Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. IX [Archive] - Page 5

gkathellar

2012-01-15, 10:07 AM

Here is the age old problem: Make a sword to hard and it breaks. Make it too soft and gets blunt. Is it actually possible to make materials that are both highly resistant to breaking and can hold a very sharp edge, even if it requires advanced modern technology and wouldn't be economically reasonable?
So is fictional adamantine possible, or does it defy a basic truth of physics?

The metallurgy of swordmaking could get quite sophisticated in its attempts to address this, at least in East Asia. Someone else will have to field this for Europe and the rest of Asia.

The Japanese imported and developed a Chinese forging technique which involved composing different parts of the blade of different metals, varying the precise alloy as was needed. Edges often included tin, arsenic or other hardening materials, while the core of a sword was usually softer, more generally durable metal. For the Japanese, this was somewhat ritualized — you would compose the blade of a sword out of four individual pieces, which would then be fused carefully together. As for the Chinese, they've been doing it as far back as the bronze age, if the Sword of Goujian and its impossibly complex chemical content is any indication.

During history, how were polearms. (The longer ones, like lances or pikes) carried when not in use? Since I don't see how you can carry one on your back or in some sort of sheathe.

Shorter polearms could indeed be carried on your back, and spearheads did sometimes have sheathes. But the general answer to "how was X long weapon carried" is "in your hands." Either over the shoulder like a two-handed sword or straight up. Remember, a polearm is a long piece of wood, so using it like a walking staff isn't the worst idea in the world.

Incanur

2012-01-15, 11:15 AM

During history, how were polearms. (The longer ones, like lances or pikes) carried when not in use? Since I don't see how you can carry one on your back or in some sort of sheathe.

In the middle of the sixteenth century, Roger Ascham wrote about archers having lead mauls (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2010/01/archers-mauls.html) hanging at their backs. Henry Barrett, writing over a decade later, wanted archers to have five-and-half-foot mauls at their girdles. Either option strikes me as rather awkward, but it looks as if folks did at least occasionally carry short polearms on their backs or belts.

Fhaolan

2012-01-15, 12:15 PM

During history, how were polearms. (The longer ones, like lances or pikes) carried when not in use? Since I don't see how you can carry one on your back or in some sort of sheathe.

Long polearms were carried in your hands. There were some very *specific* ways of doing that, that were taught to the soldiers to make it easier, especially since pikes and the like were pretty much only carried while in formation. When not in use in formation, pikes and the like would travel stacked up in wagons.

For how to carry a pike in formation, it's a bit difficult to explain purely with text. Start out standing straight, with the pike also straight up, butt on the ground right next to your foot, the hand on the same side as that foot on the shaft as low as you can go without bending knees or slouching with your other arm straight down at your side. Lift pike straight up so that it doesn't wobble, bend your other arm at the elbow to right angles, bring it accross your body to grab the shaft of the pike. Let go with the 'main' hand, bring it down straight against your body and grasp what should be the butt of the pike. It might take a bit of shuffling depending on the ratio of your arm length to your height. With your 'main' hand cupping the butt of the pike and the pike straight up against your shoulder you can let go with the other hand, and you are now carrying the pike as you would in close formation. This way you can turn and maeuver without your pike striking the other pikes in formation.

For loose formations, you can carry the pike on your shoulder at an angle which is considerably easier but only possible when there's a lot of room between you and the other soldiers around you. There's also dragging it behind you while holding onto the head of the pike. Not sure exactly when this was used, but it's mentioned in the pike drill manuals issued to the Trained Bands in and around the English Civil War.

Fhaolan

2012-01-15, 12:42 PM

Here is the age old problem: Make a sword to hard and it breaks. Make it too soft and gets blunt. Is it actually possible to make materials that are both highly resistant to breaking and can hold a very sharp edge, even if it requires advanced modern technology and wouldn't be economically reasonable?
So is fictional adamantine possible, or does it defy a basic truth of physics?

You can get extremely hard and durable materials, but unfortunately they don't make good swords. There is lots of experimentation around using these materials for knives and the like, but they are missing properties necessary to make a good sword blade.

Swords have harmonics, where they can absorb some impact by flexing and vibrating. Good swords have very specific harmonics, so that the flexing and vibrating doesn't transmit to the wielder. With extremely hard materials that are also extremely durable, those harmonics invariably end up in horrible places because the blade doesn't flex enough. I've seen people hit a hard target with a bad sword, and immediately drop it because all the impact was transmitted to their hands. Basically it *hurt* to hold on to it.

As mentioned by gkathellar, to get around this problem you can deal with laminated blades. Cores being made of something similar to spring steel with edges made out of something similar to tool steel. There's a mechanical problem when ajacent layers are too different in properties, as the layers will tend to separate under stress. So to combat this the layers have to more gradually move from one property set to another. After a certain point, the layers become simple gradutions from one property to another within an otherwise homogenous mass.

So folded and pattern-welded blades, with their more defined layers and pretty patterns, are better than solid poor-quality steel, but are not quite as good as a solid sword of quality graduated steel. And steel is one of the very few materials that has the ability to be graduated in both hardness and springiness within the same solid mass.

Incanur

2012-01-15, 12:44 PM

Here are a couple of sixteenth-century illustrations of pikemen on the march:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/landsknecht_pikemen.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/480363013_b601090525.jpg

Traab

2012-01-15, 02:58 PM

My understanding is that this is because the water's hardness is surface tension, and it's soft once said surface tension is disrupted. An impact with water hurts you all at the exact first moment you hit. Concrete's hardness is more constant, and therefore the impact itself is more protracted and has more of a chance to hit more of the body.

Yeah, hitting the surface of the water will always cause less damage than hitting the solid ground at an equal height. Im honestly not certain of the exact altitude needed for hitting concrete to be always fatal as opposed to hitting water being always fatal, but im fairly sure there is a big gap. At terminal velocity, you will probably die hitting anything less than a 200 foot deep pile of goose down. In which case you smother and die anyways. :smalltongue: That being said, its unfortunate that they didnt have a better g force monitor to keep track of things, as im curious to see how the g force comparisons scale.

All I know is, if I am falling out of a plane or whatever with no chute, im aiming for pavement. Why? Because at least that impact would be instant death by my body bursting like a melon at a gallagher show. I risk drowning if I hit water before I can die from my injuries as they might not be instantly fatal. So my last seconds alive will be filled with agony and the feeling of drowning.

fusilier

2012-01-15, 03:39 PM

It's not that I doubt you, it's that marksmanship is a religion in the Marines, and I'm horrified at the thought of being issued a rifle where I couldn't adjust the sights, trusting factory boresighting.

It just runs fingernails down the chalkboard of my soul to hear that men who were expected to fight and kill and die were told "just aim a little to the left."

Hehe. I can certainly understand that. :-) It's debatable whether or not adjustable sights actually improves marksmanship (in either case, it's a matter of training and practice), but it's clear that someone who is accustomed to adjustable sights doesn't like to be without them.

During WW1, when the USMC first went into the trenches, they were in a position that overlooked the German rear-lines. Being 700 yards away the Germans didn't bother to take cover, and felt they were safe. They got a rude surprise!

fusilier

2012-01-15, 03:54 PM

During history, how were polearms. (The longer ones, like lances or pikes) carried when not in use? Since I don't see how you can carry one on your back or in some sort of sheathe.

A manual from the early 17th century shows pikes being carried "sloped", "level", and at the "trail". The first two were balanced on the shoulder, the last one was held near the tip, and the butt of the pike was dragged along the ground -- "trailing the pike" was slang for being a soldier. [It's actually kind of a cool effect when you get a group trailing pikes.] It's a fairly comfortable way of carrying the pike.

I need to look into this more closely, but for long marches, pikes may have simply been carried on wagons and carts. I've read that this was often done with heavy muskets (but not the lighter arquebuses), and it wouldn't surprise me if it was also done with other large two handed weapons.

I know that lighter lances can be balanced across the saddle, and some South American "vaqueros" still do this to this day (they have a special crescent shaped lance that's used for herding). Again, bundling them up and placing them on carts, then issuing them before battle seems plausible. A mounted man-at-arms could be expected to have a squire or two, so they may have carried his gear on a march as well.

Thiel

2012-01-15, 06:21 PM

I've seen a picture of a Danish military saddle from ~1860 that had a sort of cup attached to the stirrup. It was meant to support the butt of the flagstaff rather than a lance, but I can see no reason why it couldn't be used for it.

DrewID

2012-01-15, 08:31 PM

Ashtagon

2012-01-16, 12:41 AM

Years ago, while looking for a mini for a friend's left-handed swordsman type, an "expert" at the FLGS stated categorically that everyone in a quasi-medieval setting would have been taught to fight right-handed. Now while this makes sense for soldiers being trained to fight in formation, how much would this have applied to people being trained to fight NOT in formation? A knight or a duelist, say.

DrewID

There was a certain Scottish clan who were mostly left handed, and strongly so. This was such a significant aspect for them that they had their spiral staircases in their castle built with a reverse spiral from the usual, in order to take advantage of this should they ever be attacked.

Matthew

2012-01-16, 09:29 AM

Years ago, while looking for a mini for a friend's left-handed swordsman type, an "expert" at the FLGS stated categorically that everyone in a quasi-medieval setting would have been taught to fight right-handed. Now while this makes sense for soldiers being trained to fight in formation, how much would this have applied to people being trained to fight NOT in formation? A knight or a duelist, say.

DrewID

I have a vague recollection of a Roman legion/cohort/company of left handed troops, the idea being to position them on the right flank. I am not sure if that was fact or speculative fiction, though!

Incanur

2012-01-16, 11:58 AM

Left-handed warriors who fought that way certainly existed by the sixteenth century. Joseph Swetnam and I believe a few other authors addressed the point. From what I remember, some historical martial cultures encouraged ambidextrous training in everyone. This has obvious practical applications.

Conners

2012-01-17, 10:16 AM

Was wondering about your opinions on good tv series, to learn about combat and so forth.

Found this on youtube, recently--it seem any good?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys6zON34qGg&feature=related
So far, it seems like a reasonable series to me--but for all I know, it might be subtly misleading on a few points.

There's also features relating to Mike Loades that seem very enjoyable: http://mikeloades.com/
What do you think of his stuff? Like the Weapons that Made Britain series?

Yora

2012-01-17, 10:52 AM

Well, I think Conquest isn't that bad, but it's not that good either. They do an acceptable job of presenting the things that exist and play around with it a bit.
I occasionally look it up when I am searching for info about something I basically don't know anything about, just to learn how weapons look and how you can swing it. But the show keeps things very basic.
It's like walking through a museum, looking at the things on display, and reading the little text next to it. That's not bad, but nothing like having an expert give you a guided tour through the exibition. It's a very basic intro, but so basic that it's still terribly oversimplefied.

Mike Loades is very entertaining to watch. And while I am no expert on the things he talks about, he appears to have a much more scientific approach to his shows than most others. And after having learned a bit about weapon testing, he seems to perform his test while taking care of many little things that seem to be ignored often by others. Which makes him appear more trustworthy. How good it actually is I don't know, but about all the weapon shows I know, he appears to be the most competent and least sensationalist.

Also, why do all these weapon show hosts have the same "haircut"? :smallbiggrin:

Spiryt

2012-01-17, 11:08 AM

From what I've seen of Mike Loades, it's pretty good stuff.

Lots of actually solid experiments, data, and somehow honest reconstruction. At least passable replicas.

I seem to recall a lot of weird theories, but that's unavoidable, I guess. Nice recreation with falling off the horse, making authentic shield out of thin planks, glue etc.

This Conquest stuff on the other hand looks pretty damn bad, I cannot really listen to those cheesy lines, and a lot of stuff from episodes I've seen was pretty damn tragic.

Weird damn club he swings at some people in terrible costumes and call it "godendag', the rectangular scutum and segmentata together with gladius hispaniensis, and in short loads and loads and stuff taken out of.... You know.

Matthew

2012-01-17, 03:05 PM

Agree with Spiryt, "Mad" Mike Loades is pretty good, Conquest is pretty awful.

Yora

2012-01-17, 04:13 PM

He's obviously british. :smallbiggrin:
And when it comes to historical TV shows... Well, I never seen any good ones from america. Even if you can't tell it from the way they talk, they are very easily told apart. :smallfrown:

Galloglaich

2012-01-18, 09:35 AM

I agree with the others, Conquest it crap, Mike Loades really knows his stuff and has actually done some training, he's usually worth watching.

G

arguskos

2012-01-18, 11:53 AM

Hey guys, got a question from a friend. What is a falcastra? We've found references to it as a kind of European pole arm, but beyond that, we're pretty lost. Any help (image help specifically)?

gkathellar

2012-01-18, 11:58 AM

Are you absolutely certain you're not misspelling falcata (which is a kind of short sword)?

Ashtagon

2012-01-18, 12:03 PM

Hey guys, got a question from a friend. What is a falcastra? We've found references to it as a kind of European pole arm, but beyond that, we're pretty lost. Any help (image help specifically)?

Maybe falcata? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata

It's a kinda of short sword notable for a forward-curving blade and a pistol grip. In game terms, its basically a shortsword.

arguskos

2012-01-18, 12:13 PM

Are you absolutely certain you're not misspelling falcata (which is a kind of short sword)?
Yes. I know of a falcata, but the source we have is Exalted, which specifically calls out falcastra and calls it a pole arm. We were curious if such a thing really existed.

Maybe falcata? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata

It's a kinda of short sword notable for a forward-curving blade and a pistol grip. In game terms, its basically a shortsword.
Wikipedia is locked for the day (check it out yourself, can't discuss it here).

Otherwise, yeah, my bet is that they might mean a falcata on a stick, which sounds silly, but games etc.

Yora

2012-01-18, 12:32 PM

Maybe a case of "glaives", that are neither polearms nor useable. :smallamused:

Matthew

2012-01-18, 12:36 PM

Yeah, it looks like it chiefly appears in Final Fantasy and White Wolf products. The etymology is basically Latin and related to a scythe blade, so it could be standing in for "falcata" or "falx" or "falchion" or "fauchard". It looks to be a misspelling of falcata, though. It would be surprising if "falcastra" was a real word, it looks like somebody has conflated the Latin word "castra" (castle, camp, fortress) with falcata.

Spiryt

2012-01-18, 12:39 PM

Falcata like blade on a stick would be polearm like any other, I guess, similar to some bills or fauchards, but falcastra, indeed doesn't seem to be actual word.

arguskos

2012-01-18, 12:39 PM

Fhaolan

2012-01-18, 12:42 PM

Hey guys, got a question from a friend. What is a falcastra? We've found references to it as a kind of European pole arm, but beyond that, we're pretty lost. Any help (image help specifically)?

You're entering into the world of weapon nomenclature. Things get fuzzy here, as names tend to dance around different shapes of blades. Over time a name can get applied to a variety of weapons, many of which have no relation to each other, other than they are 'weapons.'

In many sources, a Falcastra is another name for a glaive-guisarme. It's a polearm with a knife-like blade (single-edged) with a hook or spike sticking out the opposite edge.

However, older sources link the name Falcastra as another name for the fauchard, making it a scythe-like blade mounted on a pole.

Breaking down the name: It's built from Latin, specifically Roman roots. Fal is something like hook or scythe (which is why many scythe and sickle weapons all start with Fal). Castra means something like military camp. So this nominally should be a militarized hook/scythe weapon (as opposed to a civilian version).

Matthew

2012-01-18, 12:43 PM

That is interesting, Fhaolan. What sources do you have in mind?

Fhaolan

2012-01-18, 01:09 PM

That is interesting, Fhaolan. What sources do you have in mind?

*sigh* Nevermind. After posting that, I went and did more research on the sources my sources were quoting. After jumping from source to source I managed to trace the glaive-guisarme refrence back to an old RPG game book 'Weapons' by Matthew Balent, who used that material in several Paladium books as well. Apparantly a lot of old-time gamers went on to write 'historical' research books and forgot that one of their sources was actually just a RPG book.

Tracing the other sources, the fauchard reference appears to originally be a person just pulling apart the name, like I put in the post, and making inferences.

So no. I've got nothing. Sorry. I have to learn to not trust my sources unless I can trace them back to original work.

Matthew

2012-01-18, 01:11 PM

Oh well, not to worry, we have all been there. :smallbiggrin:

I quite like the idea of it being a camp defence weapon or maybe even a scythe shaped camp!

arguskos

2012-01-18, 01:46 PM

You're entering into the world of weapon nomenclature. Things get fuzzy here, as names tend to dance around different shapes of blades. Over time a name can get applied to a variety of weapons, many of which have no relation to each other, other than they are 'weapons.'

In many sources, a Falcastra is another name for a glaive-guisarme. It's a polearm with a knife-like blade (single-edged) with a hook or spike sticking out the opposite edge.

However, older sources link the name Falcastra as another name for the fauchard, making it a scythe-like blade mounted on a pole.

Breaking down the name: It's built from Latin, specifically Roman roots. Fal is something like hook or scythe (which is why many scythe and sickle weapons all start with Fal). Castra means something like military camp. So this nominally should be a militarized hook/scythe weapon (as opposed to a civilian version).
At first I was :smallbiggrin:...

*sigh* Nevermind. After posting that, I went and did more research on the sources my sources were quoting. After jumping from source to source I managed to trace the glaive-guisarme refrence back to an old RPG game book 'Weapons' by Matthew Balent, who used that material in several Paladium books as well. Apparantly a lot of old-time gamers went on to write 'historical' research books and forgot that one of their sources was actually just a RPG book.

Tracing the other sources, the fauchard reference appears to originally be a person just pulling apart the name, like I put in the post, and making inferences.

So no. I've got nothing. Sorry. I have to learn to not trust my sources unless I can trace them back to original work.
...but then I was :smallfrown:.

Well, at least it seems that the question has been quite well answered at least!

Matthew

2012-01-18, 02:03 PM

Mathis

2012-01-18, 02:34 PM

Is there a way to watch this series legally for someone without access to BBC2? I don't live in Britain and I don't own a TV. Is there maybe a way to pay for it via streaming somewhere?

Matthew

2012-01-18, 03:21 PM

Good question. I do not really know too much about how the BBC operate abroad, though I know there is a BBC America (http://www.bbcamerica.com/). BBC I-Player was supposed to be investigating how it could distribute programming abroad, but I am not sure it ever came to anything.

gkathellar

2012-01-18, 05:25 PM

Yes. I know of a falcata, but the source we have is Exalted, which specifically calls out falcastra and calls it a pole arm. We were curious if such a thing really existed.

Emphasis mine. That should have been your answer right there. :smalltongue:

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2012-01-18, 05:39 PM

I would think it would be some kind of falx or rhomphaia.

Dervag

2012-01-19, 07:11 AM

This is all magnificently incorrect.

Mail was not "as good as paper" in any case, and even modern garage innovation known as "butted mail" stops pretty much everything that can be called sword cut.

As far as stabbing the horse goes, if this was that easy, cavarly wouldn't be so major force on the battlefields for so long.

As far as falling goes, we have innumerable accounts of knights etc. getting back multiple times after loosing their horses.Also, the idea of using a sword to hit a man in chain mail like a "heavy metal club" is rather foolish because swords aren't really all that heavy.

Now, if you're swinging a big hammer or mace or some other weapon that concentrates a small dense weight at the end of a long shaft, you might be able to do lots of harm through chain mail. But a sword ought to make a bad bludgeoning weapon; it doesn't have the right balance of weight or leverage, just looking at it from a physics point of view.

Not really, I would say. They would have to guard unarmored places, I guess, but with safety of armor they could wait for help or actually stab/choke the dog out.However, dogs make good sentries, are quite capable of being dangerous against an unarmored man... and frankly, most war dogs would be huge, brute-tempered beasts by the standards of modern dogs. Think of something with the bulk of the largest modern breeds and the sheer viciousness of the stereotypical junkyard dog. That's not something to take lightly unless you're wearing fairly heavy full-body protection, and a lot of people on a battlefield might not be.

My understanding is that this is because the water's hardness is surface tension, and it's soft once said surface tension is disrupted. An impact with water hurts you all at the exact first moment you hit. Concrete's hardness is more constant, and therefore the impact itself is more protracted and has more of a chance to hit more of the body.It's not quite that simple. Water is fluid but incompressible- it flows out of the way of an impact, but cannot be squeezed into smaller volumes by applying anything but the most extreme force. So when you hit water going very fast, it's not just "surface tension-" it's that you have to batter the water out of your way by brute force, and it won't compress under you the way that a pile of soft material might.

It's not that I doubt you, it's that marksmanship is a religion in the Marines, and I'm horrified at the thought of being issued a rifle where I couldn't adjust the sights, trusting factory boresighting.

It just runs fingernails down the chalkboard of my soul to hear that men who were expected to fight and kill and die were told "just aim a little to the left."These rifles were still designed to be fired in volleys at massed targets, Mike. The hoary old gunsmiths around in the 1890s had grown up during the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, or the colonial wars of the late century.

There were exceptions to that rule, mind- the British professional army of 1913 trained to a very high standard of marksmanship and drilled rapid fire, for instance. But by and large, the rifles of World War One were designed by people who expected them to be used like deadlier versions of Civil War muzzleloaders, or to repel massive charges of spear-wielding natives.

When you're dealing with a wave of charging spearmen, "aim up and to the left a little" is about as good a piece of advice as you need.

Here is the age old problem: Make a sword to hard and it breaks. Make it too soft and gets blunt. Is it actually possible to make materials that are both highly resistant to breaking and can hold a very sharp edge, even if it requires advanced modern technology and wouldn't be economically reasonable?
So is fictional adamantine possible, or does it defy a basic truth of physics?It depends on how good a material you want. Even medieval steels are "highly resistant to breaking" compared to, say, ice... and hold an edge very well compared to, say, bronze. By modern standards, yes you can do better. We know infinitely more about alloys than they do, for one we know that metal is made of atoms, which helps.

But whether you want fictional "adamantine," a hypothetical super-steel that is harder and tougher, instead of being hard but brittle or tough but soft... again, it depends on the performance you'd want. A metallurgist who knew could tell you if it were possible in detail.

Hehe. I can certainly understand that. :-) It's debatable whether or not adjustable sights actually improves marksmanship (in either case, it's a matter of training and practice), but it's clear that someone who is accustomed to adjustable sights doesn't like to be without them.

During WW1, when the USMC first went into the trenches, they were in a position that overlooked the German rear-lines. Being 700 yards away the Germans didn't bother to take cover, and felt they were safe. They got a rude surprise!I hate to say it, but this sounds mythologized. Or rather, I think it's a misinterpretation of events. Those units would have been used to fighting the French, and I honestly don't know what the French doctrine was, but there's a limit to how long a range you have your men fire rifles at. Theoretically a rifle bullet can travel a mile, but you'd be a fool to order infantry to fire from a mile away; the average rifleman would be better employed as a runner back to the artillery at that distance.

