Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XIII

[Brother Oni]

So it still comes down to discipline and shields being the single most descisive factor?

If you're fighting a defensive action, then yes. Shields can be generally be substituted by lots of polearms pointed in the same direction though.



How do you make the most efficient use of choke points in such a scenario? Meet the enemy at the most narrow point, as in the Termophylae, or position your troupes in a semicircle just outside the chokepoint so you have the maximum number of your people having a go at the enemies coming through in a narrow stream?

This is wandering into specifics now - what undead are coming, what the soldiers are armed with, what terrain there is to work with, how much prep time they have, etc.

Personally, if I had lots of polearms, I'd hold them at the chokepoint and if the weight of enemy comes too much, then they can expand out to a semi circle.
If I had lots of elevated archers as well though, I'd let them into a semi circle first, turning it into a killing ground.

Thermopylae was idea for a defensive action though, often you're meeting the enemy on a much more open field, so you have to use other terrain (hills, rivers, hedges, buildings, woods, etc) to your advantage.

[Spiryt]

If you're fighting a defensive action, then yes. Shields can be generally be substituted by lots of polearms pointed in the same direction though.


Against truly 'fearless' undead monstrosity, it may be less of a case, though.

Big shield offers protection, and actual ability to stop opponent in it's track.

While pointy stuff can of course physically halt someone, especially if supported against ground, a lot of it is psychological though.

"I want push aside/charge vigorously, don't want to get it stuck in my eye'.



Anyway, back to the 'kukris' :

If it's purely matter of 'style' then giving character at least one 'full sized' kukri, so something like falcata/machaira, big yataghan, or whatever might work.

So basically scaling kukri up, and slenderizing it a bit to give more of a 'proper palash' reach and capabilities. While still has that funky shape.

Wielding two things like that will still quite frankly be really impractical, for what we know, but a bit less so than two kukris.

[Berenger]

@Yora:

I could give a suggestion more tailored to your problem if you would answer my questions, but have you considered the use of fortifications? If there is no suitable castle in the path of the undead army, you could use something like a hussite wagon fort. If nothing else, it would make an excellent fallback position (your infantry can't retreat in the ordinary fashion from an enemy that doesn't tire).

http://getasword.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/hussite-wagons.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Josef_Mathauser_-_Bitva_u_Lipan_roku_1434.jpg/800px-Josef_Mathauser_-_Bitva_u_Lipan_roku_1434.jpg

[Vitruviansquid]

I imagine that the last thing you want to do, no matter how you're armed, is to stand toe-to-toe against an undead horde and try to physically stop it. Besides, if your goal is to make the army look powerful and professional, you might want to make their tactics a little bit fancy to get your point across.

What about having multiple teams of mounted archers repeatedly approach and disengage from the undead horde before the undead can catch them? If the horde stays as one mass, the archers will simply whittle them down over time by having one team distract it while the other teams follow it, shooting it full of whatever missile is available. If the undead horde splits up (maybe they're "programmed" to just go after the closest living thing), your army annihilates the undead that separate from the pack in individual combat, where the single soldier's skill and initiative matters more.

Are we talking mindless zombie horde here, or multiple different types of undead with missile weapons and tactics of their own? Do they need to be led by necromancers or higher forms of undead so is there a hierarchy that could be attacked?

[SowZ]

How far away would a typical blackpowder pistol circa 1650 have to be before it could no longer reliably pierce a well tempered steel breastplate?

[warty goblin]

Most fantasy undead can really only be stopped by complete dismemberment, right? In which case pikes at least would be a very suboptimal choice of arms, since your common or garden zombie would all too happily charge straight into them and just keep coming, even as the shaft ran through its body. Even if the first rank or two gets ground into hamburger doing this, the pikes will be effectively disarrayed, and once the formation is broken, it'll be a massacre.

If you're fighting a mindless, fearless creature that can only be halted by vast amounts of bodily trauma, I suggest a buddy system. Give one or two guys tridents, boar spears, halbards or other weapons that can fix an enemy, but prevent them from pushing their body up the shaft, and another guy a really big axe, sword, or other weapon capable of hewing off major chunks of flesh. The fixers fix, the axers chop zombies to bits. You don't need to worry about the enemy cooperating or doing anything intelligent; you just need to keep them far enough away they can't start ripping off limbs.

[Spiryt]

How far away would a typical blackpowder pistol circa 1650 have to be before it could no longer reliably pierce a well tempered steel breastplate?

Well, there was just huge discussion about it on last few pages.

In general, it depended on huge amount of things, starting from breastplate thickness and what exactly we have in mind with 'typical pistol'.

But in case of really well made and tempered breastplate, one often wouldn't have to far at all.

In other words, 0 meters, as plate would stop it even with maximal energy.

[Galloglaich]

A pistol of that era (or today either for the most part) can't pierce a well tempered breast plate unless it's unusually thin, or maybe if the pistol is using special armor-piercing ammunition (i.e. steel ball or bullet).

Most breast-plates by 1650 weren't tempered, but they also tended to be a lot thicker (and therefore still not really pierceable by a pistol). There were also lighter 'munitions grade' breastplates more used by infantry which could be pierced, but probably only at pretty short range (under 20 meters).

Pistol-armed knights (which was a pretty common thing at that point) were trained to shoot at almost touching range at the thighs and faces of their opponents if they were armored. Or to shoot their horse.

G

[Yora]

I think going more into detail with this specific situation would drag it all too much into zombie-battle territory, which is quite divorced from any actual warfare.
I mostly just wanted to set things up in a way that they don't look completely stupid. And in the end it won't actually matter, because the battle will end in total disaster.

For the campaign, I want to reuse the opening of Dragon Age, which I think seemed really exciting and hinting towards an awesome conspiracy plot, but it was completely wasted and unused by the game.

It all starts with the Battle of Ostagar. Here is the cunning battle plan:
A: Position half the defending army inside a narow chasm, the other half hides behind one of the hills that flank the chasm.
B: Lure the horde of raging demon-undead into the chasm to the defenders.
C: The other soldiers circle around the hill and attack the horde from the flank.

And what happens then is just painful to watch, even as someone who knows all he does from wikipedia articles and youtube videos. I'd like to invite all of you to help me analyzing what is all done wrong in this video. :smallbiggrin:

Dragon Age: Battle of Ostagar (Some spoilers for the end of the prologue.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuQK2VxlCA)

First thing: Can you actually flank an unorganized horde of fearless berserkers? Unless they get intmidated by the number of enemies, I think it wouldn't make any difference from which side they are attacked. Unlike units fighting in formation that have actual front and back sides.
Second: I see no shield wall in any form.
Third: I don't know how war dogs were used, but I feel quite certain it wasn't like this.
Fourth: Doesn't charging out of the mouth of the chasm negate any terrain advantage the defenders had?
And in addition, it seems to me that King Goldie and Duncan McBeard would have died anyway even if the flanking attack would have taken place.

[SowZ]

How would a crossbow fare, then? Say 140 pounds or so? With normal bolts and then with steel bodkins?

[Spiryt]

How would a crossbow fare, then? Say 140 pounds or so? With normal bolts and then with steel bodkins?

Crossbows in general wouldn't be 140 pounds, but much, much stiffer. :smallwink:

140 pounds prods would generally happen in primitive crossbows, for hunting animals.

Anyway, this is hugely contested matter, obviously.

But generally, crossbow would have to be rather heavy, with heavy bolts, to have a chance of 'reliably' piercing high quality steel breastplate.

[SowZ]

Crossbows in general wouldn't be 140 pounds, but much, much stiffer. :smallwink:

140 pounds prods would generally happen in primitive crossbows, for hunting animals.

Anyway, this is hugely contested matter, obviously.

But generally, crossbow would have to be rather heavy, with heavy bolts, to have a chance of 'reliably' piercing high quality steel breastplate.

From what I know they range from about 100, (or 60 for really light or small ones,) to 250 for the heaviest that one man can be expected to carry.

[Spiryt]

From what I know they range from about 100, (or 60 for really light or small ones,) to 250 for the heaviest that one man can be expected to carry.

Well, not really, no.

250 is actually range from which medieval crossbows we know of tended to start from.

We have sadly no real data about early European crossbows, but the ones we know generally have way shorter draw length than any 'normal' bow.

Even modern crossbows work that way, it allows crossbow to be aimed 'riflelike' and keeps it relatively small and portable, and easier to span.

The negative result of this, obviously, is way shorter power stroke, so way less energy gathered in prod for the same draw weight.

Acting with 200 pounds of force over 20 inches ---> more energy, than acting with 200 over 10 inches. Approximately 2 times more, all other things equal.

This problem is obviously somehow negated by the fact that crossbow construction allows comfortable application of way, way bigger forces than in 'traditional' bow.

Very heavy crossbows can be somehow easily spanned, especially with proper tool.


This one is said to be 900 pounds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yogv2dDnx64) Author might have exaggerated a bit, dunno, but not much.

There are quite a few useful crossbow videos on YT.

[Berenger]

I think going more into detail with this specific situation would drag it all too much into zombie-battle territory, which is quite divorced from any actual warfare.
I mostly just wanted to set things up in a way that they don't look completely stupid.

Well, we'll need some detail to give proper advice. Employing the same armies and tactics against a) legions of armored ogre zombies, b) wraith spec ops teams and c) a cabal of undead war mages would be stupid and unless your army has no possibility of reconnaissance, they need to act accordingly to avoid stupidity.

[SowZ]

Are you guys talking wooden or steel crossbows? I'd believe that a steel crossbow with a good lever mechanism for arming could be about 1000 lbs, but not a wooden one.

[jaybird]

I'd like to invite all of you to help me analyzing what is all done wrong in this video. :smallbiggrin:


1: Grab every Mage you can lay hands on.
2: Stand them behind a line of S&B Warriors.
3: Drop Earthquake, Glyph of Repulsion, and Grease in as thick a line as possible in front of the horde.
4: Drop Inferno, Blizzard, and Tempest in as thick a line as possible on top of the horde that's been stopped by step 3.
5: 12 o'clock, big horde of abominations, Fireball, fire when ready.
6: VICTORY!!!

[Galloglaich]

Are you guys talking wooden or steel crossbows? I'd believe that a steel crossbow with a good lever mechanism for arming could be about 1000 lbs, but not a wooden one.

Pure wood prod crossbows (usually made of thick yew, same material as a longbow only more of it) were up to around 250 - 300 lbs draw max. Composite prod were in the 400- 1200 lbs draw range - these were made of a combination of wood, horn, sinew (Ralph Payne Galway said they used a specific tendon or ligament from the necks of horses and oxen). Steel is about the same range. Wood remained in use until the early modern period both for military and hunting as it was much cheaper to make, easier to use (and train people for) and still lethal. Composites took over the main front-line military role by the 13th Century and this corresponded with new spanning devices. The steel prod weapons showed up by the 14th Century and they seem to have replaced composite prods quickly in most of Europe except for in Sweden, Prussia, Switzerland, the Tyrol and other places where it gets really cold - apparently because steel prods snapped sometimes in the extreme cold. The special jack-type spanning device called the cranequin appeared in the 15th Century, allowing very heavy crossbows to be spanned on horseback (and thus extending their life a bit more). Also they apparently used some kind of baleen or whalebone to make the composite prods in the North and Baltic sea area, which extended their usefulness.

Crossbows were phased out from military use for the most part by the middle of the 16th Century, but remained in use for hunting, especially the steel prod ones but also some composite, and most of the ones we have to look at today are hunting crossbows from the 17th -18th Century. Some of these are as powerful as the old military grade ones. Some are more specialized and shoot bullets (for hunting birds).

Crossbows of any kind would be unusual on the battlefield in Europe by 1650, though they were still used in Southeast Asia as late as the 20th Century (especially repeating crossbows shooting poisoned darts).

G

[Galloglaich]

We should probably start building a FAQ

G

[Spiryt]

Are you guys talking wooden or steel crossbows? I'd believe that a steel crossbow with a good lever mechanism for arming could be about 1000 lbs, but not a wooden one.

Steel, or composite one.

It's unlikely that pure wooden one could be that heavy, yes. Even though we don't have much data, sadly. :smallfrown:

But still would be heavier than 200 pounds.


The steel prod weapons showed up by the 14th Century and they seem to have replaced composite prods quickly in most of Europe except for in Sweden, Prussia, Switzerland, the Tyrol and other places where it gets really cold - apparently because steel prods snapped sometimes in the extreme cold.

Seems like rather specific example TBH.

My guess would be price and technology generally.

Even today people are making 'faux composite prods' because it's not economical or easy to make real ones.

Plus the fact that preserved prods we have are mostly steel, so we don't know as much about composite/wooden ones.


Also they apparently used some kind of baleen or whalebone to make the composite prods in the North and Baltic sea area, which extended their usefulness.

I don't know about whalebone extending any battle usefulness, but for sure crossbows were used in whaling up to at least late 19th century in Scandinavia.

There are plenty 'whale crossbows' in museums.


Pure wood prod crossbows (usually made of thick yew, same material as a longbow only more of it) were up to around 250 - 300 lbs draw max.

Don't think we can really say it with much authority, TBH. Sadly.



I've read something about find of crossbow from modern Ukraine region, that was apparently really neat laminate of 3 woods.

But for such interesting find, I can't seem to be able to locate much info. :smallfurious:

[Raum]

So it still comes down to discipline and shields being the single most descisive factor?

How do you make the most efficient use of choke points in such a scenario? Meet the enemy at the most narrow point, as in the Termophylae, or position your troupes in a semicircle just outside the chokepoint so you have the maximum number of your people having a go at the enemies coming through in a narrow stream?Tactical principles don't change much (if any). The smaller force wants to anchor their flanks while the larger force wants to envelop, both want to hit a weak spot with strength, mobility and fortifications also help create advantages or mitigate weaknesses, and information along with the ability to react is often critical (See John Boyd's OODA loop.). Discipline is certainly a factor, without it your army can't/won't react reliably or quickly - that's often as important as holding a line.

This is, of course, extremely simplified. ;)

[Dusk Eclipse]

What is the average length of a sword handle if the blade is roughly 29-30 inches long? The sword in question would be one handed.

[SowZ]

What is the average length of a sword handle if the blade is roughly 29-30 inches long? The sword in question would be one handed.

The handle should be about twenty to thirty percent the length of the blade, IMO.

Probably looking at about six to eight inches.

[fusilier]

How far away would a typical blackpowder pistol circa 1650 have to be before it could no longer reliably pierce a well tempered steel breastplate?

As others have pointed out there was a large discussion about this earlier. Sylvia Leever's work (if you can find) performed destructive testing on two 17th century *iron* breastplates (although one of them may have been a victorian replica, it's not clear). Anyway, 7mm thick breastplate was pierced with 2500 J of energy from a .62 caliber lead ball. Note, they didn't manage to hit the breastplate where it was 7mm and not pierce it, so we're not sure how much energy is necessary to pierce 7mm just that 2500 J will.

A large, long barreled pistol may just do that much at the muzzle (Leever has some statistics from tests, I will need to double check, they didn't have many pistols in the sample). It was common practice to not fire unless the muzzle could almost touch the enemy.

A pistol was basically a weapon to use in close-combat. It has a range, and a good, well made one might be quite accurate out to a decent distance -- but that's not how they were used in combat. There was a tactic that had been used by Pistol armed cavalry in the 16th century called a "caracole" which involved multiple ranks, the first rank would close, fire, wheeling around, the next rank would move up, fire, etc. This seems to have been more of a harassment technique, and probably not intended for taking out well armored cavalry. That tactic was done at fairly close range too, although I don't remember how close.

--EDIT--
There are Horse pistols, Belt Pistols, and Pocket Pistols -- for piercing armor you are going to want a Horse Pistol.

[Incanur]

I'm not sure about the 17th century, but the 16th-century sources familiar with - mainly de la Noue - indicate that you couldn't expect to pierce a breastplate with a pistol and thus should target thinner spots: face and thighs if I recall correctly.

As far as European crossbow go, we don't have any solid numbers that I know before the 15th century. Anna Comnena wrote various overflowing accounts of the Frankish crossbow's power in the 11th century, though, so they probably hit significantly harder than bows then. I'm actually not convinced that crossbows became much more powerful in the 15th century. (To add to the confusion, a 15th-century source (http://books.google.com/books?id=H7VFJAK8LSUC&pg=PA44&dq=crossbow+%2B+shower+of+rotten+apples&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XRyxUucI56WxBJj1gNgC&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=crossbow%20%2B%20shower%20of%20rotten%20apples&f=false) says that a volley from over a thousand crossbows did no more harm than "a shower of rotten apples.") Nor is there any evidence that even the heaviest windless-spanned crossbow intended for the field could pierce quality tempered breastplates. Alan Williams's numbers suggest that a mere 2mm of **** steel would require 263 J to defeat with a arrow point, and that doesn't even take the padding underneath or the curvature of the armor into account. The 1,200lb crossbow Payne-Gallwey shot 440 yards or so probably delivered over 200 J up close. Here again we need more tests! I estimate field steel crossbows at about 1,000lbs delivered 150-225 J depending on bolt weight. So at close range they might pierce thinner armor - like limb armor - with a very lucky shot. They also might pierce lower-quality breastplates. Over the whole, though, a 15th-century knight in a good harness only need to make sure no bolts found their way to his face or other gaps.

The exquisitely cast Han-era Chinese crossbow triggers as well as the long stocks constitute another intriguing crossbow mystery. In theory, the long (maybe 16-inch (http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/2131-chinese-cross-bows-vs-english-longbows/page-12#entry4972521)) power stroke and composite pod could make for a very efficient weapon. Military crossbowers of the period supposed drew 360lbs by default; that draw weight at 16 inches with a linear force curve stores around 325 J. With even 70% efficiency, a bolt might deliver 228 J. But that's all hypothetical. More tests!

[No brains]

I think going more into detail with this specific situation would drag it all too much into zombie-battle territory, which is quite divorced from any actual warfare.
I mostly just wanted to set things up in a way that they don't look completely stupid. And in the end it won't actually matter, because the battle will end in total disaster.

For the campaign, I want to reuse the opening of Dragon Age, which I think seemed really exciting and hinting towards an awesome conspiracy plot, but it was completely wasted and unused by the game.

It all starts with the Battle of Ostagar. Here is the cunning battle plan:
A: Position half the defending army inside a narow chasm, the other half hides behind one of the hills that flank the chasm.
B: Lure the horde of raging demon-undead into the chasm to the defenders.
C: The other soldiers circle around the hill and attack the horde from the flank.

And what happens then is just painful to watch, even as someone who knows all he does from wikipedia articles and youtube videos. I'd like to invite all of you to help me analyzing what is all done wrong in this video. :smallbiggrin:

Dragon Age: Battle of Ostagar (Some spoilers for the end of the prologue.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuQK2VxlCA)

First thing: Can you actually flank an unorganized horde of fearless berserkers? Unless they get intmidated by the number of enemies, I think it wouldn't make any difference from which side they are attacked. Unlike units fighting in formation that have actual front and back sides.
Second: I see no shield wall in any form.
Third: I don't know how war dogs were used, but I feel quite certain it wasn't like this.
Fourth: Doesn't charging out of the mouth of the chasm negate any terrain advantage the defenders had?
And in addition, it seems to me that King Goldie and Duncan McBeard would have died anyway even if the flanking attack would have taken place.

I think that if you want it to 'look like' the army is competent but a failure, I don't think you need to go into much real-world detail. Just have the troops close together with fortifications built. A flanking force would be great, but it's gilding the lily unless you specifically want to go down the conspiracy road.

To answer your questions:

First: Don't think about it as warfare, but chemistry; if you can maximize the surface area of a solvent, it will break down its target fastest. So yes, a flank could work against the mindless.

Second: From the looks of it, the army might be a force of under-trained conscripts. They might not have the discipline or presence of mind to wall up.

Third: Never work with children or animals, even if the Romans did. I don't know about war-dogs, but they might be more of a psychological weapon instead of a real killer.

Fourth: Yes.

Additional: If my guess about the cannon fodder army was right, then the quality armor King Goldie was wearing and his position toward the back should have kept him safe until the flanking did its work. Though I need to question the wisdom of wearing armor when it does nothing to stop your enemies' weapons...

If your players care about optimizing characters, use the game system instead of the real world to make the illusion of competence. An army of fighters with 14 strength, guisarmes, and improved trip could slaughter any other army in 3.5... if everything went according to plan.


We should probably start building a FAQ

G
I was just saying that. How could we mine the data of this thread for an FAQ?

[AgentPaper]

Honestly, I like the fact that there isn't a FAQ or other resource for people to just point to here. The best part about this thread is that you're always getting a specific, tailored response to your question, instead of a canned reply that may not even be accurate or up-to-date anymore. Let the wikis provide the simple answers, this thread should be for discussion and debate and friendly help. :smallsmile:

[Brother Oni]

Honestly, I like the fact that there isn't a FAQ or other resource for people to just point to here. The best part about this thread is that you're always getting a specific, tailored response to your question, instead of a canned reply that may not even be accurate or up-to-date anymore. Let the wikis provide the simple answers, this thread should be for discussion and debate and friendly help. :smallsmile:

While I agree with you, I'd like to avoid essentially re-inventing the wheel every time a question is asked i.e. doing the same research over again.

This is particularly problematic since the search has been disabled for the website so looking up your own posts is no longer that easy.
The recent and exhaustive discussion on armour penetration by gunpowder weapons is a good example as a fair bit of work went into that by both sides and it's probably going to crop up again.

Maybe make the FAQ a resource for us? I know that I don't want to go looking up the various Acts of Parliament concerning compulsory archery again and that's unlikely to change.

[Yora]

1: Grab every Mage you can lay hands on.
2: Stand them behind a line of S&B Warriors.
3: Drop Earthquake, Glyph of Repulsion, and Grease in as thick a line as possible in front of the horde.
4: Drop Inferno, Blizzard, and Tempest in as thick a line as possible on top of the horde that's been stopped by step 3.
5: 12 o'clock, big horde of abominations, Fireball, fire when ready.
6: VICTORY!!!

I had forgot completely about (arcane) artillery. Waiting until the enemy is tightly packed without room to move left or right, and then blocking the exits allows anyone with fireballs or bombs to start shoting fish in a barrel. A bit like what Hannibal did in the battle at the lake shore. (Could that even be called a "battle"?)
Of course, if the artillery support never comes, a tightly packed undead horde could simply force its way through the best phalanx with sheer mass.
I think that's exactly what I am going to need.

[JustSomeGuy]

Just a thought, RE: wardogs - would they have been articularly useful at breaking up pike formations? Sending them in under the pointy bits to create havok and distract everyone before the big guys with big swords waddle over to finish le job.

[snowblizz]

More tests!
This was something I wanted to ask about actually. How much real testing is there. When was it done? By whom and for what purpose?

I find this absolutely riveting, why aren't there more materials scientists(*) who do this kind of work? Is the majority of the people interested in these questions already discussing it here in this thread?

(*)OK, technically I guess I know the answer to that, can't get funding for it

Why are historians and archaeologists or other applicable fields not doing this more? I mean I get that we can't destructively tests too much stuff. But surely it must be possible to analyse extant armour and make workable replicas that are fairly accurate facsimiles? Is it only happy amateurs getting at this.

I know what I'd be doing if I was wealthy beyond measure...:smallbiggrin:

[GraaEminense]

Lack of funding, in addition to (and related to) a deep distrust against "experimental archaeology" in many academic circles. It´s not all-encompassing, by any means, but it falls outside "proper" archaeology and so a significant amount of those who do grant funds and publicity simply don´t give it any priority. As a result there is little incentive to spend the effort on such sideprojects, especially with most archaeologists having to work their butts off to get a job, not to mention recognition, within their field.

I´ve been told. I am not actually an archaeologist and have nothing but anecdotal (if plausible) evidence.

[Brother Oni]

This was something I wanted to ask about actually. How much real testing is there. When was it done? By whom and for what purpose?

I find this absolutely riveting, why aren't there more materials scientists(*) who do this kind of work? Is the majority of the people interested in these questions already discussing it here in this thread?

(*)OK, technically I guess I know the answer to that, can't get funding for it

Why are historians and archaeologists or other applicable fields not doing this more? I mean I get that we can't destructively tests too much stuff. But surely it must be possible to analyse extant armour and make workable replicas that are fairly accurate facsimiles? Is it only happy amateurs getting at this.

The problem with destructive testing is in its name - you often only get one shot at it.
Given the manufacturing time of a breastplate and due to the specialised labour involved, the expense is immense.

There are companies solely devoted to destructive testing (I was speaking to one girl who had just started and her first week involved throwing laptops off the top of a multi storey carpark), but they're often contracted by other companies to do the testing.

Materials science is a very broad subject: we have a MatSci team dedicated to the properties of powders - they wouldn't even know how to start looking at a large piece of shaped steel.
It's also has extremely technical kit, high running costs and requires well trained staff, all of which just adds to the price of getting a test done, even if subcontracting (which has its own risks of the scientists not understanding the context of the work you're doing).

As you've said, it's hard to get funding to do this work, hence why it's not done.
I wonder if any of the work done by body armour manufacturers would be of use, but I suspect that they like to keep their data secret - if they've paid for the expense of having the testing done, they're going to keep the results to themselves.

[Spiryt]

Just a thought, RE: wardogs - would they have been articularly useful at breaking up pike formations? Sending them in under the pointy bits to create havok and distract everyone before the big guys with big swords waddle over to finish le job.

I'm not really knowledgeable about dogs, but even with HUGE amount of time and effort, idea is probably vastly unrealistic.

Feeding, breeding and training some dogs to attack like mad.

Such dogs are extremely likely to attack other dogs at any time obviously.

Then 'sending' is particularly unrealistic conception, dogs understand formations, or pikes for that matter. They might just bite whatever is near, especially under huge stress.

And at the end of the day, all this trouble would be for single enterprise, unlikely that someone wouldn't kill most of those dogs eventually, in said havoc.


Why are historians and archaeologists or other applicable fields not doing this more? I mean I get that we can't destructively tests too much stuff. But surely it must be possible to analyse extant armour and make workable replicas that are fairly accurate facsimiles? Is it only happy amateurs getting at this.

Money money money.

Plenty of weapon nerds like me, but very few actually willing and able to fund something like that. There's nothing weird about it either, huge money for something that's trivia at the end of the day.

[Rift_Wolf]

I'm currently working on a story involving fey who are weak to all iron based metals, including steel. A friend into medieval re-enactment once told me a bronze headed mace would work better than a steel one because it was heavier; was he right? Also, would a silver sword work, or would it be too soft to hold an edge?
For the story, I'm using medieval tech level for the fey, so they don't have access to difficult to obtain metals like titanium. Is bronze the best choice metal in those circumstances, or is there another material that'd be more versatile?

[Incanur]

A friend into medieval re-enactment once told me a bronze headed mace would work better than a steel one because it was heavier; was he right?

Bronze maces appear to have been used by warriors who had access to steel weapons, so this suggest they got the job done well enough. I don't see why they'd be better than steel, though, because steel maces get plenty heavy. It's not like you're trying to maximum weight!

Also, would a silver sword work, or would it be too soft to hold an edge?

Is bronze the best choice metal in those circumstances, or is there another material that'd be more versatile?

I'd go with bronze and other copper alloys (lines blur). Folks made various weapons from copper alloys historically, and used them for hundreds of years. You even see magnificent copper-alloy swords like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Goujian). This best copper-alloy swords probably performed nearly as well as steel swords, though limited in length and likely less durable.

