PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Thiel
2011-09-30, 01:39 AM
This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

As far as I can tell, the previous threads don't exist any more, except Version V and Version VI. This is Version IX.

A few rules for this thread:

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


With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!


Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124683)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168432)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192911)

Spiryt
2011-10-02, 04:46 AM
Back to the lamellar question a bit:

You can find nice lamellar doc. after typing

visby armor 25 (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=pl&q=battle+of+visby+25+armor&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#sclient=psy-ab&hl=pl&safe=off&client=opera&hs=AGe&rls=pl&channel=suggest&source=hp&q=visby+armor+25&pbx=1&oq=visby+armor+25&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2880l5673l0l5996l16l13l1l0l0l0l440l2518l1.6 .3.1.1l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b3aa9f97f90785c0&biw=1280&bih=640) to Google.

Here dude reconstructs (http://wojmir.pl/lamelkistal.htm) them based mainly on Birka and Balyk Sook finds. Can't find much about accuracy, but some nice pictures.

Matthew
2011-10-02, 09:19 AM
Very cool images.

Kurien
2011-10-02, 09:28 AM
I need to know what a mongol warrior would have looked like in the 13th century. If it pleases you, could someone find me some accurate image references? What would the Genghis Khan have worn and wielded during war? How could I create something similar with household materials? (I'm asking this because Halloween is also Historical Costume Day for my history class.)

Spiryt
2011-10-02, 11:41 AM
I need to know what a mongol warrior would have looked like in the 13th century. If it pleases you, could someone find me some accurate image references? What would the Genghis Khan have worn and wielded during war? How could I create something similar with household materials? (I'm asking this because Halloween is also Historical Costume Day for my history class.)

Not my forte, but generally it obviously depends on personal wealth and status/function in the horde.

Your mundane warrior from the Horde would have bow, and at least two horses, as his precious, most important equipment, wearing mostly leather clothes, with some elements of textile armor, helmet, and so on. Some more or less simple melee weapon, as well. Spear, plain sabre, club.

Some period stuff in Wiki for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MongolCavalrymen.jpg)

Rich, or veteran soldiers would be able to equip themself with mail, lamellar scale and other stuff basically from all over the Asia, there were ridiculous amount of very unique material cultures and stuff over vast steppes and mountains of Central Asia.

Heavy cavalry and other heavy hitting forces would obviously use variety of full armors , lances, swords etc.

Big boss like Genghis would probably own some crafty, often ornate combination of lamellar, mail, scale, I guess.

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7006

Can kick in some modern drawings that look roughly plausible to me.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/233/warriorxivlilwt1.jpg/sr=1


http://mongolconquest.devhub.com/img/upload/157lq3.jpg

Vitruviansquid
2011-10-04, 04:38 AM
This isn't a strictly historically oriented question, so I'd like to invite some wild speculation...

How might a human society evolve differently if it developed in isolation with agriculture, complex religious and political systems, metallurgy, and all that good stuff we associate with high medieval civilization, but somehow never developed a missile throwing device?

I mean no bows, no crossbows, no guns, no slings, no atl-atls. The most advanced way to kill someone at range would be to throw rocks at him.

FeetUpsideDown
2011-10-04, 05:46 AM
Re: the mongol warrior question

I read once ( and wikipedia says so too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization)) that mongol warriors wore silk undershirts under their leather, so that when an arrow pierced the outer armour, even if it then pierced the skin, it would carry the silk with it. Because of the strength of the silk, it wouldn't break, so would wrap the arrowhead, preventing the barbs from catching, which made removing the arrow much easier, and raised the rate of recovery from arrow wounds vastly...

Not really an answer to your question in any way - just something I thought was interesting...

Storm Bringer
2011-10-04, 06:04 AM
then the premier ranged weapon would be the javelin.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

on a more serious note, missle weapons have often acted as a great leveller, allowing a smaller, weaker person to effectivly fight agianst a stronger, better trained melee warrior.

in practice, having no mechanical method of throwing a missle means that missle weapons would still be around, but be things like javalins, and throwing axes, etc.

it would be nearly impossible to storm a castle, as without siege engines, the only way to take the damm place is climb the walls, breech the gate or undermine, all very difficult things to do. any position that had good stocks of food and water would be effectivly impregneable.

now, you'd think knights would be even more effective on a battlefield with no archers, but actually, they need the archers fire to disrupt formed infantry. without the harrassing fire of archers to screw thier formations, footsoldiers would be able to recieve every charge properly formed and ready, so knight style "shock" cavalry would not dominate, instead most cavalry would likey stay in the older, roman, model of javalin armed skirmishing cav, with (comparitivly) limited numbers of heavy cav for exploiting a badly disrupted enemy.


footsoliders would remain the leading arm, without the shift form "world conquoring roman legionire" to "downtrodden medieval cannon fodder" that happen historically. while the cavalry arm would still attract the richest/noblest, the would likey still be a resonable number of professional, full time, semi noble soldiers who fought purely on foot, like the saxon Huscarls.


armour would evlove differently as well. without the need to protect agianst long range, semi random archer fire (i.e. shots that could hit anywhere), i think full body armour would be very slow to develop, as people would trade the increased protection for mobility and ligher armour (or rather, be unwilling to trade mobility and endruance for higher protection). closed, face concealing helmets would not elvove, as thier is no need to gain protection at the cost of situational awareness. their'd be less emphasis on leg armour for foot troops, as the major threat would be another man attacking you, who'd aim at your torso arn arms, not your legs (most of the time. certainly, you'd need some leg armour, but it would be lighter and less extensive than in real would armours.) Horsemen would still need leg armour as well, though only on the outside of the legs*

battle tactics would naturally change to reflect the lack of firepower. battlefields would be "narrower" in the sense that a unit could be closer to the enemy without being in range of him, so reserves would be kept right up close to the front lines. The center of the battle would be the linfantry lines clashing and have a good old fashioned all day melee. the flanks would be dominated by cav fights as the two sides sought to turn a flank and get a clear charge at the rear of the infantry.

one thing i'm in two minds about is the changing value of terrian. high ground, in particular, i'm not to sure about. without missle weapons, it loses a lot of its advantages, but it's still a better place to be.


now, a decreased importance of cavalry would need to a less strictly feudal socity, as the material requirements for being an effective warrior are much lower. fully armoured knights were massivly expensive, which was why the feudal system went to such lengths to create a class of super-wealthly warriors. A major part of that expense was the warhorse, who could pretty much cost as much as the rest of the knights equipment combined. However, in a bowless world, the need for such super expensive horses is much less. A warrior can be a effective fighter with just the armour, or a (less expensive) horse and a few javelins. So, depending on how you look at it, either the noble classes grow considerably, or you get a earlier creation of the middle classes. that last one would have quite sweeping ramifacations, as a large middle class, with both the desire to weild polticical power and the military might to back it up, would lead to a democratic system, with a limited franchise, centuries before this became common in the real world.

the above is all my own opinion and open to debate, challenge and ridicule.


*you will note that quite a few suits of real world full plate armour have no plates covering the inner thighs or the arse, and often the groin as well. this is becuase its nearly impossible to hit a mounted knight in those locations, due to a large amount of horse being in the way.

Eldan
2011-10-04, 06:10 AM
Infantry could more often be placed in very close formations, too, without the fear of becoming a tempting archery target.

How about shields? I mean, if you don't have to worry about missile fire, how effective are large shields? Would a smaller shield do the same or a better job in melee?

And phalanges. How would anyone ever defeat heavily armoured pike squares?

Storm Bringer
2011-10-04, 06:23 AM
Infantry could more often be placed in very close formations, too, without the fear of becoming a tempting archery target.

How about shields? I mean, if you don't have to worry about missile fire, how effective are large shields? Would a smaller shield do the same or a better job in melee?

And phalanges. How would anyone ever defeat heavily armoured pike squares?

formation density would largey be a matter of how close you can pack the troops before they start to get in each others way.

shields, i think would shrink somewhat, but thiers still the threat of javelins, thrown weapons and such, plus a large shield is good for covering the legs, and gaining distance.

phalanxes would need to be delt with via a mix of fast javelin troops and good terrian management. harrass and disrupt with javelins, draw over terrian unsuitable for pike blocks, then flank and crush.

Spiryt
2011-10-04, 06:26 AM
Infantry could more often be placed in very close formations, too, without the fear of becoming a tempting archery target.

Actually *very* close formations are not that tempting archery target. Or at least can be it all depends.

Look at Roman cohort- a lot of guys standing close, but they have large shields, helmets, armor.

They have a lot of uncovered body, but if they stand in nice tight formation, it's really hard for arrow to hit angle at which it could hit shin or palm without encountering helmet or mail of a guy in front instead.

So close formation in general is pretty vital for heavy infantry to last on a battlefield, resistance to arrows is much more individual thing.

Eldan
2011-10-04, 06:27 AM
Oh, right. Javelins. I didn't think of javelins, I took the premise as "nothing ranged at all".

Spiryt
2011-10-04, 06:30 AM
Phalanxes were being beat simply with maneuvering on large scale on battle, but simple virtue that even most disciplined and fine phalanx can't do much if it's surrounded and cut off.

In fact the importance of bow, sling, and similar long range armaments over many years of Ancient period was pretty small at times - especially in Roman Army. So looking at those examples is pretty good way of imagining it all.

Storm Bringer
2011-10-04, 06:53 AM
Oh, right. Javelins. I didn't think of javelins, I took the premise as "nothing ranged at all".

well, I think Vitruviansquid discounted Javelins and simmilar thrown weapons form his premise as well. I think he just didn't think about them either. however, he does explictly mention throwing rocks, and its a very werid situation where you can pick up a pebble and throw it, but you can't throw your spear, dispite the spear being able to travel as far and do more damage. So, i assumed they were "in".



In fact the importance of bow, sling, and similar long range armaments over many years of Ancient period was pretty small at times - especially in Roman Army. So looking at those examples is pretty good way of imagining it all.

true, but remember we are supposed to be talking about a high medieval civ here, one with something like 600-1,000 years of techological progress over the romans (depending on which dates you pick as "roman" and "medieval". 600 years would roughly be the fall of the western empire to the battle of hastings.).

thiers a lot of changes. steel armour, stirrups, lances, Thoroughbred warhorses, vast improvments in architecture(a gothic cathredrals wide open spaces requires a understanding of how weight is disributed in a building that is far beyond that of the romans). mathamatics (the concept of "0", for example), and pretty much every other area of science and techology.

Spiryt
2011-10-04, 07:42 AM
true, but remember we are supposed to be talking about a high medieval civ here, one with something like 600-1,000 years of techological progress over the romans (depending on which dates you pick as "roman" and "medieval". 600 years would roughly be the fall of the western empire to the battle of hastings.).

thiers a lot of changes. steel armour, stirrups, lances, Thoroughbred warhorses, vast improvments in architecture(a gothic cathredrals wide open spaces requires a understanding of how weight is disributed in a building that is far beyond that of the romans). mathamatics (the concept of "0", for example), and pretty much every other area of science and techology.

Lances were used in antiquity as well, kontos and similar stuff employed by cataphracts and other heavy riders, partiuclarly of Middle East cannot be really called differently.

Steel armor likewise was pretty widely used, from scales of such guys to Roman segmentatas.

All in all, I'm not sure what different culture, mathematics and all really change in this hypothetical setting.

In many battles of antique, ranged weapons played quite marginal role.

So if you imagine some impossible, theoretical world, were they don't exist at all, taking examples from antiquity is good idea.

"Details" like, if this world have steel or, even wheel, or feudal system, or something like Spartan realm, are important, but we can't really take them all into account anyway.

Eldan
2011-10-04, 08:01 AM
Speaking of the East, how would steppe warriors fight? Horse Archery seemed to have been fairly normal. Lances, I guess?

Spiryt
2011-10-04, 08:31 AM
Speaking of the East, how would steppe warriors fight? Horse Archery seemed to have been fairly normal. Lances, I guess?

There is maddening amount of steppes in Asia, and trough the history there were many civilizations over there.

But generally indeed whole lotta of horses was important for any serious military. No marches, forests, rocks, one can pretty much ride forward changing horses. Necessary to cover hundreds, and hundreds of miles and still be able to provide living for the whole tribe.

As far as sheer fighting goes, then it's all up to to the details - what was the material culture of the tribes, type of armor, availability of some serious heavy elite cavalry and so on.

Undoubtedly, both reflexive bow and sabre were part of traditional arms of many steppe nomads.

Seljuks pretty much popularized sabre among the Middle Eastern world after they established their dominance in Anatolia and so on.

Deadmeat.GW
2011-10-04, 03:20 PM
Actually...I disagree, ranged weapons in antiquity were very important, especially slingers.

There are several accounts of armies being defeated due to not having slingers and some in which infantry picked up slings to stop their side from loosing badly since they needed it.

Slings were the super weapon of their time and lasted actually a lot longer in an effective manner then a lot of people assume.

A trained slinger would outrange an archer with a normal bow and tends to be more effective against softer types of armours as in that they did not need to penetrate to cause lethal wounds.

I am sure we have gone over this in at least two of the previous threads :).

Matthew
2011-10-04, 03:27 PM
Hard to say exactly how important ranged weapons were in antiquity given the usual time and space considerations [i.e. the vast amount of it]. However, I think Spiryt may well be right that there was less emphasis on ranged weapons because there was more emphasis on getting footmen quickly into contact and less on disrupting the enemy to execute a cavalry charge. Interesting subject, though, definitely something worth thinking about.

Spiryt
2011-10-04, 03:47 PM
With no offense, the very name of "super" weapon is something that I don't like at all, and certainly not something I would call a sling.:smalltongue:

Time after time, new "super" antique weapon emerges, and people from whatever reason try to 'hype' it up as something otherworldly compared to other stuff.... From katana to longbow "best ranged weapon up to Am. Civil War" and recently sling...

Sling in the hands of skilled user was undoubtedly a fearsome weapon, as historical descriptions, as well as Roman tools to extract bullets from wounds etc. tell us.

But it was by no means anything "super" - it required tremendous skill, concentration to use, and yet it still would be prone to rather great randomness due to the very way of aiming.

For comparison (http://slinging.org/index.php?page=balearic-sling-competitions---vicente) - target in sling competition is such large stuff from just 30 meters.

In case of pretty equally hobbyist archery, targets can be way smaller even at 100 yards.

They're also of limited use in formation, obviously.


A trained slinger would outrange an archer with a normal bow and tends to be more effective against softer types of armours as in that they did not need to penetrate to cause lethal wounds

What exactly would be a "normal" bow though? Non composite? Non reflexive ? 70 pounds, or slightly different.

As far as range with weights of projectiles and their effects, there's not much good data unfortunately.

What's certain is that both bow and sling can launch pretty damn varied projectiles as far as size and shape go - over different distances.

gkathellar
2011-10-04, 03:52 PM
Speaking of the East, how would steppe warriors fight? Horse Archery seemed to have been fairly normal. Lances, I guess?

Proper lances are for dedicated chargers, not the kind of light cavalry steppe warriors typically fielded. More importantly, it's hard to carry a lance and a bow, because you can't sheath the lance when you don't need it. Well, you sort of can if you have the right kind of harness — but it's more awkward than sheathing a sword or knife. You can find javelins or spears used for charging anywhere, of course, but that's a slightly different story.

The mongols preferred the one-handed saber, and they spread it all across Eurasia, because it's incredibly versatile. You can fence with it on foot or horseback, draw it quickly, and combine the curved blade with your horse's momentum to do quite a number on infantry.


How might a human society evolve differently if it developed in isolation with agriculture, complex religious and political systems, metallurgy, and all that good stuff we associate with high medieval civilization, but somehow never developed a missile throwing device?

I mean no bows, no crossbows, no guns, no slings, no atl-atls. The most advanced way to kill someone at range would be to throw rocks at him.

You could certainly make a case that such a society would never get past hunting and gathering. Ranged weaponry is really, really important to the slow increase in effort/food acquisition that allows people to settle down.

Spiryt
2011-10-04, 03:58 PM
Proper lances are for dedicated chargers, not the kind of light cavalry steppe warriors typically fielded. More importantly, it's hard to carry a lance and a bow, because you can't sheath the lance when you don't need it. Well, you sort of can if you have the right kind of harness — but it's more awkward than sheathing a sword or knife. You can find javelins or spears used for charging anywhere, of course, but that's a slightly different story.

But Mongols had dedicated chargers. :smallconfused:

Just like most other steppe people, pretty much any more powerful state would sooner or later have some elite, expensively equipped noble guys for heavy fighting.



The mongols preferred the one-handed saber, and they spread it all across Eurasia, because it's incredibly versatile. You can fence with it on foot or horseback, draw it quickly, and combine the curved blade with your horse's momentum to do quite a number on infantry.


Well, actually before them Avars and Seljuks brought a lot of sabers to Eurasia. Some sources suggest that they might have become quite popular in Rus or Hungary in Middle Ages.

gkathellar
2011-10-04, 04:28 PM
But Mongols had dedicated chargers. :smallconfused:

Just like most other steppe people, pretty much any more powerful state would sooner or later have some elite, expensively equipped noble guys for heavy fighting.

And once they were a powerful state, they weren't exactly steppe warriors anymore. :smallconfused:

The Mongols did indeed diversifiy and branch out once they were better established, but even after that light cavalry necessarily formed the core of their fighting force when it was on the move because they moved impossibly fast.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2011-10-04, 10:08 PM
Just about all the steppe tribes did have a powerful, rich elite. And that elite, generally, would fight in more armour, with a bigger bow, and a bigger sword. Some of them would instead have a HUUUUGE lance, so big that they had to be used with both hands: 4 metres long or higher.

The vast majority of the army, however, would have probably had a bow, and the very poor ones javelins.

Incanur
2011-10-04, 10:30 PM
i think full body armour would be very slow to develop, as people would trade the increased protection for mobility and ligher armour (or rather, be unwilling to trade mobility and endruance for higher protection). closed, face concealing helmets would not elvove, as thier is no need to gain protection at the cost of situational awareness.

I don't know about this. Folks certainly wore full armor in individual combat where ranged weapons weren't a factor. Source vary on the desirability a lowered visor, but at least some chose to fight that way.


their'd be less emphasis on leg armour for foot troops

There wasn't much to begin with, depending on which period you're talking about.

Deadmeat.GW
2011-10-05, 07:30 AM
With no offense, the very name of "super" weapon is something that I don't like at all, and certainly not something I would call a sling.:smalltongue:

Time after time, new "super" antique weapon emerges, and people from whatever reason try to 'hype' it up as something otherworldly compared to other stuff.... From katana to longbow "best ranged weapon up to Am. Civil War" and recently sling...

Sling in the hands of skilled user was undoubtedly a fearsome weapon, as historical descriptions, as well as Roman tools to extract bullets from wounds etc. tell us.

But it was by no means anything "super" - it required tremendous skill, concentration to use, and yet it still would be prone to rather great randomness due to the very way of aiming.

For comparison (http://slinging.org/index.php?page=balearic-sling-competitions---vicente) - target in sling competition is such large stuff from just 30 meters.

In case of pretty equally hobbyist archery, targets can be way smaller even at 100 yards.

They're also of limited use in formation, obviously.



What exactly would be a "normal" bow though? Non composite? Non reflexive ? 70 pounds, or slightly different.

As far as range with weights of projectiles and their effects, there's not much good data unfortunately.

What's certain is that both bow and sling can launch pretty damn varied projectiles as far as size and shape go - over different distances.

Fair enough, it is inaccurate, historical records obvious must be wrong since modern day hobbyists do not have the same level of accuracy and if a historical text talks about slings it must be all exagerations and fables.

Bows available for over two third of the archeaological finds when spread across a time period going back to ancient Egypt are NOT composite, NOT reflexive and very rarely over 4 foot long.
I am assuming that given the largest time period has not got these innovations then that what is used in the longer time period (and afterwards still pops up from time to time) is to be considered a normal bow.

I am sure that any data from historical records for archery if they were even HALF as quickly thrown out for lack of 100% certifiable results as slings, that we would see bows as quirky useless items.

When you have training distances for bows and for slings used in contemporary armies and the slings are set at higher targets then obviously the sling is less accurate and shorter ranged then the bow...
You checked the link out from slinging.org, I am assuming you also read the historical data before pouncing on what the hobbyists do in a country that barely does any real slinging anymore despite their history with slings.

If slings were ''yet it still would be prone to rather great randomness due to the very way of aiming'' as per your quote then it would NEVER have lasted as a military weapon and even JAVELINS would have surplanted slings rather quickly.
Ancient slingers were good enough to target individuals at 400 paces and according to some records ( I am assuming that there is some liberty here with the range because it is rather impressive) able to hit specific parts of the targets face.

The Roman military historian Vegetius (ca 400 BC) recommends a practising range of 180 m for archers. This says something for the armourers of the day, considering that even a modern bow and arrow are not acceptably accurate beyond a range of about 200 m. Yet even in King David’s time slingshots were accurate at ranges of 250 m. Xenophon reports a range of 400 m, but one must keep in mind that at that range a slinger probably aimed at a group of soldiers and the slingstone did little damage at impact.