From seven hundred yards, the Germans' "rude surprise" would probably just be coming under rifle fire at all, with semi-random bullets whizzing around their heads.

Mike_G

2012-01-19, 01:59 PM

I hate to say it, but this sounds mythologized. Or rather, I think it's a misinterpretation of events. Those units would have been used to fighting the French, and I honestly don't know what the French doctrine was, but there's a limit to how long a range you have your men fire rifles at. Theoretically a rifle bullet can travel a mile, but you'd be a fool to order infantry to fire from a mile away; the average rifleman would be better employed as a runner back to the artillery at that distance.

From seven hundred yards, the Germans' "rude surprise" would probably just be coming under rifle fire at all, with semi-random bullets whizzing around their heads.

Not totally disagreeing, 700 yards is a long shot, but hear me out.

All Marines shoot man sized targets at 500 yards to qualify with the M16 in recruit training. That's all recruits, even if they become clerks or cooks or truck drivers. Infantry training is more shooting. The 1903 Springfield is a higher caliber, more powerful round, and probably a more accurate long range rifle than the M16.

If the enemy felt secure and were standing around with no cover, I feel that with ample time to aim and a good support sling, on a calm day, I could ruin a guy's day at 700 yards with an '03. If it's just his head over the top of a trench, probably not, but aiming at his belt buckle while he stands unsuspecting I think I could hit him. Under 500 yards, with nobody shooting at me or trying to be evasive and complicate my shooting, I can assure you I'd hit four shots out of five.

If, for example, a German replacement platoon was marching to the front, and a company of riflemen took careful aim at 700 yards and fired five rounds apiece, it could be a bad day for the Kaiser. Better than artillery where you can't adjust fire by radio.

So, yeah I can believe that sniping at 700 yards on men who thought they were beyond effective range could give them a rude surprise.

Galloglaich

2012-01-19, 03:03 PM

Sorry to interrupt, but this is brilliant:

http://www.quora.com/What-are-examples-of-things-in-the-common-knowledge-about-history-that-historians-almost-universally-consider-incorrect/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

G

Matthew

2012-01-19, 03:08 PM

What an excellent link. :biggrin:

(couple of unfortunate typos here and there, though, such as "knightly heavy infantry" when "cavalry" is clearly intended).

fusilier

2012-01-19, 07:46 PM

I hate to say it, but this sounds mythologized. Or rather, I think it's a misinterpretation of events. Those units would have been used to fighting the French, and I honestly don't know what the French doctrine was, but there's a limit to how long a range you have your men fire rifles at. Theoretically a rifle bullet can travel a mile, but you'd be a fool to order infantry to fire from a mile away; the average rifleman would be better employed as a runner back to the artillery at that distance.

From seven hundred yards, the Germans' "rude surprise" would probably just be coming under rifle fire at all, with semi-random bullets whizzing around their heads.

The local surplus rifle shooting club states that shooting at anything less than 500 yards is boring. And this is with rifles dating back to the 1890s. They designed those rifles for accuracy. At the same time, they still had "volley sights" as you mentioned, but the idea of volleying is a little bit different. They still thought, at least at long ranges, they would be firing en masse (not truly a volley) at massed targets. My Carcano rifle is sighted to 2000 meters, and my friend's Lebel is 2400 meters!! It is unreasonable to fire at an individual person at such ranges with the kinds of sights that they used. At 2000 meters my "target" would be a "blob" of massed infantry, in theory. In practice, that didn't happen and post-WW1 redesigns of the weapons typically limited the sights to closer ranges.

Now, the point in this story, is that those Marines were regular soldiers who had months (if not years) of long range shooting practice. The other combatants in WW1, were already in the fourth year of a war of attrition, and there wasn't much time for any target practice, let alone long range. Did the increase range over which American soldiers could fight, actually make a difference in WW1 battles? Probably not . . . even with all the training the US forces received, some claim that they behaved much like rookies in 1914-15, and basically had to learn trench warfare through experience.

Another thing to keep in mind about this story, is that it may also be an indication of how the new American troops didn't "understand" trench warfare. In many (quiet) areas, there was often a mutual understanding to basically try to do as little damage to each other as possible. There are stories about both sides only firing off their artillery (their daily quota of rounds), when the enemy was at lunch and had few people in exposed positions. The Americans were new to the war, and hadn't formed such niceties.

Fortinbras

2012-01-21, 12:15 AM

America didn't enter the war until 1917

fusilier

2012-01-21, 12:55 AM

America didn't enter the war until 1917

American troops in 1918 behaved like the Europeans had behaved in 1914-1915, when they (i.e. the Europeans) were "rookies" to trench warfare.

Does that clear up the confusion? :-)

Fortinbras

2012-01-21, 10:34 AM

yep, thanks

Talakeal

2012-01-24, 03:19 PM

Does anyone know when the first explosive artillery shells were invented (or commonly used in battle) and what mechanism they used to detonate detonate?

Yora

2012-01-24, 03:27 PM

I just googled it and found this on wikipedia:

Early reports of shells include Venetian use at Jadra in 1376 and shells with fuzes at the 1421 siege of St Boniface in Corsica. These were two hollowed hemispheres of stone or bronze held together by an iron hoop. Written evidence for early explosive shells in China appears in the early Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) Chinese military manual Huolongjing, compiled by Jiao Yu (fl. 14th to early 15th century) and Liu Ji (1311–1375) sometime before the latter's death, a preface added by Jiao in 1412.
There's an entire page about fuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_fuze) alone.

gkathellar

2012-01-24, 03:31 PM

Are you talking about modern-esque artillery specifically, or do we include 13th century Chinese rocket-propelled shrapnel bombs?

Talakeal

2012-01-24, 03:41 PM

I just googled it and found this on wikipedia:

There's an entire page about fuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_fuze) alone.

Thanks. I read the wikipedia article on cannons but it didn't have any specifics so I figured it would be best to ask here, didn't think to look up fuses. That article answered all my questions nicely.

Yora

2012-01-24, 05:45 PM

Dervag

2012-01-24, 06:38 PM

American troops in 1918 behaved like the Europeans had behaved in 1914-1915, when they (i.e. the Europeans) were "rookies" to trench warfare.

Does that clear up the confusion? :-)On the other hand, the European armies of 1914-15 included a lot more professional, well-trained soldiers. Again, look at the 1914 British Expeditionary Force. Their trench tactics left a lot to be desired, which is why most of that army was destroyed in 1915 at Loos and other battles. But their marksmanship and skill at open-field maneuvers was quite high, probably superior to most of the soldiers involved in the war.

I would hardly be surprised to learn that the 1917 AEF resembled the 1914 BEF.

fusilier

2012-01-24, 06:48 PM

On the other hand, the European armies of 1914-15 included a lot more professional, well-trained soldiers. Again, look at the 1914 British Expeditionary Force. Their trench tactics left a lot to be desired, which is why most of that army was destroyed in 1915 at Loos and other battles. But their marksmanship and skill at open-field maneuvers was quite high, probably superior to most of the soldiers involved in the war.

I would hardly be surprised to learn that the 1917 AEF resembled the 1914 BEF.

Yeah, the BEF was known for it's high rate of aimed rifle fire. With an infantryman being expected of 15 aimed shots a minute. It's claimed that in early battles the Germans thought they had come across a machine gun battalion, when it was actually riflemen. I've never heard that story confirmed. At any rate, most of those guys were gone by 1915, and the number of aimed shots a minute expected from the troops dropped to about eight or so.

Yora

2012-01-24, 08:54 PM

Bolt action with ammunition clips, I assume?

gkathellar

2012-01-24, 10:49 PM

Norsesmithy

2012-01-24, 11:28 PM

I was just seeing a.... well, video from a multiplayer shoter, but noticed something that you see in lots of movies as well.

Can you really, somehat reliably, kill someone with a thrown knife or hatchet, from lets say 5 meters, and having him fall dead almost instantly? I would say a throw right into the eye or throat against a moving target can probably not be done consistently enough to base your entire hope for success on.

Not that they can't cause potentially fatal injuries, but the instant kill weapon you usually see them portrayed as seems highly dubious to me.

With any weapon, there are only three ways to kill someone in a timeline not measured in days, central nervous system damage, exsanguination, and psychological response. And only central nervous system damage will kill anywhere approaching instantaneously, though psychological factors can produce instant unconsciousness.

So with a thrown knife or hatchet, you have to either hit and pierce the spinal column or the brain case, which is really really difficult, or hope the subject goes into shock instantly from what would otherwise probably just be a serious flesh wound (possible, but for a number of reasons we don't completely comprehend, far less likely than it is with a gunshot).

So it is incredibly more difficult to do silent sentry elimination with a knife or a thrown hatchet than it is with a specialized suppressed firearm or a hatchet/blunt object that's kept in the hand (though doing that requires getting much closer to the target than the suppressed firearm).

I mean, just look at stabbing murders, how many times do you hear of a person being stabbed a dozen plus times? Sure, there is a tendency of a person killing with a knife to just keep stabbing, due to several psychological mechanisms designed to protect us from mental trauma, but the bottom line is, if you don't want to have to wait quite some time for them to die, screaming all the way, you HAVE to stab the guy dozens of times.

Which is why groups that train for discreet sentry elimination tend to do it with sound suppressed firearms. Sure they aren't silent, but the dedicated pistols used (locked breach/single shot, subsonic round, excessively large suppressor) make significantly less noise than chucking a knife at a guy.

ETA because they scream less.

gkathellar

2012-01-25, 12:34 AM

With any weapon, there are only three ways to kill someone in a timeline not measured in days, central nervous system damage, exsanguination, and psychological response.

You missed asphyxiation, but yeah, your post pretty much sums things up.

Hawkfrost000

2012-01-25, 12:41 AM

fusilier

2012-01-25, 01:49 AM

Bolt action with ammunition clips, I assume?

Yeah the SMLE (short magazine lee enfield), bolt action. It had a ten round magazine, fed with a pair of five round stripper clips. The SMLE is somewhat unusual in that it c*cks on closing the bolt (when it's travelling forward), unlike most bolt action designs that c*ck on open. This is considered to be part of what gives it speed, and the ability to cycle the bolt without moving the head from the stock. It is claimed to hold the record for most aimed shots with a bolt-action rifle in a minute -- at 38 rounds. Which, if true, is really impressive as the gun would have to be reloaded three times.

Joran

2012-01-25, 02:10 AM

With any weapon, there are only three ways to kill someone in a timeline not measured in days, central nervous system damage, exsanguination, and psychological response. And only central nervous system damage will kill anywhere approaching instantaneously, though psychological factors can produce instant unconsciousness.

So with a thrown knife or hatchet, you have to either hit and pierce the spinal column or the brain case, which is really really difficult, or hope the subject goes into shock instantly from what would otherwise probably just be a serious flesh wound (possible, but for a number of reasons we don't completely comprehend, far less likely than it is with a gunshot).

So it is incredibly more difficult to do silent sentry elimination with a knife or a thrown hatchet than it is with a specialized suppressed firearm or a hatchet/blunt object that's kept in the hand (though doing that requires getting much closer to the target than the suppressed firearm).

I mean, just look at stabbing murders, how many times do you hear of a person being stabbed a dozen plus times? Sure, there is a tendency of a person killing with a knife to just keep stabbing, due to several psychological mechanisms designed to protect us from mental trauma, but the bottom line is, if you don't want to have to wait quite some time for them to die, screaming all the way, you HAVE to stab the guy dozens of times.

Which is why groups that train for discreet sentry elimination tend to do it with sound suppressed firearms. Sure they aren't silent, but the dedicated pistols used (locked breach/single shot, subsonic round, excessively large suppressor) make significantly less noise than chucking a knife at a guy.

ETA because they scream less.

So, say you're James Bond and you want to eliminate a sentry. Since you're ridiculously stealthy you can creep up behind him to whatever distance you'd like. What weapon would you want to take him down without any noise?

From video games and popular TV shows, I've seen:

1) Garotte
2) Knife (slice across neck: plausible, backstab: not plausible)
3) Stun gun/baton
4) Silenced pistol
5) Sap or other bludgeon
6) Unarmed chokehold/neck snap/Vulcan Nerve Pinch

Ashtagon

2012-01-25, 03:01 AM

So, say you're James Bond and you want to eliminate a sentry. Since you're ridiculously stealthy you can creep up behind him to whatever distance you'd like. What weapon would you want to take him down without any noise?

From video games and popular TV shows, I've seen:

1) Garotte
2) Knife (slice across neck: plausible, backstab: not plausible)
3) Stun gun/baton
4) Silenced pistol
5) Sap or other bludgeon
6) Unarmed chokehold/neck snap/Vulcan Nerve Pinch

If I needed a kill, my weapon of choice would be silenced pistol. Knife across the neck/throat would be second choice, but this has the disadvantage of potentially getting clothing blood-stained, which may compromise plausible deniability.

If I needed to disable the target without killing, unarmed choke hold.

Basically, I want to make sure the person's airways are blocked asap, to ensure they can't shout. This also effectively disables most people within a minute or three.

Spiryt

2012-01-25, 06:55 AM

You forget death by shock or damage to critical organ systems (Heart, Lungs, Stomach [massive damage to body cavity caused by ruptured stomach] or Brain [but that kinda counts as nervous system])

The heart is kinda hard to get at but a good spear or halbard thrust can do it, lungs are easy to do even with a rapier, same with stomach but it will take a good thrust and tear to get the stomach or GI open.

Though admittedly it is harder to do with a knife or axe.

You seem awfully sure.... :smalleek: :smalltongue:

Anyway, you're most certainly right, but, pretty much all you have listed counts as exsanguination, or generally failed blood/oxygen circulation, and nothing will generally produce silly movie "insta kill" effeect anyway...

Target will most probably manage to scream at least, run around in agony, or whatever....

Unarmed chokehold/neck snap/Vulcan Nerve Pinch

Again, human neck and spine doesn't seem to be quite as fragile as movies etc. make it out to be, in all kind of submission wrestling moves neck cranks and other holds give at least enough time to tap.

http://prommanow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/dan-miller-guillotine.jpg

Obviously, if we're talking about professional vs some guard who's not trained, stretched, physically prepared, warmed up, surprised etc. instantly violent crank is much more likely to succeed in very 'cinematic' way.

Especially if attacker has concrete wall to slam the victim's head against, for example.

Still I would think that this would be extremely risky process compared to gun shot, many, many things could go even slightly wrong and victim would be able to make some noise.

gkathellar

2012-01-25, 08:48 AM

1) Garotte

Tough to do in practice, unless you're in a position of clear mechanical advantage. Garroting someone isn't quick: they can't cry out, but they can struggle and fight back until they run out of air. Of course, if you're tying to kill them, you could use a razor wire or barbed wire, which will do the job much more quickly, but that really brings us to ...

2) Knife (slice across neck: plausible, backstab: not plausible)

The crucial thing with knives is that they would have to kill the guy before he could make noise. The only reliable ways to accomplish this would be a) cut his airways, or b) gag him in some way until he dies. Option b) would probably require great strength, the garrote problem again.

3) Stun gun/baton

Only works if it works. Too much resistance from clothing or armor, bad aim or a really tough guy can all ruin your day with regards to this.

4) Silenced pistol

Two problems: a) silenced guns aren't silent, so unless you have some noise or distance to cover it up, someone's going to hear, and b) it's very difficult to reliably kill someone with one shot. Of course, the advantages of range and having a gun are pretty big.

5) Sap or other bludgeon

If you're strong enough to make it work, sure. A solid blow to the back or side of the head can knock someone out or even kill them. On the other hand, there's very little way to tell if you gave your target a severe concussion that'll last them a half-hour, or a mild concussion that'll last them fifteen seconds — so presumably if it did work, you'd then want to finish the job more conclusively.

6) Unarmed chokehold/neck snap/Vulcan Nerve Pinch

Instantaneous neck-snaps are impossible, and there's no such thing as a vulcan nerve pinch. Chokeholds take time and require you to overpower the opponent, but do effectively silence the opponent while they work their magic.

The one other thing is that actual strikes to an unprotected throat have the potential to do far more damage than a chokehold in a much smaller time-frame — but this is an extremely risky exercise, and requires you to be fast and powerful enough to deliver disabling strikes to your enemy's throat.

Spiryt

2012-01-25, 10:09 AM

Anyway:

http://img.myepicwall.com/i/2011/12/8d7041d565b7d7040c2b7b6bed593f5e.gif?1322918044

Hawkfrost000

2012-01-25, 10:40 AM

You seem awfully sure.... :smalleek: :smalltongue:

Anyway, you're most certainly right, but, pretty much all you have listed counts as exsanguination, or generally failed blood/oxygen circulation, and nothing will generally produce silly movie "insta kill" effeect anyway...

Target will most probably manage to scream at least, run around in agony, or whatever....

Yeah, i've done live cutting with sharpened weapons against various types of meat, ribs, steaks etc. it leaves you with very few illusions about what the weapons you are training with can do.

Nothing will provide an instant kill short of decapitation or large caliber bullet wounds, but practically speaking there are many excellent ways to end people very quickly.

The illusion of the "instant kill" is mostly the product of the need for Hollywood to make PG-13 movies with lots of combat in them. Large amounts of blood (such as the amounts needed to make a battle realistic, that's a lot of blood) make the movies rating spike sharply. Though much less then naughty words or nudity do. (Go figure)

DM

gkathellar

2012-01-25, 11:05 AM

Anyway:

http://img.myepicwall.com/i/2011/12/8d7041d565b7d7040c2b7b6bed593f5e.gif?1322918044

That is fantastic.

Aux-Ash

2012-01-25, 11:41 AM

Joran

2012-01-25, 12:38 PM

Tough to do in practice, unless you're in a position of clear mechanical advantage. Garroting someone isn't quick: they can't cry out, but they can struggle and fight back until they run out of air. Of course, if you're tying to kill them, you could use a razor wire or barbed wire, which will do the job much more quickly, but that really brings us to ...

Clear mechanical advantage is easy to get if you're behind someone and they're in complete surprise, right? As portrayed in media, wire around neck, foot or knee in the back and the guy doesn't have much of a chance.

Yora

2012-01-25, 01:00 PM

Joran

2012-01-25, 01:20 PM

But "as portrayed be the media" was the beginning of the whole discussion. In that case, throwing a knife in the back works just fine. :smallamused:

Or better yet, a shuriken that penetrates 2 centimeters for an instant kill.

Well, right, but that's purely fantasy. I'm wondering if the situation I posited is remotely plausible.

If a poor sentry gets a wire around his neck and a foot in his back, is there anything he could do? Also, is this a relatively easy maneuver to do if the attacker is behind the victim and the victim is unaware?

Incanur

2012-01-25, 01:28 PM

Physiologically, brain stem constitutes the ideal target for assassins seeking an instant stop. I know of at least one medieval-era victim with crossbow bolt in the back of their skull. As far as killing sentries goes, Robert "Paddy" Blair Mayne supposed knifed seventeen German opponents in one night during World War II.

gkathellar

2012-01-25, 01:38 PM

Clear mechanical advantage is easy to get if you're behind someone and they're in complete surprise, right? As portrayed in media, wire around neck, foot or knee in the back and the guy doesn't have much of a chance.

Clear mechanical advantage is when your target has literally nowhere to go, like if they're in a car seat or other fixed chair, or when you can literally get on top of them and pin them against the ground. If they have any mobility at all, they'll be able to struggle. Certainly you already have an edge since you have the garrote in play, but actually choking someone out takes time and every moment that passes is a moment they'll be struggling and kicking at you and shifting their weight around and making themselves difficult to garrote.

It's probably the stealthiest of the six methods you mentioned, but it's really just an improvement on the chokehold, not a quick kill like a knife or gun or cudgel could be.

Norsesmithy

2012-01-25, 06:00 PM

Joran:
A dedicated locked breach pistol/carbine with a large and efficient suppressor (like a Welrod, Delisle, or a properly equipped Mk 23) is actually quieter than hitting someone in the head hard enough to break their skull, and would be my choice for movie style silent sentry elimination. It also helps that a single noise with no followup for a reasonable period of time is not just hard to track, aurally, but elicits little response from the vast majority of persons, even trained sentries on watch, beyond a short period of heightened awareness as they strain to figure out what that was.

Baring that? Shovel or tomahawk to the base of the skull from behind. If I'm inhumanly skilled (like Tom Clancy's character John Kelly/Clark) a knife into the spinal cord at the base of the skull, effecting an internal decapitation.

Darius Macab:
Shock is a psychological phenomenon. When you isolate the psyche using drugs, those modes of harm do not cause immediate death except by exsanguination.

And the brain isn't "kind of" part of the CNS, it is part of the CNS.

gkathellar:
Good catch, I'd completely overlooked it.

Mike_G

2012-01-25, 07:41 PM

Darius Macab:
Shock is a psychological phenomenon. When you isolate the psyche using drugs, those modes of harm do not cause immediate death except by exsanguination.

Medically, "shock" is defined as loss of blood pressure. Either by actual blood loss, or some kind of distributive shock, where the blood isn't reaching the brain (and other end organs, but the brain is the big important one.) If an ER doc says "The patient is in shock" he doesn't mean anything psychological, he means the guy's pressure is in the toilet.

Pain, fear, surprise and so on can cause a drop in blood pressure via vaso-vagal response, where the body lowers heart rate and dilates blood vessels and causes symptoms of shock (this is where getting pale or fainting comes from) but physically, shock is just a dangerously low blood pressure.

Military Anti Shock Trousers (MAST) work by inflating and squeezing the blood supply from the legs up into the body perfusing the vital organs. That's why in First Aid classes, "treating for shock" is always lying the patient flat, raising the legs, covering with warm blankets. All designed to help the limited blood supply get to the brain. "Shock" isn't treated with hugs and cookies.

Twelve years as a Medic.

Hawkfrost000

2012-01-25, 10:00 PM

Medically, "shock" is defined as loss of blood pressure. Either by actual blood loss, or some kind of distributive shock, where the blood isn't reaching the brain (and other end organs, but the brain is the big important one.) If an ER doc says "The patient is in shock" he doesn't mean anything psychological, he means the guy's pressure is in the toilet.

Pain, fear, surprise and so on can cause a drop in blood pressure via vaso-vagal response, where the body lowers heart rate and dilates blood vessels and causes symptoms of shock (this is where getting pale or fainting comes from) but physically, shock is just a dangerously low blood pressure.

Military Anti Shock Trousers (MAST) work by inflating and squeezing the blood supply from the legs up into the body perfusing the vital organs. That's why in First Aid classes, "treating for shock" is always lying the patient flat, raising the legs, covering with warm blankets. All designed to help the limited blood supply get to the brain. "Shock" isn't treated with hugs and cookies.

Twelve years as a Medic.

This is what i meant.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear (should i have capitalized Shock?) as i only have rudimentary first aid training (I'm about halfway to being a lifeguard in Canada, which is quite a long process and gets you about as highly qualified as you can be without going to med school) so i dont know the medical term.