As far as testing goes, there have been lots of related the English warbow's ability to pierce armor. Most, however, employ dubious bows and/or armor.

Regarding war dogs, they existed in Europe from antiquity to Renaissance times and beyond. They Spanish used them in the Americas, apparently sometimes with great success. (See here (http://books.google.com/books?id=9_EDbatFH9MC&pg=PA153&dq=spanish+war+dogs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GtOxUqLANoitsASuv4DQBA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=spanish%20war%20dogs&f=false), for example.) However, I know of no evidence that they accomplished much against European opponents. Given the armor front-rank pikemen typically wore in the 16th-century, I don't imagine dogs could have done much damage even if they could have avoided the pike points - which I doubt.

[snowblizz]

Lack of funding, in addition to (and related to) a deep distrust against "experimental archaeology" in many academic circles. It´s not all-encompassing, by any means, but it falls outside "proper" archaeology and so a significant amount of those who do grant funds and publicity simply don´t give it any priority. As a result there is little incentive to spend the effort on such sideprojects, especially with most archaeologists having to work their butts off to get a job, not to mention recognition, within their field.

I´ve been told. I am not actually an archaeologist and have nothing but anecdotal (if plausible) evidence.
Sounds plausible enough from my experience of academia. The funny thing of course is that it would allow historians to produce papers, which at least in my country gives you funding. It would also be a wonderful opportunity for cross-disciplinary and departmental cooperation. I could envision it as an excellent way to produce bachelor and masters level graduate thesises (sic?). But then again actually doing something instead of incurring costs that other departments have to cover is, like, hard work...
But I digress.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm currently working on a story involving fey who are weak to all iron based metals, including steel. A friend into medieval re-enactment once told me a bronze headed mace would work better than a steel one because it was heavier; was he right? Also, would a silver sword work, or would it be too soft to hold an edge?
For the story, I'm using medieval tech level for the fey, so they don't have access to difficult to obtain metals like titanium. Is bronze the best choice metal in those circumstances, or is there another material that'd be more versatile?

a lot of Bronze weapons were actually better quality than most early iorn ones, so yes, bronze weaponry would be a competitive material for making weapons out of. against medieval steel armour they'd be fare worse, but they'd be fine against lighter armours.

[Galloglaich]

Seems like rather specific example TBH.

My guess would be price and technology generally.

et tu brute? :smallwink:

This isn't coming out of my ass, I'm a little surprised that you seem to think it might be. Hans Delbruck, Ralph Payne-Galway and others, report (from primary source records) that the steel prod crossbows were being used by the Burgundians first, then spread to much of Europe, except in the places I mentioned (as well as a few others) for the specific reason I cited, i.e. that the steel prods could snap in cold weather. This is also mentioned in Teutonic Orders records.

You can read about some of this stuff here:

http://www.medievalists.net/2011/07/31/horses-and-crossbows-two-important-warfare-advantages-of-the-teutonic-order-in-prussia/



Even today people are making 'faux composite prods' because it's not economical or easy to make real ones.

I believe this is because nobody today knows how to effectively make the composite prods because they are very complex and there hasn't been enough experimenting or analysis done.



Plus the fact that preserved prods we have are mostly steel, so we don't know as much about composite/wooden ones.

I don't know what the ratio is, but I know there are dozens of composite prod crossbows surviving, even a good number from the 15th Century. I recently took this photo myself at the Higgins Armoury in Boston:

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=51

I have some more photos from a collection in Germany which had 4 of them. You can distinguish them two ways - the extraordinarily thick prod (much thicker than a lot of the 'faux composite' modern reproductions made to look like composite prods) and the fact that the string is usually more slack - the prod itself correspondingly more strait.



I don't know about whalebone extending any battle usefulness, but for sure crossbows were used in whaling up to at least late 19th century in Scandinavia.

I'm referring to baleen being used as a component of the composite prods, this is from Ralph Payne Galway in his book.



Don't think we can really say it with much authority, TBH. Sadly.

I think we can say what seems likely based on the evidence. certainly not proven, but not just a wild guess either.

The estimate on the strength of the wood prod crossbow (which they called 'knottelarmbruste') is based on records from the Teutonic knights, based on how they said they could be spanned. They listed 4 categories of crossbows, the all-wooden type (which they also have records for purchasing the prods which they said were made of yew) - these were the most common and were issued to levies from the Abbeys; the stirrup crossbows ('stegelarmrbuste') which were spanned using the stirrup with a belt-hook or a goats-foot, and were issued to infantry; the 'stinger' which used the 'german winder' (cranequin) which was issued to cavalry and members of the Order, and another type of siege crossbow which used the 'English winder' (windlass) which was used exclusively for sieges.



I've read something about find of crossbow from modern Ukraine region, that was apparently really neat laminate of 3 woods.

But for such interesting find, I can't seem to be able to locate much info. :smallfurious:

Ralph Payne Galway gets into a good bit of detail about how they were made. He said the 'whalebone' was used as a substitute for a type of antelope horn that they used in the Central European zone.

G

[Galloglaich]

Just a thought, RE: wardogs - would they have been articularly useful at breaking up pike formations? Sending them in under the pointy bits to create havok and distract everyone before the big guys with big swords waddle over to finish le job.

I know the conquistadors used them a lot and with success in the Americas

G

[Galloglaich]

a lot of Bronze weapons were actually better quality than most early iorn ones, so yes, bronze weaponry would be a competitive material for making weapons out of. against medieval steel armour they'd be fare worse, but they'd be fine against lighter armours.

Bronze has everything steel or iron does except the springiness of good tempered steel, which I don't think they were able to achieve with Bronze and which was one of the reasons why steel swords really took off and gradually got bigger and bigger.

I think this is why the different type of construction of the handles / grips on bronze swords. Rather than an integral tang they are often riveted on which looks like it would be much more fragile though I don't know of any tests.

Speaking of tests, the limitations on the guns and armor is mainly money, I agree, though there are people making tempered steel a bit cheaper now (partly due to the high demand from people who do bohurt like the Battle of Nations - their requirements for effective but light armor make it a necessity)

With the more powerful crossbows, they simply don't know how to make them effectively at that level of power. Makers who I've talked to who can come close (can make 1,000 lbs + draw weapons) are very reluctant to push the performance limits needed to equal the antiques because of liability and a very real risk of injuries to the user if you get a snapped prod or string for example (among other potential problems).

They tried to do a test not long ago with powerful composite prod crossbows but the replicas they made lost almost all their power after 2 or 3 shots and clearly were not up to the standard of the antiques, not even close. More work needs to be done - if you could do it there might be a PhD in it for you (or at least a big academic paper!)

G

[warty goblin]

a lot of Bronze weapons were actually better quality than most early iorn ones, so yes, bronze weaponry would be a competitive material for making weapons out of. against medieval steel armour they'd be fare worse, but they'd be fine against lighter armours.

You know, I see this a lot; but I've never actually found a good source for it. The closest I've come is Neil Burridge (http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/intro.htm) observing that his bronze replica was more or less of equal quality to a replica early iron blade.

There's also some evidence that during the fairly long transition from bronze to iron people made iron weapons using the same forms as the bronze. There's at least one absolutely spectacular Halstatt C (http://1501bc.com/page/rijks_museum_oudheden/0214163A.JPG) made out of iron that's a spitting image of the same style blade in bronze. My perennial favorite the Naue II was, under the High Chronology, produced for about seven centuries in both bronze and iron. The Low Chronology I believe truncates the period of its use, but there's no denying that the same weapon was widely produced in both metals. Certainly both bronze and iron were used in classical Antiquity side by side for a fairly lengthy period, albeit often in rather different roles. My impression is that swords and other weapons tended to be iron, while much armor remained bronze; possibly due to the difficulties in making sufficiently large pieces of iron to make effective lames or plates. But I don't know of any evidence that suggests, say, sword length decreasing in the iron age, which is something one might* expect if the metal was genuinely worse. Indeed it'd be hard to get shorter than a lot of bronze age swords; I have kitchen knives nearly the size of some of them.

I think it is safe to say that iron did not represent the radical improvement in weapons, armor and tools over bronze it is sometimes presented as. However I have not seen any substantial evidence that early iron items were quantitatively worse across the board than their bronze equivalents. Iron and bronze are different materials, and worked in quite different manners. Some things lend themselves to one, and some to another.

*One might also not expect it. To the best of my knowledge, the longest swords of the bronze age were produced very early, at least in the Aegean. As the craft improved, blades either stayed the same size or actually decreased in length. Some of the Type As for instance were over thirty inches; a Type G is under twenty. Some of the Type Fs are shorter yet.

[Galloglaich]

Copper alloys (including bronze, brass, and copper-arsenic alloys) were initially better than most of the early wrought-iron weapons, but they had one major problem, they required a second ingredient (tin or tinstone for bronze, calamide to get the zinc for brass, or arsenic) which was always hard to get and by the late Bronze Age, had been mined out locally and had to be imported from far away. The Hittites were importing tin from as far away as the British Isles.

Iron only requires iron ore of some kind (which can include rusty looking bog mud, or ore panned from rivers) and a real hot fire, and maybe a little bit of organic material like bones or teeth to add a little bit of the right kind of carbon. You just needed the know-how to build a bloomery forge and a bellows etc. that you could use to get it hot enough, but with fire and wind and some kind of pipe, you can make iron. A lot of people do it these days in the old primitive way.

I think most of the early iron weapons were actually spear-heads, you do also see a lot of daggers. Not that many swords at first mainly because wrought -iron is too soft.

So the big thing was that Bronze (etc.) required essentially a big trading network with long supply lines to make, whereas iron could be made

Most forms of Bronze and other copper alloys used for weapons are about 5-10% heavier than iron, so that is one other way that iron is superior. But it wasn't really until the invention of steel, and pattern-welded proto-steel, that swords, specifically, made of ferrous metals surpassed those made of bronze.


As others noted Bronze remained in use for mace-heads into the early modern period. It also was popular for gun barrels and cannons since it didn't make accidental sparks so easily and could be a bit less likely to break. And weapons that had to be near sea-water for whatever reason. And for armor - the Romans were still using brass helmets well into the Iron Age.

G

[Galloglaich]

Speaking of not making enough effort to analyze the data...

http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/viking-women-a-reinterpretation-of-the-bones/

G

[AgentPaper]

One might also not expect it. To the best of my knowledge, the longest swords of the bronze age were produced very early, at least in the Aegean. As the craft improved, blades either stayed the same size or actually decreased in length. Some of the Type As for instance were over thirty inches; a Type G is under twenty. Some of the Type Fs are shorter yet.

Perhaps this is due to improvements in armor? Early on, when you're mostly expecting to hit flesh, maybe a bit of cloth, you can afford to have a long blade, but as armor improves and metal armor specifically becomes more common, the sword breaking becomes a problem, so they become shorter to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Galloglaich]

The long ones from the Bronze age were mostly stabbing swords kind of like rapiers

like this one

http://www.timelineauctions.com/view.php?id=5227&image=image_1


G

[Spiryt]

Bronze maces appear to have been used by warriors who had access to steel weapons, so this suggest they got the job done well enough. I don't see why they'd be better than steel, though, because steel maces get plenty heavy. It's not like you're trying to maximum weight!


Well, that would be the point though - for given small, manageable mass/volume of metal, copper alloys can be noticeably - more than 10% denser than iron.

So adding more 'meat' concentrated per area of contact.

It's obviously horribly hard to tell if it actually had any practical meaning, but I suppose it might been nice.

I know of few maceheads from modern Ukraine/Poland that were bronze shells filled with lead at least. Presumably for even more 'dense penetrator' effects, but it's obviously still speculation, even if sensible ones.



et tu brute?

This isn't coming out of my ass, I'm a little surprised that you seem to think it might be. Hans Delbruck, Ralph Payne-Galway and others, report (from primary source records) that the steel prod crossbows were being used by the Burgundians first, then spread to much of Europe, except in the places I mentioned (as well as a few others) for the specific reason I cited, i.e. that the steel prods could snap in cold weather. This is also mentioned in Teutonic Orders records.

You can read about some of this stuff here:

Well, I wasn't doubting it, just saying that there probably were many other reasons to choose composite prod.

Since your post wasn't stating otherwise, mine might have indeed appear weird, but it's always worth pointing out.

[Galloglaich]

Fair enough!

G

[warty goblin]

Perhaps this is due to improvements in armor? Early on, when you're mostly expecting to hit flesh, maybe a bit of cloth, you can afford to have a long blade, but as armor improves and metal armor specifically becomes more common, the sword breaking becomes a problem, so they become shorter to make sure that doesn't happen.

This gets more than a bit speculative.

The Type A swords did not have an integral hilt. Instead the blade was cast, and the hilt riveted on to the base and shoulder. The Type B began to see a longer tang portion, but the hilt was still apparently a separate assembly.

The net effect of this is that it seems unlikely the Type A would have been an effective cutting weapon, since it would have had a tendency for the rivets to break and the blade come off*. The evidence rather suggests in other words that they were very long blades oriented towards thrusting**.

The Type C is the first of the Aegean swords types to have a fully integrated hilt. It was also apparently serviceable in the cut as well as the thrust, and was overall smaller than the Type A. From then on the Aegean blades all had integral hilts of some form or another (and they varied considerably), and, if anything, continued to get shorter. Longer swords of up to thirty inches persisted, but a lot of finds seem to be much smaller than that. At the same time they mostly lost the long, tapered form of the A, B and C blades, tending towards a more spatulate point. (There are exceptions, some of the Type G blades have a very severe taper).

All of which makes it quite difficult to figure out any sort of sword and armor interaction. Particularly since the artifact record for bronze age body armor is, to the best of my limited knowledge, very spotty.


*I have seen some suggestions that the episode in the Iliad where Menelaus breaks his sword at the hilt when he hits Paris' helmet is a memory of this problem. I don't think the chronology bears this out; under the High Chronology the Type A appeared in the Aegean around 1600 BC, and don't see to have been used after 1400 BC, while the usual date for the Trojan War is about 1250 BC. I think the Low Chronology would put the Type A closer to the Trojan War, but it still seems unlikely that any of the Myceneaen kings of that period carried weapons a hundred years out of date. And in most Low Chronology arguments I've seen, the Iliad is composed almost immediately after the Trojan War, which would make it an odd detail to get wrong.

**Discounting the notion that the entire type was ornamental, and not intended for combat. This seems somewhat unlikely, since they were the earliest swords in the region, and having an ornamental sword before you have a practical sword is just weird. Not impossible, but, for a warrior society, rather odd.

[Matthew]

What is the average length of a sword handle if the blade is roughly 29-30 inches long? The sword in question would be one handed.

Depends on the composition and function. Including pommel, grip and guard Roman swords tended to have longer hilts at around 7-8", based on the examples I have seen, whereas one-handed medieval swords tended to be more like 5-6". The length of the blade is not necessarily a huge factor, though it could be related to the size of the wielder, which is arguably the deciding influence outside of expected function.

[snowblizz]

More work needs to be done - if you could do it there might be a PhD in it for you (or at least a big academic paper!)

G
If that was directed at me, it is unfortunately a tad too late for me. I am literally writing on my PhD thesis right now, well not *this* second obviously. Gonna try and hand it to my supervisor before Xmas. A long time ago I conceded that history was a better hobby than living.

[Mike_G]

A long time ago I conceded that history was a better hobby than living.


I dunno.

As hobbies go, living is pretty good.

[Fuzzy McCoy]

Did this just get overlooked?


On the subject of armor, what advances have been made in using non newtonian fluids as modern body armor? If they exist (and a quick google search seems to say they do), why haven't they replaced current body armors? Is it cost? Effectiveness?

[Mike_G]

Did this just get overlooked?

I think we on this forum just don't know much about this.

Science and industry have been working with these materials for a while. I assume if they had promise as armor or shielding, we'd have heard of experimental trials.

I would rather have Kevlar and ceramic around me than a baggie full of fluids.

I'm already a bag full of fluids.

[Galloglaich]

actually, I think there is some armor like that, and it looked miraculously effective, but I didn't have time to go looking for it.

G

[crazedloon]

On the subject of armor, what advances have been made in using non newtonian fluids as modern body armor? If they exist (and a quick google search seems to say they do), why haven't they replaced current body armors? Is it cost? Effectiveness?

Not actually knowing anything about the subject I would imagine the problem is that it boils down to a bag of liquid. As a protective layer the bag which holds the fluid would have to stand up to the same weapons the fluid was designed to stop before the fluid did any protecting otherwise you would end up with a bag full of holes and your protective fluid leaking out. So at best I would assume that any experiments in the use of such fluids would only be in attempts to mitigate the abuse on the body from armor doing its job rather than any protection qualities.

[snowblizz]

I had a quick gander, but the results seemed to boil down to "it is in development". There is definitely research going on with it, though it should probably be noted that I don't see this being better than solid armour (not being an expert admittedly), after all being able to turn into a solid is of no help when the round is specifically designed to penetrate solids anyway, right? It's not like the fluid somehow becomes much harder than other materials. Unless it does in which case well then it's probable friggin awesome!:smallwink:

The results I saw centred around its use for areas not suitable for rigid plates and also as an enhancement in armours similar to those that exist now. Basically as an additional layer in kevlar armour enhancing it and reducing the weight. So no baggies of corn starch carried on the body.:smallbiggrin: The kevlar mesh would be soaked in it instead.

[Galloglaich]

Is this related?

http://digitaljournal.com/article/268309

G

[SowZ]

I think we on this forum just don't know much about this.

Science and industry have been working with these materials for a while. I assume if they had promise as armor or shielding, we'd have heard of experimental trials.

I would rather have Kevlar and ceramic around me than a baggie full of fluids.

I'm already a bag full of fluids.

Another idea is that they harden on impact or right before collision. The technology isn't there for that yet, but likely will be soon.

[warty goblin]

Another idea is that they harden on impact or right before collision. The technology isn't there for that yet, but likely will be soon.

Unless I'm really missing something, this just seems like a bad idea. You'd need to detect the bullet coming in with very high probability. Which I suspect means using some sort of active sensing system; aka your armor is a goddamn radar beacon that needs to run constantly. Would seem like it would make not being detected a lot more difficult.

That's assuming you could get an active sensor system accurate enough to reliably detect something as small and curved as an assault rifle bullet in the first place; then trajectoralize it well enough to harden the correct bit of armor. That's a hard problem; probably much harder than somebody else making a stealth bullet.

Now maybe you could do it passively with magnetic sensors, but that also seems dubious on the face of it. It's one thing to fuze an anti-air shell that way; a plane is a big hunk of metal. A bullet isn't.

[Mike_G]

Is this related?

http://digitaljournal.com/article/268309

G


This seems really cool. I can see how it would have a lot of application for areas where it could be flexible until hit, then rigid.

So, maybe a few years down the road this could be a thing.

[Yaktan]

@Warty:

Non-newtonian fluids don't need some sort of active sensing system to work. It is just in the physics of them; when something hits them hard they respond like a solid, but normally act like a fluid.

[warty goblin]

@Warty:

Non-newtonian fluids don't need some sort of active sensing system to work. It is just in the physics of them; when something hits them hard they respond like a solid, but normally act like a fluid.
I'm aware of how they work. The post I was quoting was suggesting causing them prior to impact, not hardening under impact. The difference in chronology is rather critical since; so far as I'm aware, non-Newtonian fluids are not clairvoyant.

[SowZ]

I'm aware of how they work. The post I was quoting was suggesting causing them prior to impact, not hardening under impact. The difference in chronology is rather critical since; so far as I'm aware, non-Newtonian fluids are not clairvoyant.

Yeah, no, you are right. It wouldn't really be prior to impact. It should harden right before all the force pushed into it, though. So yeah, my bad, I shouldn't have said it like that.

Though one with sensors would be pretty cool, and probably not out of the question in the more distant future.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, no, you are right. It wouldn't really be prior to impact. It should harden right before all the force pushed into it, though. So yeah, my bad, I shouldn't have said it like that.

Ah OK, that makes sense then.


Though one with sensors would be pretty cool, and probably not out of the question in the more distant future.
That depends entirely about one's feelings towards the Body-Armor Seeking Missile.

[Seharvepernfan]

What real-life weapon does an Elven Courtblade most resemble? A daikatana?

[AgentPaper]

What real-life weapon does an Elven Courtblade most resemble? A daikatana?

From the description here (http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/weaponsb.pl?weapon=Sword,_Elven_Courtblade), it sounds exactly like a rapier.

A daikatana (which literally means "greatsword") is just a bigger version of a katana, and is still meant for slashing, not thrusting. It's a bit smaller than a western greatsword, but it's nowhere near "impossibly thin" unless you're comparing it to mythical 20 lb claymores.

[Berenger]

The fluff description reads like one for a rapier, but the crunch section contains the phrases "two-handed weapon" and "treat it as a greatsword for the purpose of...". I imagine it more like this:

http://www.frhall.info/digit/elven.jpg

[Seharvepernfan]

I was mostly ignoring the fluff. I can't really picture a two-handed rapier intended for stabbing, but that can also slash. The basket hilt is throwing me off as well, since it's a two-handed.

I mentioned the daikatana, because it's the closest my mind can get to 1d10/18-20x2/S & P/finessable.

[SowZ]

Ah OK, that makes sense then.


That depends entirely about one's feelings towards the Body-Armor Seeking Missile.

What's this, now?

[Spiryt]

What real-life weapon does an Elven Courtblade most resemble? A daikatana?

Something like those:

http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130525192628/deadliestfiction/images/1/19/Koncerz2.jpg

http://swordmaster.org/uploads/2011/euro-swords/estok_2_small.jpg

Perhaps?

now, most of those weapons were one-handed, and for what we know not exactly 'finesseable' (bleh), but they fit.

[Darklord Bright]

Bit of a tangent here, and I don't mean to come off as rude, but...

I'm relatively certain I've heard from history buffs that the "Daikatana" is not a real extant weapon, classification or otherwise. I tried to search it up to verify this, and I can find absolutely no historical reference to a daikatana; only videogames and comics.

Can someone verify this for me? Is this the "Studded leather" of swords? :smalltongue:

[Bug-a-Boo]

Bit of a tangent here, and I don't mean to come off as rude, but...

I'm relatively certain I've heard from history buffs that the "Daikatana" is not a real extant weapon, classification or otherwise. I tried to search it up to verify this, and I can find absolutely no historical reference to a daikatana; only videogames and comics.

Can someone verify this for me? Is this the "Studded leather" of swords? :smalltongue:

Pretty much yes, with the caveat that period people didn't use the same nomenclature we do now, the term daikatana still seems to be a modern western fabrication.

When trying to classify japanese blades, these are the most common used terms:

Kaiken = small knife

Tanto = combat knife (with an assload of variants)

Yoroidoshi = dagger-like knife

Hachiwari = parrying dagger-like knife

Kodachi = short sword, name actually used for many different lengths of blade shorter than a full sword

Uchigatana = any type of blade stuck through the belt, rather than hung from it, most commonly refers to blades between 50 and 70 cm in length

Wakizashi = companion sword, a later name used to refer to short swords with blades around 50-60 cm in length

Koshigatana = hip sword, predecessor of the katana, slightly shorter in length and usually of poor quality

Katana = the modern stuck-in-the-belt sword as we know it

Tachi = the original samurai sword, favored by archers (mounted and dismounted), longer than the katana by roughly 20 cm for any given person, hung hanging from the belt rather then stuck through it, wasn't liked by foot troops because it would get in the way when wielding a polearm, hence the development of the koshigatana and then the katana

People, when comparing a samurai to a knight, tend to pick the katana as the weapon for the samurai and the long sword as the weapon for the knight. Other issues with this aside, the katana and long sword aren't equivalent weapons. The tachi is what a long sword would have been to a samurai, and an arming sword is what a katana would have been to a knight.

Nodachi = long sword, equivalent to a long european long sword in size (not the DnD longsword), always carried unsheathed into battle and strapped to the back when not expecting trouble, blade length averages around 120 cm

Nodachi with blade lengths of around 100 cm are often classified as O-Tachi (large tachi) and both names are often used interchangeably for them.

Odachi = great sword, equivalent to the later renaissance great swords, longest battle-worn odachi found had a total length of roughly 210 cm, average lay around 140 cm blade length, in the period that these were popular (1300 to 1400), there were no equivalent swords in europe


Most of these weapons had smaller and longer versions that kinda bled over into each other, as with swords of all peoples of all ages.

[warty goblin]

What's this, now?

Simple, if your armor is emitting a constant radar pulse, somebody's gonna develop a missile that locks onto said radar. Which is why nobody with half a brain would develop armor that had to constantly ping its surroundings just to operate. Also, what happens when your battery runs out?

[Galloglaich]

Nodachi = long sword, equivalent to a long european long sword in size (not the DnD longsword), always carried unsheathed into battle and strapped to the back when not expecting trouble, blade length averages around 120 cm

Nodachi with blade lengths of around 100 cm are often classified as O-Tachi (large tachi) and both names are often used interchangeably for them.

Odachi = great sword, equivalent to the later renaissance great swords, longest battle-worn odachi found had a total length of roughly 210 cm, average lay around 140 cm blade length, in the period that these were popular (1300 to 1400), there were no equivalent swords in europe


This larger two-handed or 'horse-killing' sword actually does have a pretty close equivalent in Europe, i.e. the kriegsmesser and related weapons, and it's also closely related to a large family of Chinese weapons (Miao Dao et al)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miao_dao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanmadao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changdao

These larger swords became intermittently popular during various periods from as far back as the 11th century to as recently as World War II. They are closely related to the originally Chinese, but then increasingly Japanese (Ronin) Wako pirates, active from the 14th-17th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou

They were also, incidentally, popular with thousands of Japanese Ronin working as hired muscle for the Dutch in Indonesia.

This is the European weapon I'm referring to, it was very common in Central and Northern Europe from the 14th-17th Century.

http://meisterhau.de/img/LangesMesser.jpg

G

[Bug-a-Boo]

This larger two-handed or 'horse-killing' sword actually does have a pretty close equivalent in Europe, i.e. the kriegsmesser and related weapons, and it's also closely related to a large family of Chinese weapons (Miao Dao et al)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miao_dao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanmadao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changdao

These larger swords became intermittently popular during various periods from as far back as the 11th century to as recently as World War II. They are closely related to the originally Chinese, but then increasingly Japanese (Ronin) Wako pirates, active from the 14th-17th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou

They were also, incidentally, popular with thousands of Japanese Ronin working as hired muscle for the Dutch in Indonesia.

This is the European weapon I'm referring to, it was very common in Central and Northern Europe from the 14th-17th Century.

http://meisterhau.de/img/LangesMesser.jpg

G

Ah yes, the kriegsmesser, lovely weapons. Funny thing about the Zhanmadao, apparently a whole lot of them were imported nodachi blades. Don't have any sources at hand, but last I read, the japanese weapon export in the middle ages is turning out to have been a much larger industry than has been thought of until now.

But I must say, the reason I said there was no equivalent in europe in the 14th century is because I haven't found an actual european blade dated to the 14th century that is longer then 110 cm. It's been a while since I searched though, so if you do know of one, please link it for me!

The 210 cm odachi however is pretty much unique to 14th century japan. I have not seen a single other battle-used sword of that size in another country until the european renaissance.




Just for fun, if we look at ceremonial swords, there's this baby to blow your mind:

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6581/0car.jpg

Norimitsu

[Galloglaich]

Ah yes, the kriegsmesser, lovely weapons. Funny thing about the Zhanmadao, apparently a whole lot of them were imported nodachi blades. Don't have any sources at hand, but last I read, the japanese weapon export in the middle ages is turning out to have been a much larger industry than has been thought of until now.