Partysan
2011-10-05, 07:37 AM
I have a question: Do thrusting motions (as opposed to swinging motions) have an inherent advantage at piercing armor, or is the prevalence of thrusts to be used against amor solely a consequence of weapon design (piercing points generally sitting at the long end of weapons)?
The more I think about it the more I suspect it's just a feature of design, considering weapons like a horseman's pick being able to penetrate armor on a swing by placing the pointy end accordingly. But I'm not sure, so I guessed I'd ask the experts.
So, is the motion relevant or is it just the form of the weapon which hits the armor that lets it penetrate or not?

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 08:13 AM
Fair enough, it is inaccurate, historical records obvious must be wrong since modern day hobbyists do not have the same level of accuracy and if a historical text talks about slings it must be all exagerations and fables.


Of course, most of them are exaggerations, and one has to treat them carefully, just like with any sources - from bow launched using feet from Anabasis to Devilic vapors of Mongols


Bows available for over two third of the archeaological finds when spread across a time period going back to ancient Egypt are NOT composite, NOT reflexive and very rarely over 4 foot long.


Well, of course, but what's the point?

Bows used by Roman army were pretty much always reflexive composites, the same with Egyptians or Greeks.

Not to mention that those construction details don't tell us much of as good or 'rangy' is bow, even though 130 cm selfbow is indeed pretty much bound to be not very efficient at all.



I am assuming that given the largest time period has not got these innovations then that what is used in the longer time period (and afterwards still pops up from time to time) is to be considered a normal bow.


Still, those find are pretty much scarce, and nothing really tells us about performances of those bows, fair and accurate replicas are still rare and it's always hard to gain good data.

Still, it's pretty obvious that rich and varied bowyers tradition existed in Europe from a very long time.

gold on thier tips and handles .None have nocks , the strings were tied on. (http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/15389/t/4000-year-old-Egyptian-arrows-and-two-large-bows-found.html#.ToxUCfrpb1F)




When you have training distances for bows and for slings used in contemporary armies and the slings are set at higher targets then obviously the sling is less accurate and shorter ranged then the bow...
You checked the link out from slinging.org, I am assuming you also read the historical data before pouncing on what the hobbyists do in a country that barely does any real slinging anymore despite their history with slings.

If slings were ''yet it still would be prone to rather great randomness due to the very way of aiming'' as per your quote then it would NEVER have lasted as a military weapon and even JAVELINS would have surplanted slings rather quickly.

Historical stuff is pretty much not the 'data'. Bow distances I refereed to are also "hobbyist in the country", no point in comparing to some serious archers.

Comparisons to javelin is really pretty pointless - like you mentioned slings are, among other things, pretty long rage weapons, while javelins are relatively large, short range throwing stuff.

So it's apples and oranges, and randomness of sling shot launch is in no way connected to the fact if javelins can "supplant" it or not. :smallconfused:




Ancient slingers were good enough to target individuals at 400 paces and according to some records ( I am assuming that there is some liberty here with the range because it is rather impressive) able to hit specific parts of the targets face.



That has a whole lot liberty, how do you even imagine it?

Assuming liberally, that 400 paces is ~ 250 meters here, this is the distance from which your average shooter will have problems to target face from modern carbine, with it's accuracy, and ability to aim trough muzzle etc.

Targeting the face, let alone specific parts, with something that swings above you eyes in the moment of launch, is pretty much abstraction....


All in all, slings were impressive weapons, and it's usage with great results though whole a lot of time is undeniable, but they weren't really any sort of "super" weapons, just like longbow or whatever is not. Thus I don't get why many people seem to get annoyed when anybody states that, simply...

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 08:23 AM
I have a question: Do thrusting motions (as opposed to swinging motions) have an inherent advantage at piercing armor, or is the prevalence of thrusts to be used against armor solely a consequence of weapon design (piercing points generally sitting at the long end of weapons)?
The more I think about it the more I suspect it's just a feature of design, considering weapons like a horseman's pick being able to penetrate armor on a swing by placing the pointy end accordingly. But I'm not sure, so I guessed I'd ask the experts.
So, is the motion relevant or is it just the form of the weapon which hits the armor that lets it penetrate or not?

Piercing advantage comes from pretty simple concentration of energy caused by one's motion.

When you do piercing, energy is focused on very small area of, say, armor, and it can do the work against pretty much limited amount of material - just layer of it, in one place.

Motion mechanics are pretty secondary, because they can very varied.

They are naturally extremely important, but obviously can differ even in the case of one and the same weapon, so they're not decisive for this case.

(piercing points generally sitting at the long end of weapons)?

Katars and similar punching daggers, could be, AFAIU, very effective at penetrating stuff without being long at all.

It came from the piercing motion, of course, and form the fact that punching motion can generate a lot of impact - and transversal hold allows to transfer it well - as opposed to "normal" grip which is bound to be not very efficient.

Partysan
2011-10-05, 09:14 AM
What I meant was: does the armor piercing only stem from the concentration of force on one point, i.e. the weapon being somewhat pointy at the part used to attack (horseman's pick's beak, sword's point, halberd's spike etc.) and the form of attack doesn't matter (sword thrusts when using the point, pick is swung when using the point etc.)? Or does a thrusting motion aid the penetration as opposed to a swinging motion (which generally has more power behind it)?

The Reverend
2011-10-05, 09:25 AM
Domesticated rhinoceros and elephants with a fair amount of armor in formation charging, Also war wagons breaking up formations. Heck WarBulls, through bred large bulls armored and ridden into combat. Whose going to try and stand against the 100 tons of angry cow charging the phalanx flank. But frankly I think the real tool that would come more to the forefront would be assassins and rogues. A lot more setting fires in the camps, opening the city gates, poisoning provisions, poisoning the relationships within a cities ruling class, etc. You might get an entire class of mercenary "Social Ninja" who disrupts society, spreads gossips, starts feuds, and generally weakens the social structure.

hmm battlefield traps should be used as often as possible hidden pits, oil soaked ground, or heck even just digging closely placed 2 1/2 foot deep "knee snapper" holes across a section of the field of battle would badly discourage mass formations and channel movement. Hide some leave some obvious.
You have to assume society has been without missile weapons forever so has had thousands of years to get used to it.

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 09:31 AM
As I had said, I think it can vary greatly, so it's hard to give definite answers.

One can guess there's a lot of leverage working in good swing, but on the other hand putting your body behind spear thrust seem way more natural....

So I would guess there's too much variable here for definite answer, with the way weapons can be swung with different body rotations etc.

Would actually need someone good at physics and body mechanics to answer that one. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-10-05, 09:43 AM
I'd imagine aircraft, even slow ones like zeppelins, become extremely interesting without ranged weapons. Think about it:

How do you shoot down aircraft without ranged weapons?

On the other hand, a zeppelin can still drop stones. Very, very large stones.

There's your siege weapon, people.

gkathellar
2011-10-05, 10:09 AM
What I meant was: does the armor piercing only stem from the concentration of force on one point, i.e. the weapon being somewhat pointy at the part used to attack (horseman's pick's beak, sword's point, halberd's spike etc.) and the form of attack doesn't matter (sword thrusts when using the point, pick is swung when using the point etc.)? Or does a thrusting motion aid the penetration as opposed to a swinging motion (which generally has more power behind it)?

No, in the case of most weapons — armor-piercing relies on generating a large amount of force at a relatively small point, and the exact nature of a swing or strike does a great deal to define how much forces you can put into a blow.

Picks, hammers and axes obviously generate more force with swinging blows because of weight distribution and momentum, and that adds onto the concentration of energy that comes from a relatively small point of impact. Taking the head off of a pick and stabbing at someone with it would not penetrate armor with much effectiveness. So in that case: no, it really comes from both.

With regards to swords and polearms, swinging motions do not generally have more power behind them. Even with a one-handed sword, it can (generally, with numerous exceptions) be far easier to put your body's force behind a thrust than a swing. This is for two reasons. Firstly, a thrust can include a large motion while remaining quick and effective, while large chops are inefficient and predictable. Secondly, a well-performed thrust places your entire body mass behind the movement. A boxing metaphor: think of the difference between a haymaker (busy, slow, roundabout and basically dependent on shoulder strength) and a straight (dynamic, quick, and basically dependent on foot, leg, hip and abdominal strength).

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 10:46 AM
A boxing metaphor: think of the difference between a haymaker (busy, slow, roundabout and basically dependent on shoulder strength) and a straight (dynamic, quick, and basically dependent on foot, leg, hip and abdominal strength).

That obviously depends by how one defines "haymaker" then, but you can obviously put a lot of foot, hip and torso behind hail mary, with a very wide movement, making it clumsy and rondabout indeed, but extremely powerful on the other hand.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2myn7rr.jpg

So, like mentioned, you can have hell of a differnet movements falling between two "basic" swing and thrust.

The difference between sword and something like axe in putting a good blow would be more in balance and harmonics when striking the target.

gkathellar
2011-10-05, 11:04 AM
That obviously depends by how one defines "haymaker" then, but you can obviously put a lot of foot, hip and torso behind hail mary, with a very wide movement, making it clumsy and rondabout indeed, but extremely powerful on the other hand.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2myn7rr.jpg

My definitions may be off here, but the punch Fedor throws there looks like a straight to me. He extends further into it than a boxer would because he's looking to use it as a takedown entry, but that punch is by no means wide or circular enough to be classed as a haymaker.


So, like mentioned, you can have hell of a differnet movements falling between two "basic" swing and thrust.

The difference between sword and something like axe in putting a good blow would be more in balance and harmonics when striking the target.

As I said, I'm generalizing broadly, and there are numerous exceptions. (Nor am I saying "thrusts are better and do more damage than cuts," I'm simply noting that, with a spear or sword, thrusts tend to generate more raw energy that can be focused at a single point for armor-piercing purposes.)

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 11:19 AM
I don't really feel knowledgeable here, but I'm pretty sure arm is going way too far away to the right from the torso for it to be classified as a classical cross.

http://www.dc-athlete.com/images/right_cross.gif


Straight should be.... well straight, and this indeed looks like some hybrid between cross and haymaker.

It's slower than proper cross from obvious reasons, but a lot of rotational movement to the left gives it power.

Of course, one can just classify "haymaker" as a sloppy punch without any method into it, and then it indeed can be just weak and all, but that's semantics. :smallwink:

fusilier
2011-10-05, 11:55 AM
What I meant was: does the armor piercing only stem from the concentration of force on one point, i.e. the weapon being somewhat pointy at the part used to attack (horseman's pick's beak, sword's point, halberd's spike etc.) and the form of attack doesn't matter (sword thrusts when using the point, pick is swung when using the point etc.)? Or does a thrusting motion aid the penetration as opposed to a swinging motion (which generally has more power behind it)?

I believe that a swinging motion generally has more power behind it. [As an aside, in GURPS swinging is more powerful than thrusting]. So the form factor has a lot to do with armor penetration. However, a sword thrust is *quick* compared to a swing. It also requires that the sword and arm be held in such a way that it is stiff.

However, the swinging motion used with a weapon, and that used with a fist are rather different. [In GURPS all punches are based on thrust, never swing]. A hook (haymaker?) is typically not as a powerful as straight punch (cross?), but I don't think you would swing a sword with a hook like motion at your opponent -- although I admit that my experience is very limited. So if the weapon is small and light (like a dagger), then perhaps a thrusting motion delivers as much force as a swinging motion. A dagger can be wielded in an "over-hand" fashion, which would make attacking with it a downward swinging motion. I don't know if there are any studies showing that that style delivers more force . . .

gkathellar
2011-10-05, 12:11 PM
The implication wasn't meant to be that you swing a sword the way you throw a punch. You don't, for the most part. I used the words "boxing metaphor" because the comparison between a straight and a haymaker was meant to be illustrative of the difference between generating power for a thrust an generating power for a chop. It was only meant to provide a slightly more intuitive way of wrapping one's head around the differences in power production.

Bear in mind that in combat with bladed weapons, power is mostly useful for wearing down an enemy's defenses/armor, not for actually doing damage. The edge of your weapon will cover that last part for you.

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 12:13 PM
A hook (haymaker?) is typically not as a powerful as straight punch (cross?),

Hook is not really the same as haymaker, and I'm pretty sure that crosses and hooks can pretty much rival in terms of power...

But "pure" cross can never be as powerful as something that you also add "swing" to.




In GURPS all punches are based on thrust, never swing]

Depends on definition I guess, but it seems pretty weird to me - of course punching impact will always by pretty "thrust like", but motion in many punches, damn classic hook, for example will be obviously "swing like" in motion of the body.

http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/76067/overeem_hari_3_medium.gif

Not to even mention uppercut.



Bear in mind that in combat with bladed weapons, power is mostly useful for wearing down an enemy's defenses/armor, not for actually doing damage. The edge of your weapon will cover that last part for you.

Well, big power won't obviously be needed in many cases, but still some serious energy will usually be needed - especially if striking massive, resistant part of the body like ribcage or skull, and wanting to end fight as quickly as possible.

Simple connection/pat will rarely do the job, especially if target has at least shirt, or whatever.

gkathellar
2011-10-05, 12:56 PM
Hook is not really the same as haymaker, and I'm pretty sure that crosses and hooks can pretty much rival in terms of power...

But "pure" cross can never be as powerful as something that you also add "swing" to.

Pretty much stop on. Hooks are defined by the use of torque to generate energy, usually from rotation of the hips. (You can turn the foot during a hook to put even more force into it, but that can leave you defenseless.) Karate people would probably debate that you can get more from a straight punch than a hook, but they also throw their straight punches very differently than boxers do.

There is one way you can definitely get more power from a cross than a hook, though — use it to counter.


Depends on definition I guess, but it seems pretty weird to me - of course punching impact will always by pretty "thrust like", but motion in many punches, damn classic hook, for example will be obviously "swing like" in motion of the body.

Not to even mention uppercut.

And that's without even getting into things like the hammer fist, knife hand, ridge hand, back fist, swinging iron claw or slap.


Simple connection/pat will rarely do the job, especially if target has at least shirt, or whatever.

This is true. You generally don't need much power to seriously injure someone with a blade, but you do need some.

fusilier
2011-10-05, 01:59 PM
Depends on definition I guess, but it seems pretty weird to me - of course punching impact will always by pretty "thrust like", but motion in many punches, damn classic hook, for example will be obviously "swing like" in motion of the body.

Gurps defines swing and thrust as numerical damage. So a rapier may do thrust+2 piercing damage, and a shortsword may have swing-1 cutting damage, or something like that. Punches are all derived from the thrust value (but they aren't necessarily equal to thrust). We're not really supposed to go into game details on this thread, just wanted to clarify.

I thought hooks in boxing were primarily used close in where they, hopefully, can "hook around" your opponent's defenses, by attacking them from the edge of their peripheral vision? Punches being most powerful, and jabs being quick and direct. But, I'm by no means a student of the art.

Incanur
2011-10-05, 02:09 PM
(Nor am I saying "thrusts are better and do more damage than cuts," I'm simply noting that, with a spear or sword, thrusts tend to generate more raw energy that can be focused at a single point for armor-piercing purposes.)

Blows always generate more power than thrusts, but you're correct for swords and spears because blades have greater area than points.


So if the weapon is small and light (like a dagger), then perhaps a thrusting motion delivers as much force as a swinging motion. A dagger can be wielded in an "over-hand" fashion, which would make attacking with it a downward swinging motion. I don't know if there are any studies showing that that style delivers more force . . .

There are, and the show that the overarm ice-pick-grip swing delivers considerably more energy (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/12/armor-vs-muscle.html) than the underarm thrust.


Bear in mind that in combat with bladed weapons, power is mostly useful for wearing down an enemy's defenses/armor, not for actually doing damage. The edge of your weapon will cover that last part for you.

Thrusts require hardly any force to deliver a fatal wound - except against bone - but you need power to cut effectively.

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 02:38 PM
I thought hooks in boxing were primarily used close in where they, hopefully, can "hook around" your opponent's defenses, by attacking them from the edge of their peripheral vision? Punches being most powerful, and jabs being quick and direct. But, I'm by no means a student of the art.

Well, which "punches" are most powerful though?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that hooks can be used in majority of applications, but their obviously visibly lower range must be taken into account.

On mentioned short ranges they're pretty obviously most powerful one though.

http://a660.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/93/l_207d38def82753c74ff826db7a6e6f7b.gif

gkathellar
2011-10-05, 03:11 PM
Blows always generate more power than thrusts, but you're correct for swords and spears because blades have greater area than points.

I'm inclined to disagree with you from my own experience, but it may be that I'm feeling the way energy would be delivered when I cut or thrust, rather than the actual amount of energy.


Thrusts require hardly any force to deliver a fatal wound - except against bone - but you need power to cut effectively.

That really depends on where you're cutting or thrusting.


I thought hooks in boxing were primarily used close in where they, hopefully, can "hook around" your opponent's defenses, by attacking them from the edge of their peripheral vision?

A hook is really just a torque-based punch with a tightly controlled arc of motion, which can be seamlessly executed while moving backwards because it doesn't derive force from forward movement. How exactly it's used is situational.

Aux-Ash
2011-10-05, 03:50 PM
There are, and the show that the overarm ice-pick-grip swing delivers considerably more energy (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/12/armor-vs-muscle.html) than the underarm thrust.

Of course it does. It's moving a greater distance and the energy "gained" from taking the object down from a higher position affects a lot. Not to mention the tensile energy when triceps brachii contract. There's a whole lot more stuff moving and many more systems involved in a overarm motion than a thrust.

And it has nothing to do with how well you will injure another. Force is a far more interesting thing to study here and even that will be insufficient to correctly describe what we're seeing.

Traab
2011-10-05, 05:37 PM
This is just my opinion, but a fairly heavy weapon like say a broadsword (compared to something light like a dagger) would generate more force from a full force swing due to the momentum as well as putting your body into it. The problem is, that extra force is spread out along a much wider impact point of the 6 inches of edge that is connecting, or whatever portion of the blade hits, A thrust has somewhat less momentum and force, but because its all concentrated on a single inch or less of impact area, it has a magnified effect. I cant say which is better, though my gut says thrust, since the point has to penetrate less armor than your blade edge would on a swing.

I know, I know, deadliest warriors = stupid, but I wanted to point out something I saw on it. Between ivan the terribles bardiche, and cortez and his halberd at taking a guy off horse back. That bardiche, even swung by someone tired, made a terrific dent, but it didnt penetrate. The bardiche had a sizable amount of force behind it, but because it was smashing into a foots worth of armor, all that force was dissipated into a nasty dent, while the armor remained intact. That happened a lot, hacking weapons would generally penetrate armor less effectively than piercing weapons. Of course, on an unarmored target, I say hack away. Sure poking a hole in someone is nice, but cutting them in half at the waist is nicer. :p

Raum
2011-10-05, 05:59 PM
Re: Thrust vs Swing / hook and armor penetration.
- Thrusts have three basic advantages: a shorter distance to target (straight line); greater range (a lunge can cover a surprising amount of ground); and, for defensive purposes, your weapon stays between you and your opponent.
- Swings / hooks have longer to travel but tend to be more powerful due to the body's rotational movement. If swinging a weapon, its tip speed is almost certainly faster than the point speed of a thrust (by equally skilled wielders) but will often look slower due to traveling a greater distance. There is also a significant difference in mechanics and penetration between a chopping swing and a cutting swing.

When it comes to actually penetrating steel, the amount of force you can apply to a small area is what matters. That said, in the case of armor you're generally better off going for a joint than trying to penetrate the steel. Armor works!

Spiryt
2011-10-05, 06:08 PM
I know, I know, deadliest warriors = stupid, but I wanted to point out something I saw on it. Between ivan the terribles bardiche, and cortez and his halberd at taking a guy off horse back. That bardiche, even swung by someone tired, made a terrific dent, but it didnt penetrate. The bardiche had a sizable amount of force behind it, but because it was smashing into a foots worth of armor, all that force was dissipated into a nasty dent, while the armor remained intact. That happened a lot, hacking weapons would generally penetrate armor less effectively than piercing weapons. Of course, on an unarmored target, I say hack away. Sure poking a hole in someone is nice, but cutting them in half at the waist is nicer. :p

That's pretty clear, and that's the reason why thrust are pretty much banned in even pretty hardcore reenacting fights.

Big dent from axe can leave some headache, or broken bones, which is rarely dangerous when you can just say "stop" and leave the fight. But point can always find a way to get where it shouldn't.

But all in all, in any fight you also hack/slash/bash/jab depends on options you have given enemies equipment, actions, surrounding, etc.

So you do what you can in first place, obviously trying to do what you want, but the result is always different thing.

Anyway, even with heavy polaxe thingies, treatises seem to suggest thrusts indeed, thrust in what we would call "joints" too:

http://ardamhe.free.fr/img/kamp0279.jpg



Swings / hooks have longer to travel but tend to be more powerful due to the body's rotational movement

One can sometimes gain a lot of forward momentum in case of thrusts though, I guess. Charging (horses alone) or whatever. Hard to tell. :smallbiggrin:

gkathellar
2011-10-05, 06:15 PM
You're mostly right, but I just want to call out one point.