As established above shock cannot be treated with drugs and its not actually exsanguination because you can have far more than the minimum amount of blood in your body and still die of shock.

If i were to give you a good hit with my cut-and-thrust rapier, say to the bicep, it would probably sever the bicep down to the bone and you would probably die of shock before blood-loss, assuming you went untreated.

DM

Mike_G

2012-01-26, 11:27 AM

This is what i meant.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear (should i have capitalized Shock?) as i only have rudimentary first aid training (I'm about halfway to being a lifeguard in Canada, which is quite a long process and gets you about as highly qualified as you can be without going to med school) so i dont know the medical term.

As established above shock cannot be treated with drugs and its not actually exsanguination because you can have far more than the minimum amount of blood in your body and still die of shock.

If i were to give you a good hit with my cut-and-thrust rapier, say to the bicep, it would probably sever the bicep down to the bone and you would probably die of shock before blood-loss, assuming you went untreated.

DM

That's not really true either.

We do treat shock with drugs. Vasopressors can increase blood pressure and cardiogenic drugs can increase the rate and strength of the contractions, which help to reverse shock.

From an ermergency medicine standpoint, shock = poor tissue perfusion, usually from insufficient blood pressure.

There is such a thing as psychological shock, which is really an acute stress reaction, where your body dumps stress hormones into the bloodstream in reaction to a perceived stress. This reaction evolved because an extra shot of adrenaline is good for escaping angry leopards.

That is not what the doctor is talking about when he says the patient died from irreversible shock. He means the organs failed because the blooddstream didn't deliver enough oxygen to the tissues and the patient's heart, brain, kidneys and so on had massive cell death.

Getting stabbed causes shock because you lose blood. You may have a stress reaction, but it's the blood loss that will kill you.

"I was shocked that Bob stabbed me. Then I lost so much blood I went into shock."

The first usage is layman's terms for acute stress reaction, like you are "shocked" when you catch your wife with the pool boy. Medical professionals don't call that shock unless you have a heart attack which dumps your pressure, or the pool boy cuts your jugular.

GungHo

2012-01-26, 12:13 PM

Yeah the SMLE (short magazine lee enfield), bolt action. It had a ten round magazine, fed with a pair of five round stripper clips. The SMLE is somewhat unusual in that it c*cks on closing the bolt (when it's travelling forward), unlike most bolt action designs that c*ck on open. This is considered to be part of what gives it speed, and the ability to cycle the bolt without moving the head from the stock. It is claimed to hold the record for most aimed shots with a bolt-action rifle in a minute -- at 38 rounds. Which, if true, is really impressive as the gun would have to be reloaded three times.
Dude, even if it had a 38 round magazine, that's impressive.

The first usage is layman's terms for acute stress reaction, like you are "shocked" when you catch your wife with the pool boy. Medical professionals don't call that shock unless you have a heart attack which dumps your pressure, or the pool boy cuts your jugular.
Mike, I have a suggestion: Fire the pool boy.

Mike_G

2012-01-26, 01:00 PM

Dude, even if it had a 38 round magazine, that's impressive.

Mike, I have a suggestion: Fire the pool boy.

You think too smalll.

I'm looking for work as a pool boy.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 02:38 PM

We do treat shock with drugs. Vasopressors can increase blood pressure and cardiogenic drugs can increase the rate and strength of the contractions, which help to reverse shock.

From an ermergency medicine standpoint, shock = poor tissue perfusion, usually from insufficient blood pressure.

As long as we're on the topic, I seem to remember that it's important to keep someone warm while they're in shock. Is this true? And if so, does warmth actually help to treat? Or is it just that being cold while you're in shock can make it even worse?

Yora

2012-01-26, 02:39 PM

Dude, even if it had a 38 round magazine, that's impressive.
There are lots of very impressive videos on youtube. Though most are by people amazed how far you can get with it, the first time they tried.

Found this one with 8 guys shoting for one minute. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh-pgRhi_Lo&feature=related) But they are not even near the speed that some people manage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8&feature=relmfu).

I guess with 200 or 400 people defending against a a charge over open ground would probably do just as much work as machine guns.

Mike_G

2012-01-26, 02:48 PM

As long as we're on the topic, I seem to remember that it's important to keep someone warm while they're in shock. Is this true? And if so, does warmth actually help to treat? Or is it just that being cold while you're in shock can make it even worse?

When your blood pressure drops, you feel cold. There's less nice warm blood criculating, and most of it gets shunted to your core to keep the important stuff supplied, so your skin and extremities get very cold.

Keeping your body heat from escaping helps reduce demands on the already overworked circulatory system. Plus, shivering wastes resources like sugar and oxygen and procuces waste products that the limited blood supply now has to transport.

By keeping a patient warm, you are taking one more demand away from an overextended circulatory system. It's not as good as an IV of packed cells, but it helps.

fusilier

2012-01-26, 10:05 PM

Dude, even if it had a 38 round magazine, that's impressive.

I found this account on another forum (http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?110388-Sergeant-Instructor-Snoxall)

Yes, once again. I acquired the book written by the School of Musketry 2/ic in 1922 from a estate sale. I had submitted an article which mentioned Snoxall to Precision Shooting magazine and the editor, Dave Brennan required verification, so I sent the book to him in 1996. The relevant and I might add, only relevant extract from the book stated quite clearly,

Quote." The School of Musketry at Hythe collated the annual Qualification shoot results for the British Army. In 1914, the record was set by Sergeant (Instructor) Snoxall with a score of 38 hits within the 4 ring and within the minute - beating the previous record of 37 set by Sergeant Major Wallingford. Scores of 34 to 35 were 'not uncommon'." Unquote.

There are many confused accounts of the 38 HITS score being in the 12" bullseye. This is quite incorrect, and is as above. Snoxall was an instructor at the School of Musketry, hence his title of Sergeant (Instructor), not necessarily the Small Arms School Corps.

Now, if I were skeptical, I would note that this claim was made just prior to the outbreak of World War One. ;-)

I've heard that the standard was 15 aimed rounds a minute, which seems reasonable.

I would also point out that that SMLE's bolt can be operated without disturbing your sighting. It did have a detachable magazine, and it's possible that he used prefilled mags, but I suspect that he probably just fed in 5 round strips.

Rates of fire for bolt action rifles can be all over the map. There's a reference on the wikipedia entry for the M1886 Lebel, that claims that the Germans tested it against their single shot Mauser, and the Lebel fired 43 shots in one minute, verses 26 from the Mauser!!! The Lebel used an 8 round tubular magazine, that had to be fed one round at a time by hand. You could fit a total of ten rounds in the gun (one in the chamber and one on the carrier), but it's still hard to believe, for both rifles. I've heard that firing from the hip with a bolt action, can result in very high rates of fire, and there's no claim of accuracy in this test.

In 1888 the Lebel was tested against a Berthier prototype (using 3 round enbloc clips), and the Lebel was found to fire 21 shots in 1 min. 34 sec. vs. 26 shots in 1 min. 10 sec. of the Berthier. This sounds like a more reasonable number, and would seem to indicate some accuracy of fire is involved. It is not claimed to be a record, however, and probably reflects more typical conditions.

bobthe6th

2012-01-27, 08:55 AM

question: Was the hand guisarm anything beyond a made up weapon in "Men of Iron"? It seemed reasonable, and the rest of the book tried to be historically accurate... but the only mentions I find are in relation to the book.

Yora

2012-01-27, 09:04 AM

Given that there are a total of 4 results on google, which are all related to D&D, I feel pretty confident in saying that it's commpletely made up.

bobthe6th

2012-01-27, 09:13 AM

oop, it is gisarm not guisarm. hand gisarm.

Spiryt

2012-01-27, 09:19 AM

Are we talking about Howard Pyle's book?

Some details would be helpful.

bobthe6th

2012-01-27, 09:24 AM

The weapons allowed by the High Court were then measured and attested. They consisted of the long sword, the short sword, the dagger, the mace, and a weapon known as the hand-gisarm, or glave- lot--a heavy swordlike blade eight palms long, a palm in breadth, and riveted to a stout handle of wood three feet long.
yes. thats about all I have as far as refrance. I just wanted to ask the experts if Pyle was full of it...

Yora

2012-01-27, 09:38 AM

That term gets 318 results, but apparently pretty much all are quotes from the book. Does the book give any source?

bobthe6th

2012-01-27, 09:40 AM

It lists no source.

Spiryt

2012-01-27, 10:22 AM

Dervag

2012-02-01, 11:40 PM

How plausible is it that in certain medieval depictions, the polearms may have been artificially shortened? Some of those images are tapestries. I don't know about you but I'd rather have a squad of soldiers with improbably short weapons and a patch of whitespace above them than have to take the extra time to needlepoint in the extra six feet of weapon handle.

Mathis

2012-02-02, 12:46 AM

I've been looking at a lot of lamellar armour lately, and in the case of reconstructions I've seen made from steel plates they've been stitched together by leather strips that are very exposed. Now, why in the name of all thats practical and sensible, why would it be constructed in this way? Won't the exposed leather simply be hacked right through by the occasional swing of a weapon with a sharp edge? Wouldn't this leave you with bits of hanging armour by the end of a particularly nasty battle?

Spiryt

2012-02-02, 06:04 AM

I don't think that any serious experiments were really made about it, but I don't think it would be really much bigger problem than with most other armors...

In pretty much all lamellars I've seen, exposed leather strip parts are generally really small.

Combined with the fact that individual plate was usually held but at least two cords, and the rigidity of whole construction, even if arrow, sword or something had managed to hit the tiny leather knot in the way to sever it, everything would still hold nicely.

And generally, the very nature of armor is that people will often hit it hard with different objects, so it will get damaged.

AFAIR greater problem with lamellar leather would often actually be hot and humid climate, where armor could quite easily fall apart due to strips getting rotten.

Yora

2012-02-02, 06:11 AM

Its not actually stitched but laced. However, the lacing is very tight and complex, so a failure at one point shouldn't make the entire thing unravel. And if you are using leather straps, then the lines are frequently passing over and under each other, while being firmly pressed together, which should prevent the segments that are pressed down to slip free. Like getting a hold of something with a bullwhip.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_G0-5yykJ9yo/S-ZFrWTYofI/AAAAAAAAAL0/O0G70t06SMg/s1600/Lamellar+armor+Han+Dynasty.jpg
Also, there isn't really that much of the lacing exposed to the outside.
http://wa5.www.artehistoria.jcyl.es/granbat/jpg/AUC29595.jpg

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Nerigawa_hon_kozane_maru_dou.jpg/120px-Nerigawa_hon_kozane_maru_dou.jpg
The second one looks highly decorative, but with so much lacing, a severed string would probably have no effect at all.

Mathis

2012-02-02, 06:16 AM

So, in conclusion it would not make the armour require more maintenance than any other type of armour? Is this because the individual plates are held together by equally individual strips of leather? As in, they are not all inter-connected in a way that in the case of one string being cut entire parts could unravel?

Galloglaich

2012-02-02, 09:44 AM

Pyle was obviously writing this stuff at the end of 19th century, so the whole research about medieval weaponry wasn't quite as developed as we have today.

On the other hand, he quite obviously could have access to something that we don't have anymore - some depictions or remains that got destroyed during World Wars, or whatever.

Anyway, weapons that look somehow like glaive or other polearm with somewhat 'reversed' proportions can be found in medieval art relatively easily, but no one had really heard of m(any) antiques.

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif
http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7176

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=371

This whole topic (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=927&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=glaive&start=0)

Generally we can see depiction of 'choppers' like that, so some rather cleaver like blade on short stick, but I seem to recall some more 'funky' stuff with spikes etc. like guisarme as well. Maybe will find it later.

EDIT: Fixed the link, and one more picture:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=23919&highlight=

Personally, I think it's almost certain that weapons like this did in fact exist, due to the frequency they appear in Medieval art of all types, and all styles. I don't think it's an artistic convention. Spears for example and other polearms are often shown full-length in some of the same paintings.

I think the answer also ties in with the reason Lamellar is made the way it is, you have to look at who was using this kit and how they fought.

Shortened polearms or 'choppers' often appear in the hands of armored heavy-infantry, which you might think of as 'shock' infantry I think these guys are preparing themselves for a hard, close-range, sustained fight rather than for formation fighting. Ship to ship combat, an assault team going over the wall in a siege, a wedge attacking in close-range on the battleffield, that kind of thing.

Conversely I think a lot of lamellar was made for light cavalry and horse- archers, and it's principle purpose is to defend against missiles, and to a lesser-extent, lance-strikes. Mail and later plate harness by contrast are designed more for sustained close-combat. If you look at Japanese armor you'll notice a difference from early armor which was designed more for cavalry warfare, and specifically horse-archery, and the later armor which is designed for more close-in fighting. The latter has fewere exposed laces or lashings, in fact it's often riveted or even made of large plates (often built around Portuguese peascod curiasses for example, I think the Japanese called those 'pigeon breast armor')

Lamellar that is laced together it's perfectly suitible to protect against arrows, in fact I suspect it's a bit better than mail for that purpose, and definitely far easier to repair; but I do believe it's susceptible to repeated cuts and slashes from an edged weapon. But that is not what most Asian cavalry does.

I think it's signfiicant that laced lamellar never became widely popular in Central or Western Europe compared to mail or various forms of plate harness, and in fact it's a reflection of different emphasis in fighting styles.

G

Silus

2012-02-06, 05:31 AM

Ok, it's about 4:30 AM here and I've had swords on the brain the last few days.

Here's my question: Comparing the attributes of the two weapons (Speed, stopping power, weight, ect.), which type of sword is "better": The Scottish claymore or the Japanese katana? (Which has more advantages over the other)

Most of the demonstration videos I've seen on Youtube regarding Eastern vs Western swords give the eastern swords more, er, props. I'm not sure if this is fact or simple bias, but I'd appreciate people weighing in on this.

Norsesmithy

2012-02-06, 09:47 PM

Claymore
http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/123/063/807/cm2J.jpg
or Claymore
http://www.raisonsbrassband.com/images/images_big/w026.jpg
or Claymore?
http://www.bytheswordinc.com/watermark.axd?productid=3762&size=icon

Further, better at what?

One is a sidearm for gun armed infantry, the other two are shock infantry weapons, and on the large side for that.

Whereas the Katana evolved from a sidearm for horse archers to a sidearm for gun armed infantry, and was used as a civilian personal defense implement throughout.

Beyond that, it's kinda hard to say. Generally, it's my opinion that people who dismiss European swords as inferior to Japanese swords are generally overly influenced by the fact that the sword arts of Japan were much better preserved into the modern era than the sword arts of Europe.

Japan had several distinct obstacles to becoming the world's premier swordsmiths and swordsmen, and I suspect that their image as such is mostly due to the fact that their isolation allowed their military, defensive, and industrial arts to languish instead of evolving the sword out of relevance.

Raum

2012-02-06, 11:31 PM

Knaight

2012-02-06, 11:36 PM

Weapons, armor, and tactics evolved together. It's difficult to take pieces from different eras, cultures, or systems and play "what if". A certain show on TV certainly couldn't handle it. :smallwink:

A certain show on TV can't tell the difference between cheap inaccurate modern "reproductions" fit for budget cinema and actual arms and armor, so that isn't surprising at all. For that matter, that show can't seem to even figure out who used what weapons when given narrow, constrained, well recorded situations such as gladiatorial matches.

Silus

2012-02-06, 11:42 PM

Adding to Norsesmithy's comments, it will also depend on your opponents. Are they unarmored? Lightly armored? Or perhaps wearing full 15th century Milanese harness? Are they on horse or foot? How are they armed?

Weapons, armor, and tactics evolved together. It's difficult to take pieces from different eras, cultures, or systems and play "what if". A certain show on TV certainly couldn't handle it. :smallwink:

Let's make this a proper "what if" scenario.

Armor: The equivalent of Samurai armor for each user (In terms of protection, mobility, weight, ect.)

Weapons: One with a two-handed claymore (Image 2 or 3), one with a Japanese katana. Materials used are similar enough to not throw the results in either side's favor (Authentic vs replica arguments and such).

Training: Equal levels of training for respective weapons.

Battlefield: Flat, featureless area, not unlike a gym floor with sufficient grip to prevent slipping. Combat to take place on foot for the entire duration.

A certain show on TV can't tell the difference between cheap inaccurate modern "reproductions" fit for budget cinema and actual arms and armor, so that isn't surprising at all. For that matter, that show can't seem to even figure out who used what weapons when given narrow, constrained, well recorded situations such as gladiatorial matches.

Was hella entertaining though :smallbiggrin:

Storm Bringer

2012-02-07, 03:52 AM

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

thats the ARMA's take on the matter. Quite good, i think (good enough that someone quoted it last time this topic came up)

Spiryt

2012-02-07, 06:18 AM

Here's my question: Comparing the attributes of the two weapons (Speed, stopping power, weight, ect.), which type of sword is "better": The Scottish claymore or the Japanese katana? (Which has more advantages over the other)

As always with those questions, it's really hard to answer simply because you cannot come up with attributes of claymore!

Every sword can be different, and that's why treating labels as 'claymore' to literally is not helpful.

AFA my very limited knowledge about Japanese sword goes, katanas from the same period were indeed somehow 'uniform' even though still every smith would have his own methods etc.

With European, Scottish too, swords of 16th, 17th, 18th you have both baskethilts and two handed swords with big variety of sizes, lengths, blade geometries, weights...

Again, my clue about it is superficial, but still I can easily find antique baskethilts with somehow 'rapier like' blades, and the ones with blades pretty much like Oakeshott XIII type - so spatulate, broad cleavers. And a lot of blades that cannot be really compared with any Oakeshott type.

This picture demonstrates my point pretty well, I guess (http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=19&pos=191)

gkathellar

2012-02-07, 07:24 AM

Here's my question: Comparing the attributes of the two weapons (Speed, stopping power, weight, ect.), which type of sword is "better": The Scottish claymore or the Japanese katana? (Which has more advantages over the other)

Impossible to answer. They both have their own applications. Even if two equally skilled fighters with equal familiarity with one anothers' fighting styles faced off with them, all that would tell you is that one sword is better against the other sword not better in general.

Galloglaich

2012-02-07, 10:39 AM

There are certain qualitative differences.

In most Anglo-American media, the Katana tends to get portrayed as the ultimate weapon. But it's not percieved the same way all over the world, consider for example this comparison with a European longsword on German TV (in two parts):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpEC38sL3iU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hy_A9vjp_s&feature=related

As others have said, it's difficult to make a simple one for one comparison, as others have pointed out Scottish swords in question have a very wide range of actual types, even within the stipulated example. The Japanese swords also vary quite a bit across the Centuries in the types which most in the west would call a Katana (including the Tachi and the no Dachi and various others). But we can look at the differences very broadly in the overall design.

In most test-cutting experiments I've seen the results of, good quality Katanas tend to cut a little better against soft targets like textile covered hay bales. This is because as a curved sword with a very hard edge, in some cases including micro-serrations, they are excellent at draw-cutting. But we also now have plenty of evidence online of the superb test-cutting done with good quality European swords as well. The most obvious difference to people today is that good quality replicas of European swords were much more rare until quite recently, and there were few people good at test-cutting who used European swords. But that has changed now.

This guy for example is very experienced (with a Japanese fencing background) and is using a top quality replica of a European sword (about a $2000 Albion) which is actually pretty close to the real thing, being based very closely on an antique in Italy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ucqArlmpk&feature=related

This is another video of a test cutting with a similar quality replica of a single-handed European sword.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e6x5J7nrKE&list=PLB26F9FF079B4D693&index=5&feature=plpp_video

But the good quality Katanas cut very well, probably slightly better against soft targets. On the other hand, they probably on balance tend to be slightly more fragile. Both types of weapons are of comprable weight for a given size, a 46" longsword weighs as much as a 39" katana, around 2.5 - 3 lbs. I've handled an antique 16th Century 38" basket-hilt claymore which weighs only 2 lbs. A 60" two-handed claymore weighs a bit more, maybe 4 pounds on average, but even that weapon is not nearly as heavy as most cheap replicas are or as depicted on TV. The type of replicas you usually see of these things at Ren Faires and so on can weigh up to 8 lbs, which is well beyond what you could actually fight with in real life.

The main real difference is in length, the hand protection, and the false-edge (two edges). The hand protection makes a huge difference. Basket-hilts like the late era Claymore allow for much more aggresive hands-forward guards. With the older Medieval type swords, the cross confers much more protection both in defense and offense than most people realize. As was pointed out upthread, you have to look at the weapons in the context of the martial arts in which they were used.

In Japanese fencing you don't do a lot of aggressive parrying, you do a lot of voiding and a type of parry known in German fencing as an Abschnieden, a sliding off if you will. With the cross and a more springy blade, you can parry much more aggressively. So in European fencing historically, you do both the yielding type of blocks that you do with the Katana, and much more aggressive types where you basically stuff your opponents attacks with single-time counters, relying on the cross for hand protection and the false-edge for follow-up attacks.

You can do techniques like those you see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc

That cut the guy is doing starting at 0:12 makes use of both the false-edge and the cross. At 0:21 you can see the use of the false edge; when he feels pressure against his initial cut, he can respond by yielding to the pressure, and making an instantaneous cut to the other side. You have simlar yielding counters in Japanese fencing but you have to switch edges, which makes it ever so slightly slower.

The western swords also have more reach, very generally speaking, though as I mentioned the Japanese did have some very long two-handed swords.

You can't really do an equivalency in armour since Europeans didn't really use the type of lamellar armor the Japanese used. Japanese armor itself changed dramatically over the era of the Samurai. In the Medieval era, they used laced lamellar designed chiefly to protect against arrows and spears, which I think is vulnerable to repeated cuts (due to the exposed laces). After encounters with Europeans in the 16th Century they started making much more 'solid' armor which was also more maneuverable for foot combat. The closest equivalent used by the Galloglass and Scottish highlanders is probably mail armor, which is basically invulnerale to sword cuts.

Finally with regard to the Claymore, though it's length could be a liability in close distance, in the European martial arts systems you have a lot of half-swording techniques.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4W9B_Ybmro&feature=related

All in all, both weapons are very effective, as was proven in combat, I think the real difference is the Katana (and related swords) is a bit more specialized.

G

fusilier

2012-02-07, 12:48 PM

I posted this earlier in this thread, so I'm just going to repeat it here:

My attitude towards medieval Japanese warfare is generally formed by a very high-level observation, that the isolated nature of Japan, and therefore Japanese warfare, would have been detrimental to the Japanese when fighting foreigners. The Mongol invasions are difficult to use as a gauge, because of their brief, punctuated nature. The Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century are perhaps more instructive.

I remember reading an account of the Korean invasion which stated that the Japanese found their swords to be ineffectual against the heavy mail worn by Chinese cavalry. This shouldn't be too surprising: I don't believe the Japanese ever used chain mail, so their weapons wouldn't be designed to deal with it.