It seems to have gone back and forth between China, Korea, and Japan for quite a while. Legal exports between China and Japan of course slowed down at various points.



But I must say, the reason I said there was no equivalent in europe in the 14th century is because I haven't found an actual european blade dated to the 14th century that is longer then 110 cm. It's been a while since I searched though, so if you do know of one, please link it for me!

Must have been quite a while.

Large blades like that were fairly common in Europe by the 14th Century, there were a few even from the 13th. But they were not at all unusual.

Note XX.3 here, for example, which has a 126 cm blade

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxx.html



The 210 cm odachi however is pretty much unique to 14th century japan. I have not seen a single other battle-used sword of that size in another country until the european renaissance.


I don't think that is actually the case, but at any rate the (second) Renaissance starts in 1380 so that still overlaps ;)

EDIT: I take that back, I think you are right, looks like the largest European blades I can find from any period that were actually used for combat (as opposed to bearing swords) are about 160 cm.

There is a HUGE bearing sword in the Higgins, 16th Century German, which looks like that execution sword from the beginning of Game of Thrones. I have a photo somewhere but I'd have to look for it.

G

[Hawkfrost000]

What real-life weapon does an Elven Courtblade most resemble? A daikatana?

Sounds like a Swiss Sabre to me.

http://pics.myarmoury.com/AA_SwissSaber02_s.jpg

A friend of mine has one, he can use it as a rapier, sidesword or longsword.

DM

[Seharvepernfan]

Sounds like a Swiss Sabre to me.

I think you're right on the money, hawkfrost. Thank you, kind sir.

[AgentPaper]

What kind of ships were used for fighting in Europe in ~1356, outside of the Mediterranean?

Edit: If possible, I'd like a source for this as well, so I can show it to someone else.

[Galloglaich]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cog_(ship)

G

[DrewID]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cog_(ship)

G

Link, she is broke.
Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cog_(ship)

DrewID

[fusilier]

What kind of ships were used for fighting in Europe in ~1356, outside of the Mediterranean?

Edit: If possible, I'd like a source for this as well, so I can show it to someone else.

The Cog was also being supplemented by the Hulk in the 14th century, but little is known definitively about Hulks. Terminology is a pain here, as some people call any roundship* a cog, and others use it in a more specific sense. Outside of the Mediterranean, navies as we understand them didn't really exist. Instead of maintaining a permanent naval force, they would hire/confiscate suitable merchant vessels into service when needed and modify them for war.

Mediterranean style war galleys were in use in the English Channel. There were various other light ships, and sometimes oared barges (barge meaning a flat-bottom boat), that had their place in naval warfare. But the standard fighting ship was the Cog.

See the Battle of Sluys (1340) for a decent overview of the kind of ships used at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sluys

*A roundship is a merchant sailing vessel that is very wide, with a length to beam ratio of almost 2:1 in many cases. It is distinguished from a long, narrow, oared vessel (usually a galley).

[Berenger]

German Wikipedia gives "first half of 14th century" for carracks and "14th century" for caravels, as opposed to english Wikipedia, which states 15th century for both. Unfortunately, both articles are short on proper references.

[Matthew]

Pretty much yes, with the caveat that period people didn't use the same nomenclature we do now, the term daikatana still seems to be a modern western fabrication.

It is apparently just a hilarious misreading of the kanji 太刀 ("tai-katana"), which is of course actually read as "tachi".

[fusilier]

German Wikipedia gives "first half of 14th century" for carracks and "14th century" for caravels, as opposed to english Wikipedia, which states 15th century for both. Unfortunately, both articles are short on proper references.

These ships have their *origins* sometime in the 14th century, and first become identifiable in that time frame, although it's not really until the 15th century that the designs start to become significant.

Carrack is particularly problematic, as it could mean a (sailing) warship -- the defining feature being high castles -- and they could be clinker-built or carvel-built, have one or more masts, etc. The adoption of the ship's sail plan (i.e. the full rigged ship) to the carrack, made the carrack a significant type in the 15th century.

In English, and some other languages, carrack also can refer to a "ship" (nao), a cargo vessel. This is more common in the 16th and 17th centuries, where it seems to be a way to distinguish it from the Galleon, based on hull-lines (carracks being rounder and galleons being narrower). So it's a matter of understanding the context when the term carrack is used.

[Galloglaich]

Cog also has a variety of meanings, the earlier one was quite primitive, by the 12th Century the city of Bremen had standardized a specific design which was more sophisticated, carried more cargo, handled better, and was more effective in war. There were further subtypes specifically designed as warships and used both to escort Hanseatic convoys and as privateers, naval ships, and counter-piracy vessels.

Also they were armed with cannons and could sink galleys ;)

G

[Galloglaich]

(Sorry couldn't resist)

[Fortinbras]

I'm curious about the historical authenticity of the scene in GRRM's Clash of Kings when prisoners in a castle's dungeon escape and capture the castle.

According to this article, common soldiers were often captured and ransomed along with nobles. Does anyone have any idea of how such prisoners might have been housed while awaiting ransom?

What about escapes/rescues? Does anyone know of historical accounts of largish numbers of common prisoners being rescued or escaping?

[fusilier]

(Sorry couldn't resist)

:-)

There's no firm evidence that cogs naval vessels were carrying cannons (except as cargo) in 1356.

[Berenger]

@Fortinbras:

I'd think that the distinction was not noble vs. commoner but able to pay ransom vs. not able to pay ransom. Most of the time, those terms are pretty interchangeable, but I could imagine exceptions.



Exampes I know of:

Owen Tudor (escaped from Newgate Prison)

Massacre at Ayyadieh (muslim forced attempted to rescue the prisoners butchered by Richard the Lionheart)



Here (http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~medrens/Geltner-reading-07-08.pdf) is an essay called "Medieval Prisons: Between Myth and Reality, Hell and Purgatory" by Guy Geltner. I think it has nothing on the topic of prison escapes, but I thought it might be interesting anyway.

This book (http://books.google.de/books?id=35Av5d0HKCQC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=middle+ages+prisoners+escape&source=bl&ots=VVb8NOoNUV&sig=d3MU00gqYSyeVmfzF0a-2gcDx94&hl=de&sa=X&ei=y7-2Uu7VEYOqtAah0ICYAw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=middle%20ages%20prisoners%20escape&f=false) about ransom culture in the late middle ages has a few pages (122-125) about escapes. Here (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7yU8AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA218#v=onepage&q&f=false) is another book, but I didn't read the article yet.

[Matthew]

Certainly large numbers of common soldiers could be taken captive, which is especially evident in the east where hundreds of crusaders and their opponents were frequently ransomed (it was viewed as an act of piety to put up the coin for that) and exchanged. Of course, such prisoners were often put to work in the meantime.

[Galloglaich]

:-)

There's no firm evidence that cogs naval vessels were carrying cannons (except as cargo) in 1356.

Oh yes there is, I guess I need to go dredge up that thread again. PLENTY of evidence.

G

[Galloglaich]

You are a glutton for punishment my friend.

G

[Spore]

Any insight? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16663168&postcount=1289)

[Incanur]

Any insight? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16663168&postcount=1289)

We discussed Agincourt a few pages ago. One French source says the arrows did hardly any harm to the well-armed French men-at-arms. One English sources says English arrows pierced the sides and visors of French helmets. Other sources say English volleys killed some or many in the French advance, though without explicitly claiming armor penetration.

As far the Spanish in Mesoamerica go, the evidence I know of suggests steel armor did quite well. Hernan Cortes personally describes all the various missiles he endured. Cotton armor apparent worked well enough, but it's my understanding that wealthier Spaniards - especially those who fought on horseback - continued to wear plate armor.

[fusilier]

Oh yes there is, I guess I need to go dredge up that thread again. PLENTY of evidence.

G

So as not to confuse the issue any further --

The most recent research into the subject that's available generally refutes that cannons were used aboard ships in the 14th century (as had been claimed in older sources).

As the original poster asked for sources, the following are somewhat difficult to find but are out there:

By John F. Guilmartin:
The Earliest Shipboard Gunpowder Ordnance: An Analysis of Its Technical Parameters and Tactical Capabilities in the The Journal of Military History, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Jul., 2007), pp. 649-669

And also
Galleons and Galleys, 2002.

Guilmartin notes the exception of the Siege of Chioggia (1380), but the conditions that cannons were used on Venetian galleys were very restrained.

For a detailed analysis of the claims of 14th century and why/how they are problematic see:
Kelly R. DeVries, "A 1445 Reference to Shipboard Artillery,"
Technology and Culture 31 (October 1990): 819-29,

He points out that there are generally three problems with 14th century claims:

1. A misinterpretation of a term -- early gunpowder weapons borrowed names from older non-gunpowder weapons.

2. The wrong date -- this actually happens quite often where some chronicler gets the date wrong, usually it can be checked against known events, and corrected.

3. Cannons are actually carried, but there's no comment that they were being used at sea -- instead they appear to have just been carried as cargo.

I strongly recommend that anybody who is interested in the subject seek out those works and read them. They are all very good.

It would be awesome if we had some sources from the 1300s that were unequivocal testimonies to the use of cannons at sea, as it would change the understanding of both naval history and the history of gunpowder weapons in Europe. Unfortunately, I've seen nothing that doesn't fall prey to one of the conditions listed above.

If anybody claims to have access to such information, I encourage him/her to organize their sources and submit a paper to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. Or to contact one of the historians that focuses on naval history and at the very least bring the evidence to light.

[Galloglaich]

Bold statements!!

Ok, well, it's clear Fusilier and I couldn't convince each other of the time while looking at the same clock.

It's ok though, you don't have to write a peer reviewed paper on it to disagree with him, or with me!

But anyway, for everyone else: counterpoint.

Here are a couple of useful resources on early gunpowder weapons in general:


http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/cannon.htm

Timeline of cannon use (in addition to the Battle of Chioggia which you already mentioned, though cannons seem to have been used during the entire campaign of the 3rd Venetian Genoese War)

1326 Early cannons are depicted in manuscripts from 1326,
"De Nobilitatibus, Sapientii et Prudentiis Regum"
and "De Secretis Secretorum"
1333 Edward III orders gunpowder from a York apothecary
1338 Battle of Arnemuiden September 21 French with Genoese crossbowmen capture The Christopher which was armed with 3 guns of iron. The first gun shots were fired in a naval battle.

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

"The Battle of Arnemuiden was a naval battle fought on 23 September 1338 at the start of the Hundred Years' War between England and France. It was the first naval battle of the Hundred Years' War and the first recorded European naval battle using artillery, as the English ship Christopher had three cannons and one hand gun"

"iii canons der fer ove v chambre" and "un handgone"
(3 cannons of iron with 5 chambers* and one handgun).

1350 Petrarch describes cannon as being in common use
1350 Liber Ignium (by "Marcus Graecus") and another manuscript by John Arderne publish gunpowder formulae and show images of cannons being fired.

1359 Battle of Barcelona

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barcelona_(1359)

"a bombard was mounted aboard the Catalan nau and her shots heavily damaged one of the biggest naus of Peter I"

1370 Gun foundry established in Augsburg

1377 gunpowder formula in manuscript from Rothenburg
1378 Venetian ships are bombarded by canon from Kotor
1382 gunpowder forumla in manuscript from Nuremberg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt87/rocklockI/hgupplstbildmrk.jpg
Handgonne from Danzig circa 1380 (I think it's a replica made from a wax mold)

Encyclopedia Brittanica says:

"...by the middle of the 14th century, the English, French, Spanish, and other navies mounted guns. Most were relatively small swivel pieces or breech-loading deck guns located in the castles fore and aft, but heavier
guns were added later."

Battle of La Rochelle 1419
"Use of heavy guns by the Castillian fleet"

More to come...

http://albrechts.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/shotgun_03.jpg
Double-barreled handgonne circa 1420





G

* 5 chambers suggests it was a breach-loader like many of the early cannon were

[fusilier]

1338 Battle of Arnemuiden September 21 French with Genoese crossbowmen capture The Christopher which was armed with 3 guns of iron. The first gun shots were fired in a naval battle.

The source only states that the "canons" were carried, not used during the sea battle. There's a potential that it was, but that would be an assumption.



1359 Battle of Barcelona

This one is interesting. It's actually quite specific -- a bombard is mounted on one of the ships and is used to damage another.

Unfortunately the source is from the 1860s, which is far removed from the time of the event, and there doesn't appear to be any other verifying sources.

It uses the term bombard: which in the 14th century could mean a catapult (or possibly a trebuchet?).

Finally, the manner in which it is used (if the account is accurate, and the weapon was actually a gunpowder one), is incredibly limited -- it was loaded on a ship in a harbor and used to defend that harbor. This is basically the way Venetians used Cannons on their galleys during the siege of Chioggia. They didn't spend any significant time at sea.

[fusilier]

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/cannon.htm

Timeline of cannon use (in addition to the Battle of Chioggia which you already mentioned, though cannons seem to have been used during the entire campaign of the 3rd Venetian Genoese War)

Some historians consider the War of Chioggia to be the first large-scale use of cannons in warfare, at least in Italy, but probably in Europe.

[Galloglaich]

Finally, the manner in which it is used (if the account is accurate, and the weapon was actually a gunpowder one), is incredibly limited -- it was loaded on a ship in a harbor and used to defend that harbor. This is basically the way Venetians used Cannons on their galleys during the siege of Chioggia. They didn't spend any significant time at sea.

Now you are arguing that they were doing it wrong, and guessing how often you think they did it. But that is an extremely different argument from whether they used cannon on ships, or that they used them to damage other ships, both of which are supported by the evidence.

Even if they weren't, this is a different debate amigo.

G

[fusilier]

Now you are arguing that they were doing it wrong, and guessing how often you think they did it. But that is an extremely different argument from whether they used cannon on ships, or that they used them to damage other ships, both of which are supported by the evidence.

Even if they weren't, this is a different debate amigo.

G

I'm not arguing that they used it "wrong" -- what gives you that impression?

This particular instance (the Battle of Barcelona 1359) is fraught with various problems. If, however, we can resolve those problems, the manner in how the weapon was used fits with the one unequivocal example we know of.

This was part of a larger argument, that *something* prevented mariners from using cannons in naval vessels until around 1400, except in very limited circumstances (i.e. they operated in lagoons and harbors and didn't put out to sea).

However, you are correct that it is a tangent. The fact remains that the term "bombard" is ambiguous and the only source for the battle is unverifiable unverified. It is not unequivocal proof of use of a cannon on a ship.

[Galloglaich]

I don't agree that 'bombard' is ambiguous. That is spurious.

The fact that you have an opinion which disagrees with the source on the example(s) (plural) of cannon on ships in the 14th Century does not trump what the sources say.

There is no such thing as "unequivocal proof " for almost anything that happened 600 years ago, but the data currently available shows us that it's pretty likely they did in fact use guns on ships in the 14th Century.

You really don't have to agree, it doesn't matter to me.

G

[fusilier]

I don't agree that 'bombard' is ambiguous. That is spurious.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bombard

A bombard:
early 15c., "catapult, military engine for throwing large stones," from Middle French bombarde "mortar, catapult" (14c.)

That took no time to check up on google. Rather than casting dispersions around, perhaps you shouldn't assume that I'm just making stuff up.


The fact that you have an opinion which disagrees with the source on the example(s) (plural) of cannon on ships in the 14th Century does not trump what the sources say.

All I'm doing is pointing out that these references to early gunpowder weapons on ships are often problematic. I've seen enough of these claims debunked that I'm guarded about all of them. Their analysis seems to be that the simple mention of a cannon onboard of a ship is proof that it was used at sea. That simple analysis has been challenged in the works I mentioned above. So, whenever I hear something that sounds very similar to one of these anecdotes that have been debunked, I become very skeptical. And I think it's perfectly fair to ask that the source be evaluated for what it actually says. Most of the time, there's no mention of such weapons being used -- they're just in the inventory.

I'm not saying that they definitively didn't use cannons at sea (in fact I'm acknowledging one well documented example) -- I'm saying that we don't actually know, and the relative handful of references we have to cannons on ships in the 14th century (relative to the number we have from the 15th century), are at least a little dubious or unclear as to the intention. This is muddled because for *centuries* historians assumed that cannons that were being carried on ships were being used by them as well. As is all too common, nobody bothered to question their interpretations of the data until rather recently -- at which point all the ones that they looked at were suspect.


There is no such thing as "unequivocal proof " for almost anything that happened 600 years ago, but the data currently available shows us that it's pretty likely they did in fact use guns on ships in the 14th Century.

You really don't have to agree, it doesn't matter to me.

G

I guess it's a matter of how skeptical we are of the analysis of the data. I'm inclined to a more cautious appraisal, as more critical analyses of the data have often shown the evidence to be less than the definitive.

[Galloglaich]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bombard

A bombard:
early 15c., "catapult, military engine for throwing large stones," from Middle French bombarde "mortar, catapult" (14c.)

That took no time to check up on google. Rather than casting dispersions around, perhaps you shouldn't assume that I'm just making stuff up.


I made no such assumption, I am familiar enough with the context myself to know that they typically meant cannons in this case - in fact they specified bronze and iron guns, you don't make catapults out of bronze or iron fusilier.



All I'm doing is pointing out that these references to early gunpowder weapons on ships are often problematic. I've seen enough of these claims debunked that I'm guarded about all of them. Their analysis seems to be that the simple mention of a cannon onboard of a ship is proof that it was

(snip)



I'm not saying that they definitively didn't use cannons at sea (in fact I'm acknowledging one well documented example) -- (snip) As is all too common, nobody bothered to question their interpretations of the data until rather recently -- at which point all the ones that they looked at were suspect.

I guess it's a matter of how skeptical we are of the analysis of the data. I'm inclined to a more cautious appraisal, as more critical analyses of the data have often shown the evidence to be less than the definitive.

In other words, you are proposing a revisionist theory based on one book you read, and you also have some theories about how they were used. But you don't know any of that. You really don't have any actual evidence that the use of guns on ships was limited to bays or anything else, some of the examples I cited (with about 20 minutes of searching) last time we got into this were actually in the open sea. What you have is a theory, and an interesting theory, but you'd have to do a lot of research to back it up. Not necessarily a peer reviewed paper (that's a lot of work, trust me, I've done one) but you'd have to do some real digging and it would require getting into some primary source documents because as we've discussed previously, the real information has not been made presentable for the layman. You are not quite a layman any more and could figure all this out, it's just a matter of time and energy. I wish I had the time and energy myself because it's interesting, but I really don't at the moment, it's enough for me that the data which is out there says what I thought it did.

But I think you'll have to broaden your search a little bit to get a grip on this. In earlier discussions about this, you were not aware that both cannon and firearms were ubiquitous throughout Europe in the latter half of the 14th Century (like at Kulikovo field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kulikovo)), that they were routinely used in warfare, especially and specifically in sieges and on ships and (river and lake) boats. I just don't think you are that familiar with the context yet for that period and for the rest of Europe beyond the Med.

Like I said before, we aren't going to change each others minds- that's hard to do on the internet if you don't know each other and you have been arguing a little but. All we can do is present our evidence. I've shown what, you could say the conventional wisdom is on this. You have presented a revisionist alternative. I don't think your assertion that it's definitive in any way in fact trumps the former. But it isn't up for me to decide, that's for other people reading the thread.

Meanwhile if I run across anything which adds light rather than heat to the discussion, I'll post it as usual.

G

[fusilier]

I made no such assumption, I am familiar enough with the context myself to know that they typically meant cannons in this case - in fact they specified bronze and iron guns, you don't make catapults out of bronze or iron fusilier.

I think you need to go back and read things more carefully. The account of the Battle of Barcelona (from the 1860s) uses the term bombard, and doesn't get any more specific than that. That was the particular battle I was referring to and I thought the context was clear.

The Battle of Arnemuiden specifies three tubes made of iron (certainly cannons). But the original source only says that they were captured -- never that they were used.

I've seen no reference in either of those battles to bronze guns.


In other words, you are proposing a revisionist theory based on one book you read, and you also have some theories about how they were used. But you don't know any of that. You really don't have any actual evidence that the use of guns on ships was limited to bays or anything else, some of the examples I cited (with about 20 minutes of searching) last time we got into this were actually in the open sea.

This is not my theory. I'm describing the most current theory that I'm aware of, and I have given my sources. What the theory states is that the "evidence" that guns were used falls apart under a critical analysis. A few examples were given, which shows the typical pitfalls to look out for.


But I think you'll have to broaden your search a little bit to get a grip on this. In earlier discussions about this, you were not aware that both cannon and firearms were ubiquitous throughout Europe in the latter half of the 14th Century . . .

What??? Uhhh . . . I never claimed that firearms were not in use across Europe in the 14th century, which I knew well before I ever joined this board. Perhaps you have confused an argument about the use of weapons at sea, for the use of them on land?


All we can do is present our evidence.

We seem to be doing more than that, unfortunately.

We have seen a couple of cases that claimed to be early use of cannons at sea -- using the same logic that DeVries used, I pointed out the problems with them. In the first, the primary source never mentioned the use of cannons, it's an inventory of captured items. The second, we don't have access to the primary source, only a 19th century history, which is a shame because it is perhaps the most promising one.


I've shown what, you could say the conventional wisdom is on this.

I suppose . . . the problem I have is that I know of no research on the subject that still adheres to it. As a result, conventional wisdom or not, it looks more like an outdated theory.

[Galloglaich]

What is the evidence that the books you are referring to reflect the most current or even an accepted academic consensus on the issue? I've seen nothing of the sort.

G

[fusilier]

What is the evidence that the books you are referring to reflect the most current or even an accepted academic consensus on the issue? I've seen nothing of the sort.

G

There are no counter arguments presented in any work that I can find that specifically attack the arguments made by DeVries and Guilmartin. There are works that continue to reference older claims, that DeVries and Guilmartin disputed, but they make no mention of the work presented by those authors. Those works that continue to reference older claims are less scholarly, more general history than recent research.

Phrased another way: I have seen no scholarly work that has specifically disputed those claims.

I have searched for more information on this -- believe me -- it seems that it is an understudied field. Which leads to a frustrating situation: there are no experts out there poking holes in these works, but at the same time there's no other experts continuing the research and further affirming them.

[Galloglaich]

I just found out that Christopher, son of the Danish king Waldemar IV. was killed in action by a stone cannonball on June 11th 1363 during a sea battle with the Hanseatic league. There is very little on this in English but I'm tracking down a source.

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

This is one of the types of guns which I've seen referred to in wide use in the Baltic on the Hanseatic vessels, pirate ships, and river boats. I don't have access to the Teutonic knights records from here but the wiki notes that these were common by 1370



G

[fusilier]

I just found out that Christopher, son of the Danish king Waldemar IV. was killed in action by a stone cannonball on June 11th 1363 during a sea battle with the Hanseatic league. There is very little on this in English but I'm tracking down a source.

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

This is one of the types of guns which I've seen referred to in wide use in the Baltic on the Hanseatic vessels, pirate ships, and river boats. I don't have access to the Teutonic knights records from here but the wiki notes that these were common by 1370



G

While the modern connection is usually with naval weapons, swivel guns were also used on land -- so the existence of swivel guns in 1370 doesn't mean they were being used as shipboard ordnance.

Let us know what you dig up on Christopher.

EDIT -- It looks like the sources on unclear about how Christopher was wounded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher,_Duke_of_Lolland

Christopher was injured in the naval battle. German chronicles are not clear about what weapon inflicted the prince's mortal wound, but according to Swedish Henrik Smith's chronicle from the early 1500s Christopher was hit by a rock while fighting at sea. According to Nordisk familjebok, Christopher was shot in the head with a rock and subsequently suffered from a mental disorder.

[Galloglaich]

EDIT -- It looks like the sources on unclear about how Christopher was wounded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher,_Duke_of_Lolland

It's unclear in English but "shot in the head" is pretty evocative I'd say.

I know that the Hanse warships were armed with guns in that war against Denmark, and in a later war against pirates called the victual brothers, that is how I found that particular anecdote. But the most definitive information on this in English was in Philippe Dollingers Hanseatic League book "The German Hansa" which I no longer have a copy of and it costs something like $100 for an old used copy, so I have to track down a PDF.

There are also some German books about some of the famous pirates of the region in the 14th century, which also get into this (and they stage a re-enactment of one of the battles in Rugen every year) but again, has to be tracked down. One of the specific ships, the flagship of the fleet which defeated and captured the pirate Stortebecker at the end of the 14th Century, called the Bunt Kuh, was armed with at least two pretty large guns, but I don't have the source.

G

[fusilier]

It's unclear in English but "shot in the head" is pretty evocative I'd say.

I know that the Hanse warships were armed with guns in that war against Denmark, and in a later war against pirates called the victual brothers, that is how I found that particular anecdote. But the most definitive information on this in English was in Philippe Dollingers Hanseatic League book "The German Hansa" which I no longer have a copy of and it costs something like $100 for an old used copy, so I have to track down a PDF.

There are also some German books about some of the famous pirates of the region in the 14th century, which also get into this (and they stage a re-enactment of one of the battles in Rugen every year) but again, has to be tracked down. One of the specific ships, the flagship of the fleet which defeated and captured the pirate Stortebecker at the end of the 14th Century, called the Bunt Kuh, was armed with at least two pretty large guns, but I don't have the source.

G

Yes but "Hit in the head" doesn't imply a cannon. Throwing large rocks from the fighting tops is a well documented tactic used at sea.

"The German Hansa" was published in 1964? Not entirely sure what you hope to get from it. Does it have detailed quotes of the primary sources? That could be useful.

EDIT-- A quick search on the google books page for the 1970 translation of the "German Hansa" reveals few references to cannons, and those date from the middle of the 15th century.

[Galloglaich]

Yes but "Hit in the head" doesn't imply a cannon. Throwing large rocks from the fighting tops is a well documented tactic used at sea.

"The German Hansa" was published in 1964? Not entirely sure what you hope to get from it. Does it have detailed quotes of the primary sources? That could be useful.

EDIT-- A quick search on the google books page for the 1970 translation of the "German Hansa" reveals few references to cannons, and those date from the middle of the 15th century.

It's got the most translations of the primary source records that have been done to date. It also lists the names and manuscript numbers of all those sources (mostly town archives from Hanseatic League cities).

I have a couple of other books on the Hanse at home though that I can look through tonight.

G

[Berenger]

Be careful when dealing with the Hanseatic League, Klaus Störtebeker, the Vitalian Brotherhood and the Bunte Kuh. There is an absolutely obscene amount of myths, folk tales, misconceptions and embellishments that are deepy ingrained the german collective memory and thus die very hard, even in academic circles.

[Galloglaich]

Be careful when dealing with the Hanseatic League, Klaus Störtebeker, the Vitalian Brotherhood and the Bunte Kuh. There is an absolutely obscene amount of myths, folk tales, misconceptions and embellishments that are deepy ingrained the german collective memory and thus die very hard, even in academic circles.

Yeah I know, that's because they are such great stories :) But all you need are the records from back then (14th / early 15th C), they will tell us what we need to know.

G

[Tanuki Tales]

The Nemean Lion of Greek mythology was known for having a body impervious to mortal weaponry and claws that were both more destructive than mortal swords and could easily go through mortal armor like a hot knife through butter.

So, keeping in mind that the best metal Greeks had access to at the time was bronze, if we had to attribute the Nemean Lion's fur and claws to armor and swords made of a superior metal, what would be the most likely candidate?