- Swings / hooks have longer to travel but tend to be more powerful due to the body's rotational movement.

You can and should put the body's rotational movement into a thrust by pivoting your hips and shoulders into the strike. It's true you'll never get the momentum of a wide swing, but you can certainly get the advantageous body mechanics.

Traab
2011-10-05, 07:34 PM
When it comes to actually penetrating steel, the amount of force you can apply to a small area is what matters. That said, in the case of armor you're generally better off going for a joint than trying to penetrate the steel. Armor works!

Best part is that while the joints may not reveal vital organs to aim at, there are a lot of major blood vessels to sever. So you may not get a punctured heart, but a severed femoral artery will kill you plenty fast enough. Or a crippled arm so you cant even USE your weapon anymore, all sorts of useful targets to hit.

Hawkfrost000
2011-10-05, 08:01 PM
This is true. You generally don't need much power to seriously injure someone with a blade, but you do need some.

Depends on the sword, with a Longsword yes. But with something like a rapier you can safely deflect slashes and stabs with your bare hands and there is a whole series of movements devoted to it. It also requires a significant amount of force to cut effectively with a rapier, which is often sharper than a longsword.

DM

Incanur
2011-10-05, 09:57 PM
And it has nothing to do with how well you will injure another.

When it comes penetrating armor, clothing, and/or bone, kinetic energy matters.


That happened a lot, hacking weapons would generally penetrate armor less effectively than piercing weapons.

During the height of plate armor in Europe, neither the blow nor thrust had much change of penetrating quality harness. Even with pollaxes and halberds, authors recommended thrusting for gaps and striking at the head. You don't have to cleave somebody's helmet to kill them.

Beleriphon
2011-10-05, 10:48 PM
In regards to the thrust vs swing comments, its all a matter of how a weapon was designed to be used, and for whom.

A spear thrusts because 1) its easy to make, 2) it works well in formation, 3) it keeps you at a distance from your opponent and 4) its hard to swing something meant to be thrown (at least nominally thrown).

An arming sword (the classical D&D longsword) can be thrust and swung as a function of design. A weapon designed to be used from horseback can be hard to thrust since many times the thrust is aimed at a target you are moving perpendicular too, unless you are charging them. In charge the rider has to aim his lance, and keep the horse moving. Functionally the horse is doing all of the heavy lifting as far as momentum and application of force goes. The swing can still use the horse's momentum. A weapon that can do both is designed to be used in multiple ways, and there were combat techniques that were meant to that advantage of that.

Knaight
2011-10-05, 10:53 PM
I believe that a swinging motion generally has more power behind it. [As an aside, in GURPS swinging is more powerful than thrusting]. So the form factor has a lot to do with armor penetration. However, a sword thrust is *quick* compared to a swing. It also requires that the sword and arm be held in such a way that it is stiff.
It depends. The length of the weapon effectively translates into the arc it follows, and the longer this is, the harder it hits. Kinetic energy being mass times velocity squared and what not. As such, a swinging motion with a longer weapon picks up a lot of energy, where swinging a dagger or something really wouldn't. Its particularly nasty with something you effectively lengthen the arc of while swinging - if you've seen a hewing spear in use, you know what I'm talking about.

I'd imagine aircraft, even slow ones like zeppelins, become extremely interesting without ranged weapons. Think about it:

How do you shoot down aircraft without ranged weapons?

Hang gliders with edges or a point sticking out deal quite well with zeppelins. With hydrogen zeppelins, its a blatant kamikaze move, but with helium it might actually be a survivable attack. Airplanes though, those cause problems.

fusilier
2011-10-05, 11:32 PM
It depends. The length of the weapon effectively translates into the arc it follows, and the longer this is, the harder it hits. Kinetic energy being mass times velocity squared and what not. As such, a swinging motion with a longer weapon picks up a lot of power, where swinging a dagger or something really wouldn't.

Actually, as pointed out earlier force is more important, and in this rotational framework it's called torque. The question was whether or not you could generate more force thrusting versus swinging your arm. I assumed that mechanical advantage by artificially lengthening the arm was not considered.

So the example of swinging a dagger overhand versus thrusting underhand with a dagger was appropriate.

Also concerning the force generated by a punch. A sword thrust could be weaker than a straight punch, as the stance can involve leading with the same foot and hand.

Knaight
2011-10-05, 11:35 PM
Actually, as pointed out earlier force is more important, and in this rotational framework it's called torque. The question was whether or not you could generate more force thrusting versus swinging your arm. I assumed that mechanical advantage by artificially lengthening the arm was not considered.

Given that the force being discussed tends to be the deceleration of the weapon upon contact, kinetic energy is highly relevant. Its not a one to one correlation by any means, but high torque weapons are likely to be high KE weapons - and artificially lengthening the arm has to be considered for a meaningful understanding of swung weapons, as they basically all do that to some extent.

Aux-Ash
2011-10-06, 12:09 AM
When it comes penetrating armor, clothing, and/or bone, kinetic energy matters.


Kinetic energy is useful to measure what it takes to move something or as a go to step for heat, friction and similar. There's a reason there's an entire field in mechanics that deals with momentum, impacts, impulses and such. It's really quite complex.

One of the biggest problems is that in an impact, the energy in the system between the two objects that are hitting one another is combined (and if a 100 kg of human+equipment is involved, reaching the kJ-level is relatively easy). . But that doesn't mean there's great force exerted. You can have high energy with low force and low force with high energy.

The physics behind how a human body moves, and is injured, is amazingly complex. Like how the bones can easily support our entire weight and then some from above but if the same force is exerted from the side, while doing this they, break. But if they don't have to support our weight they can usually take it.
Kinetic energy is one of the absolutely simplest tools. It is simply insufficient to take into account the amazing complexity of it all.

If energy is all that it takes, there's also another problem. Arrows should be at their deadliest at their maximum range since that's when they'll have the most kinetic energy. All the energy that was required to lift them have at that point converted back into kinetic energy.
I believe observations fail to support that.

But to compare. According to your source up there, it'll take about 110 J to penetrate plate. I wonder if it ever took into account what our knight's kinetic energy would be?
Let's assume a 380 kg horse (since they used to be smaller), 70 kg of man (he'll probably be heavier) and 30 kg of equipment. Since he's probably approaching to kill they'll be charging and thus at a gallop. 40 km/h is 11,1 m/s.
w = (mv2)/2 gives us kinetic energy, m is mass, w is work (energy) and v is velocity. Some quick math shows us that the knight (and his armour) has a kinetic energy of approximately 29 040 J. 29 kJ.
And I haven't even taken friction into account.
So our knight here has, on his own (allright... the horse helped), a kinetic energy of a little more than 270 times what's needed for an arrowhead to penetrate his armour. And he'll most likely be going towards the archer.

That energy will not magically vanish when he hits something. But even if he isn't travelling at that speed or weighs a bit less... many impacts with knights and such will be in the kJ range. Because there's a whole lot of mass to transport/slow down.

In addition: Even if a object ricochets, it will still transfer a considerable amount of energy to the object it hits. Even if it bounces, all the energy that was used to move it forward have to be expended for the object to start travel in a different direction.

fusilier
2011-10-06, 12:37 AM
- and artificially lengthening the arm has to be considered for a meaningful understanding of swung weapons, as they basically all do that to some extent.

Why?

If we want to know whether or not the action of swinging delivers more force, unassisted, than a thrust, why would we start by assuming we have an artificially extended arm.

Why not start by assuming no extension of the arm? Then consider the effect of swinging long weapons once we have established a basis. A very good, and totally practical example would be a dagger wielded overhand versus underhand.

Knaight
2011-10-06, 12:40 AM
Why?

If we want to know whether or not the action of swinging delivers more force, unassisted, than a thrust, why would we start by assuming we have an artificially extended arm.

Why not start by assuming no extension of the arm? Then consider the effect of swinging long weapons once we have established a basis. A very good, and totally practical example would be a dagger wielded overhand versus underhand.
We are talking about the use of actual weapons though, and the vast majority of swung weapons do meaningfully extend the arm. The dagger is one of a handful of weapons where that isn't the case, and even then, there are a handful of larger knives that could be called a dagger where it does extend the arm.

fusilier
2011-10-06, 12:52 AM
Kinetic energy is useful to measure what it takes to move something or as a go to step for heat, friction and similar. There's a reason there's an entire field in mechanics that deals with momentum, impacts, impulses and such. It's really quite complex.
. . .
snip
. . .


Thank you very much for your post.

We somehow get into this conversation almost any time somebody mentions armor penetration, and all of this has to be rehashed again and again.

Kinetic energy is just too easy to calculate, and too easy for people to fall back upon. As a result many people think it's all that matters.


The physics behind how a human body moves, and is injured, is amazingly complex. Like how the bones can easily support our entire weight and then some from above but if the same force is exerted from the side, while doing this they, break. But if they don't have to support our weight they can usually take it.

I think this, the first part, touches upon Partysan's original question (well follow up question):


Or does a thrusting motion aid the penetration as opposed to a swinging motion (which generally has more power behind it)?

I think there may be something about a typical sword thrust that is very "rigid" (?). The body and sword are aligned to the same line, and if the thrust is square, it probably helps keep the point on a very narrow target. Not sure about it though.

fusilier
2011-10-06, 01:36 AM
We are talking about the use of actual weapons though, and the vast majority of swung weapons do meaningfully extend the arm.

Yes: in significantly varying amounts. I could swing an eight-foot halberd at your head, or a 1.5 foot long bronze age short sword! So starting from the question of "is a human arm swing more or less powerful than a human arm thrust" is a totally valid place to start a line of inquiry. Otherwise, we can't speak in generalities we have to speak about each weapon specifically in it's own terms. Only if we set a basis can we then proceed to how weapon design changes the outcome.

Types of thrusts and types of swings should also be considered, as well as how weapon design effects what kinds of swings and thrusts can be used.

As mentioned earlier, there is a claim that a dagger swung in an overhand fashion generates more energy than one thrust underhand. [Aux-ash, I'm guessing that energy is safe to use here, as the weapon is the same and the attack is with the "point"? The difference would then become how and what part of the body/armor is hit?] So, swinging, may be an inherently better way of delivering a more forceful blow. If this is correct, we do not need to establish some minimum amount of extra length where a swing would be as powerful as a thrust. Longer swung weapons should increase the amount of force. So something like a pick, should do even more damage. But! is there something about the rigid stance of something like a sword thrust, that gives an unexpected advantage -- perhaps something not easily captured by simple force or energy calculations? Does the rigidity of the stance (arm, sword, and body all aligned) prevent or reduce any potential "rebound" that might reduce actual penetration?

gkathellar
2011-10-06, 07:50 AM
I think there may be something about a typical sword thrust that is very "rigid" (?). The body and sword are aligned to the same line, and if the thrust is square, it probably helps keep the point on a very narrow target. Not sure about it though.

This is part of what I've been trying to say. Thank you for putting it into clearer terms, although "rigidity" isn't necessarily the word I would use. Rather, because the muscles and bones can "push" a thrust forward, they can perform more work than they would with a swing. It's less a question of rigidity and more one of physiological reinforcement.


Does the rigidity of the stance (arm, sword, and body all aligned) prevent or reduce any potential "rebound" that might reduce actual penetration?

Somewhat. Because the body is physically behind a thrust, it can absorb the actual impact better. With any kind of large swing, the arms and shoulders basically have to do this by themselves. (Smaller, more contained chops and slashes executed with a square body can capture some of the best characteristics of a thrust in terms of mechanics, but they lose out on momentum.)


We are talking about the use of actual weapons though, and the vast majority of swung weapons do meaningfully extend the arm.

Part of the problem with this line of argument is the ambiguity of what you mean by "extend the arm." If you mean "the elbow tends to straighten," then yes, obviously. But if you're talking about the momentum of a swing hyperextending the shoulder, then what you're actually talking about is losing control of your strike. Too much hyperextension can disconnect the bones and muscles from the swing, which results in an ultimately weaker blow.

Knaight
2011-10-06, 07:56 AM
Part of the problem with this line of argument is the ambiguity of what you mean by "extend the arm." If you mean "the elbow tends to straighten," then yes, obviously. But if you're talking about the momentum of a swing hyperextending the shoulder, then what you're actually talking about is losing control of your strike. Too much hyperextension can disconnect the bones and muscles from the swing, which results in an ultimately weaker blow.

I mean when comparing something to an unarmed swing, you have to take into account that there is something in the hand effectively making the arm longer. How much longer varies - it might be a mere sword or axe, and on the shorter range, it might be some variety of swung polearm, but the arm and the weapon are longer. Its effectively artificial arm extension.

gkathellar
2011-10-06, 08:24 AM
So all you're saying is that big things are heavier, which gives them more momentum, which makes them hit harder.

This is clearly true, but it doesn't really address the question Partysan originally asked — on whether or not the physiological action of swinging a weapon as opposed to thrusting it conveyed any advantages with regards to armor penetration.

Spiryt
2011-10-06, 08:29 AM
Somewhat. Because the body is physically behind a thrust, it can absorb the actual impact better. With any kind of large swing, the arms and shoulders basically have to do this by themselves. (Smaller, more contained chops and slashes executed with a square body can capture some of the best characteristics of a thrust in terms of mechanics, but they lose out on momentum.)


Pretty much this.

Absorbing impact can often allow for more 'straightforward" heavy strikes - while smashing stuff with an axe often ends with wrists in pain, because all in all energy won't ever perform work only on target....

Knaight
2011-10-06, 08:34 AM
So all you're saying is that big things are heavier, which gives them more momentum, which makes them hit harder.

This is clearly true, but it doesn't really address the question Partysan originally asked — on whether or not the physiological action of swinging a weapon as opposed to thrusting it conveyed any advantages with regards to armor penetration.

Its not a matter of mass, at least not entirely. Basically, over a period of time the object moves a certain distance, and if it moves further over that time it has more energy. Getting hit by faster objects tends to hurt more, all other things equal. Now, with a swung object, a wider arc comes from more length, which means more distance moved, which means a faster object that contacts, which isn't the case with thrusting motions, which aren't affected by the length of what is being thrusted with nearly as significantly - if anything, longer objects are likely to be slower. Hence, even if thrusting has more energy unarmed, increasing the swung arm length by, say, 50% translates to a 125% gain in energy, which correlates to force to some extent (though there is the huge matter of pressure, which is a different matter entirely). As such, one has to look at the whole "weapons as arm lengtheners" aspect.

Spiryt
2011-10-06, 08:42 AM
Its not a matter of mass, at least not entirely. Basically, over a period of time the object moves a certain distance, and if it moves further over that time it has more energy. Getting hit by faster objects tends to hurt more, all other things equal. Now, with a swung object, a wider arc comes from more length, which means more distance moved, which means a faster object that contacts, which isn't the case with thrusting motions, which aren't affected by the length of what is being thrusted with nearly as significantly - if anything, longer objects are likely to be slower. Hence, even if thrusting has more energy unarmed, increasing the swung arm length by, say, 50% translates to a 125% gain in energy, which correlates to force to some extent (though there is the huge matter of pressure, which is a different matter entirely). As such, one has to look at the whole "weapons as arm lengtheners" aspect.

All energy has to come from somewhere however, and in result with large lever, energy of body momentum still goes into the blow, but not directly - instead it speeds up the business end of the weapon, doesn't it?

If it actually increases the total amount of energy received by target, depends on very many things, but longer weapon arm won't just mean harder strike necessarily.

Aux-Ash
2011-10-06, 11:09 AM
[Aux-ash, I'm guessing that energy is safe to use here, as the weapon is the same and the attack is with the "point"? The difference would then become how and what part of the body/armor is hit?

Euh... good question. We're talking a overhand stab versus a thrusting stab, right?

Spontaneously I'd say that in a thrust you're going for a quick impulse, delivering a lot of force over very little time and thus doing very little Work (energy). So high force, low energy.
Whereas in a overhand attack (or a cut/slice) you're after a longer point of connection so that you can exert greater Force over time. You want as long a connection as possible. Moderate force, high energy.

The former would then primarily be about destabilising, and perhaps penetrating through merit of being too quick for the force to spread evenly. Whereas the latter is all about pushing through.

Mind that's this is a guess. I could be very wrong about this.

Also. I use a vastly different set of muscles in a overhand strike than in a thrust. This will matter for a lot. Perhaps even more than enything else.

One thing worth keeping in mind though, is that while a overhand grip might "deliver" more energy, the body is also much better at recieving work from above. We're made to be able to add mass (by lifting stuff) and both bones (fun fact: bones are springs on a molecular level) and tissues can handle that. And if all else fails, I can minimise the work you can use to injure me by allowing my knees to bend.


---

As for the other discussion. Like some of you have touched upon, the longer the lever the more the Force. The more the Force the greater acceleration. The more acceleration the higher speed.
F = m*a. F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration.

And a weapon is just that; A lever.

But this isn't the end all be all of the mechanics behind it all. Be mindful of that.

gkathellar
2011-10-06, 11:36 AM
Also, are we talking about thrusts/chops from a stationary position, or incorporating a step (or even just a shifting of the weight from back foot to front foot)? The two would look very different, and probably generate force very differently.

razark
2011-10-06, 12:28 PM
I have a question: Do thrusting motions (as opposed to swinging motions) have an inherent advantage at piercing armor, or is the prevalence of thrusts to be used against amor solely a consequence of weapon design (piercing points generally sitting at the long end of weapons)?
It depends on how the weapon is designed. For each weapon, a swing or a thrust is going to be more effective.

Take the spear. It's great for thrusting. Swinging it is not going to get through armor (in general). The pick, however, would need to be swung to develop enough force. Thrusting with a pick would be rather pointless.

So yes, weapon design is much more important than motion. Once you settle on a particular design, the question of motion becomes meaningful.

The Reverend
2011-10-06, 02:57 PM
If I remember my medieval weaponry class 225 this thrust versus slash was why the Egyptians designed the kopesh was designed how it was designed, as a compromise weapon system. Effective stabbing and a nice large surface area on a curved cutting plane to maximize the physics of the slice. This leads to a discussion between the main stay swords of two nible warrior groups.

The longsword of the European knight and the katana. They both were superb designs trying to overcome opponent defense and maximize their principle attack:thrust and slash. The longsword was a two handed weapon wherein the principle attack was a stab/thrust trying to pierce armor or its chinks or in wide swing to connect the last 3inches on a vital spot to provide a crushing blow. The katana of course relied on cutting motions that ran the entire edge of the blade with a stab a definite reserve possibility.

But I feel the main difference was not in the armor that was trying to overcome but in how the weapons were held, how they were drawn, and how the edge was built. The longsword was handled more like a quarter staff than a sword: swung from the blade end, used to choke, pommel strikes, trips and myriad of other tactics. Some long swords even hand an extra length of handle partway up the blade, while katana was never handled by the blade only by the handle and tactics of pommel striking and varieties in blow types were less common. The drawing of the weapon was a culturally and tactically important factor: knights often Drew blade before the battle had really started as positioning counted for more than the rocket launcher tag game that was katana duels. The draw was the first strike in a perfect katana duel and also the killing blow, hence the long dramatic stare off. Finally the cutting edge makes different tactics more important than others. The katana has an ideal cutting edge and is mastercrafted weapon with an edge like a combination \/ or() making the blade part the material while European blade edges are formed within an inward curve, a feathered point )( that causes a gathering of material on the blade. This means that the cutting element of the katana is even more emphasized.

Spiryt
2011-10-06, 03:14 PM
Your rant is being troubled by some 'details', like the fact that there were literally hundreds of different longsword design combinations, and the same was true even with katanas, although they were relatively homogeneous trough the centuries.....

In second half of 14th century, for quick example, you could encounter sword like this one:

1 (http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/miecz-z-ii-pol-xiv-wieku-miejsce-znalezienia-nieznane.php)

Reconstruction of roughly similar swordhttp://www.pbase.com/image/40710974/large.jpg

And sword like that one:


Linky (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=22253&highlight=)


Completely different blade profiles, cross sections, balance, harmonics, in results - handling and performances. Both obviously pure longswords.


last 3inches on a vital spot to provide a crushing blow.

Last 3 inches would be pretty much never very good for "crushing blow" because that part of the sword would be pretty universally too fine - too narrow and/or too thin and the very end.

gkathellar
2011-10-06, 03:35 PM
Some long swords even hand an extra length of handle partway up the blade, while katana was never handled by the blade only by the handle and tactics of pommel striking and varieties in blow types were less common.

Emphasis mine. This is just manifestly false. While inferior gauntlet technology ensured the katana could not be half-sworded, placing one hand against the back of the blade about four-eight inches from the hilt in order to reinforce a block is a documented technique still practiced in modern koryu schools.


The drawing of the weapon was a culturally and tactically important factor: knights often Drew blade before the battle had really started as positioning counted for more than the rocket launcher tag game that was katana duels. The draw was the first strike in a perfect katana duel and also the killing blow, hence the long dramatic stare off.