Spiryt

2012-02-07, 02:00 PM

Japanese did use mail, even though it wasn't all that similar to the rest of the word, and there is not much 'rocket science' in dealing with mail really, so I don't think this is it....

Especially that Japanese 'noble' archery was usually done from low distance, on horse, and as such was optimised towards armor penetration - heavy arrows, heavy bows. That's not bad way to deal with mail, compared to a lot of other stuff.

Armor: The equivalent of Samurai armor for each user (In terms of protection, mobility, weight, ect.)

As mentioned, this is completely imprecise too - Samurai used a lot of different armor, with different combinations of parts and materials...

Without even going into how much it would change trough ages.

Here is article (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html), decent for overwiev as far as I can see.

So "Samurai armor' can mean so many things that it doesn't mean anything without clarification.

Anyway, if I had some hyphotetical duel - dude with two handed claymore vs guy with katana from early Edo period, without armor, just on open meadow, swinging at each other - and if I had to bet, I would bet on claymore guy.

Sheer reach would most probably kill in this case, especially with limited cover and interception from tsuba.

Katana as a lot more portable weapon would have more sense in more cramped space and sudden situations, with two guys just swinging at each other it would be at disadvantage, I would imagine.

Some partial armor, like mail shirt + helmet would probably give nihonto wielder some better chance as well - protection against a lot more strikes, would have better chance at closing the distance and finding space to deal precise strike to unarmored hand, leg etc.

Knaight

2012-02-07, 02:06 PM

I posted this earlier in this thread, so I'm just going to repeat it here:

I remember reading an account of the Korean invasion which stated that the Japanese found their swords to be ineffectual against the heavy mail worn by Chinese cavalry. This shouldn't be too surprising: I don't believe the Japanese ever used chain mail, so their weapons wouldn't be designed to deal with it.

When did mail start seeing meaningful use in China anyways? I've not seen much of it in the periods I've studied, but those periods have a tendency to be pretty early.

Galloglaich

2012-02-07, 03:31 PM

I think the Mongols brought mail in the 13th Century at the latest, it was common in Central Asia, Persia and India by the early Medieval period. Even the Japanese did have some 'real' (riveted) mail armor later in the game if you will, in addition to the wierd light butted stuff they used in some of their lamellar armor panoplies. You can see some in some pre-meiji photos from the 19th Century, I have one in one of my RPG books. But for "unknown reasons" mail was never that popular in Japan; the Chinese used it for certain troops, namely heavy-infantry, which makes sense in my own head because I assume mail was considered good for close-in shock warfare but not ideal against guns or bows (unless worn with a lot of thick textile armor which they also didn't seem to use that much in Japan).

I agree with Spyrit I think I'd rather have the Katana than a two handed claymore if I was in a sudden fight in a bar, but even better I'd rather have the basket-hilt claymore and a buckler or targe - that is a much more defensive weapon system so much safer to survive a fight!

There are allegedly records in the Portuguese national archive of 8 duels between Portuguese sailors or soldiers and Japanese "Samurai" (though no actual evidence that the latter were really Samurai - all we really know is that they were Japanese men armed with swords) from during their occupation of Nagasaki in the 16th Century. I've never seen the original records but from what I've been told, the Portuguese won 7 of 8 of those duels. In these situations their most likely armament were sidesword or rapier with a dagger or buckler for a siderarm.

There are also some documented fights between the Japanese and Dutch, Spanish, and English soldiers or sailors, I believe one or two of those I've posted here. Some were won by the Japanese, some by the Europeans. The Dutch used Japanese mercenaries extensively, and interestingly at the same time the Spanish used some German Landsknechts as well as Aztecs. It sounds like something right out of that silly TV show. There were encounters between all these groups in the Philippines and Indonesia, but I've never gotten hold of any details yet.

In one anecdote I did find on an English ship the Japanese pirates got the drop on the English pirates with sudden attacks (sudden attacks from a sheathed sword - known as Nukitsuke- are part of several Japanese fencing systems, though it also exists in Italian fencing that I'm aware of), and killed half of the English crew, then afterword the Englishmen rallied, and used boarding pikes to force them into a hold and blew them apart with cannon fire.

I've also seen some forensic photos of an incident in the 19th Century when the crew of a French naval vessel were hacked to bits by some Samurai in a village when they failed to bow like all the locals were doing when the Samurai rode into town. Those were real Samurai. It created a diplomatic incident.

G.

razark

2012-02-07, 04:32 PM

My take on the whole katana vs. European sword:

I think that the Boeing 747 makes a much better water filter than the P-51 is as a chicken plucker.

fusilier

2012-02-07, 07:16 PM

Xuc Xac

2012-02-08, 09:05 AM

Generally, it's my opinion that people who dismiss European swords as inferior to Japanese swords are generally overly influenced by the fact that the sword arts of Japan were much better preserved into the modern era than the sword arts of Europe.

The Japanese continued to glamorize and glorify the katana long after it served any practical use and right up to the present day.

After European swords fell out of use, Victorian historians came along and made a lot of stupid assumptions that tainted the martial reputation of European swordsmanship for the past 150 years. These assumptions include "blunt and enormously heavy wall decorations were meant for real battlefield use, so medieval swords were just dull iron clubs" and "people in the 'dark ages' were all morons".

gkathellar

2012-02-08, 09:12 AM

Japanese did use mail, even though it wasn't all that similar to the rest of the word, and there is not much 'rocket science' in dealing with mail really, so I don't think this is it....

They did indeed, and you can see it in how they fought. While Kendo and Edo-period koryu tend to assume an unarmored adversary, Sengoku-period koryu specifically taught a warrior to seek out gaps and weak-points in an opponent's armor, as befits their more warlike time of origin. There is at least one school of koryu that still teaches these techniques, and if I could remember the name of it I could point you to a very nice British documentary which is up on Youtube that shows some of its approach to fighting armored opponents.

Mathis

2012-02-08, 11:37 AM

Is this the documentary you had in mind? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5ncH9sglQ

gkathellar

2012-02-08, 12:53 PM

Is this the documentary you had in mind? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-5ncH9sglQ

It is indeed. There's some fluff in there, but it does showcase one of the oldest surviving Japanese martial arts.

Mathis

2012-02-08, 01:37 PM

I remembered watching something similar a long time ago and thought it might be this one. I recommend that anyone should watch this one to the end because there are some beautiful two man katas (fighting patterns) in the fourth part. You could of course just skip to them, but the entire documentary is quite beautiful.

Matthew

2012-02-08, 07:28 PM

Series on the crusades kicks off tonight on BBC2, presented by Dr Thomas Asbridge; he is a good guy, will be interesting to see whether it is any better than that one on the Normans presented by Professor Robert Bartlett last year.

First episode was excellent, second episode was good, third episode was okay. Not too surprising, Asbridge is probably best known for his work on the first crusade. Big subject to cover in three hours, but a decent overview. On a similar subject anybody ever seen this: Crusader: Fall of Jerusalem (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0063G29FO/)? Saw it in Sainsburys today, but seemed a bit expensive to buy on a whim at £7.99.

Roxxy

2012-02-09, 01:41 AM

The Japanese continued to glamorize and glorify the katana long after it served any practical use and right up to the present day.

After European swords fell out of use, Victorian historians came along and made a lot of stupid assumptions that tainted the martial reputation of European swordsmanship for the past 150 years. These assumptions include "blunt and enormously heavy wall decorations were meant for real battlefield use, so medieval swords were just dull iron clubs" and "people in the 'dark ages' were all morons".I love this post.

Yora

2012-02-09, 08:00 AM

gkathellar

2012-02-09, 12:52 PM

Victorian "historians" and proto-ethnologist apparently were the worst thing that ever happened to science. Almost every stupid myth, that sounds implausible but is widely believed: Someone tracks it down to some victorian guy who invented it.

Indeed. Their most substantive contributions, with a few exceptions, were showing us almost the entire gamut of things one shouldn't do in the social sciences.

No brains

2012-02-09, 06:31 PM

This is in regards to something a few pages back, but I am still curious about it.

It someone were to try to 'silently' kill a sentry, wouldn't a stab to the lungs or diaphragm effectively keep someone from yelling?

Another thing I wonder- do sentries train to find ways to be loud if they are attacked silently? Do some sentries carry some noise-making device from a wind-chime to a beeper to raise alarm when they can't talk? Also, how much noise can someone make by struggling like a fish out of water when head locked from behind?

Spiryt

2012-02-09, 06:58 PM

That's pretty much a medical question than weapons one, though. :smallbiggrin:

I would imagine that amount of noise will always hugely depend on surroundings, acoustics etc.

Ditto with ability to be heard when making certain noise.

I'm pretty sure that floors in 'private' places at least tend to be made 'noisy'.

Roxxy

2012-02-09, 07:38 PM

I'm pretty sure a stab to the diaphragm is something that is actively taught, or at least was at one point. I think I've heard of WW2 British commandos doing it.

Thiel

2012-02-10, 12:55 AM

Another thing I wonder- do sentries train to find ways to be loud if they are attacked silently? Do some sentries carry some noise-making device from a wind-chime to a beeper to raise alarm when they can't talk?
Wireless alarm buttons (For lack of better word) and dead man alarms are fairly common among prison guards and such, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were used by security companies as well.

Telok

2012-02-10, 03:58 AM

Firearms make lots of noise.

The problems arise from sentries having safety-off weapons and getting people to pull the trigger as a reaction to being stabbed or clobbered.

Yora

2012-02-10, 05:03 AM

You wouldn't have the finger on the trigger while not aiming at anything to shot. At least you really shouldn't. That's accidents waiting to happen.

Aux-Ash

2012-02-10, 05:15 PM

This is in regards to something a few pages back, but I am still curious about it.

It someone were to try to 'silently' kill a sentry, wouldn't a stab to the lungs or diaphragm effectively keep someone from yelling?

Yes, they'll manage some gurgling wheezing at best.
However, there's three problems with this. One is that the lungs and the diaphragm both sit comparatively deep and are, as far as the body goes, very well protected. This means that actually injuring those organs are rather difficult.

The second one is that we got two lungs in two separate pleural cavities on each side of the torso and that the diaphragm is a rather large muscle. In order to render them ununsuable you have to depressurize both cavities or cause grave injury to the diaphragm. Again easier said than done. It's one of those things you pull off accidentally but not intentionally.

And three. Even if you do pull it off. You just condemned someone to suffocate/drown in their own blood and chances are they'll know it. That is a very horrific way to die and people who suffer it tend to struggle instinctively a lot. Kicking, struggling, knocking things over, spreading blood just about everywhere (and if you did hit the lungs/diaphragm... there'll be -a lot- of blood) and/or moving towards safety.

Basically... a potentionally very messy and noisy way to kill someone.

Another thing I wonder- do sentries train to find ways to be loud if they are attacked silently? Do some sentries carry some noise-making device from a wind-chime to a beeper to raise alarm when they can't talk? Also, how much noise can someone make by struggling like a fish out of water when head locked from behind?

I might be wrong but I thought sentries worked in pairs, were positioned close to watch outposts, connected by irregular patrols and asked for regular reports for this very reason.
Basically that while you might take one sentry out... chances are his friends will notice his absense very soon.

And for your last question. If they are concious: A lot.

Yora

2012-02-10, 05:25 PM

If I would find myself in such an unfortunate situation and had no formal training on how to best stab a man dead relatively silently, my inuition would say to grab his mouth from behind and either cut his throat or come around with the knife and repeatedly stab him in the chest.
I think with stab wounds in the front of my chest or throat, my instinct would be not to scream so to not make the injuries worth. However the thought of being stabed in the back below my ribs doesn't make me feel quite as squeemish and I think the panic response would be much less. The back is not percieved as a highly vulnerable area, while the front of the chest and neck are pretty much the most.

After all, defeating an enemy is all about breaking the will to fight back and the psychological effect of injuries could make a huge difference.

fusilier

2012-02-10, 09:15 PM

Military sentries are, at least historically have been, instructed not to refrain from firing the guns in an emergency. It's the best way to raise an alarm, and there can be severe penalties if a picket refrained from firing his weapon in fear of giving his position away to the enemy. Of course, pickets have been caught sleeping, or simply surprised/stunned into inaction.

During the siege of the Roman Republic (1849), there's a story of the French finding a way through the siege lines and into the city. I don't have the book in front of me, but the story was that they had found a tunnel, that took them just behind a guard-post. Either the sentry turned around to find a large force of French soldiers behind him, and was quickly convinced to quietly wander away, or the officer making the rounds did something similar . . . Either way, intimidation is sometimes a good way to prevent a sentry from raising an alarm. ;-) Of course, that wasn't really the original question.

Wardog

2012-02-11, 08:03 AM

No brains

2012-02-11, 08:15 AM

Thank you everyone for your input, especially Aux-Ash- I feel that particular post answered me best. :smallsmile:

I've got a question that's been on my mind for a long time, although it's not a weapon/armour question, but rather one of doctrine/leadership/organisation:

In a modern-style army or similar, what is the highest ranking officer that would be expected to directly take part in combat?

("modern-style" means WWII onwards; "army or similar" includes marines etc; "directly take part in combat" means having to shoot people, and not just in an emergency "the base is being over-run" situation).

I frequently wonder that myself. Good question.

hamishspence

2012-02-11, 12:04 PM

TV tropes says Colonel is "the highest rank deployable in the field"

How accurate that is, I don't know. I'm guessing that most of the time if a Colonel shoots somebody it will be an emergency.

Storm Bringer

2012-02-11, 01:51 PM

I've got a question that's been on my mind for a long time, although it's not a weapon/armour question, but rather one of doctrine/leadership/organisation:

In a modern-style army or similar, what is the highest ranking officer that would be expected to directly take part in combat?

("modern-style" means WWII onwards; "army or similar" includes marines etc; "directly take part in combat" means having to shoot people, and not just in an emergency "the base is being over-run" situation).

you could cut that twos ways, the first being "up to captain or maybe major" and the second being "no officer".

I'll explain a bit:

No officer should be having to shoot people except in self defence, because its not the officers job to be shooting people. thier job to to direct the battle, and tell the people whoose job it is to shoot people where to be and which direction to look (the latter is very important to avoid freindly fire.

To take an example, in A bridge too far, they show the american airborune making a river crossing and taking one of the bridges. most of the action shots centre around the major leading the attack, showing him shooting assorted nazis. the Historical major who lead the real life assualt did not fire his rifle during the attack, because he was too busy commanding his troops to bother.

another movie example: we were soldiers. Mel Gibson is playing a Lt Col, and, to my knowledge, in about 2 days of solid fighting, he only personally shoots his gun, on camera, about two or three times. the rest of the time, he;s running around, giving orders, offering adivce, and being briefed about the situation.

speaking form experenice after being voluntold i was the platoon radio operate on two seperate exercises, even a newly minted second LT can spend an hours on patrol, be part of several contacts, and not once fire his weapon. becuase he had better things to do than blat off a few rounds at the enemy, like, for example arrange a flanking movment with a nieghbouring callsign, call in fire support, or replan the mission cos everything we were told in the briefs has just been changed..

that said, plenlty of captians and majors have had to shoot people, becuase the situation demanded that they stop being leaders and start being grunts for a while. If your in a vehicle that is being attacked, you point your weapon at the enemy ahd open up. thier are times when the officers need to devolve command to thier squad leaders, and sit down, shut up and play rifleman for a bit.

Spamotron

2012-02-11, 02:26 PM

Norsesmithy

2012-02-11, 05:03 PM

I remember reading once that for the M16 at least it was standard practice to only load 28 rounds in the 30 round magazines because the clip spring was less stressed that way. The logic being that a jam from a broken spring was more likely to get you killed then being two bullets short.

Is that a particular quirk of the M16's clips or are all combat rifles loaded a little short?

It's an artifact caused by the issue of really old and worn out magazines in training. One of the Marines I know was issued a mag in basic that had "Class of 1986" scratched into it. The mag was older than he was.

Magazines are a consumable item, they aren't supposed to last forever, but to pinch pennies, they are kept until they can't be made to work, at least in non-critical applications.

Old mags aren't ever supposed to be issued to troops in a combat situation, but if your LTs aren't on the ball, they may fail to make sure that the mags you are being issued are good ones, or at least that's what anecdotes around the start of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to indicate (more than a few people ended up in trouble because their peace time officers didn't know to ensure they were being issued good mags, in the early days of the conflict, now its much less of a problem).

More recently, a friend who went through Army officer candidate training discovered that they test the "squad leaders" for the exercises by trying to issue the most worn out broken mags possible, and marking it against you if you don't start to argue with the supply people about it.

Mike_G

2012-02-11, 05:47 PM

I went to boot camp in 1986, and we were trained to load 28 rounds in the 30 round mag for just that reason. Springs wear out. The M16 had been in service for 20 years at that point, and some 20 year old mags were still kiciking around.

Now there are some 45 year old mags kicking around.

I've heard that this isn't a problem these days, but in the late 80's we short loaded. 28 rounds that load is better than 30 that won't.

Roxxy

2012-02-12, 01:50 PM

Wardog

2012-02-12, 01:52 PM

Spiryt

2012-02-12, 02:26 PM

What causes greater bodily harm: getting shot with a .45 revolver, or being stabbed in the same place with a bowie knife? What about getting shot with the revolver or hacked open with a longsword? What about the revolver versus a hatchet blow?

Would it to be correct to say the melee weapons would cause larger, deadlier wounds, or are their physics issues with bullets that I do not know about that would allow them to cause wounds just as deadly as being lacked open?

I believe that this is way to broad question to possibly answer like that.... So many variables, with angles, velocities, body composition...

Generalizing about .45 bullet from, say, Smith & Wesson 625 is somewhat possible - with given bullet, distance and place of hit, effects are going to be somewhat similar.

With longsword (so many different 'longswords' to choose from) no two slashes can really be the same most of the times, with angle, slicing action, different footwork, strength and so on.

Endon the White

2012-02-12, 03:16 PM

You probably get this question a lot, but what are the main differences between a rapier, a long sword, a katana, and a sabre? How do they perform on a horse? In an open battle? Mano-a-mano?

Mike_G

2012-02-12, 03:17 PM

Ah, so I take it all the movies and TV shows (e.g. Stargate) that show e.g. a colonel leading an assault, are complete nonsense then (and essentially another form of "holywood tactics")?

And what about NCOs? Do they get involved in fighting directly, or is it (or should it be) entierly up to the enlisted ranks?

The answer is "it depends."

In theory, an infantry platoon is led by a 2nd lieutenant, the lowest grade of officer. Even he should be giving orders, not shooting, but it's likely he'll be close enough to combat to actively engage. A Company is led by a Captain, who is directing three infantry platoons, plus a weapons platoon and communicating with the higher tiers of command to co-ordinate air or artillery support. He has plenty on his plate without shooting.

Above that, you have Majors and Colonels commanding battalions and regiments, Generals commanding brigades, corps and armies. These guys should never need to touch a trigger.

But, in practice, excrement happens. Units get cut off and everyone becomes a rifleman. Small teams may be led by an officer, and he fights because he's acting like a fire team leader or squad leader. When a Marine platoon helicoptered in to rescue a downed pilot in the former Yugoslavia, the Colonel of the regiment went along. He probably didn't need to be there, but he was, so a guy one rank below General was inserted behind enenmy lines with a single infantry platoon. This is kinda how "Saving Private Ryan" portrays Tom Hanks character. He's a Captain, but instead of commanding a company, he has a squad on a special mission. It's not textbook, but it happens in combat.

As far as NCOs go, on paper, Corporals command fire teams of 2-4 men, and Sergeants command squads of several fire teams. They are still supposed to be leaders first, fighters second, but at that level, it's more like "Smith, you and Jones flank left, Lopez and I will cover you, then you cover us while we move up the middle" kind of command. These guys get shot a lot, so you may well have a PFC commanding a team or even a squad.

And the fact is that no plan survives contact with the enemy, so stuff happens. That's why the officers still carry weapons.

Roxxy

2012-02-12, 03:41 PM

I believe that this is way to broad question to possibly answer like that.... So many variables, with angles, velocities, body composition...

Generalizing about .45 bullet from, say, Smith & Wesson 625 is somewhat possible - with given bullet, distance and place of hit, effects are going to be somewhat similar.

With longsword (so many different 'longswords' to choose from) no two slashes can really be the same most of the times, with angle, slicing action, different footwork, strength and so on.I guess the question is "does getting shot head on with a .45 in, let's say, the abdomen do, on average, more or less damage to the body than getting a large knife jammed in the same area or the region getting split open by a sword?".

Brother Oni

2012-02-12, 03:50 PM

If I would find myself in such an unfortunate situation and had no formal training on how to best stab a man dead relatively silently, my inuition would say to grab his mouth from behind and either cut his throat or come around with the knife and repeatedly stab him in the chest.

I've been told by a Royal Marine commando that they were taught to use the tip of the blade and go in at a diagonal angle into the side of the neck.

The typical hollywood throat slit tends not to take out any major muscles, thus the sentry can still fire his weapon, while the method I was told tends to cause more sudden shock and pain, incapacitating the enemy faster.

Mike_G

2012-02-12, 03:55 PM

You stick the point in the side of the neck, then rip the blade out the front of the neck, cutting the windpipe and major bloodvessels. This will kill anybody.

Dragging the edge across the front of the neck may not cut deep enough. You might open the windpie, but it won't be a guaranteed kill, and he may still kick around, gurgle and make lots of noise.

Spiryt

2012-02-12, 04:00 PM

I guess the question is "does getting shot head on with a .45 in, let's say, the abdomen do, on average, more or less damage to the body than getting a large knife jammed in the same area or the region getting split open by a sword?".

Well, the concept of damage itself is rather problematic.

That said, sword 'spliting open' as producing large slashing wound that ruptured the peritoneum etc. on larger surface would be probably least survivable, in terms of being able to do much to save life - get to the medic, or whatever.

Knife and .45 from handgun would probably be on 'second place' with lethality of each depending on place of the hit.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45%20ACP%20WW%20STHP.jpg

Roxxy

2012-02-12, 05:50 PM

Well, the concept of damage itself is rather problematic.

That said, sword 'spliting open' as producing large slashing wound that ruptured the peritoneum etc. on larger surface would be probably least survivable, in terms of being able to do much to save life - get to the medic, or whatever.

Knife and .45 from handgun would probably be on 'second place' with lethality of each depending on place of the hit.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45%20ACP%20WW%20STHP.jpgWell, how does a bullet deal damage? Is it solely penetration, or are their other factors, such as some sort of shockwave from the impact?

Spiryt

2012-02-12, 06:14 PM

Well, how does a bullet deal damage? Is it solely penetration, or are their other factors, such as some sort of shockwave from the impact?

AFAIU, "shockvawe" is thing of somehow disputed importance.