I assume this is the right place to ask this since I'm looking for a feasible real world comparison to mythology.

[Galloglaich]

This doesn't advance the argument about cannons in the 14th Century but I just think it's a fascinating slice of life in the Medieval world, this is why I wrote a book about the medieval Baltic during the 13 year war.

This is from 'The German Hansa', by Philippe Dollinger, the 1970 version, page 150

“River travel, though less dangerous than sea travel, nevertheless exposed sailors to similar risks. In the event of war between the rulers of lands bordering the river, boats were often attacked. Again it is only on the Vistula that a systematic defense organization existed, at least in the mid-fifteenth century, at the time of the Thirteen Years War between Poland and the Teutonic Order. The Prussian towns and nobility having placed themselves under the protection of the king of Poland, the Order attempted to interfere with river traffic. Danzig and Thorn (Torun) then decided to organize convoys, escorted by warships and provided with cannon and mercenaries. Several times in 1459 and 1460 fleets of more than 100 barges traveled from one town to another, skirmishing all the way.”

That sounds so bad-ass, mad-max to me. I want to see this in a movie. I want to see it in a video game.

G

[Galloglaich]

And just for fun a (probably slightly fanciful but it doesn't look to off) painting of the Bunte Kuh

http://img.mittelbayerische.de/bdb/1793200/1793265/300x.jpg

G

[AgentPaper]

That sounds so bad-ass, mad-max to me. I want to see this in a movie. I want to see it in a video game.

Well, it doesn't go quite that in-depth, but Europa Universalis 4 does have plenty of wars between the Teutonic Order and Poland, for what it's worth.

I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of you guys about the game, what it gets right, what it doesn't. I suspect that there's a lot of stuff that simply has to work the way it does because it's a game, but I think there might also be a lot more cool historical stuff that they could draw from that would improve the game, that the developers simply aren't aware of yet.

[warty goblin]

The Nemean Lion of Greek mythology was known for having a body impervious to mortal weaponry and claws that were both more destructive than mortal swords and could easily go through mortal armor like a hot knife through butter.

So, keeping in mind that the best metal Greeks had access to at the time was bronze, if we had to attribute the Nemean Lion's fur and claws to armor and swords made of a superior metal, what would be the most likely candidate?

I assume this is the right place to ask this since I'm looking for a feasible real world comparison to mythology.

I don't think there's really any metal that will just plain cut through work-hardened bronze armor like a knife through butter. As for turning a bronze weapon, you don't need a super-advanced metal for that. Bronze will do really just fine, it just needs to be thick enough.

Mind, if you want to go with a superior metal, just use steel. Really, steel is amazing stuff. A steel claw still won't rip a bronze cuirass like a lion savaging a deer, but a 'hide' of 2 - 5mm hardened steel would certainly turn any weapon a Mycenaean hero could throw at it, with the possible exception of those warhammers that started to show up in the later Mycenaean period.

[Rhynn]

I don't think there's really any metal that will just plain cut through work-hardened bronze armor like a knife through butter. As for turning a bronze weapon, you don't need a super-advanced metal for that. Bronze will do really just fine, it just needs to be thick enough.

Mind, if you want to go with a superior metal, just use steel. Really, steel is amazing stuff. A steel claw still won't rip a bronze cuirass like a lion savaging a deer, but a 'hide' of 2 - 5mm hardened steel would certainly turn any weapon a Mycenaean hero could throw at it, with the possible exception of those warhammers that started to show up in the later Mycenaean period.

I'm pretty sure iron (wrought, etc.) was inferior to bronze anyway, wasn't it? It replaced bronze because it was much easier to obtain, but the impression I have that bronze's performance for weapons and armor (in most uses) wasn't exactly outdone until iron/steel with higher carbon content and otherwise more suitable properties was produced?

There's this general assumption that "iron > bronze" which just isn't straightforwardly true.

[Mr Beer]

Right, but the gobbo suggested steel rather than wrought iron.

[fusilier]

Well, it doesn't go quite that in-depth, but Europa Universalis 4 does have plenty of wars between the Teutonic Order and Poland, for what it's worth.

I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of you guys about the game, what it gets right, what it doesn't. I suspect that there's a lot of stuff that simply has to work the way it does because it's a game, but I think there might also be a lot more cool historical stuff that they could draw from that would improve the game, that the developers simply aren't aware of yet.

I haven't played it, but looking at the wikipedia entry, it looks like they tried to incorporate some interesting ideas -- hidden parts of the world eventually become known via common knowledge, land can be gained through diplomatic means (like through strategic marriages perhaps?), etc.

Can't speak on the specifics of the game, but as you said, this is often true: "there's a lot of stuff that simply has to work the way it does because it's a game."

[Tanuki Tales]

I don't think there's really any metal that will just plain cut through work-hardened bronze armor like a knife through butter. As for turning a bronze weapon, you don't need a super-advanced metal for that. Bronze will do really just fine, it just needs to be thick enough.

Mind, if you want to go with a superior metal, just use steel. Really, steel is amazing stuff. A steel claw still won't rip a bronze cuirass like a lion savaging a deer, but a 'hide' of 2 - 5mm hardened steel would certainly turn any weapon a Mycenaean hero could throw at it, with the possible exception of those warhammers that started to show up in the later Mycenaean period.

Well, then if we broaden from just metal to materials in general? I wasn't aware bronze was that durable.

[Galloglaich]

Well, it doesn't go quite that in-depth, but Europa Universalis 4 does have plenty of wars between the Teutonic Order and Poland, for what it's worth.

I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of you guys about the game, what it gets right, what it doesn't. I suspect that there's a lot of stuff that simply has to work the way it does because it's a game, but I think there might also be a lot more cool historical stuff that they could draw from that would improve the game, that the developers simply aren't aware of yet.

I haven't ever really looked into the game, I will though. After 7 years on the same old machine I just got a new computer and so far I've been a little disappointed with Civ 5 and some of the other new games I've bought. Seems like graphics are better but everything else has gotten worse.

This conflict that the passage about the barges and the warships is from, is a really fascinating event to me, with a level of nuance even on it's most basic level, that it's hard for me to imagine being in a video game today, or a movie or a show or even a novel, though I think things are inching a little closer and closer toward being able to grasp such things.

What really makes it interesting is that it was really less a fight between Poland and the Teutonic Order, than it was a rebellion by about 20 German towns (who were supported by Poland) against the Teutonic Order. This was called the "Prussian Confederation". You just don't see towns like Danzig or leagues of towns like the Confederation in genre fiction or games, that I know of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Confederation

It was the forces of these towns who were arming those fleets, and it was them that did most of the fighting in that war (though the Polish did fight in some of the key battles, especially in the very beginning of the war and those toward the very end which contributed to the ultimate victory, but for the decade in between they were often too broke to do much)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Years%27_War_(1454%E2%80%9366)

After the war, the "Prussian" towns joined with Poland, but under a very generous agreement which allowed them to essentially be fully independent for about 100 years, and then a bit more limited autonomy (similar to Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire) after that which lasted until Poland was partitioned in the 18th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prussia


G

[warty goblin]

I'm pretty sure iron (wrought, etc.) was inferior to bronze anyway, wasn't it? It replaced bronze because it was much easier to obtain, but the impression I have that bronze's performance for weapons and armor (in most uses) wasn't exactly outdone until iron/steel with higher carbon content and otherwise more suitable properties was produced?

There's this general assumption that "iron > bronze" which just isn't straightforwardly true.
As I said upthread, I've never actually found a direct source that posits this. I've certainly seen people suggest that early iron work was overall no better than bronze, but I'm a bit leery of claiming bronze's flat out superiority.


Well, then if we broaden from just metal to materials in general? I wasn't aware bronze was that durable.
I'm pretty sure you aren't going to find something that can slice work-hardened bronze with trivial ease, unless your lion has 1400 RPM carbide bladed grinders for claws. Now make your lion big enough, give it steel teeth, and it can certainly crush an armored man to death in its jaws, and a blow from its paw may well kill as well from the blunt trauma. Plus there's all those unarmored portions of a man; the arms, the legs, with some armors the neck. Rip a man's arm off at the shoulder and I don't think anybody will really be fussed if their armor stops the claws or not.

[No brains]

Almost appropriate to the lion conversation, how good is Titanium for blades, swords, and armor? I think the process for getting pure Titanium involves heating it to a gas, but assuming, you could obtain and work it, would its products be superior to steel?

[Rhynn]

Almost appropriate to the lion conversation, how good is Titanium for blades, swords, and armor? I think the process for getting pure Titanium involves heating it to a gas, but assuming, you could obtain and work it, would its products be superior to steel?

I recall this coming up several times in the thread, and I think the problem ends up being that titanium is strong for its weight, but it has about half the density of steel (4.5 vs ~8), meaning you'd need to make everything bigger, and ultimately, it's not much good. Titanium-steel alloys, though, might be a different deal.

[Spiryt]

Almost appropriate to the lion conversation, how good is Titanium for blades, swords, and armor? I think the process for getting pure Titanium involves heating it to a gas, but assuming, you could obtain and work it, would its products be superior to steel?

I'm not sure, but well shaped, it could probably be good for armor. Dunno about 'superior'.

It's by far not dense enough for blades that are supposed to hit with any kinetic energy though.

So not optimal at all.



I'm pretty sure iron (wrought, etc.) was inferior to bronze anyway, wasn't it? It replaced bronze because it was much easier to obtain, but the impression I have that bronze's performance for weapons and armor (in most uses) wasn't exactly outdone until iron/steel with higher carbon content and otherwise more suitable properties was produced?

There's wrought iron, and there's wrought iron then... Depends on treat, composition, structure.

But it's certainly good enough for body of blade, and people could generally carbonize the edges too hold good edge where iron can't, so final product could be really good.

Even if metallurgically it wasn't 100% wrought iron then



Well, then if we broaden from just metal to materials in general? I wasn't aware bronze was that durable.

You just cannot go trough something like bronze like 'trough butter' without huge kinetic energy and/or pressure.

Doesn't really matter what material penetrator/cutting agent is from.

You can cut steel and stuff with water, if pressure is high enough, so you are looking for impossible lion, not necessarily impossible claws. :smallwink:

[Tanuki Tales]

You just cannot go trough something like bronze like 'trough butter' without huge kinetic energy pressure.

Doesn't really matter what material penetrator/cutting agent is from.

You can cut steel and stuff with water, if pressure is high enough, so you are looking for impossible lion, not necessarily impossible claws. :smallwink:

Well, obviously. I assumed we were working under the stipulation that said durable claws would be backed by the strength of a full grown male lion. But I get what you're saying, we'd need a lion with "godly" strength and not "godly" claws and hide. :smalltongue:

Well, my curiosity is satiated. Thanks all.

[Spiryt]

Well, obviously. I assumed we were working under the stipulation that said durable claws would be backed by the strength of a full grown male lion. But I get what you're saying, we'd need a lion with "godly" strength and not "godly" claws and hide. :smalltongue:

Well, my curiosity is satiated. Thanks all.

Yes, I don't think that fully grown lion has really strength to rip trough bronze plate.

Even if his claws could survive impact, and somehow could punch trough, then they would stop. At paws certainly, but probably earlier.

So Super Lion is needed to actually rip hard enough to pry the sheet apart.

[Mike_G]

Just found an article on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

It seems the Marine Corps is valuing accuracy over volume, replacing the belt fed SAW with a lighter, more accurate Infantry Automatic Rifle at the fire team level.

The company will still have a machine gun section, but every fire team won't have an LMG.

I'm a fan of this theory, since it advocates putting rounds where you want them not just hosing down the right ZIP code in an effort to suppress the enemy.

[fusilier]

Just found an article on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

It seems the Marine Corps is valuing accuracy over volume, replacing the belt fed SAW with a lighter, more accurate Infantry Automatic Rifle at the fire team level.

The company will still have a machine gun section, but every fire team won't have an LMG.

I'm a fan of this theory, since it advocates putting rounds where you want them not just hosing down the right ZIP code in an effort to suppress the enemy.

Spoken like a true US Marine! :-) I don't know . . . the United States Military, in general, has a long history of promoting accuracy over volume of fire -- but time and time again, when it comes down to it volume of fire seems to win out. (Although I believe that there are limits to volume of fire).

[Mike_G]

Spoken like a true US Marine! :-) I don't know . . . the United States Military, in general, has a long history of promoting accuracy over volume of fire -- but time and time again, when it comes down to it volume of fire seems to win out. (Although I believe that there are limits to volume of fire).


Well, the Army hasn't signed on.

The theory is that it's about a third of the weight, it looks more like an M16, so enemy snipers don't try to nail the machine gunner first, and being lighter, it's easier to use in a close quarter fight, like urban warfare, and it's more accurate. And a judiciously used 30 round mag does a good job with a lot less collateral damage and rounds expended than a 100 round belt.

So the combat load will likely last longer.

I love the idea.

As far as the wholesale transition to volume of fire, waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the 80s, the Marines switched from the full auto capable M16A1 to the burst-limited M16A2. The Army followed suit by the Gulf War, which reversed the MOAR DAKKA philosophy that had been heading in the other direction since breechloaders replaced the rifle musket. And with the mass adoption of the ACOG sights, we're seeing much better shooting.

I know the Marines are pretty much alone in this, but I like the idea of measuring firepower not in round expended, but in enemy bodies piled up.

And, as we seem to increasingly fight in close proximity to the civilian population, precise fire is better than gobs and gobs of lead dropped in the correct time zone.

[Bug-a-Boo]

It seems to have gone back and forth between China, Korea, and Japan for quite a while. Legal exports between China and Japan of course slowed down at various points.



Must have been quite a while.

Large blades like that were fairly common in Europe by the 14th Century, there were a few even from the 13th. But they were not at all unusual.

Note XX.3 here, for example, which has a 126 cm blade

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxx.html



I don't think that is actually the case, but at any rate the (second) Renaissance starts in 1380 so that still overlaps ;)

EDIT: I take that back, I think you are right, looks like the largest European blades I can find from any period that were actually used for combat (as opposed to bearing swords) are about 160 cm.

There is a HUGE bearing sword in the Higgins, 16th Century German, which looks like that execution sword from the beginning of Game of Thrones. I have a photo somewhere but I'd have to look for it.

G

Ah excellent! Thanks for that link, I must've missed it the first time round. I'll add that to my data :smallsmile:

[Roxxy]

Most of what I've read about tank engagements of World War 2 emphasizes medium tanks engaging each other. The T34 is famous for it's utility against German armor, and the Sherman is known for the exact opposite (it was superior to anything that was thrown at it in '42, but didn't keep up with later developments and got outmatched fast). If this is the case, what is up with tank destroyer doctrine? IIRC, the Sherman and T34 were not designed with engaging enemy armor as their primary role, they were tasked with breaking enemy lines, exploiting a breakthrough, and providing support. Engaging enemy armor was a role for American tank destroyers and Soviet heavy tanks. Yet I've heard little about the Hellcat tank destroyers or IS tanks in combat, and loads about T34s and Shermans. Is this just a matter of the "cool" vehicles hogging all the glory despite not doing the majority of the work, or were medium tanks doing the majority of the anti-tank work, despite that being a task not originally intended for them, do to the realities of combat? Or am I totally misreading the whole situation?

[Yora]

Tanks basically come in two roles: Infantry Support and Anti-Tank. And I believe that World War 2 was really the only case in which Tank vs. Tank took place at a meaningful scale. Even at the beginning of WW2, the german army still relied mostly on light tanks. The Panzer I and Panzer II wouldn't even be classified as tanks at all today and are more similar to modern infantry fighting vehicles or the soviet BMPs.
The Panzer IV was the first "real" german tank, as we understand it today, and those were still in trial in late 1939. The much beefier Panther (Panzer V) and Tiger (Panzer VI) were developed only in 1941 in response to the soviet T-34 being just plain better than the existing german tanks. (And the advantages were mostly wider tracks, sloped armor, and longer gun barrels, which really aren't any major technological achivements.) By the time the heavier tanks appeared in significant numbers, the tides had already turned and Germany steadily losing ground. So I wouldn't be supried if the allied armies simply never got to the point where large numbers of heavy tanks could be fielded. Switching to new more expensive equipment while you're already winning probably wouldn't be a very high priority. So they stuck with the huge numbers of Sherman and T-34 they already had and were familiar with.

Also during the war, portable anti-tank weapons appeared like the Bazooka and Panzerfaust. And as impressive as a tank may look, they are still quite vulnerable to infantry. One major German defeat in Russia was attributed to the tanks advancing faster than their support troops and then being relatively easy picking for soviet infantry, since at that time they didn't have turret mounted machine guns and couldn't really do much against infantry at short range.
To support infantry, a medium tank usually was good enough. And to take out enemy tanks, you didn't really need to have heavy tanks of your own.

Not entirely sure, but I would assume tank destroyers were regarded more as self-propeling artillery. And artillery also never really got much glory.

[Roxxy]

Not entirely sure, but I would assume tank destroyers were regarded more as self-propeling artillery. And artillery also never really got much glory.Yea, even though artillery has gotten more kills than any other weapon type over the years. It just doesn't have the glory of a tank assault or beach landing.

So, if I understand correctly, the doctrine may have been to use a heavy tank or tank destroyer, but that doctrine wasn't really a good response to the situation on the ground and it was much more practical to use the medium tanks for anti-tank roles? If I recall correctly, US tank doctrine of the period was that tanks did not engage enemy tanks, they supported infantry, but my understanding is that Shermans ended up fighting tanks all the time.

[GraaEminense]

On the Western front, at least, the Allies enjoyed significant air superiority after Normandy and aircraft can respond much faster and are less vulnerable than other tanks if your main push runs into something it isn't equipped to handle.

Combined with plain numerical superiority tank-wise and improved infantry-AT-capability, it may have played a role in making the doctrine less relevant in the field.

Tangentially related: I'm sure I've read accounts of pushes grinding to a halt waiting for air support and forests being flattened because someone saw something that might possibly have been a Tiger.

[Galloglaich]

The T34 is famous for it's utility against German armor, and the Sherman is known for the exact opposite (it was superior to anything that was thrown at it in '42, but didn't keep up with later developments and got outmatched fast).

These clichés are a bit slippery, both the original T34 and the original Sherman were very effective at first, but became outclassed by new enemy antitank guns and tanks and tank destroyers, then were upgraded and became effective again, then were outclassed and so on. The T34 was deployed in the field much earlier than the Sherman - earlier than most 'good' tank designs, which is one of the reasons it was so revolutionary. But by the time the Sherman arrived it was actually better in many ways than the existing T-34.

Interestingly, during WW II, the Russians actually liked the Sherman (though aware of it's limitations) and they deployed them in elite 'Guards' divisions.

By the end of the war, the T-34 / 85 and the Sherman M4A1 / 76 or M4A3E2 or M4A3E8 were as different from their original designs as they were from any other tank. During the Korean war, when there were tank vs. tank engagements (not that many) the T-34 / 85 and the M4A3E8 were about 50 /50.



If this is the case, what is up with tank destroyer doctrine? (snip) Engaging enemy armor was a role for American tank destroyers and Soviet heavy tanks. Yet I've heard little about the Hellcat tank destroyers or IS tanks in combat, and loads about T34s and Shermans.

This is actually a good question, but also a very complex one. Every major power in WW II had a different policy on tank destroyers.

http://www.southsearepublic.org/images/aircraft/crusadertank001.jpg
An English 'Crusader' tank with 2 pounder (40mm) gun

The British made anti-tank versions of their tanks, which often performed well in that role, but almost always lacked any kind of HE ammunition for their gun, making them overspecialized as tank killers and tactically crippled - oddly, this was also the case for their infantry tanks which were often armed with AP guns and not very good against infantry. This was a particularly bad problem for the British when faced with German anti-tank guns, which are hard to knock out without HE shells, a problem with plagued British forced through the war. The British tried to remedy this by making 'CS' versions of their tanks, but these ONLY had HE ammo and NO AP capability. English tanks tended to be fast, had plenty of ammo, good optics, and had radios and good equipment, but were unreliable, had poor mobility and were poorly armored. By the middle of the war they were mostly using American made tanks, with their own modifications such as British 17 pounder guns - as well as British tanks with American made 75mm or 76mm guns. Some of the British infantry tanks like the Matilda, the Valentine and the Churchill caused problems for the Germans because their armor was so good, but problems with their guns (as outlined above) limited their value.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Desert6Pdr.jpg
A 6 pounder in North Africa

They also made very good anti-tank guns, such as the 2 pounder, the famous 6 pounder, and the lethal 17 pounder, all of which were used as anti-tank guns but also mounted on tanks - the 17 pounder famously put onto the Sherman 'firefly' which was so good at knocking out German heavy tanks. I think the 6 pounder was probably the singly most lethal English anti-tank weapon of the war, other than aircraft.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/panzer-3-pzkpfw-iii_4.jpg
A Pz III

The Germans had good dual-purpose medium tanks like the Pz III, the Czech made Pz 38t, and Pz IV which were good at knocking out other tanks (especially at long range due to good optics and training), had radios and god equipment, had good mobility, excelled in the 'exploitation' role with lots of machine guns and ammo, and good HE capability in their main gun which usually had a good ammunition supply. But they were not well armored enough and were a little slow. They ran into trouble against the Russian KV and T-34 and various assault guns.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1-sPzAbt503-01.jpg
German heavy tanks, deployed late in the war (mainly from 1943 onward) created a HUGE propaganda impression which still resonates today. The Tiger I (Pz VI) is both the most famous and I think in many ways, the most effective, but they were made in very limited numbers and couldn't have the impact they might have had mainly for that reason. They also had problems with reliability and with getting around on the road and bridge network of the time. But a small number of Tigers could make a big impact. The Panther (PZ V) often gets the nod as the best tank of the war, and on paper it was - especially since it was built in much bigger numbers than the Tiger, and there is no doubt that Panthers slaughtered huge numbers of allied tanks, but it had a lot of flaws and it never quite lived up to it's potential.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/self-propelled/sturmgeschutz-self-propelled-gun/stug-iii-ausf-g/stug-iii-40-ausf-g-russia-01.png
A StuGG III on the Russian front

To counter this the Germans started making a lot of turretless assault-gun / panzerjaeger (tank hunter) vehicles, the most successful of which was probably the StuGG III. They made many others, Marder, Jagdpanzer IV, Hetzer, and in the arms race with the Russians, monster giant panzer-killers like the Jagdpanther, the Elefant and so on. The latter are super impressive on paper but showed their limitations on the battlefield. All of these were well armored, had excellent optics making them very dangerous at long range, had good ammo supplies, good radios and so on, good mobility (though usually pretty slow) and dual purpose guns effective with HE as well as AP ammo. All of these turretless AFV's had a problem with being flanked, but in good ambush positions could be deadly. I think the fairly humble StuGG III actually destroyed more enemy vehicles than all the other German AFVs.

http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/tanks/duits/38.jpg
German pak 38 (50mm) AT gun

The Germans also had very good anti-tank guns which were probably their number 1 anti-tank weapon at least on defense. The most famous of course was the 88 but the most important were the 50mm and 75mm guns, which were in a 'sweet spot' of being small, easy to hide, mobile, and very lethal.

http://www.2worldwar2.com/images/stuka.jpg
In the early war especially, but continuing to at least the late - middle, you also really can't count out the Stuka as a MAJOR German anti-tank weapon, especially for dealing with heavy tanks which the Germans lacked in the early part of the war. Incredibly accurate and lethal, they were vulnerable to fighters but if the Germans could achieve temporary air-superiority over a battlefield, the Stuka was a game changer and could break up enemy defenses or attacks.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/sherman_types/m4/M4Composite.JPG
an early Sherman probably early 1943

http://imageshack.us/a/img641/3412/shermanprotectarmor.jpg
A late model Sherman in 1944 with extra armor - this version was not so easy to knock out

The Americans of course had the Sherman, the less known Stuart light tank, and a plethora of other armored vehicles. All tended to be pretty well armored, fast, all had turrets (the M3 medium had a bow gun but also a turret, and the M7 howitzer had a bow gun but it was not really intended for fighting other AFV's) and had pretty good main guns, (not quite as good as the German ones but with a superb rate of fire, good accuracy and very effective HE ammunition making them good against anti-tank guns) tons of machine guns and a lot of ammo.

The Sherman family was mainly an exploitation tank and it excelled in that role. It was 'pretty good' at everything and fit in box cars and could be repaired in the field. It was by far the most reliable tank of the war which in real battlefield terms, meant that if you had a unit of 100 Shermans and a unit of 100 Panthers each traveling 30 miles before a battle, you would end up with 95 Shermans and 30 Panthers, which are about the odds the Americans would need to win. The Americans had 3 other advantages, their tanks had gyrostabilizers, which meant that for the better trained crews that knew how to use them, they could shoot accurately on the move which let them really take advantage of their speed and agility; they had .50 caliber machine guns which wrought havoc on vehicles, AT guns and infantry; and they had a lot of ammunition - meaning half an hour into the tank battle any US tanks still functional will still be shooting.

The biggest flaws of the Sherman are well known, but they were a medium power gun that couldn't kill the German heavy tanks (but was sufficient for StuGG III's and Pz IV's) that the armor, while good, wasn't good enough to protect against the best German AT guns or tank guns 75mm on up), it had poor mobility, and some internal layout problems which led to 'brew-ups' and high crew mortality when the vehicles were knocked out. All of these were corrected with wider tracks, more armor, 'wet' ammo storage, and a much stronger 76mm gun, by the second half of 1944. The other major flaw with the Sherman was simply that it was around so long so every quirk that could be exploited to knock one out was well known to the Germans.

http://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/M10a.jpg

http://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/M10c.jpg
The Americans departed from everyone else in their tank destroyer solution. They did not make good AT guns and relied on British 6 pounders and in emergencies, on very good American made howitzers (105mm and 155mm) for that role. But their tank-destroyer AFV's had a unique design. Built on tank chassis, they had good gun (a pretty hard hitting 76mm equivalent to the 75mm gun on the StuGG III or the PzIV) and a turret. This made them very good for ambushes and repositioning, and more agile than the StuGG. These turrets were also opened topped. That is the major unique thing about US tank destroyers. It was both their biggest design flaw and their biggest advantage. The open top gave them much better situational awareness as well as better communications with infantry. Postwar studies have shown that whichever side saw the other first usually won in armor-vs-armor engagements. In this, the American Tank Destroyer excelled. But they were also pretty easy to knock out with light mortars and so forth.

Generally these are not very well known outside of wargame or history circles, but the most famous of these was probably the ultralight, ultra fast M18 Hellcat, which had the best kill to loss ratio of any allied AFV of the war and played an important role in the Battle of the Bulge. The M36, with a dual purpose 90mm gun (equivalent to the German 88 on the Tiger 1) was the only US AFV that could reliably kill German heavy tanks and was the one the Germans reported being most afraid of. But it was the lowly M10, of 1942 vintage, that was really the unsung hero of the American armor in the war and turned many US defeats into victories. It could kill any German tank at long range except for a Tiger up to 1943 and could still kill all German AFV's with a flank shot right up to the end of the war. If you play WW II tank games, the M10 is the savior of many engagements.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/kv-1-heavy-tank/kv-1-heavy-tank-09.png
A soviet KV -1 tank

The Russians of course had the T-34. Initially, this was better than the early German tanks, Pz II and Pz III mainly, and all but invulnerable to their light AT guns (37mm) and caused a panic. The Germans quickly remedied this though and while the T-34 was fast, very mobile, pretty well armed (with a low power 76mm gun and 2 machine guns), it was also pretty vulnerable. What followed was an arms race as the T-34 was upgraded, then the Germans improved their AT weapons, the T-34 was upgraded again, and so on. But after an early peak in 1942, it wasn't really until 1944 with the T-34 / 85 that you had a really dangerous version again.