This is also false. The battojutsu duel, insofar as it ever existed and was not simply an invention of cinema, was a creation of the Edo period, when samurai were almost universally expected to be functional as both courtiers and warriors. If you examine battojutsu, a great deal of traditional technique is executed from a sitting position, implying either a surprise attack during a polite meeting or a quick response to such an attack. In fact, when going into war during the Sengoku period, the sword was often worn differently — if it was worn at all, since it would have been stupid and ridiculous to go into battle with a sheathed sword.


Finally the cutting edge makes different tactics more important than others. The katana has an ideal cutting edge and is mastercrafted weapon with an edge like a combination \/ or() making the blade part the material while European blade edges are formed within an inward curve, a feathered point )( that causes a gathering of material on the blade. This means that the cutting element of the katana is even more emphasized.

Cutting, yes, but not chopping. The katana's razor edge was poorly suited to hitting armored targets, which is why traditional koryu goes after openings in the armor of its day. Moreover, the blade would dull quickly specifically because it was so sharp (a feature shared among many east-Asian swords, and the reason why many have a designated blunt or blunt-ish area within the first 4-8 inches of the guard meant exclusively for blocking).

Of course, all of this applies mostly to later Japanese swords, which were (theoretically) exclusively the province of nobility and were actually regulated in size, weight and shape to a limited degree. Earlier battlefield swords had far more variation (Sengoku-period swords are where you mostly encounter very large examples), and were by no means all "mastercrafted" weapons.

The Reverend
2011-10-06, 03:37 PM
Excuse mw last 6 inches typing on phone and didn't proof read. A lot variation exists in all weapon design, heck I once saw a broadsword from the 15th century with an internal ball bearing system to make swings more powerful. I have also heard though never researched it that the reason we have a lot long swords hanging around still is that the practical workaday killing implement was something more like a falchion or scimitar and since they were popular they were used till the broke and that's why fewer medieval falchions exist.

Always favored spear and shortsword myself though.

The Reverend
2011-10-06, 03:41 PM
Thank god facts! I was hoping to get you guys off that physics debate minus the math necessary to describe it.

Spiryt
2011-10-06, 03:47 PM
I agree about drawing sword stuff,


If you examine battojutsu, a great deal of traditional technique is executed from a sitting position, implying either a surprise attack during a polite meeting or a quick response to such an attack. In fact, when going into war during the Sengoku period, the sword was often worn differently — if it was worn at all, since it would have been stupid and ridiculous to go into battle with a sheathed sword.

Pretty much. Drawing and slashing techniques obviously and naturally makes sense in self defense, and other occasions when one is surpised etc.

No sense in battle or duel.

Anyway:


While inferior gauntlet technology ensured the katana could not be half-sworded,

Gauntlet technology doesn't really have much to do with half swording? :smallconfused:

Half swording, as proven both by manuals etc. and modern practice can be easily done with bare hand - which AFAIU were common even among solidly armored men in Japan.

Lack of half swording had probably more to do with general shape and profile of the blade - it just wasn't comfortable and effective to handle it that way.


The katana's razor edge was poorly suited to hitting armored targets,

Is this at least positive that they generally had 'razor' edge? AFAIU, there would be great variance here too, depending on particular swordsmith tradition, geometry etc.

Like pointed out, making really razor sharp sword doesn't really make sense. It will effectively cut certain amount of clothing etc. just as well if duller, but will be only get ruined quick if sharper.

gkathellar
2011-10-06, 04:00 PM
Pretty much. Drawing and slashing techniques obviously and naturally makes sense in self defense, and other occasions when one is surpised etc.

Or for assassination. :smalleek:


Half swording, as proven both by manuals etc. and modern practice can be easily done with bare hand - which AFAIU were common even among solidly armored men in Japan.

Lack of half swording had probably more to do with general shape and profile of the blade - it just wasn't comfortable and effective to handle it that way.

Huh. I've never actually done half-swording, so that shows what I know. There's really no risk of getting your fingers cut off?

Anyway, yeah, they did have very limited half-swording as I said.


Is this at least positive that they generally had 'razor' edge? AFAIU, there would be great variance here too, depending on particular swordsmith tradition, geometry etc.

Like pointed out, making really razor sharp sword doesn't really make sense. It will effectively cut certain amount of clothing etc. just as well if duller, but will be only get ruined quick if sharper.

Yeah, there's a lot of variation, but you see it much more in Sengoku-era battlefield swords. Edo-period swords were usually commissions for the nobility, and were intended chiefly for civilian use. I can't speak to this as a universal phenomenon, but that usually only requires cloth and flesh penetration. (They were sometimes test-cut on corpses and criminals to determine this sharpness.)

The Reverend
2011-10-06, 04:01 PM
I remember reading reports from Admiral Perry's " Trade Fleet", the Japanese had guns that were almost exact duplicates of what the Portuguese had 200 years previously, buuuut they were of an incredibly high level of manufacture . They assessed the steel to be of a higher grade than their own rifles and built with a masterful level of skill and decoration.

Spiryt
2011-10-06, 04:47 PM
Huh. I've never actually done half-swording, so that shows what I know. There's really no risk of getting your fingers cut off?

Anyway, yeah, they did have very limited half-swording as I sai

There's quite simply no way to cut your bones off by pressure, and even slight movement.

Risk of getting your skin and flesh screwed up was probably there, especially if sword was sharp and thin, but still better to bleed from hand than from gut.

And, obviously:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_035.jpg/800px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_035.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiNewImages/Untitled-3.jpg

For quick examples.

Here arma has video (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm) - thrust on maille - show some bare hands halfswording.

Have no experience either, but would simply guess that firm grip was simply vital - you can squeeze even very sharp knife hard without damage - as soon as you pull or push your hand along the blade though, you obviously will get bitten.

Mike_G
2011-10-06, 05:03 PM
I remember reading reports from Admiral Perry's " Trade Fleet", the Japanese had guns that were almost exact duplicates of what the Portuguese had 200 years previously, buuuut they were of an incredibly high level of manufacture . They assessed the steel to be of a higher grade than their own rifles and built with a masterful level of skill and decoration.

I'm having a tough time believing that.

By the 1850's, western metalurgy would be pretty well developed, and Japan was always short of good steel. They bought a lot of scrap iron from us up until WWII. They probably wouldn't have been able to build a Pacific fleet if we hadn't supplied them.

Incanur
2011-10-06, 05:21 PM
We somehow get into this conversation almost any time somebody mentions armor penetration, and all of this has to be rehashed again and again.

That's because it's a fundamental disagreement. As I've said before, none that complexity negates the importance of kinetic energy within the context in question. Folks who test armor use joules for a reason, and it's not because they're idiots. :smallannoyed:

The Reverend
2011-10-06, 05:51 PM
I'm having a tough time believing that.

By the 1850's, western metalurgy would be pretty well developed, and Japan was always short of good steel. They bought a lot of scrap iron from us
up until WWII. They probably wouldn't have been able to build a Pacific fleet if we hadn't supplied them.

They also had very few of them.




on another note. I'm playing a 4th edition monk/avenger hybrid in a Dark Sun game and I'm fluffing the characters divine power coming from divine heritage and a bargin wrought into his peoples blood, the chosen people. So he basically is Jewish covered in qabbalistic tattoos to activate his divine powers, i thought it would fit in a desert world.

anyway he uses a fullblade: giant two handed sword that has a high crit value as it properties. I was going to fluff it as a huge ceramic Kopesh, but was wondering if anyone had other ideas of what a Jewish warrior might use sword wise. I've decided on the fullblade because of its ingame stats, but i am open to how it should look.

I've done a brief look in google at ancient israeli and seen their short swords and few other things but nothing but a giant kopesh has caught my eye.


ps if you comment something like "it wouldn't be made of ceramic because..." know this, Dark Sun has VERY LITTLE METAL. He ain't that awesome yet, yes it does have breakage rules for weapons.

thanks

fusilier
2011-10-06, 07:30 PM
That's because it's a fundamental disagreement. As I've said before, none that complexity negates the importance of kinetic energy within the context in question. Folks who test armor use joules for a reason, and it's not because they're idiots. :smallannoyed:

I didn't mean to imply that they are, and I apologize if that's the way it sounded.

From the studies of armor penetration that I've seen, typically, they list the amount of joules a particular weapon or projectile needs to penetrate a particular armor.

So an arrow needs X joules, and crossbow bolt Y joules. When dealing with the same projectile, I believe joules become a useful comparison. Most studies I've seen, often just deal with a single projectile, being fired at different velocities. So kinetic energy is really the only variable.

But when you start to change projectiles things change. A good example of this would be too look at rifle caliber armor-piercing bullets. Often times they weigh the same as the standard "ball" cartridges, are fired at the same velocity, and have the same exterior shape. So kinetic energy between the two would be the same -- but one will pierce armor much better than the other. That has to do with the materials used, and how those materials react in the collision.

Likewise, I remember seeing a study posted in one of the previous threads, that tested lead and steel musket balls, and the steel musket ball needed less kinetic energy to puncture whatever armor they were using.

fusilier
2011-10-06, 07:35 PM
Also, are we talking about thrusts/chops from a stationary position, or incorporating a step (or even just a shifting of the weight from back foot to front foot)? The two would look very different, and probably generate force very differently.

I was thinking about this too. For example a pike is thrust with the legs, not the arms (i.e. you attack by stepping at your opponent).

gkathellar
2011-10-06, 07:44 PM
I was going to fluff it as a huge ceramic Kopesh, but was wondering if anyone had other ideas of what a Jewish warrior might use sword wise.

I'm no expert, but I'm given to understand that there's more historical relationship between the Ancient Israelites and the Ancient Greeks than is widely known. Look into the Greek Kopis and Xiphos.

Deadmeat.GW
2011-10-06, 09:58 PM
Assuming liberally, that 400 paces is ~ 250 meters here, this is the distance from which your average shooter will have problems to target face from modern carbine, with it's accuracy, and ability to aim trough muzzle etc.

Targeting the face, let alone specific parts, with something that swings above you eyes in the moment of launch, is pretty much abstraction....

...

You said they were inaccurate, that is what annoys me.

Even historical texts did not claim that they would be that accurate at the range they would be effective at, but they were accurate enough to hit the head of an enemy at about 100 yards.

The reason it was a 'super' weapon was just like certain weapons could completely change the dynamics of a battle or war.

That 'super' was something I added in because they did change battles and wars dramatically.

Several archeologists have been on the books as being able to hit an archery target at about 20 meters after practising a couple of hours most of the time.
The problem is that that is not good enough for a war or a battle, there you need to be able to hit from far further and hit far harder.
And that takes a lot more training, especially you need training to speed up your shots without loosing accuracy.

I can use a sling to hit a tin can at 20 meters one shot out of 4, the misses mostly would be within half a yard of said can.
I do not practise with slings daily, heck I have done sling practise for maybe a couple of weeks with about 3 or 4 hours a day with a group of re-enactors.

In the hands of someone who has no experience sure a sling is inaccurate, heck, even dangerous to the wielder (I have clubbeb myself in the head a few times with the sling in the beginning because the release did not make a nice perfect arc) if you are not carefull.
But then in the hands of a rank amateur any ranged weapon is inaccurate and in some cases even outright dangerous to people not anywhere near the target.

Now if someone who does not practise daily can hit a tin can, which keep in mind is smaller then the face, then I fail to see how someone who is a professional with a sling would not be able to do better.
Heck, if you claim that a swing from above your face cannot be accurate check out some of the ways people pitch for baseball or cricket.
A fair few use overarm throws, where you do not line your eyes up with your arm.
It is no different then learning how to shoot a remote drone weapon.
On top of this there are dozens of variations on how to release a sling, overhead helicopter style is just one of them.

Traab
2011-10-06, 10:45 PM
Circling back to the question, is a thrust or a hack better at piercing armor? The answer is, it depends. Every weapon is designed differently, each one has its own answer. There is no single motion that will universally make it easier to pierce armor with any weapon. The question is far too broad. A better one would be, "Is a hacking or thrusting motion more effective at piercing armor, when using a broadsword?" Or, a kopesh, or a jian, or a halberd. Pick a weapon, or at the least a weapon TYPE to narrow it down.

Aux-Ash
2011-10-06, 11:34 PM
That's because it's a fundamental disagreement. As I've said before, none that complexity negates the importance of kinetic energy within the context in question. Folks who test armor use joules for a reason, and it's not because they're idiots. :smallannoyed:

Without knowing how the tests are set up and the hypothesis they went for (or the background of the people doing it), I can't really speculate in why they chose joules. Maybe there's a crucial bit of information in the algebra that would make it all work, I don't know.

Out of curiosity. Is there scientific articles treating this subject? Not books, articles. In serious scientific journals?

It just looks iffy due to he huge difference between what it takes for a knight to move forward at a gallop (29 kJ) and the numbers suggested bein needed for penetration. Not to mention that I could hit 110 joules by simply pushing an arrow straight at the armour... no velocity involved (granted, it'll take a few seconds).

However... be mindful that even if work isn't the primary factor it's still a contributing one. There will be a work exerted and it will affect the chain of events. I'm just arguing it's the wrong thing to look at.

fusilier
2011-10-07, 01:55 AM
Without knowing how the tests are set up and the hypothesis they went for (or the background of the people doing it), I can't really speculate in why they chose joules. Maybe there's a crucial bit of information in the algebra that would make it all work, I don't know.

Out of curiosity. Is there scientific articles treating this subject? Not books, articles. In serious scientific journals?

There are, I'm trying to track one down that I might have access to . . .

However, I did revisit "For Show or Safety" by Sylvia Leever, an article in which they performed destructive testing on a pair of 17th century breastplates. While there are some wrongheaded conclusions in the article, they do present some equations. They don't go too much into why they would use those equations however.

At one point they calculate sheer stress needed to puncture a bullet sized hole, based upon force applied to an area. From that they develop an equation based on bullet radius, some constant which has to do with the nature of the material, and the thickness of the material, to determine how much energy is needed to puncture the armor. Note, that this energy is dependent upon bullet radius, so a different sized bullet will mean a different amount of energy is needed. They also admit that this is a simplified approach.

Eldan
2011-10-07, 02:21 AM
I'm no expert, but I'm given to understand that there's more historical relationship between the Ancient Israelites and the Ancient Greeks than is widely known. Look into the Greek Kopis and Xiphos.

Depends on what you still call "Greek" today and what time period, but the Seleucids had conquered significant parts of Asia, after all. Pretty much all of Asia Minor, and then over eastwards up to what is Afghanistan today. And the Ptolemies owned a good part of the Arabian penninsula. So, yes, from at least Alexander's time on, they would have met the Israelites.

a_humble_lich
2011-10-07, 02:33 AM
Also, I have seen people argue that the Philistines that the Israelites fought with were Mycenaean Greeks. Also, at the end of the Greek Dark Ages there was a tendency for a while for people in Greece, especially nobility, to look to Asia, i.e. the Middle East. At this time the Greeks adapted their alphabet from the Phoenicians. So there was clearly some contact.

Spiryt
2011-10-07, 05:12 AM
Now if someone who does not practise daily can hit a tin can, which keep in mind is smaller then the face, then I fail to see how someone who is a professional with a sling would not be able to do better.
Heck, if you claim that a swing from above your face cannot be accurate check out some of the ways people pitch for baseball or cricket.

Well, from 20 meters I can hit a tin can with a thrown pillow though, I assumed, from the way it was stated, that ancient records talk about targeting "specific parts of the face" from few hundred paces.

Which is obvious nonsense, now, from small distance there's naturally nothing weird about it at all.




anyway he uses a fullblade: giant two handed sword that has a high crit value as it properties. I was going to fluff it as a huge ceramic Kopesh, but was wondering if anyone had other ideas of what a Jewish warrior might use sword wise. I've decided on the fullblade because of its ingame stats, but i am open to how it should look.

Depends on the specific period, generally if you're thinking about times before 1st millennium BC (when majority of weaponry would be still bronze, for example) or more like in times of Rome rule.

But generally they would use straight, shortish swords that were ubiquitous in Mediterranean Sea world at the time.

Plus, like mentioned, Canaanite, Egyptian and similar khopesh, kopis and so on.

Anything resembling two handed sword is pretty much out for the period and place, so you have to kind of improvise anyway.

Matthew
2011-10-07, 05:36 AM
For other equipment: bronze scale armour leaps to mind from the bible, I think it turns up in the David versus Goliath episode. Also, some sort of metal fronted shield that can be polished to blind your enemies (I am recalling that from a biblical film, not sure if it happens in the bible off hand). As with most cultures, spears and bows would feature, and of course if he happens to be a shepherd, a sling. :biggrin:

Partysan
2011-10-07, 05:51 AM
Pick a weapon, or at the least a weapon TYPE to narrow it down.
That would defeat the purpose of my question. Let me show you my thinking process that lead up to me posting my question:
- You can in a very simple approach divide weapon attacks into swing and thrust
- I myself use a bastard sword
- to penetrate heavy armor with it I need to thrust rather than chop
- this also goes for many other weapons
- so are thrusts better at penetrating armor than swings?
- wait, there are weapons like picks that penetrate on swing and aren't really suited for thrusting
- and they penetrate really well, too
- all penetrating atacks have in common, that they attrack with a pointy end of the weapon
- well, it's rather logical that concentrating the force* on a small point will be better suited to pierce armor
- all weapons that use thrusts to penetrate are built in a way so you only can use the pointy end when thrusting
- so maybe it doesn't matter at all whether you swing or thrust, the weapon just needs to be pointy and have some minimum force
- so does the type of movement matter at all?
- let's ask the experts in the Real Weapons and Armor thread on Giantitp

*"force" being used in a universal sense not limited to the physical definition.

Yora
2011-10-07, 06:00 AM
I think it's a lot easier to put a lot of energy into a swing than into a thrust. It's also easier to swing a pick and almost all ways to thrust with a two handed sword, especially when you want to penetrate something hard, seem a bit akward to me, as you have both hands close together at the end of the weapon, very far away from the tip. Correctly aligning the tip and putting all your strength into the thrust seems quite tricky to me, and then you also have to account for the blade glancing off the armor.
On the other hand with a pick or warhammer, you just have to swing the head to the point you want to hit, which I imagine being a lot easier to do.

gkathellar
2011-10-07, 06:04 AM
- so maybe it doesn't matter at all whether you swing or thrust, the weapon just needs to be pointy and have some minimum force
- so does the type of movement matter at all?

Well, if the last two pages tell you anything, they tell you it's difficult to come to a conclusion on the subject. Anecdotal experience is anecdotal, and scientific research may or may not accurately represent the mechanics and reality of the subject.

I think it's fair to say that thrusts present certain advantages in generating and targeting power to a specific point, and therefore in armor penetration. Most armor-piercing weapons that are meant to be swung, however, are designed with a relatively heavy "head" meant to enhance their ability to gather momentum.

Perhaps a fair way to put it would to say: thrusting in general presents a simple physiological advantage for placing force in one direction towards a single point, while armor-piercing weapons like picks and hammers are designed to replicate this physiological advantage with the addition of momentum through mechanical design.

I know that's a little ambiguous still, but it seems like a fair summary of what we've been discussing.

gkathellar
2011-10-07, 06:08 AM
It's also easier to swing a pick and almost all ways to thrust with a two handed sword, especially when you want to penetrate something hard, seem a bit awkward to me, as you have both hands close together at the end of the weapon, very far away from the tip. Correctly aligning the tip and putting all your strength into the thrust seems quite tricky to me, and then you also have to account for the blade glancing off the armor.

Thrusting with a two-handed weapon where the hands are just a foot or so away from each other isn't nearly as awkward as you think, having done plenty of it (EDIT: nor is it especially difficult with the hands even closer together, if you know what you're doing). Aim can be tricky, but that's what practice is for.

Keep in mind that the best evaluation of a weapon's potential is rarely "what the average person could do with it," and more along the lines of "what a master could do with it.*"

*Which I'm not by any means claiming to be, in case that came out wrong and I can't see it..

The Reverend
2011-10-07, 06:15 AM
No armor made of metal either. All exotic hides, stone, and bone. Plus my character isn't proficient in any armor...though I might pick some up.

Spiryt
2011-10-07, 06:29 AM
Keep in mind that the best evaluation of a weapon's potential is rarely "what the average person could do with it," and more along the lines of "what a master could do with it.*"


I would say that "master" is not best evaluation either - someone in the lines of "adept" or "old hand" is the best - not exactly exceptional guy, but someone who knows what he's doing well.


I think it's a lot easier to put a lot of energy into a swing than into a thrust. It's also easier to swing a pick and almost all ways to thrust with a two handed sword, especially when you want to penetrate something hard, seem a bit akward to me, as you have both hands close together at the end of the weapon, very far away from the tip. Correctly aligning the tip and putting all your strength into the thrust seems quite tricky to me, and then you also have to account for the blade glancing off the armor.
On the other hand with a pick or warhammer, you just have to swing the head to the point you want to hit, which I imagine being a lot easier to do.