Most important thing are temporary and permanent cavities - permanent cavity is the rupture in tissue dealt by bullet, and temporary is cavity caused by tissue being moved aside by energy dissipated by the impact between bullet and tissues in actual contact with it.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_topics/wound_ballistics/how_a_high-speed.html

fusilier

2012-02-12, 06:25 PM

When firearms first appeared on the battlefield, surgeons and doctors were at a loss as to how to treat the wounds created by them. They weren't like anything they were used to (knives, swords, arrows, etc.). Even as late as the 16th century there were some pretty bizarre "cures" for gunshot wounds, like pouring boiling oil into the wound. I suspect that there's something significantly different about a gunshot wound that would make it difficult for a simple comparison with other weapons. Although, it should be kept in mind that guns have changed, and high-velocity, small caliber rifle rounds behave different than old, large, lead, black-powder rounds.

Norsesmithy

2012-02-12, 10:37 PM

Talakeal

2012-02-13, 12:29 AM

Ashtagon

2012-02-13, 01:12 AM

Most single pistol bullet wounds don't kill, but neither do most stab wounds. Even from large implements.

Over all, I think you'll find that when you look people who have been killed by large knives and people who have been killed with pistols, that you're going to find that people who are killed with knives will have, on average, far more wounds than the ones who are killed with pistols.

If I had to guess why this is, I'd suppose that it is because bullet wounds often contain torn and detached chunks of tissue, not common in knife or sword wounds.

My guess is that people who are in a contested fight involving knives tend to enter an emotional state 9aka frenzy) in which it is difficult to stop stabbing until they are certain the other person has stopped moving.

Few people have both the training to be accurate enough to hit multiple times with a pistol, and the ability to enter the 'combat mentality' necessary to empty a magazine into someone when not actually in melee range.

Raum

2012-02-13, 08:19 AM

While we are on the subject of disabling people from injury, is passing out from pain a real thing? If so, what causes it, and does it happen to everyone or only certain people?
I hear people talking about passing out from pain, and it happens on TV now and again, but I can't recall ever hearing of anyone passing out from pain in real life, even in some very horrible situations.
I personally have had second and third degree burns over 25% of my body, and (regrettably) didn't feel the least bit like passing out despite the incredible agony.Shock causes it. I don't think what initiates shock is understood all that well so predicting when it will occur is...difficult. But physically you lose lood pressure - I believe due to capilaries dilating for more blood flow...but we've reached the limits of my medical knowledge. Someone else may have more details.

Galloglaich

2012-02-13, 12:57 PM

I think it depends a lot on the knife. I haven't looked at them for a long time but years ago when I was looking at FBI statistics on wounds (for game design purposes), I remember that a large knife blade (8" or more) tended to be extremely lethal, maybe a little less than a shotgun but more than most pistols, whereas a short bladed knife frequently caused a large number of wounds without necessarily high lethality (though sometimes of course, a single stab from a swiss-army knife caused a death).

I remember though coming away with the distinct impression that a bayonett or a hunting knife was one of the most dangerous weapons out there.

And of course, with pistols the statistics were strange as well. The .357 and the .45 seem to be highly lethal compared to the other calibers IIRC. .22 short has a high lethality but the stats are skewed because it was often used for 'execution style' killings to the back of the head and so forth by mobsters and mossad hitmen.

Another big factor is training, especially with more exotic weapons like swords.

Machetes and cheap sword replicas are often used in crimes and (based on an unscientific sampling of anecdotes I've seen) have a fairly low lethality rate, but then the same weapons are used in Rwanda to kill nearly a million people probably by perpetrators who were very familiar with their use as a tool to cut sugar cane; I think this just boils down to how good people are at using the weapon.

With better quality sword replicas when you do test-cutting, you notice the enormous difference that technique makes. If you don't know what you are doing it's hard to cut through a tatami mat even with a nice sword. From my experience, an amateur can rarely even cut through a 2 liter soda bottle, a bad cut will just cause the thing to bounce a way with a small dent while a good cut can slice right through it, drop the top off and leave it still standing with the water still in it.

So I think the lethality of a sword cut could vary enormously depending on who had the weapon. An expert cutting you with a Brescia Spadona or a top quality Katana replica is probably close to 95% lethality with a single cut to almost any part of your body; an unlucky amateur might cut somebody 6 or 7 times with a machete and not do much more than could be fixed with some stitches.

G

EDIT: Another really important thing to considier is location. This is especially true in any pre-industrial setting. A puncture or slash wound which pierces the abdominal cavity is likely to cause infection and death in short order. It's a death sentence. Same for any wound which punctures the lung or the diaphragm, or the esophagus. And even today, wounds which pierce the brain are usually (though not always) lethal.

On the flip-side, wounds to the extremeties, or to the torso which didn't reach any vital organs, could be often treated with some possibility of succes; we know this due to forensic examination of bones in medieval, roman etc. graveyards which show signs of quite serious wounds that have healed and show signs of medical treatment. This is probably one of the reasons that the torso and the head tended to be the most often and best protected by armor - get your skull, rib-cage or guts punctured, you are basically going to die.

And for one more twist to it... One of the differences between a cut from an axe or a sword vs any piercing wound is that with a cut, especially in the hands of a trained fencer, even a wound to the arm or the leg can be lethal, because there is the potential of such massive damage (i.e. severing or partial severing). There are for example many examples in the Norse sagas of men dying immediately after having an arm or leg cut off, and we also see this in Medieval battlefields like at Wisby. On the other hand being shot or stabbed in the arm or leg isnt' likely to kill you, at least not right away, unless you hit an artery or rupture the bone marrow of a major bone like the femur.

One last important factor to consider is penetration. A cut from a longsword could cause a larger wound than most pistol shots, but a cut might be stopped by the rib cage or the skull, a pistol shot will be more likely to just punch right through, so more likely to reach a vital organ.

Talakeal

2012-02-13, 03:43 PM

Shock causes it. I don't think what initiates shock is understood all that well so predicting when it will occur is...difficult. But physically you lose lood pressure - I believe due to capilaries dilating for more blood flow...but we've reached the limits of my medical knowledge. Someone else may have more details.

So it is fainting caused by the lack of blood pressure associated with shock rather than a nervous or psychological response to the pain itself? That makes a lot more sense.

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 04:10 PM

How fast could you reload this:

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/uploads/lebel1915/LABEL1915-023778_5.jpg

with 6 rounds of ammunition, without a speed loader?

What about this:

http://www.leverarms.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/500x500/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/m/a/marlin_model_308_mxlr_lever_action_rifle.jpg

With 5 rounds of ammunition? 8 Rounds?

What about this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/ShotgunAction.JPG

With 2 rounds?

Given a selection of Wild West and Victorian era firearms, what would you pick to use as a sniper rifle?

These questions (and the earlier ones regarding bullets versus melee weapons) are for a Pathfinder project. I want to advance the tech level to where everybody has multiple shot firearms, but keep the magic heavy heroic nature of D&D. Sure, nobody is wearing armor and everybody has guns, but there are still wizards, dragons, elves, dwarves, clerics who go adventuring (Don't you love the idea of a pistol preacher?), and a lot of other things one expects out of D&D. The technology is just a bit different.

Thiel

2012-02-13, 05:17 PM

Given a selection of Wild West and Victorian era firearms, what would you pick to use as a sniper rifle?

Mauser 98 (http://world.guns.ru/rifle/repeating-rifle/de/mauser-9-e.html) or its predecessor the Mauser 89 Belgian.
There really isn't any competition.

Yora

2012-02-13, 05:59 PM

I personally have had second and third degree burns over 25% of my body, and (regrettably) didn't feel the least bit like passing out despite the incredible agony.

:smalleek:

If that doesn't do it, I don't know what would. :smallwink:

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:02 PM

Mauser 98 (http://world.guns.ru/rifle/repeating-rifle/de/mauser-9-e.html) or its predecessor the Mauser 89 Belgian.
There really isn't any competition.Oh, yes there is competition. Lee Enfield, mate.

What about one that isn't bolt action?

Spiryt

2012-02-13, 06:07 PM

Enfield can barely fit the end of Victorian era, mostly used already in 20th century.

Sure, nobody is wearing armor

Against revolver and shotgun linked, solid cloth or plate armor would be extremely valuable though.

Not really against rifle, but 2 out of 3 is not bad :smallwink:

Thiel

2012-02-13, 06:07 PM

Oh, yes there is competition. Lee Enfield, mate.
Wasn't introduced until 1904 which disqualifies it since it wasn't around during the Victorian era.

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:14 PM

Enfield can barely fit the end of Victorian era, mostly used already in 20th century.I know. I just have an investment in the Mauser/Lee Enfield debate, so I had to bring it up. The Mauser is a great rifle, no doubt, but I love the Lee Enfield. I'm not looking to include bolt action rifles at all for stylistic reasons.

Against revolver and shotgun linked, solid cloth or plate armor would be extremely valuable though.

Not really against rifle, but 2 out of 3 is not bad :smallwink:I don't debate it, but I don't really want to include armor, again for style reasons.

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:17 PM

Wasn't introduced until 1904 which disqualifies it since it wasn't around during the Victorian era.I know. I don't really want a bolt action at all, so the Lee Enfield is out, too. I just feel it necessary to bring it up when the Mauser is mentioned.

Granted, Victorian isn't a set in stone rule. I have tech from the World War 1 era, and even a few later bits. I just don't want bolt action rifles, which is why I capped things at before they got popular when asking what the best sniper rifle would be.

Spiryt

2012-02-13, 06:20 PM

If not bolt action, it can get kind of difficult...

I'm not good at it, but I'm pretty sure that before breech loading no one really bothered with actual sniping.

paddyfool

2012-02-13, 06:20 PM

Given a selection of Wild West and Victorian era firearms, what would you pick to use as a sniper rifle?

If you advance the timescale to Edwardian times, there was a unique event in the Summer Olympics of 1908: the 1000 yards free rifle. The winner was unusually old, won by a fair margin, and used the following custom rifle: (http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/summer/1908/SHO/mens-free-rifle-1000-yards.html)

Joshua Millner was 61 years old, having started his shooting career in 1871 and distinguishing himself on the first British Palma team in 1876. Representing the Irish Ulster Rifle Association, he used a match rifle based on a Mannlicher action with a British service barrel and a Blood telescopic sight. He used a British .303 cartridge with a pointed 225-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,200 feet/second (670.5 mps). Millner shot in the "back position", lying on his back with his feet pointed at the target, knees drawn up and the rifle supported by his feet.

Not sure what the actual technical bits really mean, but it seems like an interesting bit of history...

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:23 PM

That is also a bolt action.

Well, what about a modified hunting rifle? Hunting rifles get modified for sniping duty all the time, after all. Looking through Victorian and Old West hunting rifles, what would you pick for this duty?

fusilier

2012-02-13, 06:28 PM

Wasn't introduced until 1904 which disqualifies it since it wasn't around during the Victorian era.

The Lee-Enfield (aka Magazine Lee-Enfield) was introduced in 1895 -- the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield was introduced in 1904.

The 1886 Lebel, 1891 Mosin-nagant, 1891 Carcano, 1888 Commission rifle, various Mausers throughout the 1890s, 1888/1895 Steyr Mannlicher rifles, Krag-Joergensen rifles, etc -- all the new smokeless powder, small caliber, high-velocity rifles, are all comparable in terms of accuracy. It really comes down to personal preference. Some of them would be a bit difficult to fit a telescopic site to, although I believe it's possible for all of them.

However, these are really "late 19th century" practically WW1 weapons. It might be better if we limit ourselves to black-powder weapons?

Hades

2012-02-13, 06:30 PM

The iconic "Wild West" choice would be some sort of Sharps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharps_Buffalo_Rifle), surely? Or one of those crazy huge black-powder elephant guns.

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:34 PM

The iconic "Wild West" choice would be some sort of Sharps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharps_Buffalo_Rifle), surely? Or one of those crazy huge black-powder elephant guns.That is the sort of thing I am looking for, yes. The Sharps is nice, but what about the crazy huge large game rifles? Would they make good sniping weapons?

fusilier

2012-02-13, 06:37 PM

Reloading times

I would take a look at the GURPS Hi-Tech book (3rd edition is what I have, but I assume 4th edition has the same info). They treat a wide variety of loading times, and give times for reloading.

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:39 PM

Don't have the money to spend on a book for an RPG I don't play just for reloading times. I'd just like to know the IRL times, and I'll work with that.

paddyfool

2012-02-13, 06:40 PM

This article may be helpful. (http://www.thehistorychannelclub.com/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/54/civil-war-snipers) As you want a muzzle loader, it would seem that the Whitworth could be what you're looking for. EDIT: Or giants like the Leonard or the Wells.

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:44 PM

fusilier

2012-02-13, 06:48 PM

That is the sort of thing I am looking for, yes. The Sharps is nice, but what about the crazy huge large game rifles? Would they make good sniping weapons?

There are a couple of different "Sharps" though. Early paper cartridge versions were the primary weapon of the Sharpshooter regiments during the American Civil War -- the cavalry carbine version had been standard issue to the cavalry since the 1850s.

The rifle was converted to .50-90 in the 1870s, which was considered to be a rather powerful round at the time, and used in buffalo hunting. There was a special variant of the Sharps that could fire the more powerful .50-140 round (it could also load and fire the standard .50-90).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50-140_Sharps

(NB: GURPS Hi-Tech was also useful here)

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 06:51 PM

I'm liking the Sharps .50-90 quite a bit.

Hades

2012-02-13, 06:53 PM

That is the sort of thing I am looking for, yes. The Sharps is nice, but what about the crazy huge large game rifles? Would they make good sniping weapons?

In some brief poking around, it looks like the long-range big game rifles (Holland & Holland Royal Double Express, etc.) are a bit late for the period you want, while the earlier ones (Greener Elephant Rifle, etc.) went for massive stopping power at relatively close range.

I'm liking the Sharps .50-90 quite a bit.
According to GURPS Hi-Tech, about 1/4 of these came from the factory with a 6x telescopic sight, so that may be the way to go.

fusilier

2012-02-13, 06:57 PM

The Sharps-Borchardt Model 1878, seems to have been popular for long range shooting at the time, and it could use a variety of cartridges. If that's too late, then probably an 1874 Sharps.

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 07:06 PM

Endon the White

2012-02-13, 07:14 PM

You probably get this question a lot, but what are the main differences between a rapier, a long sword, a katana, and a sabre? How do they perform on a horse? In an open battle? Mano-a-mano?

gkathellar

2012-02-13, 08:24 PM

You probably get this question a lot, but what are the main differences between a rapier, a long sword, a katana, and a sabre? How do they perform on a horse? In an open battle? Mano-a-mano?

This question is huge, and a lot of the answer depends on how you're defining any of those weapons. The quick and easy is that rapiers are civilian weapons, meant chiefly for unarmored combat off the battlefield. A "typical" European long sword or an Edo-period standardized katana is a battlefield weapon, designed for a greater variety of combat situations. Sabers, depending on what constitutes a saber on any given day, either straddle that line or go over to the civilian side of it.

Endon the White

2012-02-13, 08:33 PM

So rapiers are dueling weapons, long swords and katanas have basically the same function, and sabers are used in dueling and war?

Raum

2012-02-13, 08:55 PM

So rapiers are dueling weapons, long swords and katanas have basically the same function, and sabers are used in dueling and war?I think gkathkellar is saying the terms are imprecise at best. A "saber" for example could be anything from a fairly heavily curved blade to straight...with a lot of variation in between. Even "katana" covers a lot of variation...though probably not as much as the European swords.

Weapons, like armor, evolved in context of the cultures and wars which used them. Those in common use tended to be very good for their intended purpose. But cultures, wars, and uses differed. Japan was isolated while large portions of Europe saw wars lasting years, decades, and even a century (the "Hundred Years War" though calling it a hundred years of war might be more accurate).

Consequently, Japan appears static but changes like an earthquake when change does occur. Europe changed almost constantly by comparison. Those changes are reflected in weapons as well as culture.

Endon the White

2012-02-13, 08:58 PM

Okay, thanks for the help. Do you know anywhere to go where I could find the evolution of these swords?

Roxxy

2012-02-13, 09:07 PM

Okay, thanks for the help. Do you know anywhere to go where I could find the evolution of these swords?I'd try to get a copy of The Book of Swords by Hank Reinhardt. It gives a very, very good overview of what different types of swords are for.

Raum

2012-02-13, 09:20 PM

Oakeshott's typology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology) is pretty good at showing differences between European swords. Also check out My Armoury (http://www.myarmoury.com/features.html) for some online references.

fusilier

2012-02-13, 10:10 PM

I'm not using real life firearms in the game itself, I'm looking for baselines to form the rules around.

I think I'll go with the later models of Sharps rifle. They seem to do what I need to get done.

Would you make loading an 8 shot lever action rifle a move action or full round action? What about a revolver with a swing out cylinder and one of those extractors that can remove all the shell casings at once?

Your questions are too game specific for this thread. I directed you to GURPS, because they break everything down into seconds, and seem to be pretty realistic.

If I remember correctly, for a swing revolver with an auto shell ejector:

1 second to swing out the cylinder, 1 second to eject the cartridges, 1 second to insert each new cartridge (but it may take a second to get them in hand). 1 second to close and ready the revolver. Now, I'm sure there are people who could do it faster than 8-9 seconds, even without a speed loader.

Loading breechloaders, one round at a time, typically takes a second per round, but there is time to collect the round (or handful of rounds), and time to ready the rifle for loading then more time to ready it for firing.

Roxxy

2012-02-14, 12:47 AM

Your questions are too game specific for this thread. I directed you to GURPS, because they break everything down into seconds, and seem to be pretty realistic.

If I remember correctly, for a swing revolver with an auto shell ejector:

1 second to swing out the cylinder, 1 second to eject the cartridges, 1 second to insert each new cartridge (but it may take a second to get them in hand). 1 second to close and ready the revolver. Now, I'm sure there are people who could do it faster than 8-9 seconds, even without a speed loader.

Loading breechloaders, one round at a time, typically takes a second per round, but there is time to collect the round (or handful of rounds), and time to ready the rifle for loading then more time to ready it for firing.What thread do I go to to ask the GURPS players?

Joran

2012-02-14, 02:34 AM

I'm not using real life firearms in the game itself, I'm looking for baselines to form the rules around.

I think I'll go with the later models of Sharps rifle. They seem to do what I need to get done.

Would you make loading an 8 shot lever action rifle a move action or full round action? What about a revolver with a swing out cylinder and one of those extractors that can remove all the shell casings at once?

If you have access to Hulu, Top Shot is a shooting competition on History Channel with trained shooters. The elimination challenge (the last part) on this episode has the contestants shooting a .22 revolver with no speed loaders, but picking up ammo from a box on a table. You can time their reloads to see how fast they are. Roughly it seems like 1 second to swing and eject and 1 second per bullet, but I don't have a stopwatch.

http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/videos/top-shot-2-catch-22?cmpid=MRSS_Hulu_HIS#top-shot-2-catch-22

For a Winchester rifle, they had an elimination challenge here that loads three rounds, again from a box on a table. Roughly seems like 1 second per round.

http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/videos/top-shot-the-good-the-rat-and-the-ugly?cmpid=MRSS_Hulu_HIS#top-shot-the-good-the-rat-and-the-ugly

fusilier

2012-02-14, 03:26 AM

What thread do I go to to ask the GURPS players?

Not actually sure, but when you used terms like "move action" or "full round action" -- those sound very game specific.

Steve Jackson Games (http://www.sjgames.com) sells GURPS hi-tech 3rd ed. cheap, and you may be able to get it cheaper somewhere else. I know you didn't want to buy anything, but you're asking for very detailed knowledge that's all been worked out in that book. It provides the information to take almost any kind of weapon, and determine how long reload time will be. Like many GURPS books it provides background and other general information, not just information specific to the GURPS "universe". I know the economy is rough, but if you are really interested in this sort of information, 10 USD isn't much to ask.

I don't know of any other sources, other than asking people who have experience. However, what most people tend to focus on is the "fastest" time they've heard of, rather than average times.

I actually find GURPS books to be very good introductions to subjects, especially historical ones, filling in details that are often overlooked in other studies. Good bibliographies, too. They're not perfect, but can actually make a pretty good starting point for serious study.

Joran

2012-02-14, 03:36 AM

Not actually sure, but when you used terms like "move action" or "full round action" -- those sound very game specific.

She mentioned Pathfinder, which has a combat turn of 6 seconds, just like D&D and D20 Modern.

D20 Modern has move action to reload a box magazine/speed loader and a full round action to load an internal magazine, but it seems implausible to load a Winchester up to 12 rounds in 6 seconds without some sort of strip speed loader.

For it to be a non-full round action, the person needs to be able to plausibly load the firearm and fire in 6 seconds. Outside of single-loading a round and immediately firing (more likely with a rifle) or using a speed loader, I don't think it's plausible in real life except for the break-action shotgun.

BTW, to keep it in real life, this kind of broke my mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giSaNiQ-Wb4

8 rounds, 1 target in 1 second. 8 rounds, 4 targets in 1.06 seconds. 6 rounds, reload, 6 rounds in 2.99 seconds.

fusilier

2012-02-14, 03:46 AM

She mentioned Pathfinder, which has a combat turn of 6 seconds, just like D&D and D20 Modern.

D20 Modern has move action to reload a box magazine/speed loader and a full round action to load an internal magazine, but it seems implausible to load a Winchester up to 12 rounds in 6 seconds without some sort of strip speed loader.

I agree it would take longer, at least twice as long. However, D20 combat is much more abstract, so personally I wouldn't sweat it. I can understand taking a turn to reload, but any more than that and it starts to disrupt game play, and can get boring. Even for a matchlock musket, I say you should only ever spend a turn reloading (NB: this is my opinion for D&D games and their derivatives, other games can handle combat differently which would allow for many turns of reloading).

No brains

2012-02-14, 07:27 AM

Okay, thanks for the help. Do you know anywhere to go where I could find the evolution of these swords?

http://www.thearma.org/medsword.htm
This book has a pretty nice family tree of western swords. It's a pretty good read too and definitely worth buying. I'll see if I can get to a scanner so I can upload the image.

Edit: Whoops! I'm a moron. The tree is right here.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1366&bih=622&tbm=isch&tbnid=KD6QFRvfig0o-M:&imgrefurl=http://www.thearma.org/SwordForms.html&docid=ZO1-_95LrrBr6M&imgurl=http://www.thearma.org/SwordTree.jpg&w=530&h=710&ei=UVM6T9L3D4q_gAf48fGZCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1053&vpy=249&dur=1779&hovh=260&hovw=194&tx=101&ty=278&sig=100810560679697583225&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=99&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:22,s:0

Matthew

2012-02-14, 07:34 AM

Oh, cool. Did not realise they had updated that article!