I personally think it was the unsung KV-1 which caused the most panic among the Germans during the most critical phase of the war, and led directly to their creation of the Tiger. A HUGE beast of a tank, with a medium strength 76mm gun, plenty of machine guns (including in the back of the turret), and heavy armor all the way around the structure, the KV really was invulnerable to most German AT weapons until the arrival of the really big German jaegers and AT guns, and in 1941 and 1942 KV's often smashed through German lines and rampaged through the rear areas causing major panics on a fairly routine basis.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/self-propelled-guns/su-122/su-122-self-propelled-gun-08.png
In the mid-war, the Russians countered German improvements by making a series of turretless assault guns, which superficially look a lot like the German jaegers and assault guns, but were different. On the plus side they tended to have HUGE guns which could kill German tanks even with HE ammunition (the brutish SU - 152 used to knock the turrets off of Tigers with a single HE shell) and they tended to have very heavy armor; on the downside, they had poor optics, often lacked radios, and had so little ammunition that they would often be empty after a few minutes of fighting. Many of them also completely lacked any kind of machine guns making them extremely vulnerable to infantry. Their armor was also, while good, vulnerable to a lot of the better German AT guns. When playing realistic tank-games you tend to loose a lot of these fast if you aren't very careful in how you use them.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/is-2-heavy-tank/is-2-heavy-tank-04.png
The upgunned version of the KV was renamed IS Joseph Stalin (after the General who the KV was named after got in trouble and was executed) and fitted with the beast 122 mm gun. On paper, it was the best tank in the war. In reality it had a few problems, the ammunition was in two pieces, and rate of fire was very slow, and it only carried like 15 rounds. The biggest issue against the top quality German tanks was range, this was an issue for all soviet tanks. If they could hit anything they could really wreak havoc, but the Germans could hit them much more often from twice or three times as far away due to better optics, more accurate guns, and better training.

But the IS II was a real beast, and could be a game changer in the right conditions. A handful of JS-II's can wreck a whole company of Pz IV's and can kill all German AFV's they can hit, and make smoking craters out of AT gun positions even with a near -miss.


Is this just a matter of the "cool" vehicles hogging all the glory despite not doing the majority of the work, or were medium tanks doing the majority of the anti-tank work, despite that being a task not originally intended for them, do to the realities of combat? Or am I totally misreading the whole situation?

No you are pretty much correct I think.


Even at the beginning of WW2, the german army still relied mostly on light tanks. The Panzer I and Panzer II wouldn't even be classified as tanks at all today and are more similar to modern infantry fighting vehicles or the soviet BMPs.

Your basic point is correct, though a Soviet BMP like most IFV's, carries troops, and has a big enough gun (76mm) to qualify it as a medium tank by WW II standards.



The Panzer IV was the first "real" german tank, as we understand it today, and those were still in trial in late 1939.

I would say really the Pz III was. The Pz IV was originally a support tank, with basically a medium howitzer, which was changed into an anti-tank role when the 50mm gun on the Pz III had reached it's design limits and couldn't knock out the US Shermans and Russian T-34s. To deal with this the Germans made the Pz IV F2 'special' in mid 1942). At which point it became a pretty 'classic' tank though it was becoming outclassed by 1944. But until the Pz IV F2 and for a while after it was really the Pz III which was the backbone of the German army, during the time of the German armies greatest successes, in France, in North Africa, and in Russia.



The much beefier Panther (Panzer V) and Tiger (Panzer VI) were developed only in 1941

Tiger appeared, only in small numbers in 1942 and the Panther in the summer of 1943 (Kursk). The Panther wasn't really working properly until the end of 1943.



Also during the war, portable anti-tank weapons appeared like the Bazooka and Panzerfaust. And as impressive as a tank may look, they are still quite vulnerable to infantry.

The panzerfaust and panszershrek were indeed really important weapons, and another big advantage for the Germans. The bazooka wasn't as good but it was also the cause of many tanks being destroyed. Both the Russians and the English lacked effective anti-tank weapons though their infantry still managed to knock out a lot of tanks.

You bring up another important point though, which is no matter how cool the tanks looked, they typically had a short lifespan in battle. Tank battles were extremely destructive and most of the tanks were destroyed in both sides in a matter of minutes or even seconds, with one side usually retreating quickly after the initial engagement. As I said before, the single most important factor was actually who saw who first.


G

[Galloglaich]

Regarding heavy tanks, both the British and the US did have some by the end of the war but by then, they were no longer really needed.

The US Pershing was very similar in terms of performance (armor, gun, mobility) to the Tiger I and proved effective in the few combat engagements of the war. It was superior to the T-34 /85 in Korea.

The English had the Centurian which was basically a modern main battle tank, in 1945. It was used in many wars from the 1950's to the 1970's at least.

The French used a lot of German Panthers in their army and adapted the gun to their AMX 13.



Also the issue of which wars had a lot of tank engagements- there were huge tank engagements in the Arab - Israeli wars in the 1950's-1970s, some of which used interesting combinations of various WW II tanks like Shermans, the Israeli 'Super Sherman', Centurians, and T-34's doing battle with more modern types. In India-Pakistan wars there were some pretty big tank battles. There was a very big (though uneven) tank battle in the First Gulf War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

and there were some smaller tank engagements in the Sino Soviet Wars, in Vietnam, in the Korean war, and various other wars in the 20th Century. The Serbians used some old US M36 TD's in the Yugoslavian war. The lowly US Stuart tank was even used in some battles in India - Pakistan and by Taiwan against the Red Army.

G

[snowblizz]

So, if I understand correctly, the doctrine may have been to use a heavy tank or tank destroyer, but that doctrine wasn't really a good response to the situation on the ground and it was much more practical to use the medium tanks for anti-tank roles? If I recall correctly, US tank doctrine of the period was that tanks did not engage enemy tanks, they supported infantry, but my understanding is that Shermans ended up fighting tanks all the time.

I was just reading (as in not done yet) an Osprey book on (US IIRC) Tank-destroyers and doctrine, and as far as the US is concerned they had massive doctrinal problems in the deployment of tank destroyers. Eg they kept moving around responsibility for tactics and switching between towed and self-propelled guns, which meant development and deployment became ever more chaotic. IIRC they initially focused on towed guns and the artillery took charge, but later realised spreading AT out meant they couldn't stop a concentrated tank thrust. So then they moved toward SP ATs again and armoured combat, but all of this of course made training and so on problematic. Doctrine also had difficulty coping with the latest developments form the field, in large part due to the problems wit doctrine. So to some degree when AT was deployed it no longer was equipped or trained to face the reality in the field.

[Roxxy]

Thanks for that in depth analysis.

[crazedloon]

this was also the case for their infantry tanks which were often armed with AP guns and not very good against infantry. This was a particularly bad problem for the British when faced with German anti-tank guns, which are hard to knock out without HE shells, a problem with plagued British forced through the war.

This is incorrect the churchill in particular was equipped with HE rounds. The Brits had a notoriously single minded approach to their Armored fighting vehicles which lead to their AT vehicles (like their lend lease M10 and Achilles) having only AP rounds and their infantry tanks (such as the churchill and the sherman) tended to lack sufficient AT capabilities (compared to german counterparts). The british infantry tank was designed to be a slow (so as not to outpace the infantry) but maneuverable well armored and sufficiently armed to break fortified positions and dig out enemy infantry and in this role it excelled arguably better than any western allied (and IMHO though I am a little biased with it being my favorite WW2 tank better than any allied tank) breaking through a number of heavy german defensive lines and climbing hight and defensive positions taking germans completely by surprised (such as long stop hill)

Indeed the Western Ally mentality for all tanks (except AT tanks such as the M10, hellcat, Jackson, and Achilles) was that their sole purpose was to support infantry which is why they tend to be outgunned (until late in the war) by the german counterparts (which had a more all round role) it is for this reason many people postulate the delay of the pershing entering the war (with its more all round capabilities at the cost of reliability, there are other factors of course but this is a leading one).

Interestingly another factor for early tank development (such as on the sherman) is that the barrels for many Allied tanks were restricted in length (which consequently reduced the AT capabilities) so that the vehicle could go nose first in a trench (which many commanders still assumed WW2 would devolve into) without needing to rotate the turret.

[Galloglaich]

This is incorrect the churchill in particular was equipped with HE rounds. The Brits had a notoriously single minded

Actually, the first version of the Churchill, just like the Matilda and the Valentine before it, was armed with the 2 pounder, which was AP only. Later, they put the 6 pounder on it, also AP only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_tank#A22

Much later on (1944 onward) they started putting 95mm howitzers on some models, and the dual - purpose 75mm gun from the Sherman, it was only by then that they had learned their lesson.

The British 'single-minded' mentality led to a really crazy policy on infantry tanks of only having anti-tank guns with no HE capability.



and their infantry tanks (such as the churchill and the sherman) tended to lack sufficient AT capabilities (compared to german counterparts).

Again, this is wrong regarding the Churchill - except for the late war howitzer only ('CS') version. Like all the English "CS" (Close Support) tank guns, that howitzer was not designed for AP use and was pretty useless against tanks unless they had HEAT rounds. Up to 1944 the Churchill actually had pretty good AT capability because the 6 pounder was an effective gun at least at short range.

The 75mm dual purpose gun on the Sherman, by contrast, had good HE but was also actually quite effective against all the German medium tanks and assault guns (Pz III, Pz IV, StuGG III etc.). They only started having problems with it when they began to encounter large numbers of German heavy tanks like Tigers and Panthers in 1944.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6#M3

At that point they fairly quickly replaced it with the long barreled dual-purpose 76mm gun which was equivalent in performance to the German 75mm on the late model Pz IV's and the StuGG III.

When the Sherman and it's cousin the M3 Lee / Grant first arrived in North Africa in British use it had the most powerful tank gun on the battlefield and caused a minor panic on the German side, contributing to the accelerated deployment of the 'long barrel' 75mm PZ IV F2.

G

[Roxxy]

I have another question, but I'm not sure if anyone here can answer it. It involves combat, but is more a mental health question than a technological question.

Let us say we have an 20 year old woman. She has an extensive family history of schizophrenia, but has not manifested any symptoms herself. Thanks to this family history, she has a relatively high risk of manifesting symptoms eventually. She is currently in the military, and her assigned role is infantry. If she goes into combat, can the stress of it all trigger her into manifesting schizophrenia? If she does manifest symptoms (delusions and hallucinations), how would a modern American or British style military likely handle her (I know she'd get ruled unfit for duty, but what medical and procedural events would likely lead up to that? Is the military likely to recognize that they are dealing with a case of schizophrenia and not PTSD? Where does the military send her if they do not believe she can take adequate care of herself?)?

[Brother Oni]

Nice analysis, Galloglaich. :smallbiggrin:

If I may offer some little anecdotes to reinforce your points:


The biggest flaws of the Sherman are well known, but they were a medium power gun that couldn't kill the German heavy tanks (but was sufficient for StuGG III's and Pz IV's) that the armor, while good, wasn't good enough to protect against the best German AT guns or tank guns 75mm on up), it had poor mobility, and some internal layout problems which led to 'brew-ups' and high crew mortality when the vehicles were knocked out.

The early Shermans were so prone to fires that they were nicknamed 'Ronsons' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronson_(company)) after a popular brand of lighters.

I've also seen an interview from a British tank commander during the fight out of the bocage countryside just after D-Day, where they burst through a hedge, only to find themselves about 60 yards away from a Panther. They fired, scored a direct hit on the turret, only to see the shell ricochet straight up into the air as the armour was so thick.
The commander's only thought was something along the lines of 'Now we're done for' before giving the order to abandon tank.



Generally these are not very well known outside of wargame or history circles, but the most famous of these was probably the ultralight, ultra fast M18 Hellcat, which had the best kill to loss ratio of any allied AFV of the war and played an important role in the Battle of the Bulge.


As an example of how much freedom of view the Hellcat had (along with the sheer concussive force the 76mm had): M18 Hellcat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMbI22Uya8A).



I personally think it was the unsung KV-1 which caused the most panic among the Germans during the most critical phase of the war, and led directly to their creation of the Tiger. A HUGE beast of a tank, with a medium strength 76mm gun, plenty of machine guns (including in the back of the turret), and heavy armor all the way around the structure, the KV really was invulnerable to most German AT weapons until the arrival of the really big German jaegers and AT guns, and in 1941 and 1942 KV's often smashed through German lines and rampaged through the rear areas causing major panics on a fairly routine basis.

As an example of how ridiculous the KV series was at the time, a single KV2 stalled the advance of the entire 6th Panzer Division for a day, during the Battle of Raseiniai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raseiniai). The Germans didn't even manage to destroy it - the crew had to abandon it after they ran out of ammo.

Other stories of the tank (including a battle where 5 KV1s destroyed 43 German tanks without loss and one KV1 recorded 135 hits, none of which penetrated their armour) firmly cements its reputation.



The British 'single-minded' mentality led to a really crazy policy on infantry tanks of only having anti-tank guns with no HE capability.

I wonder if the backlash from this mentality is still in force today given that British MBTs still have rifled barrels (rather than smoothbore like almost every other MBT in the world) for use with HESH shells?

[crazedloon]

Actually, the first version of the Churchill, just like the Matilda and the Valentine before it, was armed with the 2 pounder, which was AP only. Later, they put the 6 pounder on it, also AP only.

Indeed initially you are correct early 6 pounders had only AP rounds but by 1943 it had a high explosive shell with the express purpose to be used vs unarmored targets (which as I said was the intent behind the infantry tank). Further when late models began being modified to have the Sherman gun (for its versatility due to ammo availability as well as verity) many Churchills were left as 6 pounders because the tankers appreciated its higher AT capabilities vs the 76mm. As to what I meant by lacking AT capabilities vs the Germans equivalent is the fact that the Brits were in no hurry to equip their tanks with a weapon with higher AT capabilities (because in their mind it was not the role of a tank to hunt tanks) and as such the churchill even though it was modified and upgraded until the end of the war its superior AT cousin (the black prince) was never actually seen on the battlefield of WW2. You are however quite correct that the Churchill's 6pdr was more than sufficient in the deserts of North Africa.

[Galloglaich]

Indeed initially you are correct early 6 pounders had only AP rounds but by 1943 it had a high explosive shell with the express purpose to be used vs unarmored targets (which as I said was the intent behind the infantry tank).

Even when they finally made a high-explosive shell for the 6 pounder, at 57mm it was way too small to be considered effective for HE. Equivalent HE rounds were much bigger, the CS version of the Churchil had a 95mm gun, the Assault Gun version of the Sherman had a 105mm gun.


Further when late models began being modified to have the Sherman gun (for its versatility due to ammo availability as well as verity) many Churchills were left as 6 pounders because the tankers appreciated its higher AT capabilities vs the 76mm.

Sorry to nit pick, but they only used the 75mm, which was much shorter, dual-purpose gun, weaker than the 6 pounder. The 76mm gun mounted on Shermans in the second half of 1944 was much more powerful than the 6 pounder.

For perspective:

Early US Sherman with 75mm gun (also used on the Churchill and some other late-war British tanks.

http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/tanks/ww2-tanks-us/m4_sherman_75mm-44987.jpg

and this is the late model US Sherman with the 76mm gun (also used on some of the US tank destroyers, I think the M10 used the '3 inch' which was similar size and performance)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/M4A1_on_Panzermuseum_Munster.jpg/320px-M4A1_on_Panzermuseum_Munster.jpg

This is a British Cromwell with 57mm gun, as you can see the gun is much smaller

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Cromwell_Tank.jpg

and this is an 88, the gun which gave the allies so much trouble, as you can see by itself it's bigger than most of those tanks

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Flak18-36.jpg/318px-Flak18-36.jpg


As to what I meant by lacking AT capabilities vs the Germans equivalent is the fact that the Brits were in no hurry to equip their tanks with a weapon with higher AT capabilities (because in their mind it was not the role of a tank to hunt tanks) and as such the churchill even though it was modified and upgraded until the end of the war its superior AT cousin (the black prince) was never actually seen on the battlefield of WW2. You are however quite correct that the Churchill's 6pdr was more than sufficient in the deserts of North Africa.

The English were plagued with problems with their tanks from the beginning of the war and their policy was schizophrenic. That's why they relied so heavily on the Shermans and other US tanks (Grant / Lee, and Stuart mainly) and armored vehicles.

Their anti-tank gun equipped tanks (including, bizarrely, almost all of their 'infantry' tanks) throughout the whole North Africa campaign utterly lacked any HE ammo, which is totally crazy. This made them extremely vulnerable to German Anti-Tank guns. Their CS gun armed tanks, conversely, had no AP ammo - making them extremely vulnerable to German tanks (especially since these were often lightly armored 'cruiser' tanks) and were so generally useless that they typically they armed them with smoke rounds for use to screen friendly tank forces.

By contrast, among the US tanks, even the lowly Stuart with a 37mm gun had not only an effective HE round (for the size of the gun) but was also equipped with a substantial number of canister rounds, which made the gun into a giant shotgun. This was very useful against charging infantry and anti-tank guns. The US 75mm was capable of knocking out not only every German tank the British encountered in North Africa*, but also anti-tank guns and machinegun nests at a long distance (though not long enough, sadly, to take out 88's)

It all worked out though because the British had a better fighter than the US did at the beginning of the war, and a few other things besides. The truth is really every country had their own problems with their tank designs.

G

* they did encounter a few tigers, but in such small numbers not enough to make any difference in the war at that point.

[Brother Oni]

I have another question, but I'm not sure if anyone here can answer it. It involves combat, but is more a mental health question than a technological question.

Let us say we have an 20 year old woman. She has an extensive family history of schizophrenia, but has not manifested any symptoms herself. Thanks to this family history, she has a relatively high risk of manifesting symptoms eventually. She is currently in the military, and her assigned role is infantry. If she goes into combat, can the stress of it all trigger her into manifesting schizophrenia? If she does manifest symptoms (delusions and hallucinations), how would a modern American or British style military likely handle her (I know she'd get ruled unfit for duty, but what medical and procedural events would likely lead up to that? Is the military likely to recognize that they are dealing with a case of schizophrenia and not PTSD? Where does the military send her if they do not believe she can take adequate care of herself?)?

Since this is in danger of being lost among the tank discussion, my take on it:

Whether or not the stress of combat would trigger the onset of schizophrenia is a very difficult question since the condition has a variety of triggers. That said, it is unlikely that such a person at risk of the condition would pass the required medical: British Army (http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20157.aspx), US Military (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21227655).

Let's assume she managed to get past the medical, either by not knowing about her family history or lying on the form and it wasn't followed up.
When the symptoms manifest, her erratic behaviour would first be noticed by her squadmates, which would then be reported up the chain of command until it hits someone who can remove her from active duty.
I would think her sergeant could get her off the line in the first instance then her captain/lieutenant could get her referred for medical evaluation.

After that, it's up to the diagnosis of the army doctor - more likely than not, the exact cause would be irrelevant and she would get discharged from the service for being medically unfit whether it was schizophrenia or PTSD. If it was found out that she lied on her medical form, then it would be a dishonourable discharge, which effectively means they would sever all ties.

Assuming an honourable discharge, a good doctor would then arrange for her continued treatment via civilian agencies and there are some charities and military support groups that help with this.

That said, you said she was infantry - I assume you meant a direct combat role (ie the equivalent of an USMC 0311 MOS)?
To the best of my knowledge, the only military in the world that currently permits females in that particular 'job' is the Israeli Defence Force (specifically the Caracal Battalion) and their system may be significantly different.

There are a number of posters here who have had military service and thus they know more about the process than I do.

Edit: May I ask what this question is for? Is it for a piece of fiction or something else?

[Roxxy]

Since this is in danger of being lost among the tank discussion, my take on it:

Whether or not the stress of combat would trigger the onset of schizophrenia is a very difficult question since the condition has a variety of triggers. That said, it is unlikely that such a person at risk of the condition would pass the required medical: British Army (http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20157.aspx), US Military (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21227655).On this, I have to respectfully disagree. She lacked the condition at the time of enlistment, and it is quite possible to be at risk without showing any signs severe enough to show up during the enlistment process (especially since a lot of the possible signs are extremely common in people with no disorders at all). I think it's perfectly possible she got in without any sort of fraud.


Let's assume she managed to get past the medical, either by not knowing about her family history or lying on the form and it wasn't followed up.I don't think I was asked about my parents' medical history when I enlisted.

When the symptoms manifest, her erratic behaviour would first be noticed by her squadmates, which would then be reported up the chain of command until it hits someone who can remove her from active duty.
I would think her sergeant could get her off the line in the first instance then her captain/lieutenant could get her referred for medical evaluation.

After that, it's up to the diagnosis of the army doctor - more likely than not, the exact cause would be irrelevant and she would get discharged from the service for being medically unfit whether it was schizophrenia or PTSD. If it was found out that she lied on her medical form, then it would be a dishonourable discharge, which effectively means they would sever all ties.

Assuming an honourable discharge, a good doctor would then arrange for her continued treatment via civilian agencies and there are some charities and military support groups that help with this.Thanks.


That said, you said she was infantry - I assume you meant a direct combat role (ie the equivalent of an USMC 0311 MOS)?
To the best of my knowledge, the only military in the world that currently permits females in that particular 'job' is the Israeli Defence Force (specifically the Caracal Battalion) and their system may be significantly different.Actually, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some others not at the top of my head also allow females to be infantry. The United States will by 2016 by order of SECDEF. These events are happening in a fantasy world, and the military is structured along similar lines to the US and Britain (which is why I used them as examples). Within this military, female infantry are permitted.


Edit: May I ask what this question is for? Is it for a piece of fiction or something else?It's something I'm considering doing to a sibling of an RP character I'm working on.

[Brother Oni]

On this, I have to respectfully disagree. She lacked the condition at the time of enlistment, and it is quite possible to be at risk without showing any signs severe enough to show up during the enlistment process (especially since a lot of the possible signs are extremely common in people with no disorders at all). I think it's perfectly possible she got in without any sort of fraud.


While I agree that it's possible, it may depend on what level of entry she was applying for. When I applied as an Officer Candidate, I went through quite a thorough background and medical check, including my family history.

One bloke I applied with was disqualified as he suffered from epilepsy when he was a child, even though he hadn't had a fit for over 15 years.



I don't think I was asked about my parents' medical history when I enlisted.


Again it may depend. I know I was asked about my family medical history.
The type of discharge will depend on how willing her CO is to fight for her and whether there's any evidence that she intentionally or wilfully lied about her family medical history or any potential conditions she may knowingly suffred from.

May I ask what service you enlisted for?



Actually, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some others not at the top of my head also allow females to be infantry.

There's a bit of confusion by what's meant as infantry here. As I said, the only military that allows females to be in a direct action role is the IDF. There's a difference between in a position where there's a chance of combat (which is almost everybody these days) and in a position where you intentionally go into combat.

With regards to the latter, about the closest the British Army permits is the Special Gunfire Observer (https://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/role/69/special-gunfire-observer), which is essentially a forward spotter role (of the 51 combat roles available, only 25 are open to female applicants (https://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/?cpg=cbt&cpg=cbt&cpg=cbt&cpg=cbt&cpg=cbt&cpg=cbt&cpg=cbt&cpg=cbt)).
If you have more up to date information with regard to the other militaries, then could you please let me know.



The United States will by 2016 by order of SECDEF. These events are happening in a fantasy world, and the military is structured along similar lines to the US and Britain (which is why I used them as examples). Within this military, female infantry are permitted.

With regards to the US military, only if the service or branch can't put up a reasonable excuse to exclude females. I know the USMC trialled two female officer candidates earlier this year, but they both failed to make the grade (I can't remember the exact reasons, but I know they both didn't technically fail and the last one washed out with a decent proportion of the male candidates after an endurance exercise).

I remember there was an article by an US female officer who advocated that women should stay out of the 0302 MOS and that there should be a new MOS for female infantry officers to lead all female teams, although I can't find the link at the moment.

As it's a fantasy world, go for it and ignore all my gender related comments.

[GraaEminense]

As I said, the only military that allows females to be in a direct action role is the IDF. There's a difference between in a position where there's a chance of combat (which is almost everybody these days) and in a position where you intentionally go into combat.
I haven't the time to do thorough research right now, but from what I can recall (and could find with 5 mins of search) the Norwegian military have been an equal-opportunity-to-kill-or-be-killed employer since 1984. Women should have access to the same positions regardless of gender, but so far none have successfully completed the Special Forces entry tests.

Granted, in tiny safe nations women in the military are generally less exposed than in the IDF, but in a debate regarding PTSD, service in Afghanistan and rejoining society a few years back there were women with direct combat experience.

[Brother Oni]

I haven't the time to do thorough research right now, but from what I can recall (and could find with 5 mins of search) the Norwegian military have been an equal-opportunity-to-kill-or-be-killed employer since 1984. Women should have access to the same positions regardless of gender, but so far none have successfully completed the Special Forces entry tests.

Thanks for that search tip.

This article from 2013 (http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/) indicates that I'm out of date with the times: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Israel, Germany, New Zealand and Norway all allow females in direct action roles, although some obvious positions are still prohibited (e.g. submarine crew) and a large majority of women still either choose not to serve in combat arms or fail to meet the physical requirements to do so.

[GraaEminense]

Thanks for that search tip.

This article from 2013 (http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/) indicates that I'm out of date with the times: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Israel, France, Germany, New Zealand and Norway all allow females in direct action roles, although some obvious positions are still prohibited (e.g. submarine crew) and a large majority of women still either choose not to serve in combat arms or fail to meet the physical requirements to do so.
You're welcome. I'm actually surprised it goes so far back in so many cases.
And having read the article (it being more interesting than grading papers :P ) it seems several countries have opted for full inclusion with women being allowed in all positions (submarines included) if they have what it takes. Of course, the vast majority are still men and especially in combat positions, but still interesting.

[Roxxy]

While I agree that it's possible, it may depend on what level of entry she was applying for. When I applied as an Officer Candidate, I went through quite a thorough background and medical check, including my family history.She's an enlisted woman, and she's in the regular infantry, not special forces.


May I ask what service you enlisted for?Enlisted, US Navy. I did all the medical stuff for the Army, too, because I had trouble choosing a branch. I remember being asked about my family background, but not about specific mental conditions. Either I was and forgot about it, or it's not asked at the level I enlisted as. I don't think I forgot, because then I would have had to talk about quite a few things common to the family that I don't remember talking about.


With regards to the US military, only if the service or branch can't put up a reasonable excuse to exclude females. I know the USMC trialled two female officer candidates earlier this year, but they both failed to make the grade (I can't remember the exact reasons, but I know they both didn't technically fail and the last one washed out with a decent proportion of the male candidates after an endurance exercise).They tried again with the enlisted infantry school this year, and IIRC at least two of the women graduated, but were not given the MOS because it was a data collection exercise for when the restrictions are lifted.


As it's a fantasy world, go for it and ignore all my gender related comments.Sorry. I'm overly passionate on the issue.

[Brother Oni]

And having read the article (it being more interesting than grading papers :P ) it seems several countries have opted for full inclusion with women being allowed in all positions (submarines included) if they have what it takes. Of course, the vast majority are still men and especially in combat positions, but still interesting.