Like discussed on previous pages - certainly easier, but not necessarily optimal.

I would point again, that, again, biggest limitation with really hard impact can be the amount of impact that can be handled by the wrist when one smashed something hard, instead of jabbing something hard.

Unless someone has George Foreman, or whatever caliber wrists, and doesn't really care as long as relatively humanly possible impacts come into play. :smallbiggrin:

Yora
2011-10-07, 07:18 AM
Keep in mind that the best evaluation of a weapon's potential is rarely "what the average person could do with it," and more along the lines of "what a master could do with it.*"

*Which I'm not by any means claiming to be, in case that came out wrong and I can't see it..

When it comes to potential, yes.

I'm more of the "mass produced for the average soldier" paradigm guy when it comes to evaluating equipment, since conflicts are not decided by a handful of "heroes" and you probably have more barfights with accidental fatalities than duels.

The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit.

Spiryt
2011-10-07, 07:34 AM
When it comes to potential, yes.

I'm more of the "mass produced for the average soldier" paradigm guy when it comes to evaluating equipment, since conflicts are not decided by a handful of "heroes" and you probably have more barfights with accidental fatalities than duels.

The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit.

Battles through the a whole lot of medieval period and even well into the Renaissance and beyond were in fact being decided by a handful of "heroes" or maybe rather guys that had good idea what to do with their weapons.

From Huscarls of Germano Saxonic rulers, trough knights and heavy infantry, tercios, Swiss pike squads and landsknechts, Hussars and so on, battles were more often than decided by relatively small, at least on the bigger scale, group of professional or semi professional fighters.

Masses of levies, pages, peasants, camp followers and other guys with spear or some other stuff were in majority of cases filling up the field providing necessary numbers of opposing steel.



The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit

That's easy - best possible combination is best skills and best equipment. :smallbiggrin:

fusilier
2011-10-07, 12:35 PM
Battles through the a whole lot of medieval period and even well into the Renaissance and beyond were in fact being decided by a handful of "heroes" or maybe rather guys that had good idea what to do with their weapons.

From Huscarls of Germano Saxonic rulers, trough knights and heavy infantry, tercios, Swiss pike squads and landsknechts, Hussars and so on, battles were more often than decided by relatively small, at least on the bigger scale, group of professional or semi professional fighters.

Masses of levies, pages, peasants, camp followers and other guys with spear or some other stuff were in majority of cases filling up the field providing necessary numbers of opposing steel.

I'm cautious when presented with these sorts of claims. It's really hard to know what would have happened if one piece of an army wasn't present at a battle. I think it's natural to focus on elite forces or leaders when describing the events of a battle, and that can lead to a belief that common forces were irrelevant. Even though the battles are not as big as later ones, the armies are large enough to be considered complex systems interacting with each other, and pieces of systems in such interactions cannot be totally separated from the rest of the system.

Yora
2011-10-07, 12:37 PM
Also, history is written by the victors. And quite often, the author is also the protagonist. :smallwink:

Knaight
2011-10-07, 12:39 PM
Battles through the a whole lot of medieval period and even well into the Renaissance and beyond were in fact being decided by a handful of "heroes" or maybe rather guys that had good idea what to do with their weapons.

From Huscarls of Germano Saxonic rulers, trough knights and heavy infantry, tercios, Swiss pike squads and landsknechts, Hussars and so on, battles were more often than decided by relatively small, at least on the bigger scale, group of professional or semi professional fighters. ]

Actually, the Swiss pike squads are a bit of a different story. Its not necessarily that they used pikes particularly well, as they probably weren't all that impressive. Its that military discipline was incredible, and in the pike and shot era that's all that was really needed. Two pike groups contacting each other is basically just a massacre, its everything phalanx combat would be if it didn't have the shields. As such, pike combat consisted of breaking and running much more often, and when your opponent is marching towards you in a perfectly organized mass as if they don't care about your block of pikes in the way they are much scarier than some cumbersome, slowly trained block that clearly doesn't want anything to do with you.

Then there are the other cases. If pikes get close to muskets, the pikemen don't need to be good, its not even remotely fair in close range. Same thing with artillery, though at long range artillery has the capacity to devastate pikes.

Spiryt
2011-10-07, 12:58 PM
I'm cautious when presented with these sorts of claims. It's really hard to know what would have happened if one piece of an army wasn't present at a battle. I think it's natural to focus on elite forces or leaders when describing the events of a battle, and that can lead to a belief that common forces were irrelevant. Even though the battles are not as big as later ones, the armies are large enough to be considered complex systems interacting with each other, and pieces of systems in such interactions cannot be totally separated from the rest of the system.

There are some examples where "professionals" were pretty much only important part, such as battle of Montgisard, and many armies in which "levy" element was pretty much non exist ant (polish and teutonic forces at Grunwald/Tannenberg).

I'm not saying that those guys could be "removed" just like that, because otherwise no one would be telling them to pick up their spears and shields and join the conflict.

I'm saying that even in later periods, where significance of levy troops was bigger, no one really hoped or demanded important feats from them.

It's pretty much, or even more obvious today.

Likewise, I'm not really talking about 'elite' either, just about more serious armament, not some poor guy with a spear.


Actually, the Swiss pike squads are a bit of a different story. Its not necessarily that they used pikes particularly well, as they probably weren't all that impressive. Its that military discipline was incredible, and in the pike and shot era that's all that was really needed. Two pike groups contacting each other is basically just a massacre, its everything phalanx combat would be if it didn't have the shields. As such, pike combat consisted of breaking and running much more often, and when your opponent is marching towards you in a perfectly organized mass as if they don't care about your block of pikes in the way they are much scarier than some cumbersome, slowly trained block that clearly doesn't want anything to do with you.

Then there are the other cases. If pikes get close to muskets, the pikemen don't need to be good, its not even remotely fair in close range. Same thing with artillery, though at long range artillery has the capacity to devastate pikes.

I'm not really talking about pike and shoot era, I'm talking about many impressive victories of the Swiss in the 15th century, for example.

GungHo
2011-10-07, 01:02 PM
There's really no risk of getting your fingers cut off?
No. The blades aren't that sharp, but even with a sharp knife, as Spiryt notes, you don't get cut by pressure alone. You get cut by shearing. A glove would help you prevent from getting a laceration if the blade hit resistance when puncturing armor and you lost your grip, but even then, it's going to be a minor cut at most. It may still hurt, but you're not going to lose a finger unless your hand gets infected.

gkathellar
2011-10-08, 07:39 AM
When it comes to potential, yes.

I'm more of the "mass produced for the average soldier" paradigm guy when it comes to evaluating equipment, since conflicts are not decided by a handful of "heroes" and you probably have more barfights with accidental fatalities than duels.

The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit.

Absolutely, but no one has mentioned equipping armies or winning large-scale military conflicts up to this point. The question has been limited to which mechanical action (thrusting or chopping) is more effective at generating force/penetrating armor — and superior execution would be more representative of such an action's actual nature.

Mike_G
2011-10-08, 08:47 AM
Another important point is that it is easier to aim a thrust at the joints or gaps in armor than to aim a cut at them. Hard to swing a sword edge under the armpit of your enemy to go around his breastplate.

Weapons like warhammers or maces that were designed to break or dent or just deliver force through armor without aiming at the gaps were generally swung to generate more brute force. A thrust at the face through the openings in the helm needs to be more precise, but doesn't need to be very forceful at all.

Incanur
2011-10-08, 06:17 PM
From what I can tell, historical sources from the age of the white harness recommend either thrusting where the armor isn't - though sometimes through mail - or striking the head. Strikes to other parts of the armored body seem unlikely to accomplish anything.

Knaight
2011-10-08, 06:20 PM
Another important point is that it is easier to aim a thrust at the joints or gaps in armor than to aim a cut at them. Hard to swing a sword edge under the armpit of your enemy to go around his breastplate.

That is pretty major. After all, who cares if you do have far less energy, force, so on and so forth when the only thing in your way is flesh and bone?

Anderlith
2011-10-08, 07:07 PM
I would like to ask a question. Is there any such weapon that has a blade like a sword but has a three foot or longer shaft? Particularly a double edged blade.

Deadmeat.GW
2011-10-08, 09:16 PM
[QUOTE=Spiryt;11984621]Well, from 20 meters I can hit a tin can with a thrown pillow though, I assumed, from the way it was stated, that ancient records talk about targeting "specific parts of the face" from few hundred paces.

Which is obvious nonsense, now, from small distance there's naturally nothing weird about it at all.

QUOTE]

Actually, the claims were that they train to hit people in the head or upper torso at 250 meters but there is a quote that some of them were so good at aiming that they could hit specific parts of the face.
There was however no distance specified with that quote as it comes from a different text.

Heck, bows would be more accurate at over twice the range when used by completely beginners if slings would be as inaccurate and short ranged as you hint at, composite bows and longbows at even greater ranges and slings would quickly disappear from any active armies who encountered archery (like the Isrealites and the people around that region, slings would have gone extinct as a military weapon about the time the neighbouring great powers would start expanding towards them since they used bows and were famous for being GOOD with bows but I guess that the same historical text that speaks about the archery and the slings can only be accurate when it is not talking about slings...and those texts are talking about both slings and recurve bows used at similar ranges...).

NO weapon will remain in use if it is inaccurate and outperformed by every single similar purposed weapon.
Soldiers do not keep useless weapons that they cannot get into combat without getting badly mauled before they get anywhere with it.
Matchlock rifles did not stay in usage when you got other better alternatives, like substantial better range and reliability, far superior rate of fire, etc...

How good are any of the fellow forumites with handguns here?
Do you think any of you could hit a tincan at 20 meters from the hip all the time?
And how often would you train or did you train to get that accurate?
With less then 15 hours training how likely is it someone would be able to hit a tincan at 20 meters from a firing position like a hipshot all the time?

I trained for about 10 to 15 hours about 7 years ago with slings, what is the minimum training time people get with handguns in a modern security force?
I am not even talking minimum in the military...

You throwing a pillow that hits over 25% of the time (probably far more since I am not imagining that a pillow is less the a foot wide) or lands within a foot or two at most on every throw at a tincan at 20 meters is pretty good going.
If YOU trained for a week you would hit over half, if not more often, that tincan with a sling.

Remember your quotes:

yet it still would be prone to rather great randomness due to the very way of aiming

Prone: 1

: having a tendency or inclination : being likely <prone to forget names> <accident-prone>

Great:

5.
being such in an extreme or notable degree

So likely to be of an extreme or notable degree of randomness...

Why would any combatant use this?


For comparison - target in sling competition is such large stuff from just 30 meters.

In case of pretty equally hobbyist archery, targets can be way smaller even at 100 yards.

Large targets at 30 meters, versus 'small' targets at 100 yards...

122 cm (70 m and 90m FITA), i.e. the size of the 'small' target at LESS then 100 yards AND for Olympic archery, so I am assuming that your hobbyists are all better then Olympic level archers since if I go of your description they shoot at much smaller targets at longer ranges...

The sling target was 120cm by 120 cm and therefore much 'larger' ... hum?

You sure you are looking at 'hobbyists'?

Official target sizes are indeed much smaller at lower ranges but at 100 yards...

40 cm (18 m FITA Indoor)
60 cm (25 m FITA Indoor)
80 cm (30 m and 50m FITA)
122 cm (70 m and 90m FITA)


All official target ranges used by the World Archery Federation, formerly called the Federation Internationale de Tir a l'Arc.

As for my sling experience, it was 2 days in one week and 2 days on the second week since were also doing other things at the time.
Just in case you were wondering where the 10 to 15 hours came from.
We could not be slinging all the time, a bit of it was sitting and listening to the instructor.

endoperez
2011-10-09, 02:42 AM
I would like to ask a question. Is there any such weapon that has a blade like a sword but has a three foot or longer shaft? Particularly a double edged blade.

I don't know about double-edged blade, but single-edged ones exist for sure.


http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/images/dadao-in-out.gif

Chinese dadao (http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s214_full.html) is a saber-like cutting implement. "Dao", a saber, has a normal handle, but the blades have been installed into all sorts of handles and shaft ranging from few foot (dadao) to a full-fledged polearm (kwan dao / guan dao), similar to European glaive but often called a halberd because people don't know their polearms these days. That includes me, btw, so I hope the glaive comparison works. :smallwink:

Some weapons called "dadao" are just bigger sabers with handles that aren't very long, in comparison. Some "pudao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudao)" / "podao" have these longer handles, while other "pudao" have short handles and curved, elegant blade. Most images you find searching for "pudao" look like "kwan dao", and are full-fledged polearms.


http://www.atlantacutlery.com/images/PRODUCT/medium/2474.jpg

Edit: if the above image doesn't show up, it's a weapon with a long handle and a blade somewhat similar to this one (http://sbgswordforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=swordreviews&thread=14549&page=1#244858) which has a "false eddge" or a sharpened section on the "blunt" side, near the tip. So while you might not find two-edged, symmetrical blade, some one these weapons might have a false edge near the tip, which might be enough for your purposes.


The words probably mean something like knife, big knife, huge knife, long knife and so on, and have probably been used interchangeably about any weapon with a long or heavy blade, long or heavy handle/shaft, or both. Whatever the reason, it's really hard to find images of only one of these weapons.


The Japanese have nagamaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamaki), which is almost straight but otherwise of similar design.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Richard-Stein-Nagamaki.gif

gkathellar
2011-10-09, 04:42 AM
IThat includes me, btw, so I hope the glaive comparison works. :smallwink:

It generally does. The naginata, guan/kwan/kuan dao and glaive all do pretty much the same thing.


Some weapons called "dadao" are just bigger sabers with handles that aren't very long, in comparison.

Also note that a typical feature of the dadao is the oversized and oddly shaped blade. Many were extremely specialized for slashing, with very little thrusting ability in the design. Of course, modern examples are probably exaggerated, and it's easy to confuse the "dadao" with the "baguadao," which is a regular one-handed dao that is abnormally big and heavy.


So while you might not find two-edged, symmetrical blade, some one these weapons might have a false edge near the tip, which might be enough for your purposes.

This is a reasonably common feature of all types of dao, intended to increase their thrusting potential (which is normally a bit lackluster, especially on broader examples).

comicshorse
2011-10-09, 10:24 AM
I'm currently reading a novel set in the late 18th century about a midshipman in the british navy. It describes the sword he carries as a 'hanger' a term I've never heard before. I wonder what the weapon was like.
Also a friend claims the weapon was called this because it was carried without a scabbard on the belt as leather scabbards would rot awayat sea. Is this true ?

Yora
2011-10-09, 10:53 AM
I am pretty sure sailors also wore boots and gloves, and had belts made from leather. Maybe it would rot, but not at such a speed that it was more practical to have a bare blade tucked into your belt.

comicshorse
2011-10-09, 10:58 AM
I am pretty sure sailors also wore boots and gloves, and had belts made from leather. Maybe it would rot, but not at such a speed that it was more practical to have a bare blade tucked into your belt.

Well he also claims that sailors of that period didn't wear shoes for that very reason prefering to tar their bare feet and I don't recall any reference to sailors wearing gloves. I certainly remember references to sailors using rope as belts and even wearing rope sandals.

Traab
2011-10-09, 03:57 PM
I am pretty sure sailors also wore boots and gloves, and had belts made from leather. Maybe it would rot, but not at such a speed that it was more practical to have a bare blade tucked into your belt.

I may be wrong, but I recall reading about people would would wax their boots to prevent rotting. It was mentioned as an aside when doing some cold tracking, looking for traces of people who vanished in the forest ten years ago, that even after that much time, its possible to find scraps remaining of their footgear if they had died, along with bones and such.

Yora
2011-10-09, 06:36 PM
Probably swamps. Bog water can preserve almost anything organic for very long time. A few years ago, there was a body found in Sweden that was at first believed to be a homeless man that hadn't been seen for two months, but turned out to be several thousands of years old. Under such conditions, special treatment for leather won't make much of a difference for how well it's preserved.

But there is of course the possibility that there are some treatments that prevent rotting even under normal conditions.

Anderlith
2011-10-09, 07:20 PM
Thank you very much, now I have another question, & feel free to ignore if you think that this derails the thread. What you you assume the damage of a nagimaka is? 1d10 /18-20x3? 2d6 /19-20? I kind of think it could work as an exotic two handed bastard sword with better crits (longer shaft makes for more damage once it's in you) with the brace ability.

Matthew
2011-10-09, 07:21 PM
We cannot discuss game statistics in this thread, but feel free to start a new thread to deal with such questions.

Anderlith
2011-10-09, 08:35 PM
We cannot discuss game statistics in this thread, but feel free to start a new thread to deal with such questions.

Okay then, thanks for your help

Thiel
2011-10-10, 12:51 AM
Well he also claims that sailors of that period didn't wear shoes for that very reason prefering to tar their bare feet and I don't recall any reference to sailors wearing gloves. I certainly remember references to sailors using rope as belts and even wearing rope sandals.
The reason sailors didn't wear shoes weren't rot, but safety and cost. Leather shoes were expensive and provided little in way of grip. Rope sandals on the other hand were usually free, since they måde them themself drøm scrap rope and old canvas. Still, many prefered bare feet since they couldn't fall off when they climbed in the rigging.

A hanger is a variation of the cutlass.

fusilier
2011-10-10, 03:49 AM
I'm currently reading a novel set in the late 18th century about a midshipman in the british navy. It describes the sword he carries as a 'hanger' a term I've never heard before. I wonder what the weapon was like.
Also a friend claims the weapon was called this because it was carried without a scabbard on the belt as leather scabbards would rot awayat sea. Is this true ?

Hanger is a generic term for a sword that "hangs" at your side. During the period you describe, it's a fairly short sword with a curved blade -- kind of like a cutlass, but not so heavy.

As for leather at sea, I don't know exactly what sea water would due to leather, but it's probably not that deleterious. Leather typically needs to be cared for (with oils) anyway. Living in a dry climate, my leather gear often feels better if I spend some time in a humid one (although I haven't been to the shore with it).

fusilier
2011-10-10, 03:52 AM
The reason sailors didn't wear shoes weren't rot, but safety and cost. Leather shoes were expensive and provided little in way of grip. Rope sandals on the other hand were usually free, since they måde them themself drøm scrap rope and old canvas. Still, many prefered bare feet since they couldn't fall off when they climbed in the rigging.

A hanger is a variation of the cutlass.

Agreed. Leather soles have precious little grip -- and hobnails and heelplates would be bad on the deck of a ship, you would actually get even less grip!

As for "wax" -- wax is still used on leather shoes and boots, it helps water proof them.

Thiel
2011-10-10, 04:40 AM
As for leather at sea, I don't know exactly what sea water would due to leather, but it's probably not that deleterious. Leather typically needs to be cared for (with oils) anyway. Living in a dry climate, my leather gear often feels better if I spend some time in a humid one (although I haven't been to the shore with it).

Leather was and is used everywhere on wooden sailing ships for a myriad of different purposes, from flash protection in the magazine to chafing gear in the rigging.

Saltwater will damage leather, but not more so than it damage wood or iron.

Xuc Xac
2011-10-10, 05:25 AM
I would like to ask a question. Is there any such weapon that has a blade like a sword but has a three foot or longer shaft? Particularly a double edged blade.

In addition to the Chinese and Japanese swords that Endoperez mentioned, you might also find the African Assegai fits that description (especially the Zulu iklwa, which had a blade about 18 inches long and a two to three foot long shaft).

Yora
2011-10-10, 05:37 AM
Most examples I know off are single edged curved blades.

Nagamaki are similar to katana, but with a handle as long as the blade.

A falx is similar, but has the blade bent inward like a sickle, and I wouldn't exactly call it a sword.

I don't think assegai fits. It's really just a short spear.

Thiel
2011-10-10, 07:24 AM
I've seen examples of what I believe are boarding pikes that matches that description.
1,5m shaft and about 60cm sword-like blade.

Spiryt
2011-10-10, 07:31 AM
There is this stuff/staff (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1248&highlight=sword+johnsson), mainly Swedish/Scandinavian in origin it seems.

Might have indeed been part of the broken sword hafted like that, or solid cut/thrust blade mounted on long haft, so may somewhat fit to the description...

Thiel
2011-10-10, 12:26 PM
The proportions were different, but that's essentially what I saw.

Fhaolan
2011-10-10, 12:27 PM
There is this stuff/staff (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1248&highlight=sword+johnsson), mainly Swedish/Scandinavian in origin it seems.

Might have indeed been part of the broken sword hafted like that, or solid cut/thrust blade mounted on long haft, so may somewhat fit to the description...

Some people are in the habit of calling that a glaive, or 'short glaive'. This may be wrong, but I've seen the terms used like that in a couple of places. That's the fun of weapon terminology, there's little to no consistency. :)

Partysan
2011-10-10, 12:33 PM
Short and totally different question: If a martial artist/pugilist would wrap his hands in medieval times, what kind of wraps would he use? I mean form, material etc... I guess it might be different considering where the person comes from, but would be a type of wrap that suits the purpose and is accessible in those times?