Old Version (http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm#Medieval%20&%20Renaissance%20Sword%20Forms%20and%20Companion%2 0Implements)

Galloglaich

2012-02-14, 10:31 AM

One of the principle differences between a saber, particularly a saber with a curved blade, and any other kind of sword, is that the saber excels at the draw-cut, and making a draw -cut from horseback is much easier to hold on to the weapon than making a percussive cut (more like an axe).

This is also why many sabers including the katana and the tachi often feature curved grips or handles, this makes it easier to hold on to the weapon when riding by and cutting someone.

So sabers in general are specialized for the ride-by attack, making one or more cuts and then keep going. The speed of a horse increases the speed of the sword on impact between 50-100%, when two horses are coming directly at each other this speed is doubled yet again. This makes it hard to hold on to the sword, thus the saber is preferred, especialy for light cavalry.

http://images.goantiques.com/dbimages3/CVL2299/CVL2299troop047.jpg
Horsemen who are normally armed with sabers will also carry them when dismounted, and use them for personal protection, and their sabers had a dual-purpose. A good example is the famous 1796 light cavalry saber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1796_light_cavalry_sabre) of the British, which has a pronounced curve and is based on Hungarian Szabla and various Asian cavalry sabers, notbaly the Indian Tulwar. Early sabers had virtually no hand protection, making them particularly unsuitible for sustained fighting, but European varieities included hand protection especially the knucklebow, which is included on thhe 1796 saber and also appeared on Indian Tulwars in the 18th and 19th Century.

http://www.nam.ac.uk/microsites/war-horse/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/101669-540x380.jpg
Cavalry intended to fight in a sustained manner, i.e. heavy cavalry (up to and including cuirassers in the 19th and early 20th Century) are often armed with straight, double-edged cutting swords instead, like the Schiavona or the Pallasch. The British 1796 heavy cavalry sword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1796_Heavy_Cavalry_Sword) (sometimes also referred to as a saber) is a straight bladed sword (technically a 'backsword' in the English paralance) based on the Polish Pallasch sword. On the principle that strait-bladed, double edged sword is better for sustained fencing.

One feature of sabers is that they are failry simple to use, the training is straightforwrd and the repetoire of techniques for saber is relatively small. Large numbers of troops were trained in the use of these weapons in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Almost all sabers are derived from the very ancient Chinese Dao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_(sword)), which dates back to the Bronze Age, though sabers did not become widespread in either Europe OR the Middle East until the Renaissance period.

The rapier, longsword and katana by contrast are all weapons which require substantial training to use effectively. They were always used by at least somewhat elite fighters, not by the rank and file.

The Katana is a specialized saber derived from the larger and more robust Tachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachi), which was the sidearm for cavalry archers, and later became effectively a personal defense weapon and a status symbol of the Samurai and Aristocracy classes in Japan, and during the Edo period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_period) (1603-1868) where there were few major field battles in Japan, it was used mostly in personal duels, disputes, and small unit actions. It was specialized for this role, as were the martial arts developed for it. So you could say that the katana was a battlefield weapon which evolved into a specialized dueling weapon, but retained elements of both. The katana is a cutting or more precisely, a slicing or draw-cutting specialist, which is also pretty good at thrusting. The katana has very little hand protection, featuring only the tsuba, similar to a roundel, so defense emphasizes voiding (dodging) and only limited, very careful parrying, and the weapon is normally held in off-line guards. A lot of techniques emphasize killing with the initial cut while drawing the weapon (nukitsuke). The Katana dates back to the 12th Century but did not become really widespread until the 13th-14th.

The longsword was a battlefield sidearm which was also used for personal protection and dueling or judicial combat. It starts out as the sidearm for knights and for front-line militia and professional heavy-infantry, men who were expected to stand and fight. The advantages the weapon gave as a side-arm over shorter and less sophisticated alternatives made it very popular among knights, militia, and professional infantry, and it became a prestige weapon in Europe. It is equally oriented for thrusting and cutting, with a secondary ability at slicing or draw-cuts and blunt trauma using the pommel and the cross at close range. It also has two edges for advanced high-speed fencing techniques, substantial hand protection in the form of a cross and often had other complex-hilt features like a sidering, finger rings or even a knucklebow. This allows the longsword to be used much more aggressively than a katana and single-time counters such as parry-thrusts and parry-cuts are a common feature of longsword fencing. But it takes a long time, several months at the very least, under a qualified instructor, to learn to use the weapon effectively (same as for the Katana). Like the katana, the longsword is a battlefield weapon which was adopted for dueling, but (very generally speaking) most longswords were less specialized for the duel and remained versatile dual -purpose weapons. The longsword dates back to the 12th or 13th Century but did not become widespread until the 14th.

http://martialhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/agrippa-rapier-dagger.png
The rapier evolved as a specialized dueling weapon in the 17th Century, derived from 16th Century civilian swords called Spada De lato ("sidesword") or Espada Ropera ("sword of the robes") which were specifically desigined for carrying around in civilian circumstances. The rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon with a secondary slicing or draw-cutting ability, and a tertiary chopping or percussive cutting capability in some cases (most early 'transitional' rapiers and the so-called "sideswords" can cut this way). The fencing system developed for the rapier first in Spain and Italy, and later in France, Germany, and other parts of Europe, was so effective that the weapon became adopted for the battlefield as well. Rapiers were usually used in conjunction with a dagger or a small shield called a buckler; or sometiems even a cloak in the off-hand. Most rapiers have formidable complex hilt features which protect the weapon-hand very well, leading to an emphasis on more aggressive hands-forward guards. Blocking daggers and the so-called 'main gauche' were also made with substantial hand protection. So the rapier is a specialized dueling weapon which was also adapted for battle. Rapiers designed for the battlefield tended to be much more robust.

All three weapon types weighed about the same. Rapiers and longswords both have very good reach, rapiers are not good in close range but that is why they are used with daggers so often. Longswords are pretty good at all ranges, though a dagger is carried for very close fighting. Sabers are very good at short and medium range, Katanas have a bit more effective range than a typical saber but are also short to medium range weapons; the wakisashi or the tanto knife are used when very close-in.

G

GungHo

2012-02-14, 02:30 PM

That is the sort of thing I am looking for, yes. The Sharps is nice, but what about the crazy huge large game rifles? Would they make good sniping weapons?
You run into some ballistics issues with those. Even a strong .45-70 rolling block that's proofed for smokeless powder pressures is going to be a parabola. You're not going to see flattened out "sniper-like" trajectories until you get into high velocity cartridges, which the huge game rifles usually aren't unless you're dealing with a modern magnum. I'm not saying they aren't accurate, but for precision shooting, you're going to have to be familiar w/ the ballistics of your round. Most period rifles have ladder sights to help with this, but understand that those sights make a lot of assumptions based on the "standard" load.

No brains

2012-02-14, 05:01 PM

I had a thought and I was wondering if anyone ever thought something similar:

Is there a hierarchy of hand weapons that sets different threat levels to different weapons? If there are two people of equal training (or lack of training) in their chosen weapons, is there a clear advantage to one fighter?

For example: if two people are fighting and one has a sword and another has a knife, the person with the sword is usually at the advantage due to the benefits of reach and wounding capability, right?

One thought I had was that: "Generally, the pointer a weapon- the greater advantage (to a certain point)." I thought of this because a sword is "more pointy" in that is has a greater cutting surface than a knife, but a great sword isn't that much better than a sword. One problem I have with this is that I can't find a good way to place clubs and other bludgeons on this list, because I don't know how well someone with a staff or a club could fight a person with a knife. (I imagine the club might be equal to the knife in advantage, but I'm not certain of a staff.)

So are their any rules or guidelines like this outside of my bored, laundry-doing head?

Galloglaich

2012-02-14, 05:15 PM

It's an interesting question. But there are no hard and fast rules that I'm aware of. Very generally speaking, the longer weapon has a big initial advantage. If this weapon is also very effective at causing serious wounds, then this is a serious advantage, but it does get tricky.

So for example, if you have spear with a very sharp blade which can cut as well as pierce, and the other guy has a knife, all other things being equal there is a good chance you will kill or maim hiim with your first attack. So you do have an edge, arguably. But if you miss or fail to cause a disabling injury, and he gets inside your range, you are in trouble.

Conversely, if you have a light broom stick, and the other guy has an 8" bowie knife, you still have a good chance of getting the first hit in, but since you are not very likely to kill or disable him with the first hit or thrust, once he closes the range ... you are in real trouble, in fact you are arguably at a serious disadvantage in this scenario. It's the same if you have that same nice spear from the first example, and your opponent is wearing a mail haubergeon and a helmet. Much harder to hurt him.

Other factors which are relevant: how much space is there, how fast are both opponents (i.e. how fast on their feet).

Swords are very good general purpose weapons because they are fast (in real life anyway if not in films!) decent at long range and decent at short range, and excel in the middle range. But a sword is still at a disadvantage against a spear out in the open, and at a disadvantage against a dagger close-in (like say, in a bathroom stall or inside of a car...).

People tend to underestimate how dangerous daggers are. At close range, a dagger is incredibly fast, you can stab someone over and over and over... and if the dagger is strong enough not to break (a lot of folding knives and kitchen knives break pretty easily under such violent use) and of a decent length, each stab has a good chance of being a very serious and / or lethal wound.

Blunt instruments like maces are still pretty deadly. A real flanged mace can shatter a skull with one blow. And they are not easy to block. Their only real draw-back is that like all hafted weapons (including spears and axes) if they get into a bind or you get very close, they can be grabbed by the haft, and immobilized. (An immobilized knife or sword by contrast can still slice.)

I think one of the biggest 'hidden' advantages of swords generally speaking is that they are much more dangerous / tricky to grab. You can grab them, they show you how to do this in the manuals and I've seen demonstratoins of grabbing sharp swords with bare hands using these techniques. But unless you are well trained, trying to grab a sword blade is likely to just leave you with shredded and / or amputated hands. You see in forensic reports people being killed by edged weapons usually have 'defensive wounds' to their hands, the grisly reality of warfare with hand-weapons is that people who are in imminent risk of dying (or in the process of dying) will grab whatever they can. That is harder to do to a naked blade.

G.

Hades

2012-02-14, 05:21 PM

George Silver, in his 1599 Paradoxes of Defence, created an interesting hierarchy of weapons:

Of the vantages of weapons in their kinds, places, & times, both in private and public fight.

First I will begin with the worst weapon, an imperfect and insufficient weapon, and not worth the speaking of, but now being highly esteemed, therefore not to be unremembered. That is, the single rapier, and rapier and poniard.

The single sword has the vantage against the single rapier.

The sword and dagger has the vantage against the rapier and poniard.

The sword & target has the advantage against the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard.

The sword and buckler has advantage against the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard.

The two handed sword has the vantage against the sword and target, the sword and buckler, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard.

The battle axe, the halberd, the black-bill, or such like weapons of weight, appertaining unto guard or battle, are all one in fight, and have advantage against the two handed sword, the sword and buckler, the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard.

The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike.

The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons, the short staff, the Welch hook, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of vantage excepted, yet are too weak for two swords and daggers or two sword and bucklers, or two rapiers and poniards with gauntlets, because they are too long to thrust, strike, and turn speedily. And by reason of the large distance, one of the sword and dagger-men will get behind him.

The Welch hook or forest bill, has advantage against all manner of weapons whatsoever.

Yet understand, that in battles, and where variety of weapons are, among multitudes of men and horses, the sword and target, the two handed sword, battle axe, the black bill, and halberd, are better weapons, and more dangerous in their offense and forces, than is the sword and buckler, short staff, long staff, or forest bill. The sword and target leads upon shot, and in troops defends thrusts and blows given by battle axe, halberds, black bill, or two handed swords, far better than can the sword and buckler.

The morris pike defends the battle from both horse and man, much better than can the short staff, long staff, or forest bill. Again the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, and sword & target, among armed men and troops, by reason of their weights, shortness, and great force, do much more offend the enemy, & are then much better weapons, than is the short staff, the long staff, or the forest bill.

Make of that what you will, but note that he really, really doesn't like the rapier, or rapier fencers, and is writing for a particular time, place, and audience. See the wiktenauer article on him (George Silver (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/George_Silver)) for more information.

Galloglaich

2012-02-14, 05:27 PM

Spiryt

2012-02-14, 05:30 PM

If one can grab the one handed sword or mace haft, one can also very likely try to grab the arm that's holding it though.

Especially considering that he could grab clothing most of the time.

Agai, in the situation like that something like mace can become pretty useless, while arm with sword can still try some stab/draw cut.

But the problem in theoretical stuff like that is that sword =/= sword.

Talking about even, say, European ones about ~ 1350 we will have a lot of different swords with different capabilities.

No brains

2012-02-14, 06:07 PM

As much as I personally hate it, we should probably cater to ignorance when presented with ambiguous terms.

Let's say from now on that in the absence of finer specifications, 'sword' will refer to the knightly cruciform sword with which almost everybody is familiar with.

Also, when people say 'claymore' they're probably referring to the literal translation of the name, i.e. the big sword.

Would this help or hurt this thread?

Endon the White

2012-02-14, 06:31 PM

Wow. Thanks a lot Galloglaich, that was a very nice overview of the subject. Unfortunately, your excellent answers have yielded even more questions.

I've heard that the sword was a good back up weapon, but was more a sign of status. While an axe can cleave wood and bone, a knife can cut flesh and meat, and a spear has any number of uses, a sword is pretty much only useful for combat. So wearing a sword identified you as a fighter, and a moderately skilled one at that. Also, a sword has a lot of metal to it, much more than a dagger or a spear. Which made it a lot more expensive to produce, especially in Japan, where they have no iron at all. Is this a fairly accurate summary?

And you said that in combat, rapiers would often be wielded with a dagger. This seems curious. I thought duel wielding was a wild and unorthodox strategy, and only really works in video games. I would think a rapier and dagger could just be plowed through with a sword or mace? How could a rapier and dagger put up an effective defense?

Knaight

2012-02-14, 07:59 PM

Yeah aside from Silver's rapier prejudice, it's interesting that he seems to be saying that sword and buckler is better in a one-on-one fight but sword and target (a larger shield) is better in an open battle with multiple opponents. Which does also make sense to me. And how he talks about fighting in different types of scenarios, mounted and on foot. Good stuff..

G

He is also very fond of shorter polearms, though that makes a lot of sense, going by my experience. They're remarkably intuitive (though not for everyone*) to use in a limited fashion, and have a lot going for them past the basics.

*It seems that most people can at least get the basics down for most everything else, but some people really have a hard time with pole arms, particularly when they ever have to do anything involving sliding one hand along the shaft - which is basically all the time.

And you said that in combat, rapiers would often be wielded with a dagger. This seems curious. I thought duel wielding was a wild and unorthodox strategy, and only really works in video games. I would think a rapier and dagger could just be plowed through with a sword or mace? How could a rapier and dagger put up an effective defense?
You have two hands, you should be using both of them - period. If you have a single sword, then at the very least make sure you have a dagger, shield, or even cloak, because the new options you have in regard to blocking and controlling your opponent's weapons may well save your life. That said, the use of two weapons where both are used in a highly offensive way at the same time, which is what most people think of when they hear "dual wielding" very much is from video games.

As for it being unorthodox - usually, if you were using a dagger in your off hand it was for defense. Shields tend to be better at that, and given that most combat was in battlefield situations they tended to see heavy use. Those that didn't have shields could very much carry around a proper two handed weapon, which is almost guaranteed to be better.

Matthew

2012-02-14, 08:39 PM

fusilier

2012-02-14, 11:19 PM

Somewhere (possibly in an Osprey book now I think of it) I read that the replacement of the tachi with the katana coincided with an increase in relative numbers of such swords and a shifting emphasis from cavalry to infantry warfare. Can anybody confirm or deny that?

I seem to remember reading something similar, but can't think of a source for it. As I recall the main difference between a tachi and a katana is how the weapon is carried: blade up, or blade down, which effected the scabbard. Other than that, there's not much, if any, difference in the blades.

Storm Bringer

2012-02-15, 01:45 AM

Wow. Thanks a lot Galloglaich, that was a very nice overview of the subject. Unfortunately, your excellent answers have yielded even more questions.

And you said that in combat, rapiers would often be wielded with a dagger. This seems curious. I thought duel wielding was a wild and unorthodox strategy, and only really works in video games. I would think a rapier and dagger could just be plowed through with a sword or mace? How could a rapier and dagger put up an effective defense?

First of all. theirs nothing unfortunate about it. asking questions is how we learn. Humanity great advantage in life is that we can learn things second or third hand, without having to witness the event that taught us.

Zs others have said, having a weapon in both hands was not uncommonl, but the "off hand" weapon was used defensivly, to parry and block attackers moves while leaving your primary weapon freee. However, you could equally well parry with the rapier and then stab with the dagger. the point is you didn't stab with both at once very much, if at all. other options include wounding the wrists (so he can't hold his weapon), fients (darwing his eye-lines and guard to one weapon before attacking with the other into the gap he just made), so on.

thier are alternitives to simply standing your ground and parrying, though. "voiding" (dodging) an incomming attack was a very valid option, and one used quite a lot. if you could make you oppenent swing and miss, you generally had a opening to attack into as he tries to recover.

also, remember in "real" combat, as opposed to sports like Kendo and Olympic Fencing, grabs, throws, joint locks, punches and kicks were a major part of your moveset. thier is plenty of medieval artwork form training manuals that shows people using their empty hand to proform unarmed martial arms moves on their oppnent (the average european knight as just as well training in unarmed combat as a japanese samurai. it's just that the european arts died out due to the changes in techology removing the need for them). even if you had nothing in your other hand, you would be using it in combat to affect your enemy..

huttj509

2012-02-15, 04:14 AM

also, remember in "real" combat, as opposed to sports like Kendo and Olympic Fencing, grabs, throws, joint locks, punches and kicks were a major part of your moveset. thier is plenty of medieval artwork form training manuals that shows people using their empty hand to proform unarmed martial arms moves on their oppnent (the average european knight as just as well training in unarmed combat as a japanese samurai. it's just that the european arts died out due to the changes in techology removing the need for them). even if you had nothing in your other hand, you would be using it in combat to affect your enemy..

For that matter, the rules were "whatever works." I've seen artwork from a medieval sword manual thing of a two handed sword, flipped around held by the blade smacking the other guy with the hilt/pommel. The rule is to win without dying. Most fights did not award points for style.

As to dual-wielding, the Main Gauche (French for "left hand") parrying dagger is not made up. Though the use of weaponry would depend on situation. I'm not sure a parrying dagger would do much against an incoming Maul, though it can be very nice against a duelling-type sword. There can be trade-offs, as with one hand you might use a different, smaller-profile stance, have better balance, etc.

Few blade types are universally optimum. As the weapons in use change, the armor/weapons used to oppose them change, and the cycle develops.

Generally, don't trust Hollywood for fighting styles. There's some gems, but a lot is more about flash than substance (when I spot openings and opportunities, something's wrong).

Looks cool though.

Knaight

2012-02-15, 04:19 AM

Generally, don't trust Hollywood for fighting styles. There's some gems, but a lot is more about flash than substance (when I spot openings and opportunities, something's wrong).

Hollywood really is messy. They're bad enough when everyone involved is using a sword or bow, but as soon as anything else gets picked up it gets downright cringe worthy. The portrayal of staff fighting in particular is just all sorts of terrible.

Spiryt

2012-02-15, 06:10 AM

Let's say from now on that in the absence of finer specifications, 'sword' will refer to the knightly cruciform sword with which almost everybody is familiar with.

Also, when people say 'claymore' they're probably referring to the literal translation of the name, i.e. the big sword.

Would this help or hurt this thread?

But the very point is, that "knightly cruciform sword" would be this :

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=60955&viewType=detailView

or this:

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/211943.html?mulR=21162|39

For approximately half of the 14th century quick examples, as I mentioned.

Both are cruciform, both are 'knightly' but they would be very, very different in handling and character.

I've heard that the sword was a good back up weapon, but was more a sign of status. While an axe can cleave wood and bone, a knife can cut flesh and meat, and a spear has any number of uses, a sword is pretty much only useful for combat.

This is not completely precise, as trough the history you would find plethora of axes devised and useful only for combat.

Certainly most of them could be used for chopping some firewood if needed, but not really good and convenient for such use.

gkathellar

2012-02-15, 08:55 AM

You have two hands, you should be using both of them - period.

also, remember in "real" combat, as opposed to sports like Kendo and Olympic Fencing, grabs, throws, joint locks, punches and kicks were a major part of your moveset. thier is plenty of medieval artwork form training manuals that shows people using their empty hand to proform unarmed martial arms moves on their oppnent (the average european knight as just as well training in unarmed combat as a japanese samurai. it's just that the european arts died out due to the changes in techology removing the need for them). even if you had nothing in your other hand, you would be using it in combat to affect your enemy..

Echoing this. Even when fighting with a single sword, the off hand is used for balance, support, defense and to perform pushes, grabs and unarmed strikes. Depending on the weapon, you might rapidly alternate between one and two-handed grips as necessary to support the dynamics of reach, balance and power in a given technique.

Conners

2012-02-15, 10:24 AM

Mike Loades has a Going Medieval video coming up on the 20th, just like to point out.

Not sure what it's about precisely... but they had to cut out segments about dog armour, and making arrows from the point of cutting down the tree. So, if those are the off-cuts, the prime material must be pretty cool.

Info here: http://www.facebook.com/mikeloades/posts/384502024900057

If you're in the states, and would be interested in something like that becoming a series... I guess watch it so it gets the views (we have very few good historical combat-orientated programs... so I'd like a few more).

Anyone able to tell me much about the movie rapier, the historical rapier, and how effective it was/is? Friends of mine who know about weapons reckon it's useless, compared to the cut-and-thrust sword, or anything else.

Galloglaich

2012-02-15, 10:27 AM

Wow. Thanks a lot Galloglaich, that was a very nice overview of the subject. Unfortunately, your excellent answers have yielded even more questions.

Thanks, and no problem!

I've heard that the sword was a good back up weapon, but was more a sign of status. While an axe can cleave wood and bone, a knife can cut flesh and meat, and a spear has any number of uses, a sword is pretty much only useful for combat.

While there is some truth in this, as some others have pointed out in the thread, the reality is that most Medieval / pre-industrial weapons of any type were purpose-built for warfare, and much less suitible for use as tools. For example, contrary to the pop-culture cliche, war hammers and battle-axes have much thinner, lighter, and smaller striking heads than axes used for cutting wood or splitting logs, or hammers used for hammering nails. Most hand weapons of a given size in fact tend to weigh about the same: (single-handed) maces, hammers, axes, swords, and sabers all tend to weigh roughly the same, in the range of two to four pounds. Polearms can get a little heavier but not that much. Weapons made for combat are also carefully balanced, using a battle axe to chop would would likely mess it up, loosen something or cause some other problem.