The submarine exclusion is mostly for morale and personal safety - can you imagine being the only woman cooped up in a large metal tin can for 6 months with a bunch of men?
As you've said though, apparently it's not an issue for some countries or cultures.

The next major challenge in my opinion is the 'if they have what it takes' part. I know that the APFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test) has different standards for male and female soldiers, which has been a major sticking point for allowing the inclusion of female soldiers into the combat arms.

A quick look at the NZ Army fitness requirements (http://www.defencecareers.mil.nz/army/joining-up/fitness-requirements) indicates they still have separate gender based requirements, so I'm guessing that unifying combat arms fitness requirements to a single standard wasn't fair or achievable.



Sorry. I'm overly passionate on the issue.

It's not a problem. It seems odd to me that even with the abundance of information and data indicating that allowing women into the combat arms is not an issue, some militaries are still resisting it.

[AMFV]

The submarine exclusion is mostly for morale and personal safety - can you imagine being the only woman cooped up in a large metal tin can for 6 months with a bunch of men?
As you've said though, apparently it's not an issue for some countries or cultures.

The next major challenge in my opinion is the 'if they have what it takes' part. I know that the APFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test) has different standards for male and female soldiers, which has been a major sticking point for allowing the inclusion of female soldiers into the combat arms.

A quick look at the NZ Army fitness requirements (http://www.defencecareers.mil.nz/army/joining-up/fitness-requirements) indicates they still have separate gender based requirements, so I'm guessing that unifying combat arms fitness requirements to a single standard wasn't fair or achievable.



It's not a problem. It seems odd to me that even with the abundance of information and data indicating that allowing women into the combat arms is not an issue, some militaries are still resisting it.

There is still the question of differing service fitness requirements. If women are to be allowed in combat that needs to change. I know that there are many women who could perform very well on the PFT with significantly less preparation than the average male Marine needed, and they were generally in much poorer physical condition in any case. Yes, a unified standard would result in less women in combat arms, but this isn't a case where equal opportunity is the most important thing, this is a case where people die if you can't perform, at least to my thinking.


I have another question, but I'm not sure if anyone here can answer it. It involves combat, but is more a mental health question than a technological question.

Let us say we have an 20 year old woman. She has an extensive family history of schizophrenia, but has not manifested any symptoms herself. Thanks to this family history, she has a relatively high risk of manifesting symptoms eventually. She is currently in the military, and her assigned role is infantry. If she goes into combat, can the stress of it all trigger her into manifesting schizophrenia? If she does manifest symptoms (delusions and hallucinations), how would a modern American or British style military likely handle her (I know she'd get ruled unfit for duty, but what medical and procedural events would likely lead up to that? Is the military likely to recognize that they are dealing with a case of schizophrenia and not PTSD? Where does the military send her if they do not believe she can take adequate care of herself?)?


I can field this one, I was in the military and had some issues with mental stuff while I was in. If the condition is not preexisting then it will be covered absolutely after she is discharged by the US military. It doesn't matter how unrelated it may seem but there is no way to prove that it's not related.

She would probably be moved to a non-deployable position and treated, while they determined if separation was required, if she could be medicated and continue to perform then she could be non-deployable and in the military for the duration of her contract. Depending on how exactly that goes. They would probably try to medically separate her though, in which case she's still entitled to pretty much all of her benefits.

I had some pretty heavy stuff when I was in, and I was able to return to full active duty before I EASed, so it's certainly a thing that can be managed, no matter how rough it is.

[Brother Oni]

Yes, a unified standard would result in less women in combat arms, but this isn't a case where equal opportunity is the most important thing, this is a case where people die if you can't perform, at least to my thinking.

I agree with you - if you're likely to end up in situations where pure physical strength is going to be important (e.g. grabbing a wounded, fully loaded squadmate by their armour straps and pulling them into cover) then whatever fitness standards used must reflect that, regardless of gender.

Smarter and much more experienced people than myself are looking into this, so I'm more than happy to defer to their judgement.



I can field this one, I was in the military and had some issues with mental stuff while I was in. If the condition is not preexisting then it will be covered absolutely after she is discharged by the US military.

The issue is that schizophrenia has a known genetic component and if her family has a history of it then it's more likely that she will have it herself, thus it may count as a pre-existing condition, even if she doesn't have it at time of enlistment.

From the stories I've heard regarding the Big Green Weenie (or its equivalent in other services), I'm inclined to think that it may be an issue for the lawyers to sort out.

[Mike_G]

There is still the question of differing service fitness requirements. If women are to be allowed in combat that needs to change. I know that there are many women who could perform very well on the PFT with significantly less preparation than the average male Marine needed, and they were generally in much poorer physical condition in any case. Yes, a unified standard would result in less women in combat arms, but this isn't a case where equal opportunity is the most important thing, this is a case where people die if you can't perform, at least to my thinking.



Fewer women than men will pass if the standards are unified. That's true, and it's appropriate. If I get shot, I want the rest of my fire team to be able to carry me out.

That said, there are some women who can pass the male PFT. A handful of women Marines recently passed infantry school. The standards were not lowered for them.


I know that the average woman is less likely to pass as an infantryman. But I don't want "average" anybody in my platoon.

If they can pass, they should have the chance to eat bad food, hump the extra mortar rounds, sleep in a dirty hole, go days without bathing and run the risk of getting killed or horribly maimed for mom and apple pie, just like us men.

Welcome to the Suck, ladies. Now dig you hole and stand your watches and hump your share of gear and we'll get along fine.

[snowblizz]

Fewer women than men will pass if the standards are unified. That's true, and it's appropriate. If I get shot, I want the rest of my fire team to be able to carry me out.
Oooh! If the average soldier was lighter then requirements could be cut proportionally! :smallbiggrin: Besides, smaller persons are harder to hit too and you can more of them of the same max load. Win-win.


I know that the average woman is less likely to pass as an infantryman. But I don't want "average" anybody in my platoon.
Then I sincerely hope you aren't in the infantry. Ba-ding tish!:smallbiggrin:

And with thinking like this I am very glad the Crimean war made me except from military service, my brand of out of the box thinking would most likely not be appreciated.

So far this has been mostly situations where you can actually pick and choose (right?). Quite a few countries have compulsory military service so more or less have to make the average guys too.

[Brother Oni]

So far this has been mostly situations where you can actually pick and choose (right?). Quite a few countries have compulsory military service so more or less have to make the average guys too.

These average compulsory service guys who scrape past their fitness test usually don't end up as infantrymen though.

There are plenty of other jobs that need doing which don't require the fitness of combat arms - after all the average Tooth-to-Tail Ratio (how many support personnel are required to maintain one combat personnel) of most forces is about 4-1 and even the best ratio is only about 3-1 (the IDF, but they never deploy abroad).

[Mike_G]

O

Then I sincerely hope you aren't in the infantry. Ba-ding tish!:smallbiggrin:



Well, I joined the Marines. Recruits wanted to be in a tough unit, not scrape by. If you do go Army, try to qualify for Jump School so you can be put with the motivated guys who won't bug out on you in combat.

If you get wounded, you want to be around people who, first, are willing to take a risk to rescue you, and second, are physically capable of it.



And with thinking like this I am very glad the Crimean war made me except from military service, my brand of out of the box thinking would most likely not be appreciated.


Again, unconventional thinking isn't a bad thing. And it's less of an issue in good units. Special Forces guys are supposed to think outside the box. The standard line soldier, not so much.



So far this has been mostly situations where you can actually pick and choose (right?). Quite a few countries have compulsory military service so more or less have to make the average guys too.

Don't wait to be drafted with the bed wetters, the guys who would have dodged if they were smart enough, the ones that will hide in the bottom of the hole, shoot high, and desert at the first chance.

[Galloglaich]

Per a previous conversation about big European swords

this one is supposedly linked to the famous rebel Pier Gerolfs Dania, who was supposed to be a giant.

http://neo-thought.parallel-worlds.net/piersword.jpg

I suspect it is a bearing sword though. This is similar to the one I had mentioned before that is in the Higgins.

the sword is in the Fries Museum. Collection Fries Museum Inv. Nr. H 185-C Total length 213cm weight 6.6 KG

A lot of people are saying that those 2 meter o-dachi are also bearing swords or donated to temples.

G

[Bug-a-Boo]

the sword is in the Fries Museum. Collection Fries Museum Inv. Nr. H 185-C Total length 213cm weight 6.6 KG

A lot of people are saying that those 2 meter o-dachi are also bearing swords or donated to temples.

6.6 kg seems like just slightly too much for a battle sword, though if the guy was a real giant of a man and a strong one at that, it might be possible.

From what I know, most preserved large odachi are shrine donations and advertisements to the skill of the craftsmen that made them, but a few examples show battle damage and at least one 2 meter plus odachi was mentioned as used in battle (I'll see whether I can find any references if I have time. Nearest recollection is that there was something in one of Thoman Conlan's books)

[Stephen_E]

Thanks for that search tip.

This article from 2013 (http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/) indicates that I'm out of date with the times: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Israel, Germany, New Zealand and Norway all allow females in direct action roles, although some obvious positions are still prohibited (e.g. submarine crew) and a large majority of women still either choose not to serve in combat arms or fail to meet the physical requirements to do so.

You might want to double check on the Submarine thing.
I'm pretty sure that Australia has mixed crews in their subs.

[Stephen_E]

The English were plagued with problems with their tanks from the beginning of the war and their policy was schizophrenic. That's why they relied so heavily on the Shermans and other US tanks (Grant / Lee, and Stuart mainly) and armored vehicles.



I will point out that while their overly specalised approach to tank design crippled their general armoured forces it did pay dividends when it came to the real niche positions. Everything I've come across regarding the Normandy landings indicated the British "swimming tanks" were a major force multiplier on the beaches. IIRC Omaha had the lowest percentage of swimming tanks make it to shore.
The British Minesweepers also had excellent performance as well.

The corollary to every nation having problems with their tanks, every nation had their points where they shone. :-)

[SowZ]

This is more a physics question, probably, but I'm talking about myths about what really sharp swords can do and using an extreme example of it. How much more cutting power does sharpness really give you? Even if I had a sword of unbreakable material that weighed as much as a normal sword where the edge was one molecule thick, how much of an advantage would that really be compared to a normal steel sword when it comes to, say, how far you could cut into a tree trunk with one swing?

[fusilier]

This is more a physics question, probably, but I'm talking about myths about what really sharp swords can do and using an extreme example of it. How much more cutting power does sharpness really give you? Even if I had a sword of unbreakable material that weighed as much as a normal sword where the edge was one molecule thick, how much of an advantage would that really be compared to a normal steel sword when it comes to, say, how far you could cut into a tree trunk with one swing?

This might have more to do with the overall thickness of the sword. I imagine that the sword would get stuck because it can't displace enough material of the tree. But I'm not certain.

[warty goblin]

This might have more to do with the overall thickness of the sword. I imagine that the sword would get stuck because it can't displace enough material of the tree. But I'm not certain.

This is also what I'd expect. A sword cut doesn't remove any material to speak of, it just separates it. So it'll tend to bind as it passes through something thick and hard to displace like a tree. Through something squishy like a person though? Not really.

The other way the blade will bind is as the tree shifts due to gravity as it is cut. The tree will fall into the cut behind the blade, and pinch the trailing edge. Obviously more of a problem with wider blades, but having most of a tree leaning even a little bit on a thing can make it rather hard to move.

[SowZ]

What if the sword started with a molecule thick blade but eventually tapered into a normal thickness?

[Rhynn]

What if the sword started with a molecule thick blade but eventually tapered into a normal thickness?

It would basically cut in to a depth equal to the width of the molecule-thickness edge, then get stuck badly (or just stop going in). The thicker part of the blade isn't cutting anything, it's just following the edge (giving weight to the swing) and getting wedged in there.

[SowZ]

It would basically cut in about the dength of the width of the molecule-thickness blade, then get stuck badly. The thicker part of the blade isn't cutting anything, it's just following the edge (giving weight to the swing) and getting wedged in there.

So if it was one molecule thick all the way across, what could you slash through? What could you slash through that would cause the material to fall apart as opposed to fusing back together?

[Rhynn]

So if it was one molecule thick all the way across, what could you slash through? What could you slash through that would cause the material to fall apart as opposed to fusing back together?

Is there actual evidence that molecule-thickness blades would cut through anything to begin with? You'd have pretty much no weight, and weight is pretty important for hand weapons. Usually, in science fiction, "monomolecular" just means "really really sharp."

Sharpness doesn't really get you through hard things, in general. It can get you smoothly through a whole lot of more pliable or fragile materials, like thin paper, or human flesh.

[SowZ]

Is there actual evidence that molecule-thickness blades would cut through anything to begin with? You'd have pretty much no weight, and weight is pretty important for hand weapons. Usually, in science fiction, "monomolecular" just means "really really sharp."

Sharpness doesn't really get you through hard things, in general. It can get you smoothly through a whole lot of more pliable or fragile materials, like thin paper, or human flesh.

Hmmm. Now I'm getting really theoretical here, but it is just for the sake of knowing what exactly sharpness can do. If a sword was unbreakable, a molecule thick, yet was the length and weight of a normal sword. I wonder what it could cut through. It has a lot less material to push and tear out of the way.

If it was an atom thick, I imagine it would just push everything aside but bounce back to it's original position mostly unharmed. But a molecule...

[AgentPaper]

So if it was one molecule thick all the way across, what could you slash through? What could you slash through that would cause the material to fall apart as opposed to fusing back together?

A molecule-thick blade doesn't really do anything, because such a thing doesn't exist, and can't exist. It's not a matter of materials, but just the basic principals of how molecules act.

To get an idea of why it wouldn't work, think of molecules as tennisballs floating in space. To form those molecules into a larger structure, you connect them together with 100-meter long, 10cm wide rods. The bonds are weak, but as you group them up they become stronger. Strong shapes, like cubes and triangles, form strong structures, but if you make a 2-d structure, then no matter how strong the rods are that connect them, it's just going to wobble around and bend and not do anything you want it to.

Fortunately, materials don't need to be anywhere near that thin to have magical cutting powers. Assuming some fantastic, unbreakable (for all intents and purposes) material, having something a nanometer thick but as strong as a 1cm steel rod would cut through just about anything with basically no effort. You also wouldn't be able to see it.

[Spiryt]

Hmmm. Now I'm getting really theoretical here, but it is just for the sake of knowing what exactly sharpness can do. If a sword was unbreakable, a molecule thick, yet was the length and weight of a normal sword. I wonder what it could cut through. It has a lot less material to push and tear out of the way.
.

It would probably be dense like the heart of the white dwarf for it.... And then it's ability to cut trough matter would be little worry, compared to gravitational effects it would probably produce. :smallwink:


So if it was one molecule thick all the way across, what could you slash through? What could you slash through that would cause the material to fall apart as opposed to fusing back together?

I really don't think that 'molecule thick' would be anywhere near thick enough, TBH.

How many molecules are in the area of say, 0.01 mm of skin? Vast amount.

To cut trough anything, you need some volume of material too push trough it.

Extremely keen edge probably stops having any effect at some point.

[Brother Oni]

You might want to double check on the Submarine thing.
I'm pretty sure that Australia has mixed crews in their subs.

I already have a problem of the only difference between my sentences and my paragraphs are that my paragraphs have an extra full stop and you want me to add MORE clauses to them? :smalltongue:

That said, the Australian military have had issues with gender integration: link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U).
I'm 6000 miles away, not even in the military and watching him speak still makes me feel like I did something wrong. :smallfrown:

[Galloglaich]

@Bug-a-boo - yeah like I said, I think that is a bearing sword mainly due to the weight and the size of the pommel. But there were zweihanders about that big. Blades were less than 200 cm though.




I will point out that while their overly specalised approach to tank design crippled their general armoured forces it did pay dividends when it came to the real niche positions. Everything I've come across regarding the Normandy landings indicated the British "swimming tanks" were a major force multiplier on the beaches. IIRC Omaha had the lowest percentage of swimming tanks make it to shore.
The British Minesweepers also had excellent performance as well.

The corollary to every nation having problems with their tanks, every nation had their points where they shone. :-)

Without a doubt. For all their problems several British tanks did cause problems for the Germans, notably the Matilda whose armor was impenetrable to all the early German tanks and AT guns at the time, forcing them to deploy howitzers and the deadly 88 mm AA gun to try to stop them during breakthroughs during the Battle of France and in North Africa. The 6 pounder, as I said, was the best towed AT gun on the allied side for most of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/British_Sherman_Firefly_Namur.jpg

And the Anglo - American Sherman 'Firefly', fitted with the British 17 pounder gun, was really the only widely deployed allied AFV which could routinely kill German heavy tanks and jaegers at long range. The gun was as powerful as the one on the Panther. They also made a version of the M10 with the same gun, I think called 'Achilles'.

I think the British flamethrower and mine-clearing ('flail') tanks were also the only ones that were effective- the US flamethrower tanks simply didn't work.

G

[Brother Oni]

I think the British flamethrower and mine-clearing ('flail') tanks were also the only ones that were effective- the US flamethrower tanks simply didn't work.

And in typical British fashion, all these modified tanks were known collectively as Hobart's Funnies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart's_Funnies). :smallbiggrin:

[Stephen_E]

That said, the Australian military have had issues with gender integration: link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U).
I'm 6000 miles away, not even in the military and watching him speak still makes me feel like I did something wrong. :smallfrown:

Given that Australia has chronic problems with Male Chauvanism I suspect it's as much a general cultural problem as a Military cultural problem. But unlike many other countries their top commander isn't willing to treat it as "boys will be boys". I used to visit a forum with a high percentage of current and ex US servicemen. The general attitude expressed towards sexual harassment and assault on female military personal was most of the women complained as a way of getting promotions, and any women accused their mates they would make that womens life hell and do their best to make sure their career went no where. A fair number of these guys were officers as well. I remember they also thought no women should be allowed to enter Ranger School as they couldn't possibly pass and they would only be taking from men who could benefit. :smallfrown:
I would note that I have known a number of US military personal who don't have such attitudes. So that isn't a general condemnation, but their are some pretty nasty cliques.

And for something nicer, along the lines of "Hobart's Funnies" - The Brits in WW2 had a group of scientists and Technicians that they sent out after battles to study the damage dealt to get a real idea of how the weapons worked. I don't know whether this was just a British thing, but I haven't read of others doing it at that time. This lead to things such as finding out in the Battle of Normandy most Allied tanks killed were killed by 88 AT/AA guns. Also that the famed anti-tank aircraft rockets only did a fraction of the kills claimed. It turned out that most of the claimed kills were simply the crews jumping out, and then depending on how shattered their morale already was they either got back in, or hoofed it on foot. At the point of the big retreats where most of the kills were claimed generally the latter. :smallwink:
An example of how willing they were to let the Weapons Techs get a real idea of how their weapons performed, Barnes Wallis, the inventor of the 6 (Tallboy) and 10 ton (Grand Slam) bombs was driven to one Sub pens that his bombs had just been used on the day before (LeHavre?). The German commander courteously showed him around, including where 1 bomb had penetrated approx 20' of Reinforced Concrete but fortunately for the German crews failed to detonate. Apparently he was quite honored to meet that man who had invented such weapons. The day following the visit the city surrendered to the allies. :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

This is a pretty big deal potentially.

http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-581910-galleryV9-fzpf.jpg

For non German speakers, you can copy and paste this into google translate

Quick summary, they did a test of 'scorpion' torsion spring crossbows (ok, not quite crossbows, shooting weapons?) which were allegedly used at the Battle of Teutoburg forest. First they did a computer simulation and then, apparently, they made replicas with the help of a bunch of engineers.

The article says they had a range of 'several hundred meters', the energy was so high that they burnt the pig carcasses they were shooting? Wow. And a rate of shots at about 3-5 bolts per minute. According to records 60 of these were issued to each legion. From the image I posted above, (from the article) it does look like the targets are pretty far away.

I want to see video! As far as I know nobody had yet made a really effective torsion weapon of this type that really lived up to what it was supposed to be able to do - it sounds like they finally did in this case.

In "Gallic Wars" Caesar mentions these weapons as being extremely important, they saved him in Britain for example.


http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/torsionsgeschuetze-roemische-horrorwaffen-im-wettertest-ausgegraben-a-941289.html

G

[Alberic Strein]

Pommels.

The question must have been asked and answered more times than it should have, but since I'm a lazy bum, I'll ask again.

What were pommels used for? (besides bashing the nose of the guy in front of you in a pinch)

Sources claim they were counterweights, and indeed modern fencing seems to use them as such, but another source claims that this is an extremely modern use and is not any more representative of how actual swords were made, or used than the extremely flexible and lightweight blade of modern fencing.

Claim that the one sword i do own (though most likely a cheap 20 years old fake) seems to support : it has a ring on it's pommel and definitely not much weight there.

So how does a pommel affect a sword, its balance, use, etc...?

Side point, I saw a... documentary... Claiming the falchion was designed as a one handed weapon able to cut through chainmail. Every ounce of the little I know about swords rejected the thought. Am I being a fool refusing to learn, or was that some pure "Murica science?

Last question, what practical uses can two weapon fighting have in real life? To my knowledge it never saw uses in actual battlefields, but what were it's pros?

[Rhynn]

A sword's hilt was frequently a piece of wood slipped over the tang. The pommel had to be screwed on to keep the hilt in place.

Other than that, they were decorative, and you could hit people with them if it came to that.

And, obviously, they're a damn good way to keep your sword from slipping from your hand. Given hilts were frequently thicker in the middle and tapered toward each end, with no pommel, your sword could be slipping further from your hand with each blow. With a pommel to catch on your hand, you could even slide your hand down the hilt to get a few extra inches for some strikes.

And there's pretty much no way a falchion would cut through mail. No hand weapon wielded by a human is going to cut through mail, at least reliably. They might bruise people through mail, but then you're pretty much looking for sheer mass, not blade geometry, and two-handed swords and bardiches are what you want.

Edit: I'd personally estimate that the hand-slipping is the single biggest reason for pommels. You'll see handles on maces and axes meant for combat with specific handles with "stops" at top and bottom, and even wood-axes tend to have a widened bottom to the haft to keep it from slipping from your grasp. I've recently seriously wondered about the combat utility of the typical Finnish puukko-knife, because the traditional design has a hilt thickest in the middle, with no "guard" and no "pommel", or anything else to keep the blade from slipping in either direction. From what I've read about knife-fighting, a guard at the top is absolutely critical to keep your hand from slipping onto the blade and getting messed up. And once your knife and hand are bloody from stabbing or cutting someone, I'd expect slippage would be even worse...

[warty goblin]

I'm no expert in this, but even a quite light pommel could effectively balance a sword, if the desired balance was farther up the blade. Which, for some swords in some time periods, it seems to have been. The pommel also impacts how a sword moves in other ways than just the center of mass, and because it's at the extreme end of the weapon, just an ounce or so can make a large difference in handling.

[Hawkfrost000]

What were pommels used for? (besides bashing the nose of the guy in front of you in a pinch)

They were used as Counterweights and grips. In the style of longsword fighting i am familiar with you hold on to the pommel with your bottom hand. This maximizes your leverage and gives you a better grip.


Other than that, they were decorative, and you could hit people with them if it came to that.

I am almost certain this is incorrect. Every pommel i have seen on functional swords such as those produced by Deltin and Darkwood is quite heavy and is used to move the swords center of gravity from the middle of the blade (where it would be with a simple handle) closer too the users hands, ideally an inch or two above the guard.

This makes the sword much easier to move and use effectively.


So how does a pommel affect a sword, its balance, use, etc...?

The pommel alters the center of gravity of the sword to make it easier to move.


Side point, I saw a... documentary... Claiming the falchion was designed as a one handed weapon able to cut through chainmail. Every ounce of the little I know about swords rejected the thought. Am I being a fool refusing to learn, or was that some pure "Murica science?

Depends on the falchion, the chainmail and what the guy is wearing under his chainmail.


Last question, what practical uses can two weapon fighting have in real life? To my knowledge it never saw uses in actual battlefields, but what were it's pros?

Two weapon fighting certainly existed, but would be rather ineffective on the battlefield. A shield is more worth your while and easier to use, and if you wand to use a weapon taking up both your hands (if you have a tonne of armor for instance) any pole arm is much more effective.

Two weapon fighting or "case of swords" as its called by one of the Italian masters (Fabris i think) is extremely useful in a duel. Having more steel between you and your opponent is always a good thing. Normally in a duel you need to protect yourself and attack with the same piece of metal, which is pretty hard, but with two swords you can attack with one and defend with the other.

EDIT: I found a source for the Two weapon stuff (http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XIVCase.htm)


Nowadays the use of two swords or rapiers is common in the schools and lists alike, although they are not used for war.

[SowZ]

Pommels.

The question must have been asked and answered more times than it should have, but since I'm a lazy bum, I'll ask again.

What were pommels used for? (besides bashing the nose of the guy in front of you in a pinch)

Sources claim they were counterweights, and indeed modern fencing seems to use them as such, but another source claims that this is an extremely modern use and is not any more representative of how actual swords were made, or used than the extremely flexible and lightweight blade of modern fencing.

Claim that the one sword i do own (though most likely a cheap 20 years old fake) seems to support : it has a ring on it's pommel and definitely not much weight there.

So how does a pommel affect a sword, its balance, use, etc...?

Side point, I saw a... documentary... Claiming the falchion was designed as a one handed weapon able to cut through chainmail. Every ounce of the little I know about swords rejected the thought. Am I being a fool refusing to learn, or was that some pure "Murica science?

Last question, what practical uses can two weapon fighting have in real life? To my knowledge it never saw uses in actual battlefields, but what were it's pros?

From the sword fighting I've done, I'd wager that if there wasn't some ball on the end of the sword it could slide upwards and out of your grasp pretty easily. A pommel larger than the hole your first makes would keep the sword in hand. I have zero historical citation for that, but I'd also be surprised if that wasn't at least something of a factor.

[AMFV]

]

Last question, what practical uses can two weapon fighting have in real life? To my knowledge it never saw uses in actual battlefields, but what were it's pros?

Many Polearms are pretty difficult to use with one hand and those were pretty popular on the battlefield, to the point where I think they were more common than swords for at least most of history.

[GraaEminense]

Many Polearms are pretty difficult to use with one hand and those were pretty popular on the battlefield, to the point where I think they were more common than swords for at least most of history.
Two-handed polearms give you reach and power, though, giving you enough advantages that it may be worth dropping the shield. Two swords just add some tricksiness. Not worth the trade-off in any sort of formation-fighting.

[Brother Oni]

Two weapon fighting or "case of swords" as its called by one of the Italian masters (Fabris i think) is extremely useful in a duel. Having more steel between you and your opponent is always a good thing. Normally in a duel you need to protect yourself and attack with the same piece of metal, which is pretty hard, but with two swords you can attack with one and defend with the other.

EDIT: I found a source for the Two weapon stuff (http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XIVCase.htm)

There's also the nito (two swords) style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%8Dh%C5%8D_Niten_Ichi-ry%C5%AB) promoted by Miyamoto Musashi and a number of Chinese styles have either a two jian/dao (sword/sabre) forms (Hung gar and Tai Chi for example).

As you've said, the use of these styles on the battlefield is limited.


Many Polearms are pretty difficult to use with one hand and those were pretty popular on the battlefield, to the point where I think they were more common than swords for at least most of history.

He meant two weapon fighting as in a weapon in each hand, rather than a single weapon used with two hands.