Spiryt
2011-10-10, 12:48 PM
Some people are in the habit of calling that a glaive, or 'short glaive'. This may be wrong, but I've seen the terms used like that in a couple of places. That's the fun of weapon terminology, there's little to no consistency. :)

This is not really very short though, compared to glaive....

And AFAIR, european glaive generally have one edge, with some kind of rib portruding from the haft and/or doesn't generally taper to a uniform point.

But yeah, no consistency is a fact, and as far as use of this thing goes, glaive probably can easily work.


Short and totally different question: If a martial artist/pugilist would wrap his hands in medieval times, what kind of wraps would he use? I mean form, material etc... I guess it might be different considering where the person comes from, but would be a type of wrap that suits the purpose and is accessible in those times?

That can be pretty difficult, beacuse as far as I am aware, no real striking arts were preserved, at least from Europe, if we're talking about medieval.

There's plenty of wrestling, locks, and whatever, both with arms and armor, and bare hands, but nothing really concerning intense punching other dudes.

There are images of Greek pankrationists having their wrists and hands wrapped, but it's antiquity, and it's hard to guess what could it have been. Maybe there are some written sources about it.

Yora
2011-10-10, 12:53 PM
The word "glaive" is a particularly bad offender here. Or the word had been raped the worst by people who have no idea what the word means. Effect is the same. :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2011-10-10, 01:20 PM
Interestingly, and I know I have mentioned this before, glaive was used in medieval French poetry for sword, as well as being a medieval French word for spear.

Yora
2011-10-10, 01:26 PM
And here I was thinking that a sword is the only kind of bladed weapon that would never be called a glaive. Silly me.

GungHo
2011-10-10, 01:40 PM
Short and totally different question: If a martial artist/pugilist would wrap his hands in medieval times, what kind of wraps would he use? I mean form, material etc... I guess it might be different considering where the person comes from, but would be a type of wrap that suits the purpose and is accessible in those times?
Forms are difficult, because a lot of unarmed combat methods weren't preserved the same way they were preserved in Asia. You'd see punching, kicking, and wrestling, but it's not like they did it to teach you a primary method of self defense or were trying to hide something subversive.

That being said, the Minoans used cloth wrappings. Ancient Grecian handwraps were originally cloth wrappings with leather cords as a knuckle-duster. Romans went and created the caestus by adding crazy spikes and blades to the Grecian wrap because they were crazy. But, they got rid of the caestus in 50 BC, and the banned boxing altogether in 393 AD.

People still punched each other hard in the face, but it wasn't really organized anywhere in the West except for maybe in Russia, where it was bareknuckle. The British brought prizefighting back in the 16~17th century and it was all bareknuckle at that point. They didn't start using gloves until Broughton's rules became popular.

TLDR; I wouldn't give them any gloves/wraps at all if you're modeling it after the European middle ages.

I'm not even sure if you would for Asia, either. The Thais/Cambodians were using handwraps with hemp rope in the 1800s, and one assumes this was developed gradually, but the stories about using the wraps with ground glass and plaster of paris and all that are apocryphal at best.

Spiryt
2011-10-10, 01:47 PM
The word "glaive" is a particularly bad offender here. Or the word had been raped the worst by people who have no idea what the word means. Effect is the same. :smallbiggrin:

Dunno, I generally have seen it as underused if anything.... Like pretty wide scale of naginatas going as being similar to "halberds" (WTF?).

Only offense I can think of is Blizzard guys that from whatever reason concluded that glaive is something that you throw.


Interestingly, and I know I have mentioned this before, glaive was used in medieval French poetry for sword, as well as being a medieval French word for spear.

George Silver, in any case, is "already" mentioning 'glaves' as polearms at the end of 16th century.

Etymology was probably quite simple, but hard to track.... :smallwink:

GungHo
2011-10-10, 01:56 PM
Only offense I can think of is Blizzard guys that from whatever reason concluded that glaive is something that you throw.
They watched Krull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krull_(film)). Which stared Kenneth "Lt. Eddington When He Had Hair" Marshall, Robbie "The Lost Mario Brother" Coltrane, Freddie "That's Not Michael Caine" Jones, and Liam "That's Not Liam Neeson" Neeson.

gkathellar
2011-10-10, 02:20 PM
Short and totally different question: If a martial artist/pugilist would wrap his hands in medieval times, what kind of wraps would he use? I mean form, material etc... I guess it might be different considering where the person comes from, but would be a type of wrap that suits the purpose and is accessible in those times?

Thai martial artists have been known to use rope, and I would be surprised if the modern cloth wrapping hasn't been around for ages and ages. I'm not sure this would have been ubiquitous, though.

The primary use of wrapping the hands and wrists is to keep the wrist safe from injury due to bending or otherwise going out of alignment on impact. It does also protect the bones in the hands, but to a lesser extent. You can learn to keep the wrists straight and condition the hands, though — a common feature of East Asian martial arts, and one I'm sure has its European parallels.

Spiryt
2011-10-10, 02:31 PM
. You can learn to keep the wrists straight and condition the hands, though — a common feature of East Asian martial arts, and one I'm sure has its European parallels.

Obviously, but even for the best strikers out there there will be injuries, not matter how conditioned are your hands.

As far as East Asian MA arts goes, I'm pretty sure that most of them that are competitive and at least semi contact, use wrapping and gloves in training and fighting as well - Muay Thai, Sanshou for example.

Fhaolan
2011-10-10, 02:51 PM
And here I was thinking that a sword is the only kind of bladed weapon that would never be called a glaive. Silly me.

Heeheee. Just to add to the fun *modern* French has 'glaive' being the term for the Roman gladius.

Spiryt
2011-10-10, 03:09 PM
Now, there's no choice but to combine this:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3060/93039316.jpg

with this:

http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/images/85.jpg

Today photoshop, tomorrow, Hollywood. :smallwink:

Bonus points for him throwing it, Krull style, then. :smallbiggrin:

Eldan
2011-10-11, 09:41 AM
Does anyone have any good data on how big and heavy siege engines typically were? Specifically, Trebuchets and Catapults.

Now, I know that there's of course a variety of sizes, but is there any thing "typical" for, roughly, the late middle ages? Weight would be especially important. You can find size data, normally, but I've never seen weight.

Yora
2011-10-11, 09:50 AM
The cool thing about trebuchets is, that they apparently work at any scale. You can make them as small or as big as you want and it works, so I would assume that they were used in a lot of different sizes. I guess the only limit would be how much stress the wood of the frame can handle, and how large boulders you could get to load it with.

On that topic, I like this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1EAA7pkEJ4). No idea about historic accuracy, but a good example of what these guys try to aim the trebuchet.

gkathellar
2011-10-13, 05:40 AM
Someone accidentally bumped Thread 8 with a question yesterday, and I just want to move it over here so that it can actually get answered. (Personally, I've got nothing for it.)


In terms of historical accuracy, what are some of the better viking movies?

Galloglaich
2011-10-14, 10:16 AM
I like Kurt Douglas 1958 "The Vikings", it's at least in the ball park and holds up surprisingly well in spite of some odd casting decisions (Tony Curtius as a Saxon / Viking hahah)

More modern Vikings films are more flawed, but in some cases have some good realistic features.

My favorite is a somewhat low budget and not perfect but (in my opinion) pretty realistic "Beowulf and Grendel" of 2005

http://vikingsofbjornstad.gbtllc.com/VikingMovies.htm#BeowulfGrendel2005

This is NOT to be confused with the much more Hollywood and ridiculous (though still watchable Beowulf of 2007 with Angelina Jolie in it and the extremely strange version of Grendel with voice by the perrenially odd Crispin Glover)

Then there is the pretty realistic if dark Finnish movie Ofelas ("Pathfinder) of 1987

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093668/

Not to be confused with the crappy 2007 American remake

There is Severed Ways, a low-budget Viking film about two Norse explorers left behind in North America

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1062965/

It has at least one very gross out moment and is kind of silly in certain respects but is not a bad film, far better for example than the more recent similarly themed Valhalla Rising which was really aimless and terrible IMO (in spite of having Mads Mikkelsen in it who is a natural to be cast in any Viking film)

And there is this slightly bigger-budget Polish film Stara Basn

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380726/

which is a visually very nice but flawed depiction of an old and popular story in Poland and as such was a disappointment to a lot of Poles but I think would be popular among most Americans with an interest in Vikings or Fantasy RPG type genres. It depicts Slavs and Vikings in conflict in an interesting way. The guys playing the Vikings are mostly Eastern European re-enactors with reasonably good kit (very good by Hollywood standards). If you can find it with English subtitles or dub I recommend it.


Here is a more complete list with short reviews

http://vikingsofbjornstad.gbtllc.com/VikingMovies.htm

G.

Matthew
2011-10-14, 10:21 AM
I would go along with that. Also, not to be confused with Beowulf and Grendel is Grendel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0845463/), another truly awful film, not even salvaged for Star Trek fans by the presence of Marina Sirtis.

Spiryt
2011-10-14, 10:38 AM
Beowulf from 2007 is indeed nice story, even though it's mostly fantasy....

Sad part is that this fantasy looks more similar to something 7 - 10th c. Scan than most other actually "Viking" films, I guess. :smalltongue:

"Stara Baśn" is in the same vein, and while it has some redeeming features, it's pretty bad for most part...

Duel of heavily armored Big Bad against guy with shirt and bow in freaking circle of 20 feet of diameter wouldn't really fly even in Diablo, and yet they made it....... :smalleek:

Mathis
2011-10-14, 11:00 AM
Then there is the pretty realistic if dark Finnish movie Ofelas ("Pathfinder) of 1987

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093668/

Not to be confused with the crappy 2007 American remake

G.

Just to clarify, that movie is Norwegian, not Finnish.

Yora
2011-10-14, 02:58 PM
Beowulf and Grendel looks quite good in regard to the costumes, sets, and props.

But I think it has one major problem. It's boring!
This story is 15 minutes at the most and instead of fleshing it out, the movie just adds padding.

Spiryt
2011-10-14, 03:21 PM
Not most thrilling film, but since story is knows since like 1000......

I actually enjoyed it quite a lot because it had quite tense atmosphere indeed, rather grim one too.

For pretty much undisclosed period it was set in, AFAIR, the costumes etc. were quite decent, as well decently "dark agish" mentality of characters, at least for such a film.


At least mail looks like it has rivets. :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich
2011-10-14, 03:57 PM
anyone seen this one?

http://vikingsofbjornstad.gbtllc.com/VikingMovies.htm#ShadowRaven1988

It looks great, or at least decent. Not on netflix and can't find it for under $80, and even then not sure if it will have English subtitles :(.

The whole situation is grim though, why aren't there MORE Viking movies? Clearly there need to be many many more. Why haven't they adapted a few more of the Sagas? Egils Saga or Hrolf Kraki or any of those would be great...

G

fusilier
2011-10-14, 05:34 PM
I like Kurt Douglas 1958 "The Vikings", it's at least in the ball park and holds up surprisingly well in spite of some odd casting decisions (Tony Curtius as a Saxon / Viking hahah)
. . .
G.

I saw this movie when I was in Elementary school over 20 years ago. Whenever anybody mentions it, the theme music immediately comes to mind after all these years. :-)

I think this may have been the movie where they made a very accurate replica of a longship based on the remains of an original. Then they hired a bunch of 6+ foot tall Scandinavian extras to man it -- it was then that they discovered Vikings weren't that tall back then, and the extras were too cramped to row the boat! :-)

Knaight
2011-10-16, 03:33 AM
And here I was thinking that a sword is the only kind of bladed weapon that would never be called a glaive. Silly me.

You should see translated Chinese. The modern translation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms usually uses the term "sword", sometimes with some specificity and attached fancy title to describe the weapon that Guan Yu (Lord Guan) wields. The artwork in this modern translation quite clearly shows a Guan Dao, which is basically a glaive. So this goes both ways.

On the size thing, the term "span" is usually used in the same book for the Han era chi, which is some 23.1 centimeters. 7 span is thrown around as if it is impressive. 8 span is a big deal, reserved for characters like Zhang Fei and Zhou Zilong, and 9 span is left for Guan Yu, and a handful of characters that perform absurd feats of strength (read: Dian Wei holding a massive banner with one hand that dozens of soldiers couldn't keep upright). By modern standards - including modern Chinese standards, 8 span isn't even that tall. Just shy of 185 cm, whoop de doo. 9 span is, but even it is just under 208 cm, and that is hardly legends.

On a side note, its not exactly a realistic book. Parts of it are, and much of it follows history closely, then suddenly completely fictional characters are brought up, or some 12 span elephant rider with a whole host of tamed animals and soldiers in rattan armor are fended off by fire breathing mechanical beasts. Then its back to romanticized reality, just as quickly.

Yora
2011-10-16, 06:53 AM
That "source" is about 600 year old and even today 162 cm (7 span) is the average height for men in many south-east asian countries. In the 19th century average height for men in the Netherlands was only 164 cm. In 14th century china that would have been quite impressive.

184 cm (8 span) is taller than the average man in the Netherlands today, and they are the are pretty much the talest people ever in the history of mankind.

Knaight
2011-10-16, 07:23 AM
That "source" is about 600 year old and even today 162 cm (7 span) is the average height for men in many south-east asian countries. In the 19th century average height for men in the Netherlands was only 164 cm. In 14th century china that would have been quite impressive.

184 cm (8 span) is taller than the average man in the Netherlands today, and they are the are pretty much the talest people ever in the history of mankind.

Closer to 590, and it illustrates the disparity quite nicely. 7 span (or more accurately, 7 Han chi) is average. Not exceptionally tall, not the sort of exaggerated figure you expect to get thrown around - though Luo Guanzhong was usually faithful to reason when describing heights and distances, if not speeds or army sizes - and certainly not the sort of thing that gets used to explain just how big and imposing a great warrior is. Particularly when you consider the predisposition of increased height in the nobility or aristocracy, which was just as prevalent in China as in Europe, for similar reasons. 8 span is tall, sure, but its used to illustrate the might of figures who are portrayed as absurdly mythical. Someone described as 8 span in Romance of the Three Kingdoms is liable to ride down into an army alone, grab a couple of generals, and ride off in the narrative. Only the 9 span figure even makes sense connected to "great and tall and mighty" in modernity, and it was used for something closer to supernatural strength. Which clearly illustrates that even people known as big and impressive centuries ago probably mostly weren't.

As for its source, its a piece of highly important literature, of the sort which contains exaggerated battle prowess, yet nonetheless shows insight into the reality. It can provide an idea of the times just fine, and illustrates just how much smaller people were, much as the more realistic Icelandic sagas often give a decent idea of how personal combat worked, or the Homeric epics gave some idea as to cultural values.

Spiryt
2011-10-16, 07:41 AM
184 cm (8 span) is taller than the average man in the Netherlands today, and they are the are pretty much the talest people ever in the history of mankind.

Uh, no, not at all - populations people of Dinaric Alps (spread among few Balkan Countries) are on average taller than Netherlanders, and Masai can be very well taller than that from millenniums. Just as many other shepherd and hunters from Africa.

What I'm saying that you can't just say:


In 14th century china that would have been quite impressive.

It's very possible that people in 14th century China would be on average relatively small people, eating rice and some more rice, being rather tiny in result - but without any data it's really just assumption.

bansidhe
2011-10-19, 06:05 AM
Question asked me by my 8yr old daughter yesterday and im completely stumped!

Why is the famous Knights shield called a "heater" shield? is it possibly too do with the shape of the firescreens used in that time?

Yora
2011-10-19, 06:11 AM
Wikipedia says the term is a rather recent invention based on the shape of clothes irons.

Pheehelm
2011-10-20, 01:35 AM
How were metal spearheads historically attached to wooden poles? Did they just fit really snugly, did they have screw-on "back then," or was there some other means keeping them on?

Knaight
2011-10-20, 02:03 AM
How were metal spearheads historically attached to wooden poles? Did they just fit really snugly, did they have screw-on "back then," or was there some other means keeping them on?

It varied. Here's (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_spear.htm) one example, of viking stuff, where spear heads were attached with a rivet. In addition to that, they were usually made to be a pretty close fit. Moreover, very early metal spearheads (bronze, if not just copper) may have used similar attachment as stone spearheads, the pictures below indicate a wrapped sinew attachement method, though there are others.
http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/05b16e40e92e77d8dec63d525086f827b5176753.JPG
http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz119/paleoarts/spears/100_5684480x640.jpg

Haruspex_Pariah
2011-10-20, 05:52 AM
Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?

Spiryt
2011-10-20, 06:07 AM
Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?

I don't think so..... Depends on design, but I don't see the way.

You could do mostly very basic grappling stuff, that doesn't require much grip.

Of course, with brass knuckles, you can only need to stabilize you opponent for a small while, that's needed to release few good strike's given destructive potential of fist in it - but still it restricts fingers quite a bit.

If get's a hold on the arm with knuckles, it can get pretty nasty for wielder, again depending on design, I guess.

Beleriphon
2011-10-20, 02:19 PM
I don't think so..... Depends on design, but I don't see the way.

You could do mostly very basic grappling stuff, that doesn't require much grip.

Of course, with brass knuckles, you can only need to stabilize you opponent for a small while, that's needed to release few good strike's given destructive potential of fist in it - but still it restricts fingers quite a bit.

If get's a hold on the arm with knuckles, it can get pretty nasty for wielder, again depending on design, I guess.

Brass knuckles would be useless to grapple with, almost all of them include some kind of palm grip like thus:

http://www.brassknucklescompany.com/CRE/images/BrassLARGE.jpg

That palm protector would ruin any grip you might manage. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the work to grab at a sword with, but I'd think most folks would rather block a sword another way and keep their fingers.

GungHo
2011-10-20, 02:29 PM
Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?
Not really.

Even at their most basic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_Lincoln_bodyguard%27s_brass_knuckles_ 04725u_original.jpg), common brass knuckles restrict the spread of your fingers and feature a palm grip that helps the wielder stablize their grip and prevent tearing up their own fingers/hands. You have no way of spreading your fingers to grab someone, and the palm grip would preclude you from holding onto the hilt of a sword.

That being said, there are some knives that have knuckles/dusters integrated into the grip, such as trench knives, though those are really to protect your fingers and help you hold on to the weapon rather than punch someone inna face.

Beleriphon
2011-10-20, 02:49 PM
Then there are the other cases. If pikes get close to muskets, the pikemen don't need to be good, its not even remotely fair in close range. Same thing with artillery, though at long range artillery has the capacity to devastate pikes.

Despite the somewhat absurd concept that sets up the story (it involves time travel, and an N-60 machine gun at one point) 1632 (the novel) presents some pretty good battles between pikemen and arquebuses, and later pump action shotguns fire deer slugs.

The Swiss pike squares are commented on as being exceptionally brave, even when facing a machine gun, and later German troops firing shotguns at a rate twenty times higher than an aquebus would have allowed.

Raum
2011-10-20, 05:16 PM
Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?Some amount of grappling can be done with little or no grip - several Judo and Aikido throws come to mind.

A sword is a different story altogether. A poor grip means you'll have little or no point control, may not even be able to keep the edge from twisting, and will probably easily lose it to disarms.

Spiryt
2011-10-20, 05:24 PM
Some amount of grappling can be done with little or no grip - several Judo and Aikido throws come to mind.



Going more basic - fundamental wrestling underhooks can be done without that much grip.

If the other hand is free, possibilities remain even higher - all in all there's whole lot of locks and stuff performed with sword/weapon in the other hand in Talhoffer and other guys works.

Still, options are limited, even if you can work around it well.

Mike_G
2011-10-20, 06:54 PM
Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?

You couldn't wield a sword while using brass knuckles, but plenty of swords have a knuckle bow that you could punch with if you got caught in close quarters.

Incanur
2011-10-20, 07:46 PM
A gauntlet proves a similar improvement to punch impact and allows you to wield a sword. Most of us don't think about this, but plate armor can function as weapon in itself.

Xuc Xac
2011-10-21, 04:43 AM
Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?

Wield a sword? Not very well.

Grapple? According to Kyle Maynard, you don't need hands (or legs) to grapple.

He's a quadruple amputee wrestler. (http://www.google.com.vn/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=amputee%20wrestler&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7xh Vaoi7_TI&ei=Cj6hTty3M62viQfg6IzrBg&usg=AFQjCNHPL90k_T9QWzWpYYN41d8LKUGPEA)

Spiryt
2011-10-21, 04:52 AM
Wield a sword? Not very well.

Grapple? According to Kyle Maynard, you don't need hands (or legs) to grapple.

He's a quadruple amputee wrestler. (http://www.google.com.vn/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=amputee%20wrestler&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7xh Vaoi7_TI&ei=Cj6hTty3M62viQfg6IzrBg&usg=AFQjCNHPL90k_T9QWzWpYYN41d8LKUGPEA)

That guy is pretty much slap to the face to anyone who goes with "I cannot do (insert stuff) I just don't have :x, y, b,"...

