inside/outside" backwards, so I attempted to correct it.