Edit: ninja'ed by Graa

[Hawkfrost000]

There's also the nito (two swords) style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%8Dh%C5%8D_Niten_Ichi-ry%C5%AB) promoted by Miyamoto Musashi and a number of Chinese styles have either a two jian/dao (sword/sabre) forms (Hung gar and Tai Chi for example).

As you've said, the use of these styles on the battlefield is limited.

Yeah, i should put a disclaimer at the beginning of all my posts that they are usually only true about stuff in Europe. I have 0 expertise about anything east of Constantinople.

DM

[AMFV]

There's also the nito (two swords) style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%8Dh%C5%8D_Niten_Ichi-ry%C5%AB) promoted by Miyamoto Musashi and a number of Chinese styles have either a two jian/dao (sword/sabre) forms (Hung gar and Tai Chi for example).

As you've said, the use of these styles on the battlefield is limited.



He meant two weapon fighting as in a weapon in each hand, rather than a single weapon used with two hands.

Edit: ninja'ed by Graa

Oh, well that just looks really cool and sometimes that's good enough. I've heard that it had some use in the Old West due to firearms malfunctioning, although I question how true that may have actually been. My own experience lends me to believe that two-weapon fighting is generally inefficient as far as firearms go.

Talking completly out of my backside, I would suspect that two weapon fighting with swords probably has one focus more on defensive purposes while the other one is used offensively. So it'd be the same idea as having a shield.

[GraaEminense]

Oh, well that just looks really cool and sometimes that's good enough. I've heard that it had some use in the Old West due to firearms malfunctioning, although I question how true that may have actually been. My own experience lends me to believe that two-weapon fighting is generally inefficient as far as firearms go.

Talking completly out of my backside, I would suspect that two weapon fighting with swords probably has one focus more on defensive purposes while the other one is used offensively. So it'd be the same idea as having a shield.
My experience with guns is limited, but I could see two revolvers being marginally useful at clearing rooms. However, if it was used I would guess it's for the same reasons similar things are done today: it looks cool and intimidating, and if you look cool and intimidating you'll scare people off without getting shot at.

As for swords and the like (which I do have some experience with), using a sword or a dagger defensively is much better than a bare hand but much worse than a buckler or a shield. Not useless, just seriously sub-optimal in most circumstances.

[Spiryt]

Pommels.

The question must have been asked and answered more times than it should have, but since I'm a lazy bum, I'll ask again.

What were pommels used for? (besides bashing the nose of the guy in front of you in a pinch)

Sources claim they were counterweights, and indeed modern fencing seems to use them as such, but another source claims that this is an extremely modern use and is not any more representative of how actual swords were made, or used than the extremely flexible and lightweight blade of modern fencing.

Claim that the one sword i do own (though most likely a cheap 20 years old fake) seems to support : it has a ring on it's pommel and definitely not much weight there.

So how does a pommel affect a sword, its balance, use, etc...?




"Pommels" as such started as simple way of providing secure grip. Organic grips of most ancient Iron Age swords had pretty eligible weight, for all we know.

But in medieval period, in swords of Latin, Pagan, Byzantic, Middle Eastern in general (Persian, Hellenic, later Arab) origins, pommels absolutely and undoubtedly had started to have crucial importance in balance and harmonics of the sword.

Anyone who claims otherwise, have no idea what they're about, so don't pay attention to his/her claims.

Pommels of 'mature' Medieval swords frequently weighted at least ~ 20% of weight of the blade - and fixed to the tang, caused huge changes to handling characteristics and impacts of the sword.




Side point, I saw a... documentary... Claiming the falchion was designed as a one handed weapon able to cut through chainmail. Every ounce of the little I know about swords rejected the thought. Am I being a fool refusing to learn, or was that some pure "Murica science?

Pretty much "Murica science".

'Falchions' is name for group of particular group of European weapons - ranging from some kind of one edged, short(ish) sword to another incarnation of good ole chopper with sword hilt.

no one had ever woke up all

' Amma design something to tear up this pesky mail".

For all we know now cutting trough mail with percussive or slicing motions is huge waste of time, and not really viable with muscle power.

[AMFV]

My experience with guns is limited, but I could see two revolvers being marginally useful at clearing rooms. However, if it was used I would guess it's for the same reasons similar things are done today: it looks cool and intimidating, and if you look cool and intimidating you'll scare people off without getting shot at.

Not really, I mean you're not going to get really any good suppressing fire with two pistols, you probably won't hit anybody, and trained soldiers or experienced insurgents would just shoot you, and you'd look cool while you died.

I imagine that the cool and intimidating factor is probably not the reason they'd do it, because that is a pretty substantial loss in accuracy. For example the mythbusters example, where they compare the accuracy, if you look at it, and you've actually been on a range you'd see that the two gun is vastly less accurate.

For clearing a room, I'd take an M4 or an AK over any number of pistols.

[GraaEminense]

For clearing a room, I'd take an M4 or an AK over any number of pistols.
And in the Old West, people took rifles or shotguns when there was violence to be done (which wasn't all that common, really).

Even so, there are those deciding that the key to look baadaasz is to hold a pistol sideways in each hand because they saw it in a music video. Never underestimate image, stupidity and lack of actual training.

If I carry two guns, I look twice as hard to rivals with as little clue as I have. As long as no one better trained turn up to compete in our turf-wars, that could well be enough. It's all about image.

Edit: Not saying it's common or smart, just giving the rationale for using two handguns. Now or then. Which could, come to think of it, be the reason for using two swords if there is a cultural image of two swords being cool.

[AMFV]

And in the Old West, people took rifles or shotguns when there was violence to be done (which wasn't all that common, really).

Even so, there are those deciding that the key to look baadaasz is to hold a pistol sideways in each hand because they saw it in a music video. Never underestimate image, stupidity and lack of actual training.

If I carry two guns, I look twice as hard to rivals with as little clue as I have. As long as no one better trained turn up to compete in our turf-wars, that could well be enough. It's all about image.

Well I did say it looked cool! I concede that point. It's part of the reason why I have no problems with it being in video games and such, because realism is never really present anyways, and looking cool is well... cool.

[snowblizz]

I've recently seriously wondered about the combat utility of the typical Finnish puukko-knife, because the traditional design has a hilt thickest in the middle, with no "guard" and no "pommel", or anything else to keep the blade from slipping in either direction.
Since that is a utility knife you might as well ask about the combat utility of a fork or spoon. :smalltongue::smalltongue:
Of course it *is* still a knife so it's a lot better at it than a fork. It's made to sit comfortably in the hand during a long day of cutting and whittling stuff.
Sticking it into people is a secondary function at best, taken when drunk (admittedly not an uncommon state however).
Unexpected bonus though, nowadays it's easier to solve such a case of violence since the knife tends to slip and nick the assailant leaving hsi DNA on the blade too. Talk about design foresight.:smallwink::smallwink:

[Brother Oni]

Talking completly out of my backside, I would suspect that two weapon fighting with swords probably has one focus more on defensive purposes while the other one is used offensively. So it'd be the same idea as having a shield.

I believe that style of fighting where the off hand weapon is more a defensive/parrying tool has a specific name in western fencing, but I can't remember it at the moment.

The Chinese styles that I know of emphasise that it's not two separate weapons, but a single weapon in two separate hands. While the majority of the techniques boil down similarly to the above western style with one sword being mainly used for defence while the other mainly used for attack, they switch interchangably and often, to unbalance the opponent.

I can't say about Miyamoto's Niten Ichi Ryu as I've not seen it in action.



Even so, there are those deciding that the key to look baadaasz is to hold a pistol sideways in each hand because they saw it in a music video.

To be fair, doing the hot brass dance would ruin your baadaasz image, so following the safety guy's instruction of holding it sideways makes sense. :smalltongue:

[AMFV]

To be fair, doing the hot brass dance would ruin your baadaasz image, so following the safety guy's instruction of holding it sideways makes sense. :smalltongue:

Most pistols I've seen eject the brass upwards, so it wouldn't really be more likely to hit you if you held it sideways, although it's kind of dumb for a lot of other reasons, and that really depends on your pistol.

Edit: I'm not sure if that's even most pistols though to be honest, just the ones I used.

[GraaEminense]

To be fair, doing the hot brass dance would ruin your baadaasz image, so following the safety guy's instruction of holding it sideways makes sense. :smalltongue:
Are you telling me this is actually feasible? If so, I have lived a lie.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSB7Lqm_zk95ll0gtMAUPv63iOyPgsKq z-PoMbo6CEdnmr8WW-e

[Galloglaich]

"Pommels" as such started as simple way of providing secure grip. Organic grips of most ancient Iron Age swords had pretty eligible weight, for all we know.

"Negligable" I think you mean?



But in medieval period, in swords of Latin, Pagan, Byzantic, Middle Eastern in general (Persian, Hellenic, later Arab) origins, pommels absolutely and undoubtedly had started to have crucial importance in balance and harmonics of the sword.

Anyone who claims otherwise, have no idea what they're about, so don't pay attention to his/her claims.

Pommels of 'mature' Medieval swords frequently weighted at least ~ 20% of weight of the blade - and fixed to the tang, caused huge changes to handling characteristics and impacts of the sword.

I want to reinforce what Spiryt said here. The pommel was a critical feature of sword design from around 600-700 AD until the modern era. Some sword-like weapons like messers lacked pommels but made up for this with a gradually widened (thickened) tang which had the same purpose and effect.



Pretty much "Murica science".

'Falchions' is name for group of particular group of European weapons - ranging from some kind of one edged, short(ish) sword to another incarnation of good ole chopper with sword hilt.

no one had ever woke up all

' Amma design something to tear up this pesky mail".

For all we know now cutting trough mail with percussive or slicing motions is huge waste of time, and not really viable with muscle power.

Again, agreed 100%

No, Falchions can't cut through mail.

"Dual wielding" did exist but not in the way RPG fans and larpers would like it to. Musashi has been mentioned. There was also a two-Dha technique used in Thailand and Burma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ow37rYSJ0

There is also some two-weapon stuff in Kali / Arnis in the Philippines.

In Europe there was something called 'case of rapiers' which was actually fairly common in the 16th -17th Centuries and is described in detail in several fencing manuals.

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/dgcase.jpg

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XIVCase.htm

It was not a 'battlefield thing' in Europe, though it was used for duels.

By far the most common type of two-weapon fighting in Europe anyway was sword and dagger, which was probably the most common way to use rapiers, sideswords, and even in some cases cut-thrust swords on the battlefield.

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Dgrdb.jpg

I think the obsession with 'dual wield' in larp and rpg circles comes from not knowing how to parry properly or use the false edge in larp and simply wanting extra attacks in rpg games since most have such boring combat systems ;) (again because they don't understand how actual fencing worked) though I guess that is gradually changing since more people are starting to grasp what HEMA is.


G

[AMFV]

Are you telling me this is actually feasible? If so, I have lived a lie.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSB7Lqm_zk95ll0gtMAUPv63iOyPgsKq z-PoMbo6CEdnmr8WW-e

Kind of dumb, I mean you might get brass on your hands, but the brass dance is mostly reserved for when it gets back in your collar. Also you can't really aim that way, and not aiming kind of defeats the point of having a weapon, I mean it looks cool, but you ain't hitting anything.

Actually I misread the earlier comment, although if you're holding your other hand by the ejection port as that fellow is, you're probably gonna have a bad day.

If you don't aim, you're gonna have a bad time. If you point the ejection port at your hand, you're gonna have a bad time.

[Brother Oni]

Most pistols I've seen eject the brass upwards, so it wouldn't really be more likely to hit you if you held it sideways, although it's kind of dumb for a lot of other reasons, and that really depends on your pistol.

Edit: I'm not sure if that's even most pistols though to be honest, just the ones I used.

The pistols I've seen eject their spent cartidges up and to the right rather than straight up and I've seen enough slow motion scenes to know that some ejects theirs straight out to the side.
I'm fairly sure there's enough variation in ejection mechanisms to allow for any trajectory.


Are you telling me this is actually feasible?

For a given amount of feasible, but your picture is just someone being an idiot.

On film sets, the armourer/gun handlers often teach the actors to fire their pistols sideways to minimise the brass from the blanks going everywhere during rehersals. Some idiot decided that looked cool, used it for the actual take and it has since migrated into actual pistol use.

As AMFV said, shooting with your pistol sideways is stupid for a variety of reasons, but for the singular purpose of collecting the brass from blanks quickly afterwards, it's not too outlandish.

[AMFV]

The pistols I've seen eject their spent cartidges up and to the right rather than straight up and I've seen enough slow motion scenes to know that some ejects theirs straight out to the side.
I'm fairly sure there's enough variation in ejection mechanisms to allow for any trajectory.


Actually I misread your comment and thought you were saying that it'd be easier to hit yourself if it was to the side, which is actually the one advantage of having pistols to the side.

I can definitely say that any trajectory is really possible in real life, having had several nasty brass burns in my time. Especially since they started having those flaks with those stupid collar things.



For a given amount of feasible, but your picture is just someone being an idiot.

On film sets, the armourer/gun handlers often teach the actors to fire their pistols sideways to minimise the brass from the blanks going everywhere during rehersals. Some idiot decided that looked cool, used it for the actual take and it has since migrated into actual pistol use.

As AMFV said, shooting with your pistol sideways is stupid for a variety of reasons, but for the singular purpose of collecting the brass from blanks quickly afterwards, it's not too outlandish.

Well brass collection after a firefight can be kind of a big deal. I mean its so time consuming and frustrating, so that'd make it easier, I mean if you're going around murdering folks for your gang, you might as well not add littering to the list.

[Brother Oni]

Kind of dumb, I mean you might get brass on your hands, but the brass dance is mostly reserved for when it gets back in your collar.

Or down the decolletage of a young woman shooting for the first time and has unwisely worn a low cut top. :smalltongue:



Well brass collection after a firefight can be kind of a big deal. I mean its so time consuming and frustrating, so that'd make it easier, I mean if you're going around murdering folks for your gang, you might as well not add littering to the list.

I can just see it in the form of a PSA from 50 Cent: Police your mother******* brass, ******.

[AMFV]

Or down the decolletage of a young woman shooting for the first time and has unwisely worn a low cut top. :smalltongue:

I've seen that happen too, although not with the low cut top, one of my fellow PSOs was very happy when that happened, since he got to clear the brass, he wouldn't stop talking about it for the entire rest of the range.

[No brains]

I've heard of a two-weapon fencing style called 'Florentine' before. I can't remember if it was two swords or a dagger and sword. In the spirit of the running thug joke, I'll imagine it as a fancy Renaissance mafioso losing it and jumping to ice a mook with his back and face-stabbers.

[Galloglaich]

I've heard of a two-weapon fencing style called 'Florentine' before. I can't remember if it was two swords or a dagger and sword. In the spirit of the running thug joke, I'll imagine it as a fancy Renaissance mafioso losing it and jumping to ice a mook with his back and face-stabbers.

yeah that is totally an SCA / LARP thing so in your imagination, picture a rubber sword or rataan

G

[Roxxy]

Does a lever action rifle chambered in a suitably powerful rifle cartridge have much worth as the primary rifle of an Army? Is there any way to design a loading system that can take a stripper clip?

[Alberic Strein]

Might be the wrong thread for this question, if it is, tell me and I'll make a new one.

It IS, technically, a real world weapons or armour question, namely "how to beat them"

Let's say you are caught with your pants down, you have no armour, no war class weapon, no shield, and a fully armed mercenary with chainmail, arming sword, shield, spear, polearm, flail or mace, kicks down your door, out for your blood, how do you take him down? You're Average Joe, with no prior martial training, and let's face it, you're pretty much a goner, but if there is a way to take down the guy in front of you, what is it?

...Maybe it could be easier to understand the question worded as such "How to beat someone using military weapons and armour, without using comparable weapons and armour?"

Is this still within the scope of the thread?

Ps: What types of armour were actually used in medieval/bronze age warfare? Were leather armour (by themselves) an actual, historical, thing?

[Mike_G]

Does a lever action rifle chambered in a suitably powerful rifle cartridge have much worth as the primary rifle of an Army? Is there any way to design a loading system that can take a stripper clip?

They could be loaded using a tube of rounds like a stripper clip.

As far as could it be a primary rifle, what era are we discussing? Today? No. You can't compete with semi automatic, and you can't really use a tube magazine with enough capacity to rival current assault rifles.

If we're talking about the nineteenth century, when lever action rifles first came about, they could compete with breechloaders just fine. They were used in the American Civil War, mostly by cavalry units, but a few infantry regiments bought them. They could fire much faster than the standard muzzle loaders, and were at least as accurate. The problem was supply. The rifles burned through ammo mush faster, and keeping units supplied was a concern.

[Brother Oni]

...Maybe it could be easier to understand the question worded as such "How to beat someone using military weapons and armour, without using comparable weapons and armour?"

For your specific example, it's so completely one sided, it's a pointless discussion. About the only thing you can do is run or offer him more money than he's being paid to kill you.

If it were me and not an untrained bloke, then running away would be the first option. If that's not possible, arming myself then going for any vulnerable parts (probably the face/eyes, since you haven't specifically mentioned a helmet). Getting him all tangled up in furniture is also an option (carrying all that stuff is bulky) in prelude for another action.
If you lived in a place with less restrictive gun laws, then going for the home defence weapon is another viable option.

For a more general answer to the question, look up asymmetric warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare).
If you want more specific details, then you'll have to flesh out the scenario more.



Ps: What types of armour were actually used in medieval/bronze age warfare? Were leather armour (by themselves) an actual, historical, thing?

The first question is a bit vague. Are you asking what armour was in use from the bronze age up to medieval times, or just those two specific eras? What regions are you interested in?

The actual form of leather armour is of some historical dispute, but cuir boulli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiled_leather) being used to make lamellar or scale seems to be the prevailing theory.
Nobody however is really arguing against the fact that various cultures have used animal hides for armour, which is basically what leather armour is:
Ancient China rhino hide armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceroses_in_ancient_China)
Sealskin and whale baleen armour (http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/aleut.htm)

[warty goblin]

Might be the wrong thread for this question, if it is, tell me and I'll make a new one.

It IS, technically, a real world weapons or armour question, namely "how to beat them"

Let's say you are caught with your pants down, you have no armour, no war class weapon, no shield, and a fully armed mercenary with chainmail, arming sword, shield, spear, polearm, flail or mace, kicks down your door, out for your blood, how do you take him down? You're Average Joe, with no prior martial training, and let's face it, you're pretty much a goner, but if there is a way to take down the guy in front of you, what is it?

If your pants aren't literally down, go out the window and run like hell. If the man at arms came on a horse, see about stealing it.


...Maybe it could be easier to understand the question worded as such "How to beat someone using military weapons and armour, without using comparable weapons and armour?"
You don't do it head-on, because that's what the person you're trying to take down is equipped for. Try setting his house on fire when he's asleep.


Ps: What types of armour were actually used in medieval/bronze age warfare? Were leather armour (by themselves) an actual, historical, thing?
Leather shields were a thing in the bronze age. There's not any good textual or physical evidence for leather armor in the bronze age of which I'm aware. Leather isn't all that cheap, particularly before industrial agriculture, and there isn't that much leather on a cow or bull that's thick enough to make good armor.

Generally metallic bronze age armor was either scale, lamellar or plate. Textile armor also appears to have been used, there's fairly compelling evidence for armor made of multiple layers of linen glued or quilted together being popular in Greece and its environs from the bronze ages into the iron.

[Roxxy]

They could be loaded using a tube of rounds like a stripper clip.

As far as could it be a primary rifle, what era are we discussing? Today? No. You can't compete with semi automatic, and you can't really use a tube magazine with enough capacity to rival current assault rifles.

If we're talking about the nineteenth century, when lever action rifles first came about, they could compete with breechloaders just fine. They were used in the American Civil War, mostly by cavalry units, but a few infantry regiments bought them. They could fire much faster than the standard muzzle loaders, and were at least as accurate. The problem was supply. The rifles burned through ammo mush faster, and keeping units supplied was a concern.I'm thinking along the lines of when lever action rifles were still a relatively new invention.

When you say a tube of rounds like a stripper clip, do you mean carrying multiple tubes of rounds, or carrying stripper clips with which to load the tube? The first sounds somewhat impractical to me. If the second is possible without making the rifle totally impractical, I'd like to go with that.

Is it true that a soldier lying prone has to turn a lever action on it's side in order to work the lever? If so, how much of a disadvantage is that compared to a breech loader like the Martini or Springfield Trapdoor?

[AMFV]

I'm thinking along the lines of when lever action rifles were still a relatively new invention.

When you say a tube of rounds like a stripper clip, do you mean carrying multiple tubes of rounds, or carrying stripper clips with which to load the tube? The first sounds somewhat impractical to me. If the second is possible without making the rifle totally impractical, I'd like to go with that.

Is it true that a soldier lying prone has to turn a lever action on it's side in order to work the lever? If so, how much of a disadvantage is that compared to a breech loader like the Martini or Springfield Trapdoor?

Nope, you can completely use a lever action rifle without turning it on it's side, the reason you might have to turn it on it's side is if it doesn't properly eject the brass and that's a problem you could have with any weapon. Also turning the weapon on it's side for half a second really isn't as big a disadvantage as you might imagine.

Also I've never seen anybody carry rounds on a stripper clip that was actually going into combat, it's faster still to load them loose or have them in a magazine, in a stripper clip they're likely to get stuck, although a speed loader could fix that.

I've not examined WW1 weapons that much, so most of my background is in modern weapons, which may or may not follow.

[No brains]

I once heard a claim that great fields of linen are needed to make just a small bit of the cloth and because of that, a linothorax would be similarly impractical without large-scale agriculture.

I didn't want to turn this into the "Got a Real World Farming or Production Question" thread, but if Civilization V taught me anything, it is that your first and best weapon is your materials for making weapons. :smalltongue:

[fusilier]

Does a lever action rifle chambered in a suitably powerful rifle cartridge have much worth as the primary rifle of an Army? Is there any way to design a loading system that can take a stripper clip?

The Spencer lever-action rifle had a tubular magazine in the butt, and pre loaded spare magazines could be used.

Tubular magazines have problems with modern ammo -- namely that the point of the spitzer round rests against the primer of the round stacked on top of it! The M1886 Lebel used a very tapered cartridge which encouraged the point of the bullet to be away from the center of the cartridge in front of it. A small ridge in the base of the brass cartridge made sure that the point didn't accidentally end up against the primer. (Note that the M1886 was originally designed with a round nose bullet that didn't have this problem, although it was the first rifle to be adapted to a spitzer round).

However, not all lever action guns used tubular magazine though. In fact the Russians used the Winchester Model 1895 in fairly large numbers. It used a military rifle cartridge and could take a bayonet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1895

[Alberic Strein]

Yeah, hopeless situation, huh?

Could adding creativity, ferocity, excellent motor skills and some minimal weaponry change the equation a bit? Is there, by being creative/skilled/trained enough, a way to completely block a better armed opponent's strengths and manage to not fight him head-on even though you're taking him one on one and face to face.

Ok, pulling a scenario totally out of my backside, but let's say you're a burglar, no armour, a dagger tucked in your belt, about to use a rope with a knot on one end to climb the outside wall of an estate. You make too much noise and a guard comes to see what is happening, he wants to keep whatever makes the noise as far from him as possible, so he is wielding his polearm. He also has a chainmail and a sidesword. He sees you, you're still out of reach from his polearm, but in no position to flee.

Let's say you kick/use the rope to throw dust/whatever is lying at your feet to make him raise his arms. Then you whip your rope downward, get a response as it entangles his weapon's shaft or his arms, if you judged the distance correctly, when you get that response you jump forward while pulling your arm back, odds are he will oppose your pull with his own strength, that's when you collide with him with all your weight, try to make him fall backwards, possibly using a highly anachronistic wrestling move, mount him, draw your dagger, and slice an artery of whatever he's got exposed.

I'm aware this asks of the burglar some at least trained martial skills, tremendous amount of luck, a very specific setup, complete incompetence from the guard, but...

Is that scenario even remotely feasible, or is it something you only see in hollywood, next to swords that always land pointy end down and get stuck on the ground?

I understand that the rational answer when facing a superior enemy, as far as equipment and training go, is to flee, preferably with his means of transport. But throwing reason aside, is there a way to close the gap between you and your opponent with sheer madness/ferocity/creativity/underhandedness and without resorting to guerilla warfare?

Brother Oni: Thanks fo the link, reading the article right now ^^

For a more specific scenario (besides the one I gave earlier this post):

You're in your early twenties, in a very small village in central Europe around the Dark Ages. Said village was invaded by an armed group, which had another group high on it's tail. The first group started fortifying the village, and half a day later the second came and attacked the barely fortified village. A fight broke out, in which you didn't take part. The first group lost to the second, and the village is being pillaged. You have been part of the militia but you don't have a weapon besides a somewhat short axe for some light wood chopping. Way more important, you have your young daughter with you. You are trying to escape the burning town, amidst corpses, some impaled on broken spears, others riddled with arrows, some still stubbornly holding their weapons... Suddenly, your daughter slips and injures her ankle, letting out a smile cry. Dusk is already on you and the night will soon be too, but you can clearly see a shadow react to the sound, separate itself from the scenery and reveal a soldier from the victorious faction. He must have been in the rear guard, he doesn't seem particularly tired or wounded. He wears pelts as armour, a round wooden shield and a sidesword, having probably cast away his spear once the fight reached the cramped streets. He has seen you and your daughter, and he is out for blood... And maybe something worse. He starts walking towards you. You can't run from him fast enough to flee from him while carrying your child, and fleeing alone is not an option. You, and your child's life hang in the balance, you're not going to pull any punches. Besides your light axe, you have an all-purpose knife, your era-appropriate clothes and you're pretty sure that before the soldier is upon you you can grab a still sheathed sidesword from the body next to you, his spear is broken and his shield is nowhere to be seen. The street is encumbered, but otherwise pretty wide, so you have some mobility. The next two streets are barricaded and some sounds echo through them. Taking refuge in them doesn't seem like a viable solution, and the next one is too far away, you won't reach it in time. Your retreat is blocked, you are outmatched by your opponent, and defeat is not an option.

What do you do?

Ps: About the armour question, it was indeed from the bronze age up to medieval times, before the cavalier years anyway. The location was more western/central Europe. What are the pros and cons of the scalemail compared to the chainmail?

And seriously, rhino hide armour? How awesome is that:smallbiggrin:

[fusilier]

Also I've never seen anybody carry rounds on a stripper clip that was actually going into combat, it's faster still to load them loose or have them in a magazine, in a stripper clip they're likely to get stuck, although a speed loader could fix that.

I've not examined WW1 weapons that much, so most of my background is in modern weapons, which may or may not follow.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure during the World Wars stripper clips, or en bloc clips, were standard and pretty much nobody used loose ammo (except on guns like revolvers). With the increase use of large capacity, and detachable, magazines, clips have become less common.

I've seen a fair amount of stripper clips get stuck -- honestly I think an en bloc clip is better, but with practice it seems that stripper clips can be used just as fast and reliably.

[warty goblin]

I once heard a claim that great fields of linen are needed to make just a small bit of the cloth and because of that, a linothorax would be similarly impractical without large-scale agriculture.

I didn't want to turn this into the "Got a Real World Farming or Production Question" thread, but if Civilization V taught me anything, it is that your first and best weapon is your materials for making weapons. :smalltongue:
It takes a lot of flax to make linen cloth. It also takes lots of pasture to make cows.