But still such posts seem a little morbid, since his capabilities of actually using his wrestling in a fight are non existent. :smalleek:

He once had an MMA fight with non handicapped person, just to show that he can. Bryan Fry danced around him for 15 minutes, jabbing him carefully not to actually hurt him, with car parked and general evacuation route in case the crowd would like to lynch him for fighting guy without limbs....

Traab
2011-10-21, 06:28 PM
That guy is pretty much slap to the face to anyone who goes with "I cannot do (insert stuff) I just don't have :x, y, b,"...

But still such posts seem a little morbid, since his capabilities of actually using his wrestling in a fight are non existent. :smalleek:

He once had an MMA fight with non handicapped person, just to show that he can. Bryan Fry danced around him for 15 minutes, jabbing him carefully not to actually hurt him, with car parked and general evacuation route in case the crowd would like to lynch him for fighting guy without limbs....

I would have bribed the guy controlling the lights so that when the fight started, id blast the limbless guy across the cage with a single shot, have the guy kill the lights, and run like HELL for the nearest plastic surgeon. Seriously, that has to be the biggest no win scenario ive ever heard of. Sure the guy himself probably would respect you for going all out against him like he wanted, but yeah, I cant even imagine the flash mob that would form if an MMA fighter SERIOUSLY fought him.

Also, as gungho said, some knives have them built in. I actually have one myself. Its a decent blade, but id prefer it to be double edged. The brass studs can put a half inch dent in solid wood though.

Zenos
2011-10-22, 01:58 AM
I have a question, why did the parthian cataphracts wield their lances with two hands? What effect does wielding a lance with two hands have as opposed to wielding it couched?

Knaight
2011-10-22, 03:36 AM
I have a question, why did the parthian cataphracts wield their lances with two hands? What effect does wielding a lance with two hands have as opposed to wielding it couched?

The whole couching concept wasn't really established there so the alternative was one hand, not couched. Using a lance in one hand without couching it really doesn't work that well.

Spiryt
2011-10-22, 05:46 AM
I have a question, why did the parthian cataphracts wield their lances with two hands? What effect does wielding a lance with two hands have as opposed to wielding it couched?

Adding second hand allows tremendous grip and stabilization, especially when lance hits something hard - by adding pretty much whole back and torso to support the lance under the impact.

Even well couched lance generally won't do the same trick, especially that lances with rondel or other element that pushed against wielders hand was relatively late 'invention'.

AFAIR in Europe, up to the late 13th century lance would be still pretty much largish spear, usable not only as lance per se.


I would have bribed the guy controlling the lights so that when the fight started, id blast the limbless guy across the cage with a single shot, have the guy kill the lights, and run like HELL for the nearest plastic surgeon. Seriously, that has to be the biggest no win scenario ive ever heard of. Sure the guy himself probably would respect you for going all out against him like he wanted, but yeah, I cant even imagine the flash mob that would form if an MMA fighter SERIOUSLY fought him.

Guy probably quite simply needed the money, so bribing anyone is not good idea. :smalltongue:

Instead, Fry simply jabed him for 15 minutes, while jogging around, took the "decision" and left.

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/01/10/05/slideshow_1051011_maynard.0427_06.JPG

Generally it still had to be pretty damn disturbing sight, and I can't say I really get Maynard's thinking... I understand whole " breaking the barriers" attitude, but sill....

Storm Bringer
2011-10-22, 06:16 AM
I have a question, why did the parthian cataphracts wield their lances with two hands? What effect does wielding a lance with two hands have as opposed to wielding it couched?

they didn't have stirrups, using a different saddle design which gripped the rider at the waist, which held you on but didn't let you stand up in the saddle and bring your whole body weight into a blow, which made couching the lance diffcult (as it was likely to be ripped out of your hand before serious damage was done to the target), and it's harder to generate much force/"get your weight behind" a one handed stab when sat down/in the saddle , so holding it two handed allowed the pre stirrup horseman to get the leverage and grip to hold onto his lance while still getting a good thrust behind it. the late roman heavy cavlary did the same, as did the early Carolingian knights.

Knaight
2011-10-22, 06:21 AM
they didn't have stirrups, using a different saddle design which gripped the rider at the waist, which held you on but didn't let you stand up in the saddle and bring your whole body weight into a blow, which made couching the lance diffcult (as it was likely to be ripped out of your hand before serious damage was done to the target), and it's harder to generate much force/"get your weight behind" a one handed stab when sat down/in the saddle , so holding it two handed allowed the pre stirrup horseman to get the leverage and grip to hold onto his lance while still getting a good thrust behind it. the late roman heavy cavlary did the same, as did the early Carolingian knights.

Chinese cavalry as well, for that matter. At least, the Chinese cavalry that didn't use imported mongol tactics - by which I mean bows.

Eorran
2011-10-23, 11:08 PM
Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?

Hawkfrost000
2011-10-24, 12:09 AM
Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?

I know the Desert Eagle .50 cal uses a mechanism that is very similar to that of a rifle. (It'l blow your hands off if your not careful.) But i doubt it fires the bullets that go into a Barett .50 cal.

DM

Storm Bringer
2011-10-24, 12:25 AM
I know the Desert Eagle .50 cal uses a mechanism that is very similar to that of a rifle. (It'l blow your hands off if your not careful.) But i doubt it fires the bullets that go into a Barett .50 cal.

DM

it doesn't.

to my knowledge, thier is no mass produced pistol design that fires full size or intermediate rifle cartridges. a few nutjobs may have made one off pistols that can, but it;s not common, nor very practical. the recoil would be too much for you to aim properly.

Autolykos
2011-10-24, 03:36 AM
Also, rifles use the wrong type of powder (it burns a lot slower than pistol powder). You'd waste most of the energy for a very impressive (and possibly dangerous) muzzle flash.

EDIT: That doesn't keep people from building abominations like this (http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2005/01/the_maadi_griff.html) or this (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/23/wts-50-bmg-pistol/).

The Boz
2011-10-24, 04:58 AM
The Desert Eagle is gas-operated, and I guess that's what Darius meant when he compared it to a rifle.
It fires .50 Action Express rounds, which are large, powerfu, but NOWHERE close to the .50 BMG fired by weapons such as the M2 or the Barrett M82.

Yora
2011-10-24, 05:05 AM
"Nowhere" is the right word.
http://imageshack.us/m/690/2258/300221.jpg

While we are at it: Is there a reason for silver-colored cartridges instead of traditional brass ones?

Joran
2011-10-24, 11:21 AM
Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?

Closest production model I can think of is the FN Five-Seven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-seven

It shares ammo with the FN P90, which is basically a submachine gun, but fires smaller caliber, higher velocity rounds.

There are also specialty handguns like this:

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

or the Contender handgun (break-open 14" long pistol) that can fire the Winchester .30-30 rifle round.

Gun nuts being who they are, you can just google a rifle round and the word "pistol" and you'll get pistols designed to handle rifle rounds. For instance, I typed 5.56 NATO (the round used in the M16) pistol and got a couple hits.

gkathellar
2011-10-24, 07:07 PM
Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?

You couldn't do any grappling that required the use of your fingers.

For reference: there are "grappling aids" just as brass knuckles are "striking aids" — one example is the yawara. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yawara)


I have a question, why did the parthian cataphracts wield their lances with two hands? What effect does wielding a lance with two hands have as opposed to wielding it couched?

Two arms are generally stronger than one arm.

Conners
2011-10-25, 08:28 PM
I'm rather curious about the physics of weapons and armour. I'm not sure how to look that up though... I'd like to know what hardness, sharpness and velocity would be required of say a sword, to penetrate a chest-piece (metal, wood, leather, whatever). Not even sure if those are the correct terms, however...

Yora
2011-10-26, 03:42 AM
That depends on a lot more factors, like the materials used in the weapon and the armor, the angle of the strike, the striking surface, the manufacturing quality of the equipment, and so on.

There have been diferent types of armor from different materials at different qualities made all over the world for thousands of years and the same thing holds true for weapons.

There have been some tests of people strapping pieces of armor to a post or board and striking it with a well aimed strike or shoting it at point blank range, and then measure the impact forces involved.
However, these circumstances would never apply in actual combat, as the target keeps moving and probably trying to kill you, so you never get the chance for such a well placed perfect strike or shot.
Also, many types of armor work best not by stopping a weapon, but by making it to glance off harmlessly to the side.

Spiryt
2011-10-26, 04:22 AM
Allan Williams had done quite a lot of testing, I believe much of it is gathered in his The Knight and blast furnace book.

Here and there you can encnounter data from it:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/12/armor-vs-muscle.html

Not really sure how those energies were measured - total energy of 'attack' or actual energy delivered on target, but it's some decent survey in any case - showing some basic relations.


I'm rather curious about the physics of weapons and armour. I'm not sure how to look that up though... I'd like to know what hardness, sharpness and velocity would be required of say a sword, to penetrate a chest-piece (metal, wood, leather, whatever). Not even sure if those are the correct terms, however...

The thing is very broad topic, and there's no really way to look at it other than particular examples.

Much more important that sharpness or hardness, in the first place, will sword in the first place : it's cross section, weight, ridigity and general build.

Then comes the matter what exactly happens during attack, so wielder stabs the stuff with his sword. And wielder then obviously matter very much - his build, strength and experience with sword.

Later, what exactly armor itself is.

Conners
2011-10-26, 04:27 AM
Hmm, I was afraid that'd be the case. It'd be much easier if we knew the physics, and could just work out a percent chance of the blow glancing off from a bad angle.


Changing the question: How much will the material of the weapon change penetration?

Let's say we take an iron-headed arrow, and try to shoot it through a shirt of steel mail armour. How much difference will there be if the arrowhead is common steel instead? Would there be much of a change if pattern-welded steel or damscus/wootz stuff was used?

Just wondering if it's a thing where, "Gasp! a sword of damascus steel!!" or, "Why bother with Damasucs stuff...? Really, you won't notice much difference from an iron sword. Don't let those Dwarves/Saracens sucker you in so quickly!"

Spiryt
2011-10-26, 04:42 AM
Changing the question: How much will the material of the weapon change penetration?

Let's say we take an iron-headed arrow, and try to shoot it through a shirt of steel mail armour. How much difference will there be if the arrowhead is common steel instead? Would there be much of a change if pattern-welded steel or damscus/wootz stuff was used?


There's not really way to call something "common steel" and tell much from it.....

Steel arrowhead could generally achieve better results, because of generally greater hardness and ability to hold the edge and shape -compared to most iron used.

Hard to say how much difference that would make against mail shirt all in all.

As far as pattern welding goes or whatever goes - it's even harder to answer.

Depending on exact patterns of different material, micro structures, or whatever we're talking about, we would have very different things to talk about.

Generally, techniques like that would be very time consuming processes to create nice, reliable piece of quality blade, especially where one couldn't otherwise count on material having proper qualities.

I doubt that usage of it would make much difference in case of small piece of arrowhead - even if anyone would use such time consuming and usually expensive techniques for thing that is ultimately disposable, as arrow.

In short, RPG's and stuff love to form :

Bronze < Iron < Steel < Wootz < Ceramite < Phytoplankton

Chains, but reality obviously is not simple as that, probably from visible lack of molecules of "betterness" and "worseness" in Universe so far. :smallwink:

Yora
2011-10-26, 04:48 AM
Isn't bronze better than iron for tools and military equipment? Why else would people have gone through the trouble of making bronze when iron was readily available? :smallconfused:

Eldan
2011-10-26, 04:51 AM
Mainly because iron smelting is more difficult and requires higher technological development.

Bronze can be melted in a relatively simple oven. If you have, say, a kiln for pottery, you can do bronze working. Iron requires complicated furnaces.

Or in other words:
Melting point of Iron: 1538°C.
Melting point of bronze: Around 950°C, depending on composition. Tin melts at only 231°C.

Spiryt
2011-10-26, 05:04 AM
Isn't bronze better than iron for tools and military equipment? Why else would people have gone through the trouble of making bronze when iron was readily available? :smallconfused:

Depends on iron, bronze and application.

But yes, generally bronze was actually much more available, and easier to work, even if generally expensive.

If someone was troubling himself with iron, he would generally go with steel - since during the general smelting processes, carbonizing iron to obtain something more desirable would generally be one of lesser problem, AFAIR.

gkathellar
2011-10-26, 05:47 AM
I'm not sure how likely steel arrowheads would have been, in any case. Ammunition is disposable, so you want to use disposable materials that come in large quantities for it, generally speaking. Bronze and other metals that melted at lower temperatures would have been logical for making arrows, and if you were doing iron arrowheads you probably wouldn't have bothered with any of the complicated forging techniques required for good steel.

Bullets are rarely made out of iron for this reason, among others (weight being the other big one).

Yora
2011-10-26, 07:40 AM
With the huge steel industry we have today, it would probably be cheaper to make bullets out of steel. No idea how much lead is produced, but it would probably be harder to get than low-quality steel.

gkathellar
2011-10-26, 07:48 AM
Hm, I'm not sure. Steel-manufacturing remains pretty energy intensive, and actually casting the metal is really complicated and has a lot to do with temperature and timing. But then, I can't say with any certainty what metals or alloys form the majority of various types of bullets these days.

Still my understanding is that the other reason lead bullets are preferred is that heavier bullets penetrate better and have more predictable flight paths.

Raum
2011-10-26, 07:54 AM
Bullets are rarely made out of iron for this reason, among others (weight being the other big one).Bullets aren't made out of iron or steel because a) they don't work very well outside of shotguns (or sabot rounds) and b) they'd vastly shorten the lifespan of the weapon. It's got little or nothing to do with how disposable the metal is - for that matter, I think steel pellets are mandated in California to avoid adding lead to the environment.

You want bullets soft enough to be deformed by the gunpowder and engage the rifling in the barrel. If the bullet is too hard, you'll have to have a higher pressure explosion (which may well mean a heavier gun) to force the needed deformation and your rifling will be worn away much quicker.

Spiryt
2011-10-26, 07:58 AM
With the huge steel industry we have today, it would probably be cheaper to make bullets out of steel. No idea how much lead is produced, but it would probably be harder to get than low-quality steel.

Depends, but probably not really. In Rome from Republic to Imperial period lead was pretty widely used, from pipes in aqueducts, roofs, small coins, anchors and other sailing equipment, sling bullets, obviously, to dished in some cases.

Up to this day guy that deals with pipes is called a plumber.

Many people were constructing rather clunky theories about fall of the Rome being causes by lead poisoining.

Lead with it's low melting point and relatively large quantities was quite often byproduct of smelting some other ores, AFAIU.


All in all, It probably wasn't harder to get that cheaper steel stuff.

Mike_G
2011-10-26, 08:30 AM
I think steel pellets are mandated in California to avoid adding lead to the environment.


Steel pellets are mandated for hunting waterfowl in lot of places. The thing is, birds pick up stones to keep in their craw to help grind up food. If there are lots of lead pellets at the bottom of a pond, and a duck or whatever picks them up, it will get lead poisoning. Poison accumulates more and more the further up the food chain you get, so you have apex predators with huge levels of toxic heavy metals.

Lead pellets give better range and spread, but with steel shot, you don't poison your hunting grounds and you can more safely eat the fish and fowl from that area.

Yora
2011-10-26, 01:36 PM
Real world question about weapons in fiction:

Did the cricket bat as a substitute for a baseball bat originate from Shaun of the Dead or did it have a reputation as a melee weapon in the 20th century before that?

I've seen it a couple of times in recent years, usually in tongue in cheek situations.

Fhaolan
2011-10-26, 03:18 PM
Real world question about weapons in fiction:

Did the cricket bat as a substitute for a baseball bat originate from Shaun of the Dead or did it have a reputation as a melee weapon in the 20th century before that?

I've seen it a couple of times in recent years, usually in tongue in cheek situations.

It's a club that is used to hit things. :)

My dad tells me that when he was in school in England sixty years ago, they'd run around and hit each other and anything that came close to them with the cricket bats. And get yelled at for it, of course.

The first time I saw a reference to a cricket bat *specifically* as a weapon, rather than as a weapon of opportunity, was in 'Life, the Universe, and Everything' by Douglas Adams. Originally a Doctor Who script that was rejected.

Yora
2011-10-26, 03:56 PM
Okay, so for brittish kids, that totally was a weapon of choice. :smallbiggrin:

It's just that Brittain isn't such a huge exporter of such kinds of movies.

bansidhe
2011-10-26, 04:12 PM
On the cricket bat question,Belive it or not I was just thinking this for the last few days!.

I distinctly recall reading a comic in my youth [70,s],where IIRC the hero was a British officer fighting the Japanese,his sidekick,a lad of about 13 or so,s weapon was the Officer,s cricket bat.
Referred to as "Clickey Ba'" in the pre PC stories,this kid could take out an entire Jap platoon with it,shattering katanas left and right![pre katana fanboy time too!]

I have seen it obscurely referenced in several novels,mainly in Robert Rankins,where its a bit of an in joke,but some others I cant recall too.

The Boz
2011-10-26, 05:52 PM
With the huge steel industry we have today, it would probably be cheaper to make bullets out of steel. No idea how much lead is produced, but it would probably be harder to get than low-quality steel.
Chinese rifle and pistol bullets are typically steel. Their performance is pretty much the same as the norm, sometimes even worse because of flesh overpenetration or failure to tumble.

fusilier
2011-10-26, 08:07 PM
Changing the question: How much will the material of the weapon change penetration?

8mm Lebel rifle ammo is solid brass, and everybody I've talked to who shoots it is really surprised by it's armor penetration! It's got about the same weight, energy, and shape as 8x57mm Mauser, so the material can matter a lot.

Conners
2011-10-26, 08:12 PM
The arrows bit was merely for an example. I was just wondering how much difference the material could make to penetration and damage.

Consensus would be: "Not much" I'd suppose? Improved materials would mean a more durable weapon, though? That'd be enough reason to use better materials, so your sword will keep its edge better and not get broken in the heat of battle.


One thing to note with arrowheads, is that some of them were reusable. In Japan, they marked their arrowheads with their family symbol, to count how many kills they had gotten and to make it easier to find their own arrowheads. Japanese arrowheads weren't dispensable or made out of cheap metal... those things were monstrously designed, to cause all sorts of pain and bleed.

Thiel
2011-10-27, 12:52 AM
Chinese rifle and pistol bullets are typically steel.
It should be noticed that they aren't made of steel all the way through. They have a steel core op penetrator and a copper or lead jacket.

Conners
2011-10-27, 04:51 AM
One thing that I've been pondering over for a while...

Would it be practical to have laser-weapons? If so, which ones would be practical, and for what reason? From what I understand, laser batteries might cost so much, that a regular machine gun will be just as good for a lower cost (possibly more effective, even).

How about laser-swords, or laser-satellites? Laser fences maybe...?

Curious as to how expensive laser technology is likely to be, if the new batteries which are planned work out.
Basically a question of: "How advanced would our power sources need to be, before laser technology had any practical application as a weapon?"

Yora
2011-10-27, 05:03 AM
That depends all on how powerful, cheap, heavy, and large laser technology would become. Currently, it's completely impossible.

One advantage I could see is the lack of recoil. While you don't need ammunition, you need replacement bateries, probably a lot.
Another one would be penetration. It could be possible that certain kinds of armor would be easier to melt with a laser than to penetrate with a bullet. But then people would just come up with new armor in a few years.

But currently, I don't think anything indicates that handheld laser will be used as weapons at any point.

Eldan
2011-10-27, 05:06 AM
Any laser I've seen so far that would do any significant of damage looked too bulky to be portable by one human, really. Perhaps that has changed recently, I'm certainly not up to date. Melting would also require to hold the weapon on target for a time, which would probably be rather difficult with anything that tries to evade.

You would also loose significant amounts of energy to the air, especially if there is any kind of dust, smog, fog or particle in the air. This includes smoke from burning or melting targets, too.

Spiryt
2011-10-27, 05:12 AM
Consensus would be: "Not much" I'd suppose? Improved materials would mean a more durable weapon, though? That'd be enough reason to use better materials, so your sword will keep its edge better and not get broken in the heat of battle.

It unfortunately seems that you are simplifying the matter a bit - no one had said that material doesn't matter, or whatever - it can matter a lot.

It doesn't matter that the same material is the best for all applications, and uses, nor that "pattern welded" or whatever will be necessarily better or similarly more desired.



One thing to note with arrowheads, is that some of them were reusable. In Japan, they marked their arrowheads with their family symbol, to count how many kills they had gotten and to make it easier to find their own arrowheads. Japanese arrowheads weren't dispensable or made out of cheap metal... those things were monstrously designed, to cause all sorts of pain and bleed.

Arrows all around the world were often pretty expensive and elaborate.

It doesn't mean that they were much more "reusable" than others - of course often less prone to damaging, or whatever, but if arrow hits some solid tree, bit of metal, or whatever hard, it often breaks, and not much can help here.

Neither if it falls to some deep bushes and cannot be found without burning the plants.

Storm Bringer
2011-10-27, 05:48 AM
Any laser I've seen so far that would do any significant of damage looked too bulky to be portable by one human, really. Perhaps that has changed recently, I'm certainly not up to date. Melting would also require to hold the weapon on target for a time, which would probably be rather difficult with anything that tries to evade.