You do have some multi-purpose weapons of couse. The seax was basically the bowie - knife of the Migration era, and the messer / hauswehr took it's place during the Middle Ages. But even that is a bit of a statement: in the Wild West you see a guy carrying a bowie knife on his belt your first thought is not going to be that he starts fires and skins rabbits with it. You know that is someone you don't want to mouth-off to too much. It was the same with the seax, the Saxons used many weapons including swords and spears and axes, but the seax was always with them, it said something about those guys, calling them the "Saxons" is like saying"'those are the bowie knife people". These were men who finished their fights and it made them feared by their enemies and respected by their neighbors.

So wearing a sword identified you as a fighter, and a moderately skilled one at that. Also, a sword has a lot of metal to it, much more than a dagger or a spear.

This varied a lot from culture to culture. In Medieval Europe, carrying a dagger or a sword was a sign of being a free man - whether a peasant, a burgher or a knight. In certain parts of Switzerland to this day the locals still bring a dagger (baselard) or a sword in order to vote. Similarly in the Sikh religion, baptised Sikhs of both sexes (in the Khalsa) carry the Kirpan as a sign of their freedom. In Yemen young men carry the Jambiya. But in some other parts of the world, carrying a weapon meant that you were specifically a fighter or a soldier. In Ming Dynasty China only men of the Mandarin class were supposed to carry the double-edged Jian sword, whereas soldiers carried the Dao saber. Common civilians in China weren't supposed to carry either type of weapon.

Which made it a lot more expensive to produce, especially in Japan, where they have no iron at all. Is this a fairly accurate summary?

No... not really. Japan did have iron they just didn't have great quality iron, they used some of the same types of sources that the early-Vikings did. But they worked around that made a ... huge amount of swords. In fact they had enough iron that they used iron as currency. In Europe, swords were very expensive during the Migration era, equivalent to the value of several oxen in some records from around the 7th Century, but for a variety of reasons mostly to do with technology related to the production of iron, they became increasingly cheap by the Middle Ages. By say, the 15th Century a pretty nice sword was well within the budget of the average peasant. But carrying a sword specifically (as opposed to an axe or a single-edged messer or falchion, say) would imply some actual martial arts training, since a sword isn't easy to use effectively without some training.

And you said that in combat, rapiers would often be wielded with a dagger. This seems curious. I thought duel wielding was a wild and unorthodox strategy, and only really works in video games. I would think a rapier and dagger could just be plowed through with a sword or mace? How could a rapier and dagger put up an effective defense?

Dual wielding usually refers to two weapons of roughly the same size. It derives from LARP and the SCA, and doesn't appear much in the historical record. Sword and dagger fighting is very common historically, the difference is one wepaon is very short (dagger sized) while the other is long. This is what seems to work. Blocking with the dagger is much more effective than it probably sounds, in some cases you would block with both the long weapon (sword or rapier) and the short one together, but regardless the two weapons work together because one is always threatening a counter-attack while the other defends (or controls, for example you can block with the sword and then bind with the dagger or vise -versa). It would require another post to explain why this works in detail but it does work and quite effectively, both in attack and defense. A sword and dagger together provide vastly better defense than the sword by itself, and the dagger provides a very lethal threat when you get into close range, which is particularly valuable in rapier fighting.

As for defending against a maul, as somone mentioned, a maul is so slow a rapier fencer would just take a step back and let it go by, and then skewer the guy swinging it in no time flat. One also sees knife and tomahawk used together as shown in that rather silly film 'The Patriot', and the famous Samurai Musashi developed a longsword / short sword fighting system, but in both of these cases the weapons are of different length, and one is used more defensively than the other.

The fantasy / computer game element comes from some guy fighting with two weapons of the same length. It came from DnD games and the idea that you could get two attacks per round instead of the boring single attack per round. (an understandable desire to escape the dreary confines of early combat systems!) Unless both weapons are short though, in real life they tend to get in each others way. So wielding two medium or long weapons is very unusual in real life and requires a high level of expertise. The only historical examples of this that I know of. There is the 'Case of Rapiers' style in Renaissance Europe which involves using two rapiers, and there is a two-weapon style in Thailand and Burma using two Dha swords, but these are the only cases I know of and in both examples they are rare specialties within an already advanced fencing system.

G

gkathellar

2012-02-15, 04:21 PM

the famous Samurai Musashi developed a longsword / short sword fighting system,

This is pretty much the only thing you got wrong. The short sword/long sword technique in Japanese swordsmanship predates Musashi and appears in many styles other than his - what he developed was a a long sword/long sword technique. IIRC, this technique was intended for experts: he assumed first you would master the single sword in two hands, than in one, than in the other one, and finally a sword in each hand.

So wielding two medium or long weapons is very unusual in real life and requires a high level of expertise. The only historical examples of this that I know of. There is the 'Case of Rapiers' style in Renaissance Europe which involves using two rapiers, and there is a two-weapon style in Thailand and Burma using two Dha swords, but these are the only cases I know of and in both examples they are rare specialties within an already advanced fencing system.

I understand that the paired-rapier technique existed, but was unpopular because if either fighter was using it the chance of both dying increased tremendously. Strong offense, poor defense. And yeah, the Thai art of krabi-krabong has a fair amount of sword/sword stuff, but their single sword (while harder to find good information on) actually seems far more dynamic to me.

Paired jian and paired dao techniques exist in some Chinese martial arts, and by some accounts were intended for use against spears and halberds. Their effectiveness is questionable, but part of the internal logic here is that the positioning of the hand in single-sword fighting with those weapons is already intended to mimic the shape of the weapon, so the transition from one sword to two is less illogical. Likewise, because many Chinese martial arts emphasize keeping both hands constantly engaged and active, some of the training to pull this off is already present.

Still, as my own teacher has said: "I guess you could defend with one sword and attack with the other, and switch back and forth between them, but that's a lot of weapons to keep track of." The thought here is (a) that the time you spend mastering paired swords could be better spent taking your single-sword skills even farther forward, and (b) that a lot of defensive and offensive techniques can be executed with an empty hand while not actually requiring you to have all your concentration on both hands all the time. I suspect (b) is part of the reason sword/dagger works so well.

A lot of East Asian civilian martial arts use shorter paired weapons. Sais, knives, butterfly swords, short sticks, you name it. Arts of Chinese descent (which includes most Japanese styles) often have a big emphasis on keeping the hands in balance, even if they don't fully understand why. The only thing of this type you'll see that's actually really, really straightforwardly dumb and has no connection at all to the actual use of the weapon is paired nunchaku, the use of which is like asking to get skewered.

Filipino martial arts do make extensive use of paired weapons - dagger/dagger, stick/stick, stick/dagger, sword/dagger, sword/stick - but I'm not clear on whether they train sword/sword at all.

Knaight

2012-02-15, 05:16 PM

Filipino martial arts do make extensive use of paired weapons - dagger/dagger, stick/stick, stick/dagger, sword/dagger, sword/stick - but I'm not clear on whether they train sword/sword at all.
I'm not sure, but all of those styles are somewhat more widespread than just the Philippines, and Thai martial arts include sword/sword. Though, given the periods involved it might be more correct to call them Siamese martial arts, as Thailand is a relatively modern country.

Galloglaich

2012-02-15, 06:02 PM

This is pretty much the only thing you got wrong. The short sword/long sword technique in Japanese swordsmanship predates Musashi and appears in many styles other than his - what he developed was a a long sword/long sword technique. IIRC, this technique was intended for experts: he assumed first you would master the single sword in two hands, than in one, than in the other one, and finally a sword in each hand.

Thanks, I stand corrected! How far do these long/short systems go back in Japan?

I think the general rule is you do sometimes see two short weapons, but (in my opinion) these are at a disadvantage against a single long weapon so they tend to remain in kind of a specailist niche.

The Filipino sword and dagger stuff I think derives from the Spanish, Spada Y Daga.

G

No brains

2012-02-15, 06:03 PM

First of all. theirs nothing unfortunate about it. asking questions is how we learn. Humanity great advantage in life is that we can learn things second or third hand, without having to witness the event that taught us.

Aye to that brother- aye to that.

But the very point is, that "knightly cruciform sword" would be this :

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=60955&viewType=detailView

or this:

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/211943.html?mulR=21162|39

For approximately half of the 14th century quick examples, as I mentioned.

Both are cruciform, both are 'knightly' but they would be very, very different in handling and character.

I can see the differences between the weapons. The first example is smaller, about three quarters the length and possibly weight of the second. The larger sword would probably be able to chop off limbs while the smaller might not. The smaller sword has a taper unlike the larger, and so the weight would be nearer to the hilt to better facilitate thrusts.

All that said, it would not be impossible to make chopping strikes with the smaller sword or make thrusts with the larger. While a wielder may have to get much closer to make an appreciable chop with the smaller sword, both weapons are supposed to be sharp enough to cause significant soft tissue damage, and they are both hopefully weighted to make quick parrying motions possible.

To me (an this might be where I am flagrantly wrong) these examples of swords are really like apples and oranges. Bother fruits are nice snacks and both tools ought to be nice murder tools. You don't need to skin an apple, but the peel of an orange isn't inedible. I think that for most purposes these swords are similar enough to be considered the 'same' weapon.

Spiryt

2012-02-15, 06:38 PM

I can see the differences between the weapons. The first example is smaller, about three quarters the length and possibly weight of the second. The larger sword would probably be able to chop off limbs while the smaller might not. The smaller sword has a taper unlike the larger, and so the weight would be nearer to the hilt to better facilitate thrusts.

All that said, it would not be impossible to make chopping strikes with the smaller sword or make thrusts with the larger. While a wielder may have to get much closer to make an appreciable chop with the smaller sword, both weapons are supposed to be sharp enough to cause significant soft tissue damage, and they are both hopefully weighted to make quick parrying motions possible.

To me (an this might be where I am flagrantly wrong) these examples of swords are really like apples and oranges. Bother fruits are nice snacks and both tools ought to be nice murder tools. You don't need to skin an apple, but the peel of an orange isn't inedible. I think that for most purposes these swords are similar enough to be considered the 'same' weapon.

Well, no, not really.

You assume that center of gravity nearer hilt is "better" for the thrusts, which is not really correct, as it's pretty complex matter.

Furthermore, smaller sword quite probably can have it's CoG further down the blade (at least proportionally), we cannot really say - without any knowledge about thickness at different points and general mass distribution.

Larger, XIIIb sword is of rather hulking proportions, so it was most probably somehow hefty weapon, but we cannot really tell for sure.

For another quick examples I can find in the Net, proportions can be easily swapped:

Rather long, large pointy XV type:

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=60958&viewType=detailView

And short, smallish broad, spatulate XIIIb:

Last sword on the site (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxiii.html)

Without examining them nothing can be said for sure, but blades of drastically different profiles would have very different harmonics, stiffness and general characteristics during slashes, thrusts, hacking....

But there are exceptions, some rather stiff swords of the type that generally was whippy, and vice versa.

Adding a lot of sizes and general richness of different swords, they all cannot be really treated as "the same".

You could most certainly find some falchions more similar to those cutting XIIIb's than to more thrusting oriented swords. :smallwink:

Raum

2012-02-15, 07:26 PM

No... not really. Japan did have iron they just didn't have great quality iron, they used some of the same types of sources that the early-Vikings did. But they worked around that made a ... huge amount of swords. In fact they had enough iron that they used iron as currency. The fact that it was used as currency backs up the rarity and value of iron in Japan. That said, G's point is correct - Japan's iron was of poor quality rather than non-existent.

Dual wielding usually refers to two weapons of roughly the same size. It derives from LARP and the SCA, and doesn't appear much in the historical record. There are a few instances such as Arnis / Escrima / Kali - though they taught fighting with two sticks largely so they could pick up a sword and dagger. That is an exception - and the Filipinos didn't really field armies, they were tribal. (Made it easy for Spain to conquer them.) I'm not aware of any systematic use of similar sized weapons in cultures which fielded armies. Perhaps the jian and dao techniques gkathkellar mentions qualify...I don't know enough of their use to say.

Basically I agree with G, just pointing out ramifications and exceptions. ;)

Filipino martial arts do make extensive use of paired weapons - dagger/dagger, stick/stick, stick/dagger, sword/dagger, sword/stick - but I'm not clear on whether they train sword/sword at all.They trained with paired sticks, paired daggers, and dagger and sword. The barang could qualify as either knife or short sword though...so it may well depend on definitions.

The Filipino sword and dagger stuff I think derives from the Spanish, Spada Y Daga.I do think it was systematized in fighting against the Spanish. Not sure it didn't already exist.

I think that for most purposes these swords are similar enough to be considered the 'same' weapon.Perhaps. I'd miss the detail in some of our more knowledgeable posters' comments if they tried to use generic terms. I enjoy learning of all the varieties and different uses.

I think the generic terms are useful in games where you're abstracting things, not so much when discussing specific bits of history. YMMV.

gkathellar

2012-02-15, 08:13 PM

Thanks, I stand corrected! How far do these long/short systems go back in Japan?

I don't know that I can give you a definite date, but there's at least one koryu school dating back to the 15th century that teaches two-sword fighting. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back earlier.

Also, I checked and I'm a bit off - Musashi seems to have preferred the long/short style and made it an important part of his school, but believed that in order to become an expert in it you had to train with long/long, and generally become very skilled at one-handed swordsmanship in either hand. So he would've taught and been proficient with both long/short and long/long.

I think the general rule is you do sometimes see two short weapons, but (in my opinion) these are at a disadvantage against a single long weapon so they tend to remain in kind of a specailist niche.

In general, long weapons have the advantage, but you do see a lot of paired weapon techniques specifically designed to deal with long weapons. As with a lot of specialized techniques, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the intended advantage was surprise - a long sword fighter looking at a guy with a saber in each hand might simply be uncertain of how to approach, or not be expecting the kind of bind -> strike or simultaneous block and attack techniques the two-saber guy can field.

The Filipino sword and dagger stuff I think derives from the Spanish, Spada Y Daga.

Maybe, but remember how important knife-fighting is to southeast Asian martial arts. It wouldn't be at all surprising for the inventions to be parallel but separate (and eventually to have influenced each other).

Diamondeye

2012-02-15, 09:23 PM

The answer is "it depends."

In theory, an infantry platoon is led by a 2nd lieutenant, the lowest grade of officer. Even he should be giving orders, not shooting, but it's likely he'll be close enough to combat to actively engage. A Company is led by a Captain, who is directing three infantry platoons, plus a weapons platoon and communicating with the higher tiers of command to co-ordinate air or artillery support. He has plenty on his plate without shooting.

Above that, you have Majors and Colonels commanding battalions and regiments, Generals commanding brigades, corps and armies. These guys should never need to touch a trigger.

But, in practice, excrement happens. Units get cut off and everyone becomes a rifleman. Small teams may be led by an officer, and he fights because he's acting like a fire team leader or squad leader. When a Marine platoon helicoptered in to rescue a downed pilot in the former Yugoslavia, the Colonel of the regiment went along. He probably didn't need to be there, but he was, so a guy one rank below General was inserted behind enenmy lines with a single infantry platoon. This is kinda how "Saving Private Ryan" portrays Tom Hanks character. He's a Captain, but instead of commanding a company, he has a squad on a special mission. It's not textbook, but it happens in combat.

As far as NCOs go, on paper, Corporals command fire teams of 2-4 men, and Sergeants command squads of several fire teams. They are still supposed to be leaders first, fighters second, but at that level, it's more like "Smith, you and Jones flank left, Lopez and I will cover you, then you cover us while we move up the middle" kind of command. These guys get shot a lot, so you may well have a PFC commanding a team or even a squad.

And the fact is that no plan survives contact with the enemy, so stuff happens. That's why the officers still carry weapons.

To add to this, keep in mind that this applies to infantry companies, and to a great extent to MP and Engineer companies which are the most similar to infantry in organization, if not purpose.

An armor platoon, on the other hand, consists of 4 tanks and the platoon leader is the commander of his own tank as well as the platoon. The other 3 crewmen (driver, gunner, and loader) can keep the tank in action just fine without his intervention, but there will be times when he has to worry about his own tank first. That's why he has a platoon sergeant to back him up.

The same applies to a lesser degree at the company level. The company commander is in a tank, (and in U.S. organization has his own wingman) giving him a total of 14 tanks to worry about; 3 platoons of 4, his own, and his wingman. The platoon leaders manage their platoons and he manages them, but his personal tank is going to be shooting just as much as the other 13 even if he is not personally selecting many targets for it. Otherwise, he is depriving himself of another main gun.

(As an aside, this is why I find the term 'tank' in MMOs and table games annoying. The purpose of a real tank isn't to take hits; it is to engage targets with the main gun. The tanks armor is there to keep it alive to do so)

Artillery is another matter. An artillery platoon leader almost never gets involved in physically firing the howitzer; that's handled by the crew chiefs. His job is to move the platoon from place to place and ensure that it is properly laid for firing. This is a lot easier with modern systems like Paladin, but is a major effort with older systems that must be manually laid by aiming circle. The only time I can think of that a platoon leader would be personally involved in firing is when nuclear weapons are employed, and the U.S. no longer has artillery-fired nuclear weapons.

Autolykos

2012-02-16, 11:02 AM

(As an aside, this is why I find the term 'tank' in MMOs and table games annoying. The purpose of a real tank isn't to take hits; it is to engage targets with the main gun. The tanks armor is there to keep it alive to do so)Is there any unit *at all* whose purpose is to take hits (I imagine that would be pretty much the worst job you could get)? AFAIR the point is just that some can take them better than others (and be employed more aggressively because of this).

Storm Bringer

2012-02-16, 11:27 AM

Is there any unit *at all* whose purpose is to take hits (I imagine that would be pretty much the worst job you could get)? AFAIR the point is just that some can take them better than others (and be employed more aggressively because of this).

not really. Minefield clearence units might count (since most work by using mine proof vehicles with fails and such to set off the mines), and thiers units deployed to take hits in preference to another, more valueable unit (naval escorts, for example. yes, i know thier also weapons platforms, but they exist to protect the carriers/ battleships, and if they can do that by drawing off a missle, then that's how they do it), .

A MMO "tank" is often equipped not just with large HP stats, but powers that make the (AI) enemy focus on the tank, rather than the squishy wizards doing the damage.

Wardog

2012-02-16, 05:44 PM

(As an aside, this is why I find the term 'tank' in MMOs and table games annoying. The purpose of a real tank isn't to take hits; it is to engage targets with the main gun. The tanks armor is there to keep it alive to do so)

Personally, I find the whole role somewhat annoying.

In real life, mythology, literature, movies, etc, the role of the warrior is invariably to engange and defeat the enemy. It only seems to be games that reduce him to keeping the enemy busy while the party rogue heroicly stabs him in the back.

(Plus, the actual mechanics of the tanking mechanism in games are generally extremely gamey, in that they typically use all sorts of artificial mechanisms to increase your opponents hate score ("hey - you insulted my mother and damaged my nice armour, so I'll keep hitting you even though my attacks are ineffective, and ignore the unarmoured guy who is stabbing me in the back!"), rather than providing a real reason to make concentrating on the "tank" actually necessary).

Is there any unit *at all* whose purpose is to take hits (I imagine that would be pretty much the worst job you could get)? AFAIR the point is just that some can take them better than others (and be employed more aggressively because of this).

I suppose heavy infantry companies (rather than individuals) could fill that role, when used to engage enemy infantryhead on, while cavalry or lighter troops flank them.

Crow

2012-02-16, 05:52 PM

Is there any unit *at all* whose purpose is to take hits (I imagine that would be pretty much the worst job you could get)? AFAIR the point is just that some can take them better than others (and be employed more aggressively because of this).

Yeah, they're called 'Walls', 'Castles', 'Fortresses', or sometimes 'Sandbags'. Really any fortification. :smallwink:

In all seriousness though, In air warfare, 'Wild Weasels' were essentially this. Though they were more of a speed/evasion/missile to your radar installation, type of tank.

Wardog

2012-02-16, 05:52 PM

I don't want a muzzle loader. Ideally, I'd like a falling block breech loader. The Sharps fits, so it's between that and a converted hunting rifle if there are any really good models out there. I am wondering about those massive bore big game rifles and whether they would be worth conversion.

This isn't a breach loader, but what about the Whitworth rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitworth_rifle).

Produced 1857-1865
Cartridge .45 caliber bullet
Action muzzle loaded
Rate of fire 2–3 rounds per minute
Effective range 800 to 1,000 yd (730 to 910 m)
Maximum range 1,500 yd (1,400 m)

This is the rifle that did for General John "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance" Sedgwick.

Spacewolf

2012-02-16, 06:04 PM

A quick question thats DnD related why is the Flachion in DnD 2 handed when most examples of flachions are single handed weapons

Spiryt

2012-02-16, 06:30 PM

A quick question thats DnD related why is the Flachion in DnD 2 handed when most examples of flachions are single handed weapons

Because 'scimitar' had already taken one handed single edged blade place. :smallwink:

In short, some names mixing up, but since D&D stuff refers to actual historical weapons very, very loosely, it's not really any problem.

fusilier

2012-02-16, 08:02 PM

This isn't a breach loader, but what about the Whitworth rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitworth_rifle).

Produced 1857-1865
Cartridge .45 caliber bullet
Action muzzle loaded
Rate of fire 2–3 rounds per minute
Effective range 800 to 1,000 yd (730 to 910 m)
Maximum range 1,500 yd (1,400 m)

This is the rifle that did for General John "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance" Sedgwick.

If I'm not mistaken the Whitworth barrel was improved to become the Henry barrel, of Martini-Henry fame. The unconventional barrel was easier to keep clean when using black-powder, but had draw backs when smokeless powder was used.

paddyfool

2012-02-17, 11:32 AM

I don't want a muzzle loader. Ideally, I'd like a falling block breech loader. The Sharps fits, so it's between that and a converted hunting rifle if there are any really good models out there. I am wondering about those massive bore big game rifles and whether they would be worth conversion.This isn't a breach loader, but what about the Whitworth rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitworth_rifle).

That was the same rifle I gave as my principal suggestion when I mistakenly thought he wanted a muzzle loader...

Galloglaich

2012-02-17, 12:19 PM

Because 'scimitar' had already taken one handed single edged blade place. :smallwink:

In short, some names mixing up, but since D&D stuff refers to actual historical weapons very, very loosely, it's not really any problem.

I don't know of any two-handed falchions really, there are a couple with 'hand-and a half' grips, but most are quite short and I think they were usually used with shields as you see in period art. You do see a lot of two-handed and hand-and-a-half messers but that is a different beast.

The bottom line is what Spiryt said: most rpg's only have one or two ways to rate a weapon, i.e. damage and maybe critical hit type. Then they make further restrictions for incomprehensible reasons. This is why a strong knife with a 12" blade is considered a 'nuisance weapon' in most RPGs! In DnD a sword is a cutting-only weapon if I remember correctly, no thrusting? Bizarre.

In real life the differences between weapons are based on reach, defensive capability, speed, agility, effectiveness in a variety of different types of attacks (chopping, slicing, piercing, smashing) grappling ability from hook-like features (like on a bill or an axe) armor-piercing abilities, weight and overall strength. But these are rarely modeled in RPG's. Fighting with a sword in your hand gives you no better defense typically than fighting unarmed! And there is no easy way to distinguish between an axe or a sword, say.

So they limit the variety (Burning Wheel, which I like a lot, has only one type of "Sword") or come up with artificial distinctions, which in turn require sometimes convoluted tweaking of other rules to make things fit together. Which is fine but unfortunately these strange evolutions make their way into computer games and then films and then into the pop culture, and create kind of a barrier to understanding or even making any sense out of history, since so much history sadly derives from war and conflict.

G.

Dervag

2012-02-17, 04:03 PM

The only time I can think of that a platoon leader would be personally involved in firing is when nuclear weapons are employed, and the U.S. no longer has artillery-fired nuclear weapons.This is correct. We do not.

Is there any unit *at all* whose purpose is to take hits (I imagine that would be pretty much the worst job you could get)? AFAIR the point is just that some can take them better than others (and be employed more aggressively because of this).In the real world? No, unless you count inanimate objects like a pile of concrete, or an equally inanimate decoy like a helmet-on-a-stick.

Among other things, without magic "hit me hit me!" powers, you can't make the enemy shoot at you instead of whatever it is you're drawing fire from, except by having the other thing take cover behind you. So any object or soldier whose purpose is to draw fire will be part of a system, some combination of tools or men that are cooperating to perform a task.

A fortress is a system, of inanimate walls and trenches and so on, plus men to use weapons to defend it. A tank is a system, with a gun, an engine and drive train to move the gun, and a shell of armor plates to protect the rest of the system from enemy fire. In medieval times, you might have a "system" which consisted of one guy carrying a huge shield, and a crossbowman who would use the shield for cover while reloading his crossbow. But even then, you can't really say the shield-bearer is "there to take hits," he's just part of a combined system that would always be deployed together. Without that crossbowman, he's useless.

I suppose heavy infantry companies (rather than individuals) could fill that role, when used to engage enemy infantryhead on, while cavalry or lighter troops flank them.In theory, but in practice they're meant to be able to break down the enemy's resistance in their own right.

Real combat units are (so to speak) a sword and a shield at the same time, so that they can strike and resist attacks at the same time. Or they're only a sword- they can attack, but are vulnerable unless protected from certain kinds of harm.

You never see a unit that is only a shield, which can effectively resist attacks but cannot attack by itself.

In all seriousness though, In air warfare, 'Wild Weasels' were essentially this. Though they were more of a speed/evasion/missile to your radar installation, type of tank.They're hunters- specializing in targeting and destroying air defense installations. That requires them to be able to survive being shot at by the enemy AA, but also to carry long range missiles well designed for blowing up AA positions from long range. So, sword and shield.

razark

2012-02-17, 04:25 PM

You never see a unit that is only a shield, which can effectively resist attacks but cannot attack by itself.
AA units? You don't send them charging in to attack the enemy, they exist to defend others from a threat.

(But that really depends on how you define a few terms, like "attack".)

Crow

2012-02-17, 04:33 PM

They're hunters- specializing in targeting and destroying air defense installations. That requires them to be able to survive being shot at by the enemy AA, but also to carry long range missiles well designed for blowing up AA positions from long range. So, sword and shield.

Yes, but part of the original mission included finding the SAM sites first. To do this, they would go in ahead of a primary force and NOT use radar jammers. This was to coax the radar installations to go active so that they could be located and destroyed.

paddyfool

2012-02-17, 04:51 PM

(As an aside, this is why I find the term 'tank' in MMOs and table games annoying. The purpose of a real tank isn't to take hits; it is to engage targets with the main gun. The tanks armor is there to keep it alive to do so)

The original WW1-era box tanks, starting with the Mark 1 (http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=224) (the first tank ever to be fielded, in 1916) came a little closer to this role. Although they were a weapons platform, carrying in the Mk 1's case twin 6-pounded guns on each side and a .30 calibre machine gun for close defense, this wasn't the crucial part of their role - the crucial part was that they were a bulletproof object that could break through barbed wire fences, roll over trenches and provide something of a screen for infantry & cavalry to advance behind. 1 part tanking : 1 part battlefield modification, perhaps.

Talakeal

2012-02-17, 07:24 PM

Does anyone know what large scale battles had the highest death (not casualty) rate for combatants? Links to sources for me to do my own research are fine, my google fu has failed me.

paddyfool

2012-02-17, 07:31 PM

The Siege of Leningrad would be my first answer, but you might want to have a good look down this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_lethal_battles_in_world_history)...

fusilier

2012-02-17, 08:07 PM

Does anyone know what large scale battles had the highest death (not casualty) rate for combatants? Links to sources for me to do my own research are fine, my google fu has failed me.

That's tricky. Most sources just list casualties, and some sources confuse casualties with fatalities (I think this is common with the atomic bomb attacks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

In general terms, mortality rates were higher the farther you go back, but battles tend to be larger and more deadly in more recent times, apexing with WW2. But here the details can be tricky too -- even if you have a good account of the wounded and dead, if the account was made soon after the end of the battle, more wounded would die from their wounds. Nonetheless, it's still difficult in large modern battles to get a good casualty count. Either through intentional misleading (many Generals did not want the public back home to know how many people were dying in the battles during WW1), or through difficulties in gathering the information, or even agreeing on who died in a particular battle.

Did a battle like the Somme, Verdun, or Asiago, (all of which went on for months), end when the attacker called off the offensive? Or did it end when the defender stopped major counterattacks?

Did X person, serving in Y regiment which was active on the periphery of such a battle, die as direct result of that battle, or did he die on a patrol that wasn't part of the offensive?

Having placed all those caveats in front of you. You might want to look at the Battle of Lepanto (1571). It was a naval battle, but a galley one, between two rather large fleets that fought a full-fledged engagement. There also seems to have been pretty good accounting of the men involved and the results -- galleys can be at a severe disadvantage if lacking their full complement of rowers, and that was paid attention to very carefully. Very high casualties for fighting at that time (in what amounted to a few hours of fighting).

a_humble_lich

2012-02-18, 07:16 AM

Galloglaich

2012-02-18, 01:09 PM

Does anyone know what large scale battles had the highest death (not casualty) rate for combatants? Links to sources for me to do my own research are fine, my google fu has failed me.

In the old days this depended a lot on whether one side allowed quarter or not, i.e. did they take prisoners. This could be for strategic reasons, for example in most of the Celtic victories over the Romans, they let the Romans go after paying a fine. When the Romans won, they would kill most of the combattants and enslave the rest. So this helped the Roman Republic expand. The Mongols employed similar tactics.

So, many Roman Victories. Pretty much any battle involving Tamarlane or Ghenghiz Khan would be very high on the list. Horns of Hattin during the Crusades. Towton in England in the 15th Century, quite a few during the 30 years war, Ottoman invasions of Europe were nasty, second siege of Vienna, battle of Lepanto, Waterloo, a few during the US Civil War, several in the first World War, the Somme I think was one of the worst on the Western Front, Gallipoli. Numerous battles in WW II: Stalingrad, Falaise pocket, Heurtgen forest, Saipan, Iwo Jima....

The civil wars internally in China also tended to be very bloody, from back in the Bronze Age through the Cultural Revolution in the 60's. Korean War was extremely brutal. So was the wars between Vietnam and Cambodia and Vietnam and China in the early 70's.

Again the "no prisoners" thing is a major factor usually in high death rates, but so is the nature of the weapons especially in more modern conflicts.

The first Gulf War was pretty much a massacre of the latter variety.

I don't know that probably doesn't help much! Maybe a little...

G.

Matthew

2012-02-18, 02:03 PM

Early Greek versus Greek battles are supposed to have had low casualty rates, somewhere in the region of 15-20% even for the vanquished, but those were highly ritualised contests between mainly heavy infantry. If the enemy can escape, you can bet a good part of his army will survive the initial slaughter, even if afterwards they are hunted down (the Norman victory over the Saxons at Hastings is an interesting battle, as the Norman pursuit ended up as a partial reversal). Hannibal's victories over the Romans were notable on account of their high casualty rates precisely because the defeated Romans had little chance of escape (either because surrounded, trapped against natural terrain or woefully outnumbered by enemy cavalry). The Romans were shocked by the losses, though in retrospect it was in their interest to talk up the initial defeats in order to heighten the drama of their eventual victory (I often wonder how they really managed to rebuild their armies if the victories were so complete).

Talakeal

2012-02-18, 06:52 PM

Mike_G

2012-02-18, 07:13 PM

Thanks for the help with death rates. The problem is I am looking for fatality rates on the field, very few of the sources distinguish between casualties and fatalities, and even less between fatalities on the field and those who were later executed or died from infection.

Another question, when and why did grouping into a tight formation fall out of favor?

Better and more ubiquitous missile weapons. Tight formations are good in melee, since you outnumber the enemy at the point of contact, but make a big target for artillery, arrrows or bullets. A weapon that might be tough to hit a single man with can easily put a round somewhere in a company sized block of troops. And a cannon ball might hit one man in a loose skirmish order, but will plow a trail through a formation, killing or wounding several.

Once the firearm became the standard infantry weapon, close order started to fade. By the time quick firing artillery, breechloaders and repeating rifles came along, close order became suicidal.

I know from history the Greeks and Romans a tight formation was generally a huge advantage, while by the time of the Revolutionary War the British fighting in formation put them at a huge disadvantage.

Because the Greeks and Romans wanted to maximize their advantage in melee, and they didn't face very many missile armed troops that their armor and shields couldn't protect against

The British wool coats wouldn't stop a musket ball, and if a Rebel missed the guy he was ainimg at, there was a good chance he'd hit the man next to him, which is just as good.

The slow reload time of muzzle loaders still meant that an enemy could close with you before you could fire very many shots, and the guys in close order had the advantage in a bayonet fight, so formations were still used fairly often.

Close order is also better for defending against cavalry, as cavalry generally can't ride over a close unit of infantry who stand their ground. A loose group of men can be ridden down individually, though.

The reason I ask is that I am writing a gaming system, and in my combat play tests the characters all "turtle up" next to one another so the enemy cannot surround them, which makes for a very boring and stationary encounter. I am trying to figure out the real life pros and cons of a tight formation and how I can model them in a way that is realistic but still encourages movement.

Area of effect attacks. If they bunch up, drop spells or greande like wepons on them. Each attack hits several of them.

Even simple missile wepaons that miss could have a chance of hitting an adjacent target.

This would make a tight formation vulnerable to archers or what is effectively artillery.

Mike_G

2012-02-18, 07:26 PM

With regards to the earlier topic of officers engaged in combat, I was just talking to a woman whose father was a captain in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam. Apparently at that time, captains would to parachuter into the jungle, and given the nature of the fighting there, everyone was involved.

In that case, the Captain would be in danger, but his first job would be commanding his platoons and co-ordinating artillery and air support. Shooting at the enemy with his personal weapon was secondary.

The riflemen in the company, who are Privates or PFCs, should be primarily trying to shoot the enemy. The job of the Private is to use his weapon to inflict casualties. The job of the NCO team leader or squad leader is to co-ordinate how the Privates do that. The platoon leader's job is to co-ordiante the actiosn of the squads, the company commanders job is to co-ordinate the actions of the platoons.

When you are a rifleman, your focus is on your immediate front. Spoting and engaging enemy targets in your own tiny area of the battlefield. You may be aware of the men to your immediate right and left, but you generally don't know what the rest of the squad is doing. You never know what the rest of the comany is doing. You need that focus to spot the enemy before he spots you and to shoot him, but you can't be that focused and still command a hundred men.

The higher rank you are, the more stuff you have to do that is more important than doing the Private's job. If the captain is picking off individaul NVA soldiers, but ingoring the reports of enemy movement and not moving his platoons to counter it the company can get outflanked. They won't get artillery support--or worse, it will land in the wrong place-- if he's not on the raido because he's playing John Wayne.

The manager of the restaurant shouldn't be waiting tables or flipping burgers.

But, like I said, combat is chaotic. Stuff happens.

Spiryt

2012-02-18, 07:29 PM

When you have guys like Roman legionaries - with helmets, torso armors and shields (at least we suspect that's how most Imperial era troops looked like) - tight formation actually works good against arrows etc.

Troops stand next to each other, and it's hard to draw arrow/javelin trajectory ending with unprotected body, that wouldn't be intercepted by other guys shield/mail.

If you take cannon, then this obviously doesn't apply anymore.

warty goblin

2012-02-18, 08:01 PM

The reason I ask is that I am writing a gaming system, and in my combat play tests the characters all "turtle up" next to one another so the enemy cannot surround them, which makes for a very boring and stationary encounter. I am trying to figure out the real life pros and cons of a tight formation and how I can model them in a way that is realistic but still encourages movement.

If your party consists of a fairly small number of individuals, close formation really isn't much of an advantage. Fighting in close order is an enormous advantage when you and the dudes next to you are all fighting enemies in the same direction because you can help each other out and if the enemy isn't in as tight of order, will effectively outnumber them. When you are dealing with armies, this can often be arranged, because you can occupy and restrict enough of the terrain to force the enemy into a head on action.

But if it's just Albert, Betsy, Calvin and Danielle, you don't have this ability. Unless the terrain restricts the enemy's movement a lot, it isn't hard to maneuver around to flank a group of four people, which means you'll have enemies pressing on two or three sides most of the time. Under this sort of pressure a simple ABCD line will either get flanked and ganked, or have to alter its form. The problem you seem to be having is that your players collapse into something like:

AB
CD

The thing is that a very tight formation like this won't, at the individual scale, work very well. Nobody in the little square can move, and everybody's going to be fighting more or less on their own, without significant support from their neighbors or the people behind them. Because they're so tight, they won't be able to move, so the formation will actually hamper their defense. Without knowing your rules exactly, this could easily be solved by a penalty to whatever defensive statistic you use if a person next to you is fighting an enemy in a significantly different direction than your enemy, or if you have facing, just use that. Hopefully that would cause your players to spread out into something like

A B

C D

Or

A

B C D

Which preserves the basic idea, but should allow enemies to threaten to break their formation open and force some movement. If you're penalized for fighting different enemies too closely together, and also for being flanked, you're going to want to change your formation pro-actively to keep it open enough for maximal efficiency while baring the enemy from getting at your mates' backs.

Talakeal

2012-02-18, 08:40 PM

Mike_G

2012-02-18, 09:58 PM

Thanks for the advice!

It will take me some time to digest all of the subtlety's of what was said, but it was a great help.

Clearly tight formations are disadvantageous against area attacks, but the setting is a post apocalyptic sword & sorcery setting, so fire balls and artillery are the exception rather than the rule and I can't really factor them into basic combat tactics.

If I am clear on this, in ranged combat, a tight formation is an advantage if heavily armored, but a disadvantage is the opponent's weapons can easily pierce your armor? That is going to be a tough one to model with rules...

Not tough at all. Close formations get hit more. If the armor/shields protect people, then they protect people. The benefits or armor should be in the game already.

If a shot missed the intended target, give it a chance to hit an adjacent target. So, if the PCs stand packed together, they are more likely to get hit by shots intended for the guy next to them. If they have enough AC/DR/HP to shrug off the shots, that's what will happend.

In a game, just allow the attacker to roll a die for every miss, where there is a chance to get a free attack on an adjacent target. Say a d6, where 1 or 2 the shot is high, 3 the shot is wide left, and you get a free attack roll against the character to the target's left, 4 is wide right, free roll against the target to the right, and 5-6 the shot is low. A percentage of the misses will give a chance to hit nearby targets. Good armor will help protect the targets from the free shots just as they would against normal shots.

On a related note, in close combat, how tightly would allies have to be packed before they start getting in one another's way? And how many enemies can comfortably engage a single opponent in close combat? How does this change with the reach of a weapon? How about if you are unable to surround the opponent and all fighting from the same side?

This is a huge, complicated issue, and the depends on the weapons and fighting style.

warty goblin

2012-02-18, 10:11 PM

If I am clear on this, in ranged combat, a tight formation is an advantage if heavily armored, but a disadvantage is the opponent's weapons can easily pierce your armor? That is going to be a tough one to model with rules...

I think it important to differentiate between relying on armor and relying on shields for defense here. If I'm* counting on my armor to keep arrows out of my vitals, formation matters much less. Hiding behind somebody is nice, but then the enemy just shoots at the guy in front.

If I'm counting on shields however, things become quite different. My buddy can use his shield to cover part of me, and I can cover some of my other buddy with mine, so everybody is better protected than they would be alone.

*And since we're talking RPG party here, not army company I is the appropriate scale to take. Unless your group dynamic is very lethal, acceptable losses probably are around zero most of the time.

On a related note, in close combat, how tightly would allies have to be packed before they start getting in one another's way? And how many enemies can comfortably engage a single opponent in close combat? How does this change with the reach of a weapon? How about if you are unable to surround the opponent and all fighting from the same side?
In reality, for totally unobstructed freedom of action I'd want at least five feet free in every direction - including vertical. Practically so long as I could step in any direction I wanted, or move my weapon there it probably doesn't matter all that much. But if somebody is fighting three feet behind me, it's gonna make a difference. For actual close order fighting I really don't have the experience to say, but the recreations I've seen indicate that you pack as many people together as you can manage.

Game rule wise, I wouldn't worry about that sort of thing too much, for the groups I'd imagine most RPG parties fighting, the benefits of a close formation are at best minimal. Basically all anybody wants to do is to avoid getting flanked or surrounded, minimize the number of people they have to fight at any one time and maintain their freedom of movement and action. This means that all your rules need to capture the flavor is:

1) Penalize getting ganged up upon.

2) Penalize getting attacked from multiple sides.

3) Penalize having restricted movement.

(Penalize here can of course mean either a penalty for the defender or a bonus to the attacker(s). Depending on your system there's a pretty good chance they are statistically the same thing)

If you are using a grid of some sort this becomes easy, eg.
-2 defense if adjacent to an ally fighting an enemy not adjacent to the enemy you are currently engaged with.

-2 defense for each enemy above one who is currently within melee weapon reach of you.

-6 defense if an enemy attacks from behind.

If you want to expand a little bit:

+2 defense if you and an ally are currently fighting the same enemy.

Or whatever works for your system. But basically you need facing at a minimum, and I'd consider having an 'engaged in melee' status, where a character is considered to be actively engaged with all enemies who can currently reach them with their weapons.

Talakeal

2012-02-18, 10:32 PM

warty goblin

2012-02-18, 11:30 PM

Thanks for the replies.

Ok, so currently I have it so that a character can choose to fire at a "crowd" rather than an individual. In this case they get a bonus to hit based on the size of the crowd, but their attacks strike a random person in the crowd rather than a specific opponent.

Should I allow characters in a "crowd" to benefit from the shields of adjacent allies?

It's pretty clear that shields were used for such an effect, so if you're going for realism, why not?

I do have an engaged status. Currently I give a -1 penalty to defense for each side a creature is engaged on or trapped by an obstacle.

What I am wondering if allies should also provide a penalty? Currently I do not, and people turtle up so they can't be surrounded. If I applied a penalty such a "turtle" would still have the same defense penalty, but would have fewer incoming attacks.
If the ally is facing, or fighting somebody in the other direction I'd say certainly. People get in the way of each other, and your goal is reduce clumping anyway, right?

The last issue I have is with "diagonals". I currently play on a grid, and allow people to freely gang up on an equal sized foe 4-1, one on each side. If they try and also attack diagonally I give them a hit penalty for each ally whose space they are "clipping". My players argue that this is unfair and that four more than four people could engage a single foe at a time without interfering with each other.
From my perspective it is harsh, but still not a "choice", if you have allies who can only attack diagonally they are better off doing so, no matter how big the hit penalties are. If I do apply a defense penalty for adjacent allies, this will make it a risk, but might further infuriate my players with what they already consider an unrealistically restricted system. What do you think?
This one really can't be answered from a realistic perspective meaningfully, because if you've got enemies on four sides actively attacking you, you are nearly certainly dead. My experience in various forms of simulated skirmishing over the years indicates that two on one is very hard but possible if you can keep your enemies from coordinating and can attack quickly and decisively*, three on one is extremely difficult, and four on one, particularly when attacking on multiple sides, is instantly fatal.

*I've actually observed a strange psychological reaction in that situation, where the two people become more timid. I suspect it's a combination of hoping that the other person is going to step in and do something and a greater fear of the lone warrior's inevitably very aggressive assault. I also suspect that if the combatants are actually trained, this pretty much disappears, because everybody would know to be much more aggressive.

Matthew

2012-02-19, 12:15 AM

On a related note, in close combat, how tightly would allies have to be packed before they start getting in one another's way? And how many enemies can comfortably engage a single opponent in close combat? How does this change with the reach of a weapon? How about if you are unable to surround the opponent and all fighting from the same side?

"Close" order is generally thought to be about 3' and open order 6', but as others mention it is complicated by other factors. In the 3rd century BC Polybius tells us that the Romans fought with an individual frontage of about 6' and contrasts it with the Greek pike phalanx where individual frontage is 3'. Much later (4th century AD?), Vegetius tells us that Roman infantry fight (or ought to fight) with a 3' frontage.

fusilier

2012-02-19, 06:50 PM

Another question, when and why did grouping into a tight formation fall out of favor?

I know from history the Greeks and Romans a tight formation was generally a huge advantage, while by the time of the Revolutionary War the British fighting in formation put them at a huge disadvantage.

There's a serious misconception here, that I didn't see anybody else address (although I've just skimmed the responses). --EDIT-- Ah, Mike_G briefly addressed it.

The British were not at a huge disadvantage because they fought in a tight formation during the Revolutionary War. My only guess is that this opinion comes from the myth of the American rifleman decimating musket armed formed British infantry -- it's a myth! British infantry merely needed to fix bayonets and charge to sweep American riflemen from the field.

The reason the British (and everybody, including the Americans), fought in tight formation is that it provided greater concentration of fire, which was decisive. These dense formations lasted until breechloading firearms increased the rate of fire, and the formations gradually loosened.

During the American Civil War, there was an event involving the attack of an earthwork (it's been a long time since I read the details of this account, it was either around Petersburg or Richmond). Wave after wave of troops failed to take the earthwork. One commander decided to form his men up in a tight skirmish formation -- his men reached the walls, because they didn't take as many casualties, but lacked the concentration to push through the enemy formation on the other side. So there was a trade off.

Putting men in a loose formation increased their survivability, but decreased their effectiveness. During the American Revolution, riflemen often found it necessary to retreat behind musket armed infantry to hold off a determined attack (not a bad tactic when a commander was straddled with too much rifle-armed infantry). Muskets had a higher rate of fire, and could fire buckshot at close range.