You would also loose significant amounts of energy to the air, especially if there is any kind of dust, smog, fog or particle in the air. This includes smoke from burning or melting targets, too.

the trouble is that things tend to ablate rather than melt. you cause the first layer to melr, but that then acts as a shield, absorbing the rest of the lasers energy before it reaches the target.

the result when fired at a human is a skin deep burn, and a small explosion as the gsa expands. it knocks the guy overs, but he can get back up pretty much unhurt.

gkathellar
2011-10-27, 06:00 AM
Japanese arrowheads weren't dispensable or made out of cheap metal... those things were monstrously designed, to cause all sorts of pain and bleed.

I'm not sure you're wrong about this, but I do know that Japanese artisans produced a wide variety of decorative arrowheads not meant to be used in actual combat. Very elaborate stuff, which you can find some examples of on the Metropolitan Museum of Art's website. Are you sure you're not confusing these for actual heads meant for shooting?


Would it be practical to have laser-weapons?

Possibly in space. Even then, there are significant problems. Almost certainly not for terrestrial warfare. Heat-disposal alone is an almost insurmountable difficulty in either environment — even on some larger machine guns, you have to worry about overheating. Think about how much more havoc that would cause for a laser weapon, and how much more aggravated the problem would be.


How about laser-swords,

Lasers do not stop at a predetermined point. If you shot a laser out of something, that laser would keep going until it dispersed or it bumped into something that could stop it. And if you managed a coherent beam capable of injuring someone, do you really thing the best possible use would be "I'ma build me a lightsaber?"


or laser-satellites?

If you mean "satellites that shoot lasers," then maybe. Certainly if you're using them for an orbital defense grid or whatever, you don't want to have to restock them for ammunition. But all the general problems of laser weaponry still presents itself.


Laser fences maybe...?

Sure, if you can magically produce a coherent beam without using electricity, magically maintain it without using electricity, stop it magically where you want the grating of your fence to stop, and have some sort of magical heatsink available.


Basically a question of: "How advanced would our power sources need to be, before laser technology had any practical application as a weapon?"

Very, very advanced, and even if they were there are many other problems associated with such a weapon.

Conners
2011-10-27, 08:38 AM
It unfortunately seems that you are simplifying the matter a bit - no one had said that material doesn't matter, or whatever - it can matter a lot.

It doesn't matter that the same material is the best for all applications, and uses, nor that "pattern welded" or whatever will be necessarily better or similarly more desired.


Arrows all around the world were often pretty expensive and elaborate.

It doesn't mean that they were much more "reusable" than others - of course often less prone to damaging, or whatever, but if arrow hits some solid tree, bit of metal, or whatever hard, it often breaks, and not much can help here.

Neither if it falls to some deep bushes and cannot be found without burning the plants. Yes, no one said, "the material doesn't matter". I haven't said as much, either O_o... The impression I got from your post was that the material wouldn't make a lot of difference. Some, but not much.

Afraid I'm unable to understand this paragraph.


Do arrowheads break so easily? I know little about weapon breakage. I do wonder how often well-designed arrowheads would break, however.



I'm not sure you're wrong about this, but I do know that Japanese artisans produced a wide variety of decorative arrowheads not meant to be used in actual combat. Very elaborate stuff, which you can find some examples of on the Metropolitan Museum of Art's website. Are you sure you're not confusing these for actual heads meant for shooting?



Possibly in space. Even then, there are significant problems. Almost certainly not for terrestrial warfare. Heat-disposal alone is an almost insurmountable difficulty in either environment — even on some larger machine guns, you have to worry about overheating. Think about how much more havoc that would cause for a laser weapon, and how much more aggravated the problem would be.



Lasers do not stop at a predetermined point. If you shot a laser out of something, that laser would keep going until it dispersed or it bumped into something that could stop it. And if you managed a coherent beam capable of injuring someone, do you really thing the best possible use would be "I'ma build me a lightsaber?"



If you mean "satellites that shoot lasers," then maybe. Certainly if you're using them for an orbital defense grid or whatever, you don't want to have to restock them for ammunition. But all the general problems of laser weaponry still presents itself.



Sure, if you can magically produce a coherent beam without using electricity, magically maintain it without using electricity, stop it magically where you want the grating of your fence to stop, and have some sort of magical heatsink available.



Very, very advanced, and even if they were there are many other problems associated with such a weapon. I found this out from a historian who specializes in Asian history. He could be wrong, but that'd seem unusual for him.


A bit sad, since laser weapons are something that would be interesting to have.


I heard that there are some lightsabers that have been built--however, they are currently not very useful for combat (I think it's too heavy to carry).


Was wondering if putting the laser on something bigger would make the disadvantages less crippling--it was a faint hope, though.


Thinking of a fence with a metal frame, but lasers between the posts instead of wiring. Didn't seem likely, of course..


Hmm... I guess there aren't any logical sci-fi loopholes to make them effective..?



PS: While lasers seem impractical, would plasma be any better?

Knaight
2011-10-27, 08:45 AM
PS: While lasers seem impractical, would plasma be any better?

No. Plasma, sadly (or not, considering how nasty burn wounds are), is basically worthless in weaponry.

gkathellar
2011-10-27, 08:57 AM
I heard that there are some lightsabers that have been built--however, they are currently not very useful for combat (I think it's too heavy to carry).

-snip-

PS: While lasers seem impractical, would plasma be any better?

I've heard that some MIT guys came up with a working lightsaber design that was functionally a "plasma chainsaw," but I can't verify that. I do know that the energy and material requirements for any such weapon would be enormous.

Plasma is a little better, but poses many of the same heating and energy-loss problems. Its big advantages, to my understanding, are that you can reliably contain and control it with powerful magnets and that it might potentially carry a larger energy payload to a target. But on the other hand, it doesn't move as quickly as lasers do (see: speed of light) and you'd need some kind of actual mechanism for getting it to the target (as opposed to: laser goes that way). Certainly, plasma is more likely for things like swords or fences or attack poodles. EDIT: Of course, the energy requirements are still there and still immense, and our magnetic technology isn't nearly good enough to do things like that very well yet.

Honestly, if you're looking for realistic futuristic weapons for personal combat, improved kinetics and explosives are probably the way to go — high-tech homing bullets, miniaturized RPGs and grenades, railguns, that sort of thing.

Spiryt
2011-10-27, 09:01 AM
Do arrowheads break so easily? I know little about weapon breakage. I do wonder how often well-designed arrowheads would break, however.

Arrow heads may not break easily, but shaft certainly do.

And shaft is very important part of an arrow - it's balance and shape is very important to optimal flight of arrow. Not to mention that if shaft breaks, it's all the way harder to find your precious head or/and fletching.

Even assuming that shaft is relatively cheap and easy to replace, it's still quite a lot of trouble, depends on the way of mounting the head.

As far as breakage goes, it's harder to say. Many thin, flat, long or combination of above shapes may indeed be pretty prone to damage if they hit something that 'gives back' a lot.

Eldan
2011-10-27, 09:28 AM
I heard that there are some lightsabers that have been built--however, they are currently not very useful for combat (I think it's too heavy to carry).


I really, really, really doubt that.

At least, it wouldn't be a laser in the form of a blade. Light doesn't do that, period.

It could be something similar to an oversized plasma scalpel, maybe. I could see that.

Knaight
2011-10-27, 11:46 AM
I really, really, really doubt that.

At least, it wouldn't be a laser in the form of a blade. Light doesn't do that, period.

It could be something similar to an oversized plasma scalpel, maybe. I could see that.

That's whats under discussion. And its more like a lightknife than a lightsaber, its a contained bit of plasma that juts out of a very large, very heavy machine.

Yora
2011-10-27, 01:54 PM
When it comes to sci-fi weapons, my monney is on coil guns. Some guy build a low-powered one in his garage and it does have a bit of a punch. Nowhere near practical levels, but the concept works.

While the US Navy is toying around with artillery scale railguns, I don't see how they think to find a solution for the heat problem. But then, I am no engineer.

The Boz
2011-10-27, 02:21 PM
Me and a friend made a 2m long railgun, but we didn't have the money for the capacitors needed :( If we had something like two thousand dollars to spare, it could fire a five gram steel bearing at well over 300m/s (our math was somewhat imprecise), and could maybe even do it twice with good wiring and mechanics.
The principle is pretty sound, though. I can definitely imagine myself making a railgun if I ever needed to assassinate someone without a traceable round, sound of gunfire or the hassle of actually attaining a rifle. I even thought of a way to add gyrostabilization to railguns.

EDIT: Regarding the heat problem in large rail guns... As far as I know, they're planning to use ablative rails, where each set is good for only a few firings, in the low dozens maybe. With each shot, a large portion of the heat would be translated to the top layer of the rails which would break off in tiny pieces and eject out of the gun in the form of plasma.

Telok
2011-10-27, 07:25 PM
The Atomic Rockets website is a pretty good resource for space, laser, and energy weapon information.

USAF airborne laser (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#bombpumpedlaser)

Laser pistols (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/sidearmenergy.php#laser)

Particle beams (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#particle)

The spacegun intro (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunintro.php)

Skirts in space (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/basicdesign.php#skirt)

Yora
2011-10-28, 05:07 AM
How can someone so smart have a website so awful?! :smallbiggrin:

The Boz
2011-10-28, 05:16 AM
Atomic Rocket is, like, fourty two years old.

Spiryt
2011-10-28, 05:27 AM
Not relevant to EMP railgunny atomic rockets in any way, but somebody had put pretty fantastic article in the Net:

http://www.byzsym.org/index.php/bz/article/viewFile/976/954


About scale & lamellar armor in Byzantium, Georgia, and general Black Sea & steppes region where it thrived trough all Middle Ages.

Yora
2011-10-28, 05:54 AM
Speaking of armor:

In D&D, "breastplate" is one of the best pieces of armor in the game. However only a cuirass and nothing else doesn't sound very good when compared to full body chainmaile. This got me thinking about ancient greek armor. Did they really only have a cuirass, helmet, lower leg guards, and a loincloth? Sure, it got hot in summer and the shield was the most important item of protection, but wouldn't a soldier also have to expect to get into fights that did not consist of phalanxes fighting each other? And there's winter in Greece as well.

On paintings I've only seen soldiers in the standard outfit, but I guess there's a chance that artists did paint what they considered cool and not how things actually were. And with greek art, everything seems to follow the exact same style, so I would also suspect that artist would always stick to the same ways of painting generic soldiers. So I don't trust art a lot when it comes to accurately represent equipment.
Then there's archeology, but you wouldn't find any two thousand year old cloth and leather, while you get a lot of brass pieces. And 19th century archeologists did all kinds of mistakes that seem stupid in hindsight, but once an image has entered public consciousness, new evidence rarely changes it.
So again, did people around and before 1 AD really fight with only a cuirass and helmet all the time?

Knaight
2011-10-28, 06:02 AM
http://www.byzsym.org/index.php/bz/article/viewFile/976/954


About scale & lamellar armor in Byzantium, Georgia, and general Black Sea & steppes region where it thrived trough all Middle Ages.

That was a seriously cool article, though somewhat lacking in scope.

Eldan
2011-10-28, 06:05 AM
I've seen pictures with slightly different styles of armour, like a linothorax like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Akhilleus_Patroklos_Antikensammlung_Berlin_F2 278.jpg) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg), but even those don't seem to protect the arms at all.

Edit: Here's an interesting picture:
Note the cloth hanging from the shield, which is supposed to protect the legs against arrows. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warrior_Alkimachos_Painter_MAN.jpg)

Spiryt
2011-10-28, 06:07 AM
Speaking of armor:


So again, did people around and before 1 AD really fight with only a cuirass and helmet all the time?

People from 4000 B.C. to 1700 AD very often fought with 'only' some form of torso protection and helmet all the time, so that's nothing especially weird....

More complete armor was always problematic, from obtaining fitting and quality one, to carrying it around.


though somewhat lacking in scope.

What do you exactly mean by "lacking in scope"?



I've seen pictures with slightly different styles of armour, like a linothorax like this or this, but even those don't seem to protect the arms at all.

First one seems like some scale armor, not really linothorax.

Knaight
2011-10-28, 06:09 AM
What do you exactly mean by "lacking in scope"?

It was a short article that didn't cover very much - particularly as it only made vague allusions as to Georgia's source on new technology, and didn't detail the origin of those technologies at all.

Eldan
2011-10-28, 06:13 AM
First one seems like some scale armor, not really linothorax.

I thought that too, but it was the example picture of "linothorax" on wikipedia, the first picture I could find.

Yora
2011-10-28, 06:14 AM
While we are at it: Was there ever something like "splint armor"? When you google it, 60% of the results are dictionary pages, 20% RPG related, 10% single-sentence descriptions without pictures, and the rest 10% "page not found".
When looking for images, it's even worse. Two pictures from RPGs and nothing else that has anything to do with the subject.

Eldan
2011-10-28, 06:17 AM
I've actually researched it a bit a while ago, when I first heard the term in a D&D book. General consensus I could find from articles was: Did exist, but was rarely used, and then mostly just for the arms and legs.

Edit: Actually, the first google result for me was a Wikipedia article, which basically says the same :smalltongue:

Here's a picture. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Guenther_von_schwarzburg.jpg)

Spiryt
2011-10-28, 06:18 AM
While we are at it: Was there ever something like "splint armor"? When you google it, 60% of the results are dictionary pages, 20% RPG related, 10% single-sentence descriptions without pictures, and the rest 10% "page not found".
When looking for images, it's even worse. Two pictures from RPGs and nothing else that has anything to do with the subject.

"Splint" in english seems to be defined as to "split part of larger piece" or "plate or strip " and "of metal" for example.

Article I posted puts lamellar and scale under group name of "splint armors" so I guess that any armor that's composed of some small strips of metal or whatever can be called 'splint".

Some coats of plates or brigandines could also very well fit under that name.



General consensus I could find from articles was: Did exist, but was rarely used, and then mostly just for the arms and legs.

If arm and legs protection like that should be called "splint" as well, then it was not rare at all, it was very popular protection of legs and arms trough the whole 14th century, before it was more or less displaced by solid plates by 15th century.


EDIT: With 3/4 of ~ 14 th century reenactors using that stuff (not exactly correctly all the time:smalltongue:), it's hard to find decent reconstruction picture....

http://www.siwogrod.pl/photos/med/P1050243.JPG

Yora
2011-10-28, 07:38 AM
That linothorax is actually quite cool. That one that Alexander is wearing in his picture is really fashionable for a heroic warrior. :smallbiggrin:
But I think it looks as if its covered by small bronze plates while most descriptions say cloth only.

Specific ways of construction set aside, I think I'll actually use that for breastplate armor in my iron age campaign.

Dead_Jester
2011-10-28, 09:59 AM
The thing is, splint armor is quite hard to define, as it is almost never used as a full set (other types of armor to cover the torso are often either easier to make or offer greater protection and/or more mobility). Furthermore, many early suit of plate armor integrated other types of armor to cover the lower arms and parts of the legs, so, although they might integrate splint armor or mail, they are considered plate armor or partial plate.

As for the ancient armor, most soldiers in the Hellenic states wore head and torso protection, but many of the richer ones also wore greaves. Note that the later linothorax usually included a leather "skirt" to protect the upper legs, and that the actual armor worn by the soldiers was rarely uniform. As for the arms, the aspis usually covered the entire left arm, and, if fighting in organized formation, usually at least part of the spear arm was either covered by the next man in the formation or was out of practical reach for hand weapon wielding infantry.

Yora
2011-10-28, 10:14 AM
In phalanx combat I see the point of having armor only on the most vital (torso and head) and exposed (head and lower legs) parts of the body.
However, it seems to me like quite a risk to be prepared only for one single situation under optimal circumstances. I would like to have at least some leather vembrace on my weapon arm in case a spear gets through a gap between the shields. Everything that slightly lowers the chance of permanently loosing use of my right hand would be welcome.
And I don't see a good reason to leave the arm completely bare.

Spiryt
2011-10-28, 10:53 AM
Well, there were some vambrances there, sometimes, AFAIR - it's that just armoring the foeram etc. is always pretty tricky, expensive, and tires the arm used for fighting after all.

And as far as "leather" vambrance goes it wouldn't really give much, other than being a bit encumbering.

Don't think there are much, if any signs of such ideas in antiquity (or anywhere/when else for that matter).

If someone could armor his arms, he would probably be doing it, but strapping some piece of leather just for it to be there is mostly RPG and stuff invention - like immortal and super popular leather bracer appearing everywhere on anyone from Xena to Robin Hoods.:smallwink:

Knaight
2011-10-28, 10:55 AM
If someone could armor his arms, he would probably be doing it, but strapping some piece of leather just for it to be there is mostly RPG and stuff invention - like immortal and super popular leather bracer appearing everywhere on anyone from Xena to Robin Hoods.:smallwink:

I suspect this was taken from archers, without realizing that it was only really needed to shoot a bow (and even then, only if things go wrong), and that one doesn't need to cover the top of their forearm anyways.

Spiryt
2011-10-28, 10:59 AM
I suspect this was taken from archers, without realizing that it was only really needed to shoot a bow (and even then, only if things go wrong), and that one doesn't need to cover the top of their forearm anyways.

Most certainly - still those had make quite a career.

Knaight
2011-10-28, 11:08 AM
Most certainly - still those had make quite a career.

What? This statement makes no sense.

Interpretation 1) The device I described were made for an extended period of time.
Response) You only have to have the bow string hit you in the arm once before you learn that it sucks horribly.

Interpretation 2) Gibberish.
Response) None.

Interpretation 3) Covering the entire forearm was common.
Response) Yes, but only because its an easy way to make the tool, and even then, it was usually quite thin.

Spiryt
2011-10-28, 11:13 AM
Ergh, dunno what you are exactly thinking about -

But as I stated in previous post, leather bracers of unspecified function made quite a carrer, and are present in any "medievalish" movie or other media, from Gladiator to Blood Rayne or whatever.

Dienekes
2011-10-28, 11:29 AM
In phalanx combat I see the point of having armor only on the most vital (torso and head) and exposed (head and lower legs) parts of the body.
However, it seems to me like quite a risk to be prepared only for one single situation under optimal circumstances. I would like to have at least some leather vembrace on my weapon arm in case a spear gets through a gap between the shields. Everything that slightly lowers the chance of permanently loosing use of my right hand would be welcome.
And I don't see a good reason to leave the arm completely bare.

You have to remember about phalanx combat is that most of the hoplites weren't professionals. They were normal citizens who were wealthy enough for their armor and weapons(often only just wealthy enough for a spear and shield) and taken out and trained in how to march in formation over the summer.

Basically they were only taught fighting in phalanxes and to their logic if the phalanx broke that means they've already lost. They also had some notions that were rather backwards, the most obvious one being having their leaders fight in the front lines, so expecting pure logic to determine how they ran their military is rather flawed.

Interestingly the professional hoplite army, the Spartans, were prone to wearing less and less armor for maneuverability and relying on their shields and training to just make sure their phalanx never broke (until it finally did with rather nasty results to their army and to the polis' self-image).

Yora
2011-10-28, 11:35 AM
If someone could armor his arms, he would probably be doing it, but strapping some piece of leather just for it to be there is mostly RPG and stuff invention - like immortal and super popular leather bracer appearing everywhere on anyone from Xena to Robin Hoods.:smallwink:
I would want a proper gauntlet of course, but I imagine that would be hard to come by, especially for a couple of hundred people.

But what I am thinking of is, that I wouldn't want a sharpened spear tip to just glance off the inside of my wrist. Having some firm leather covering it could make the difference between getting my tendons severed or not. Sure, it wouldn't stop a two handed overhand chop from getting my hand cut off, but it seems a highly vulnerable area which is constantly getting the closest to the pointy ends of my enemies weapon and if I can have a slighly better chance of not losing the use of my right hand if I survive the battle, I would want to get it.
I haven't tried fighting with spears or swords while wearing arm protection, so there might be some factors that are not intuitively obvious. But I think it sounds like a really good idea. To me a layer of leather over my naked skin seems like a no-brainer with no apparent drawback.

Spiryt
2011-10-28, 11:43 AM
It's sweaty, potentially hot, and generally expensive as well - well treated leather was pretty precious thing, especially since Greeks weren't having that many cows in general.

Severing tendon or something like that is rather hard to do by just glancing over the spear or something - and piece of leather won't stop anything more serious.

Generally, it seems to be the story about armor all around the world and ages - if armor is used, then at least roughly solid and covering one.

If something could just potentially stop absolutely minor stuff, no one bothered.

Fhaolan
2011-10-28, 12:45 PM
I would anticipate the a large number soldiers/warriors with 'just' breastplates to also be wearing full quilted cloth under it.

A lot of the names for this stuff, jupon, gambleson, aketon, etc. are medieval, but I'm pretty sure this kind of stuff has been around as long as cloth has been. It's not a big intuitive jump to make, and our ancestors were *not* stupid.