But let's do some quick guestimation. Linen was definitely produced in Greece, so the raw capacity is there. Now even if you went with something very thick like a twenty-ply linothorax, you're looking at roughly twenty garments worth of linen. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous for the gear of a warrior-aristocrat. And thirty layers is very thick, a person could easily get by with less, particularly if one was willing to use quilted material. Research suggests this is less effective than the laminate, but people make do with less than optimal materiel all the time for economic reasons.




Yeah, hopeless situation, huh?

Could adding creativity, ferocity, excellent motor skills and some minimal weaponry change the equation a bit? Is there, by being creative/skilled/trained enough, a way to completely block a better armed opponent's strengths and manage to not fight him head-on even though you're taking him one on one and face to face.

That depends, is the better armed person also mostly incompetent? The sorts of folks who end up with lots of expensive war-gear are, as a rule, probably going to be pretty vicious and good with their tools.


Ok, pulling a scenario totally out of my backside, but let's say you're a burglar, no armour, a dagger tucked in your belt, about to use a rope with a knot on one end to climb the outside wall of an estate. You make too much noise and a guard comes to see what is happening, he wants to keep whatever makes the noise as far from him as possible, so he is wielding his polearm. He also has a chainmail and a sidesword. He sees you, you're still out of reach from his polearm, but in no position to flee.

Let's say you kick/use the rope to throw dust/whatever is lying at your feet to make him raise his arms. Then you whip your rope downward, get a response as it entangles his weapon's shaft or his arms, if you judged the distance correctly, when you get that response you jump forward while pulling your arm back, odds are he will oppose your pull with his own strength, that's when you collide with him with all your weight, try to make him fall backwards, possibly using a highly anachronistic wrestling move, mount him, draw your dagger, and slice an artery of whatever he's got exposed.
If our burglar is the protagonist in a medieval heist movie? Sure. Otherwise the natural response for somebody armed and used to using a shield upon having somebody rush them is to smash their shield into their assailant. Which, odds are, ends with a broken face for the burglar.

If the guard's armor is complete enough to include chain gloves, he wouldn't even need a weapon. Punching somebody with a mail fist would do just fine.



You're in your early twenties, in a very small village in central Europe around the Dark Ages. Said village was invaded by an armed group, which had another group high on it's tail. The first group started fortifying the village, and half a day later the second came and attacked the barely fortified village. A fight broke out, in which you didn't take part. The first group lost to the second, and the village is being pillaged. You have been part of the militia but you don't have a weapon besides a somewhat short axe for some light wood chopping. Way more important, you have your young daughter with you. You are trying to escape the burning town, amidst corpses, some impaled on broken spears, others riddled with arrows, some still stubbornly holding their weapons... Suddenly, your daughter slips and injures her ankle, letting out a smile cry. Dusk is already on you and the night will soon be too, but you can clearly see a shadow react to the sound, separate itself from the scenery and reveal a soldier from the victorious faction. He must have been in the rear guard, he doesn't seem particularly tired or wounded. He wears pelts as armour, a round wooden shield and a sidesword, having probably cast away his spear once the fight reached the cramped streets. He has seen you and your daughter, and he is out for blood... And maybe something worse. He starts walking towards you. You can't run from him fast enough to flee from him while carrying your child, and fleeing alone is not an option. You, and your child's life hang in the balance, you're not going to pull any punches. Besides your light axe, you have an all-purpose knife, your era-appropriate clothes and you're pretty sure that before the soldier is upon you you can grab a still sheathed sidesword from the body next to you, his spear is broken and his shield is nowhere to be seen. The street is encumbered, but otherwise pretty wide, so you have some mobility. The next two streets are barricaded and some sounds echo through them. Taking refuge in them doesn't seem like a viable solution, and the next one is too far away, you won't reach it in time. Your retreat is blocked, you are outmatched by your opponent, and defeat is not an option.

What do you do?
This is a fight at a disadvantage, but hardly insurmountable. Grab the sword and try to use the axe to hook the enemy's shield. Additionally there's no need to fight to the death here, a decent leg wound would be enough to allow you and your daughter to escape.


Ps: About the armour question, it was indeed from the bronze age up to medieval times, before the cavalier years anyway. The location was more western/central Europe. What are the pros and cons of the scalemail compared to the chainmail?

And seriously, rhino hide armour? How awesome is that:smallbiggrin:
Scale armor is directional; you can get under it. Many forms also require a backing, which one suspects would potentially cause issues with scales falling off, or the backing tearing, etc. I'd figure it also restricts movement more and can't cover joints, but doesn't have the complete rigidity of solid plate.

Chainmail is self-supporting, doesn't tear, is easy to mend, isn't prone to catastrophic failures, is as close to one-size-fits-all as something made out of metal can be, and is flexible while providing a high degree of protection when backed by appropriate padding.

[AMFV]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure during the World Wars stripper clips, or en bloc clips, were standard and pretty much nobody used loose ammo (except on guns like revolvers). With the increase use of large capacity, and detachable, magazines, clips have become less common.

I've seen a fair amount of stripper clips get stuck -- honestly I think an en bloc clip is better, but with practice it seems that stripper clips can be used just as fast and reliably.

That is odd, I think you'd be better off with loose ammo in a bag, I always found that much faster to work with, although I was loading that into magazines, but it was in general quicker, unless you had a speed loader, and it didn't get suck or wasn't crimped. I imagine that people probably did remove them from the clips and loaded them loose sometimes, simply because there's less to go wrong with that way.

I mean ammo is still issued on stripper clips and most of the folks I knew loaded them by taking them off the stripper clips and then loading them into the magazines, I can't imagine stripper clips were that much better in WW2, so even if they were issued I'd question the frequency of their use.

Although again that's mostly my modern sensibilities.

[fusilier]

That is odd, I think you'd be better off with loose ammo in a bag, I always found that much faster to work with, although I was loading that into magazines, but it was in general quicker, unless you had a speed loader, and it didn't get suck or wasn't crimped. I imagine that people probably did remove them from the clips and loaded them loose sometimes, simply because there's less to go wrong with that way.

I mean ammo is still issued on stripper clips and most of the folks I knew loaded them by taking them off the stripper clips and then loading them into the magazines, I can't imagine stripper clips were that much better in WW2, so even if they were issued I'd question the frequency of their use.

Although again that's mostly my modern sensibilities.

Technically stripper clips are loaded into magazines, just that the magazine is usually fixed.

From a military perspective there seems to have been no question, they used clips whenever they could on bolt action rifles, semi-autos, and sometimes on pistols (the Mauser pistol for example). Except for the M1886 Lebel, which had a tubular magazine, all the WW1 and WW2 era rifles were loaded with clips.

Most rifles going into WW1 had a magazine cut-off, the idea being that the soldiers would load and fire one shot at a time in normal circumstance, then use the magazine when they needed a higher rate of fire. In practice this basically never happened, as all the ammo was issued on clips (with the exception of the French). Some guns had the magazine cut-off removed to save on production costs.

For hand loading (and topping-off) the best system would have been what was used on the Krag rifles: open the loading gate, drop in a handful of rounds and close the gate -- you don't even have to open the bolt. But the US abandoned such a system in favor of a mauser style action after experience during the Spanish-American War.

Note that the typical size of the magazine was 5-10 rounds, loaded by 1 or 2 clips. Guns with larger magazines seemed to go for a detachable magazine -- submachine guns, many automatic pistols, etc. A clip is faster loading than loose rounds, and lighter than a detachable magazine.

[AMFV]

Technically stripper clips are loaded into magazines, just that the magazine is usually fixed.

From a military perspective there seems to have been no question, they used clips whenever they could on bolt action rifles, semi-autos, and sometimes on pistols (the Mauser pistol for example). Except for the M1886 Lebel, which had a tubular magazine, all the WW1 and WW2 era rifles were loaded with clips.

Most rifles going into WW1 had a magazine cut-off, the idea being that the soldiers would load and fire one shot at a time in normal circumstance, then use the magazine when they needed a higher rate of fire. In practice this basically never happened, as all the ammo was issued on clips (with the exception of the French). Some guns had the magazine cut-off removed to save on production costs.

What I am saying is that I've had issues with stripper clips loading magazines, so I can't imagine that they've gotten worse since then. And what I've seen in practice is normally people who load with loose ammunition. Also there's more failure points with that sort of system, depending on how good or how fast you are.

I've been on a range with magazines and stripper clips and I'm telling you people take the ammunition out of the stripper clip and load it into the magazine loose, because it is much easier and faster. Unless you have a speed loader, and those don't always work very well. So I'm saying that while things have been issued one way, I'd question whether they were actually used that way in practiced, at least from my own personal experience in the military.



For hand loading (and topping-off) the best system would have been what was used on the Krag rifles: open the loading gate, drop in a handful of rounds and close the gate -- you don't even have to open the bolt. But the US abandoned such a system in favor of a mauser style action after experience during the Spanish-American War.

Note that the typical size of the magazine was 5-10 rounds, loaded by 1 or 2 clips. Guns with larger magazines seemed to go for a detachable magazine -- submachine guns, many automatic pistols, etc. A clip is faster loading than loose rounds, and lighter than a detachable magazine.

I don't know if a clip is faster loading than loose rounds, it would really depend on your weapon, I would imagine that it is less efficient though in actual practice, it's also a big thing sticking out of your weapon waiting to catch on something, which is impracticable in practice. I probably wouldn't use it that way, unless the stripper clips back then were vastly superior to the ones we have now.

[fusilier]

What I am saying is that I've had issues with stripper clips loading magazines, so I can't imagine that they've gotten worse since then. And what I've seen in practice is normally people who load with loose ammunition. Also there's more failure points with that sort of system, depending on how good or how fast you are.

Many of the stripper clips now on the market are probably worse -- a lot are surplus from odd ball countries, and foul up often, sometimes even getting stuck in the gun if the operator missed the guides. The guides are often beat up and sometimes they are just removed. Some practice is necessary. Rifle stripper clips were typically five rounds. I've seen pistol stripper clips as large as ten rounds. I don't know how they compare with the new clips for reloading assault rifle magazines -- they seem to often have 10 rounds a clip, which seems kind of awkward to me.


I've been on a range with magazines and stripper clips and I'm telling you people take the ammunition out of the stripper clip and load it into the magazine loose, because it is much easier and faster. Unless you have a speed loader, and those don't always work very well. So I'm saying that while things have been issued one way, I'd question whether they were actually used that way in practiced, at least from my own personal experience in the military.

I don't doubt that hobby shooters on the range break down their clips and insert the rounds one at a time into the magazine. I know that stripper clips can be fiddly, and need some practice. I reenact WW1 and some WW2, we use our clips all the time, even though blanks often don't load well with them (depends upon the gun and the blank). The only time I've seen people hand load, is when they didn't have enough clips, and it is terribly rare (or they're using a Lebel). *I* personally believe that the en bloc clip is better than a stripper clip, but the stripper clip has many adherents, and with practice and good clips seems to be a perfectly good loading system. The British reenactors are all fond of their mad minute. ;-) The record for most number of shots with a bolt action rifle is something like 38 in one minute (at 300 yards?), using stripper clips and an SMLE.



I don't know if a clip is faster loading than loose rounds, it would really depend on your weapon, I would imagine that it is less efficient though in actual practice, it's also a big thing sticking out of your weapon waiting to catch on something, which is impracticable in practice. I probably wouldn't use it that way, unless the stripper clips back then were vastly superior to the ones we have now.

Ok, what a minute. What's the "big thing sticking out of your weapon"? An en bloc clip is inserted into the magazine. A stripper clip is placed over the magazine, the bullets are pushed into the mag, then the empty clip is removed, and the bolt closed. Sometimes the empty clip isn't removed and closing the bolt knocks it away. The clip is not left "sticking out" of the gun, once the gun is loaded the clip is gone. I'm not certain we are talking about the same thing . . .

I thought it would be easier to find a video on youtube, but there isn't much. This guy demonstrates two ways of loading with stripper clips (although he calls the first one "the wrong way", I don't think it matters much).

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

[AMFV]

Many of the stripper clips now on the market are probably worse -- a lot are surplus from odd ball countries, and foul up often, sometimes even getting stuck in the gun if the operator missed the guides. The guides are often beat up and sometimes they are just removed. Some practice is necessary. Rifle stripper clips were typically five rounds. I've seen pistol stripper clips as large as ten rounds. I don't know how they compare with the new clips for reloading assault rifle magazines -- they seem to often have 10 rounds a clip, which seems kind of awkward to me.


The ones I was referring to were military issue ones. Although from what I can see in your video I might be very mistaken about this in terms of modern weapons vs. old weapons. 30 Round magazines are not easy to load with a stripper clip, they get stuck, it's a huge mess.



I don't doubt that hobby shooters on the range break down their clips and insert the rounds one at a time into the magazine. I know that stripper clips can be fiddly, and need some practice. I reenact WW1 and some WW2, we use our clips all the time, even though blanks often don't load well with them (depends upon the gun and the blank). The only time I've seen people hand load, is when they didn't have enough clips, and it is terribly rare (or they're using a Lebel). *I* personally believe that the en bloc clip is better than a stripper clip, but the stripper clip has many adherents, and with practice and good clips seems to be a perfectly good loading system. The British reenactors are all fond of their mad minute. ;-) The record for most number of shots with a bolt action rifle is something like 38 in one minute (at 300 yards?), using stripper clips and an SMLE.

Why would you want to shoot 38 times in a minute, how would you aim? Also my experience isn't with hobby shooters. It's with Marines, who tend to be very very good at that sort of thing. Of course if you have a speed loader, it works well, till you have the clip jam or get stuck, or the magazine has a problem, it's usually just faster and better to load individually.

I've not got any real experience with the bolt action weapons as presented. The weapons with internal magazines you might be better off loading with a stripper clip, however carrying them around is a problem because if they get dinged or damaged they're going to malfunction, so you have to weight clearing the malfunction against the speed loading thing, I'm not sure in practice how that would work.



Ok, what a minute. What's the "big thing sticking out of your weapon"? An en bloc clip is inserted into the magazine. A stripper clip is placed over the magazine, the bullets are pushed into the mag, then the empty clip is removed, and the bolt closed. Sometimes the empty clip isn't removed and closing the bolt knocks it away. The clip is not left "sticking out" of the gun, once the gun is loaded the clip is gone. I'm not certain we are talking about the same thing . . .

I thought it would be easier to find a video on youtube, but there isn't much. This guy demonstrates two ways of loading with stripper clips (although he calls the first one "the wrong way", I don't think it matters much).

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

I stand corrected at least as far as that goes, there is however a tendency among people to assume that things work as issued or as described in whatever FMF publication was around at the time, and that's not exactly always the case. As I said, my experience is people on military ranges with current weapons, and they detest stripper clips.

[Brother Oni]

Why would you want to shoot 38 times in a minute, how would you aim? Also my experience isn't with hobby shooters. It's with Marines, who tend to be very very good at that sort of thing. Of course if you have a speed loader, it works well, till you have the clip jam or get stuck, or the magazine has a problem, it's usually just faster and better to load individually.

You'd aim the same way as you'd usually do - very carefully. :smalltongue:

What fusilier is referring to is the 'mad minute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute)' when in times before automatic weapons were issued to the common soldier, they needed to lay down a vast amount of fire very quickly.

As he said, the record is 38 hits on a 12" round target at 300 yards with a SMLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield) in 1 minute - is that good enough for a Marine? :smalltongue:

If you're wondering how, the SMLE's design allows it to reload very quickly even though it's a bolt action rifle. Note also that it only has a 10 round internal magazine, so those 38 hits also include 3 full reloads with 5 round stripper clips, suggesting that with a good, well maintained weapon and an experienced user, stripper clips are perfectly fine for use.

[AMFV]

You'd aim the same way as you'd usually do - very carefully. :smalltongue:

True, although I still question how effective that sort of aiming would be. I think in the rapid fire portion of the range, I averaged around 1 shot every two seconds, or thereabouts, and I wasn't the best shot, but that was what I averaged.



What fusilier is referring to is the 'mad minute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute)' when in times before automatic weapons were issued to the common soldier, they needed to lay down a vast amount of fire very quickly.

Again, I'm not sure why that number sounded as high to me as it did. Although I question the actual effectiveness of the mad minute, that sounds more like a suppression tactic than an actual killing tactic. Although I could be mistaken, I can't even remember my own time on the rifle range very well apparently.



As he said, the record is 38 hits on a 12" round target at 300 yards with a SMLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield) in 1 minute - is that good enough for a Marine? :smalltongue:

Probably, that sounds pretty good for 300 yards.



If you're wondering how, the SMLE's design allows it to reload very quickly even though it's a bolt action rifle. Note also that it only has a 10 round internal magazine, so those 38 hits also include 3 full reloads with 5 round stripper clips, suggesting that with a good, well maintained weapon and an experienced user, stripper clips are perfectly fine for use.

I've already conceded the point regarding older weapons, to be honest I've only ever used bolt action rifles, on two occasions and both of those were with friend's weapons at a civilian range, so I doubt my experience is great in that area, as I've said.

Edit: Also in retrospect the 38 shots is certainly not a lot for a combat type shooting scenario.

[fusilier]

You'd aim the same way as you'd usually do - very carefully. :smalltongue:

What fusilier is referring to is the 'mad minute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute)' when in times before automatic weapons were issued to the common soldier, they needed to lay down a vast amount of fire very quickly.

As he said, the record is 38 hits on a 12" round target at 300 yards with a SMLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield) in 1 minute - is that good enough for a Marine? :smalltongue:

If you're wondering how, the SMLE's design allows it to reload very quickly even though it's a bolt action rifle. Note also that it only has a 10 round internal magazine, so those 38 hits also include 3 full reloads with 5 round stripper clips, suggesting that with a good, well maintained weapon and an experienced user, stripper clips are perfectly fine for use.

AMFV was referring to modern assault rifles using stripper clips -- I also haven't heard much good about those. *I* was referring to older bolt-action military rifles -- as that was a time when stripper clips were standard issue. Hence the confusion.

I am not aware of any preference among infantrymen during the World Wars for loose ammo over clips. A clip of ammo is certainly lighter than a spare magazine with ammo, and the weight of the clip is practically negligible. The clips are hard to damage in their pouches and when they are loaded with ammo, which tends to firm them up. Also most rifle clips were around five-rounds, the modern ten-round clips look a bit long, and probably cause the clip itself to twist when trying to load? (I'm just speculating) Many of us reenactors reload old clips, and they do get beat up with use, but the militaries typically didn't reuse clips -- they were intended as a one use item.

The stripper clip has a pretty long history with a good pedigree. There were plenty of things that changed between the World Wars, but clip loading wasn't one of them. The Spanish-American War convinced the US to go to clip loading, even though the Krag rifle probably had the best system for loading loose rounds.

I think the magazine sizes played a part -- submachine guns with 20 to 30 round magazines typically used detachable magazines, rather than clips. So past ten rounds, clip loading probably became impractical.

[fusilier]

Again, I'm not sure why that number sounded as high to me as it did. Although I question the actual effectiveness of the mad minute, that sounds more like a suppression tactic than an actual killing tactic. Although I could be mistaken, I can't even remember my own time on the rifle range very well apparently.

The SMLE is a surprisingly fast firing bolt-action rifle. However, we shouldn't assume the record was standard . . . My recollection is that the pre-war British Army expected about 15 aimed shots a minute. That was accomplished with the small pre-war army, those standards didn't last very long during WW1.

It should also be remembered that these guns (designed in the late 19th century) had volley sights, typically out to 2000 meters or more. They were still thinking of mass formations, firing on mass formations. So they didn't have quite the same ideas that we had about marksmanship -- it was important, but so was long range mass fire. An officer would determine the range, instruct the troops and tell them to fire. He managed the firing making it sure it didn't get "too hot". Also, as Brother Oni pointed out, they didn't have the number of machine guns that later armies had, so suppressing fire with bolt-action rifles was part of the tactics.

[AMFV]

AMFV was referring to modern assault rifles using stripper clips -- I also haven't heard much good about those. *I* was referring to older bolt-action military rifles -- as that was a time when stripper clips were standard issue. Hence the confusion.

I am not aware of any preference among infantrymen during the World Wars for loose ammo over clips. A clip of ammo is certainly lighter than a spare magazine with ammo, and the weight of the clip is practically negligible. The clips are hard to damage in their pouches and when they are loaded with ammo, which tends to firm them up. Also most rifle clips were around five-rounds, the modern ten-round clips look a bit long, and probably cause the clip itself to twist when trying to load? (I'm just speculating) Many of us reenactors reload old clips, and they do get beat up with use, but the militaries typically didn't reuse clips -- they were intended as a one use item.

The stripper clip has a pretty long history with a good pedigree. There were plenty of things that changed between the World Wars, but clip loading wasn't one of them. The Spanish-American War convinced the US to go to clip loading, even though the Krag rifle probably had the best system for loading loose rounds.

I think the magazine sizes played a part -- submachine guns with 20 to 30 round magazines typically used detachable magazines, rather than clips. So past ten rounds, clip loading probably became impractical.

Mostly the problem is that modern magazines tend to load not straight down but in a staggered pattern, so if you try to load them with a stripper clip, eventually one of the rounds'll get stuck or will present a problem. I suspect that the rifles may not have the same problems as I am recalling.


The SMLE is a surprisingly fast firing bolt-action rifle. However, we shouldn't assume the record was standard . . . My recollection is that the pre-war British Army expected about 15 aimed shots a minute. That was accomplished with the small pre-war army, those standards didn't last very long during WW1.

It should also be remembered that these guns (designed in the late 19th century) had volley sights, typically out to 2000 meters or more. They were still thinking of mass formations, firing on mass formations. So they didn't have quite the same ideas that we had about marksmanship -- it was important, but so was long range mass fire. An officer would determine the range, instruct the troops and tell them to fire. He managed the firing making it sure it didn't get "too hot". Also, as Brother Oni pointed out, they didn't have the number of machine guns that later armies had, so suppressing fire with bolt-action rifles was part of the tactics.

Actually the Marines were some of the first people pioneering the long range shooting thing. I remember that even I've forgotten every standard range I've been on. It was shocking to the Germans when they started opening fire at 800 or so yards away. The story is probably exaggerated to be fair, but I like it.

[fusilier]

Mostly the problem is that modern magazines tend to load not straight down but in a staggered pattern, so if you try to load them with a stripper clip, eventually one of the rounds'll get stuck or will present a problem. I suspect that the rifles may not have the same problems as I am recalling.

Actually most bolt action rifles (not the earliest ones) used a staggered setup in the magazine. But the magazines didn't curve (at least not much), and there weren't as many rounds to get in.



Actually the Marines were some of the first people pioneering the long range shooting thing. I remember that even I've forgotten every standard range I've been on. It was shocking to the Germans when they started opening fire at 800 or so yards away. The story is probably exaggerated to be fair, but I like it.

I've heard that story before, and it is good one. :-) It also elaborates a fundamental issue about the American involvement in WW1. One of an army that's just joined the war compared to one that had been slogging through it for almost 4 years. Long range marksmanship really wasn't that important during WW1, and when you've got three to four weeks of basic training and you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to new recruits, it's not something that's going to be emphasized. The Americans on the other hand had something like six-months of basic training (one of the nice things about having an ocean between you and the fighting)! Even then our Allies often felt that American soldiers lacked the proper skills for trench warfare -- which basically required on the job training.

Also, the Allies and Central Powers had built up expected "niceties", like not firing on troops in rear areas, to try and make life in the trenches a bit more bearable. The US soldiers being newcomers often violated those tacit agreements.

[Roxxy]

I am not aware of any preference among infantrymen during the World Wars for loose ammo over clips.The question regarding clips was one of the practicalities of loading a lever action from them, so from the angle of whether a clip itself is good or not, that settles it. Now the question moves over to whether it is possible to build a lever action rifle that has a fixed box magazine instead of a tubular magazine so that it can take stripper clips, and whether this would make a good rifle for the military.

[AMFV]

Actually most bolt action rifles (not the earliest ones) used a staggered setup in the magazine. But the magazines didn't curve (at least not much), and there weren't as many rounds to get in.

Maybe the ones we had were just really ****ty, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

[QUOTE=fusilier;16717611]
I've heard that story before, and it is good one. :-) It also elaborates a fundamental issue about the American involvement in WW1. One of an army that's just joined the war compared to one that had been slogging through it for almost 4 years. Long range marksmanship really wasn't that important during WW1, and when you've got three to four weeks of basic training and you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to new recruits, it's not something that's going to be emphasized. The Americans on the other hand had something like six-months of basic training (one of the nice things about having an ocean between you and the fighting)! Even then our Allies often felt that American soldiers lacked the proper skills for trench warfare -- which basically required on the job training.

Also, the Allies and Central Powers had built up expected "niceties", like not firing on troops in rear areas, to try and make life in the trenches a bit more bearable. The US soldiers being newcomers often violated those tacit agreements.

True, there's always more to every story, I do know that American forces performed very well though in comparison, probably because they hadn't been worn down by years of trench warfare. While it does give you experience it also removes a lot of good soldiers, since good ones die too and then you have morale issues as well.

[fusilier]

The question regarding clips was one of the practicalities of loading a lever action from them, so from the angle of whether a clip itself is good or not, that settles it. Now the question moves over to whether it is possible to build a lever action rifle that has a fixed box magazine instead of a tubular magazine so that it can take stripper clips, and whether this would make a good rifle for the military.

Yes, the conversation went off in a different direction. :-) I did mention this in my earlier post -- the Model 1895 Winchester is what you are looking for. A lever action gun with a box magazine that used standard military rifle rounds, and took a bayonet. The Russian version could be loaded with the same charger clip used on the 1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1895_Winchester

[fusilier]

True, there's always more to every story, I do know that American forces performed very well though in comparison, probably because they hadn't been worn down by years of trench warfare. While it does give you experience it also removes a lot of good soldiers, since good ones die too and then you have morale issues as well.

American performance in WW1 is debated. Some say that they performed very well. Others say that they made a lot of rookie mistakes, and performed like the European armies had done in 1914-15. The difference was the United States could afford to make those mistakes, and the other belligerents couldn't get away with that anymore.

[AgentPaper]

American performance in WW1 is debated. Some say that they performed very well. Others say that they made a lot of rookie mistakes, and performed like the European armies had done in 1914-15. The difference was the United States could afford to make those mistakes, and the other belligerents couldn't get away with that anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for two things to be true at the same time. :smalltongue:

[warty goblin]

Finally had time over Christmas break to finish up the Peter Johnsson inspired wooden sword I started back in the summer. Overall I think it's probably the best piece I've yet done in terms of aesthetics, handling and actually looking like a sword. Because I screwed up a couple times (learn2tablesaw!), there's some deviations from the original geometric plan, but I think it still looks quite good.

Pretty pictures!

Overall sword: total length is 39.25 inches. Center of mass is ~ 6.5 inches from the guard. Next time I'll do a better job with the distal taper.
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p770/Godivos/10258a58-6162-4d45-b564-284ea713259b_zps9b40bf62.jpg?t=1388938786

Detail of pommel, grip, guard and base of blade.
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p770/Godivos/c90b1355-1940-41f3-922a-3d93f768fc62_zps733a03d0.jpg?t=1388938998

Sword in (gauntleted) hand. Note the bolt sunk into the pommel, I added this in an effort to pull the center of mass towards the guard somewhat. As a bonus it looks like a peen block.
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p770/Godivos/70e6699d-4241-41a0-aa2e-d887665f8602_zps9296c289.jpg?t=1388939175

[Thiel]

Stripper clip reloading was the standard in pretty much every military on the planet for more than fifty years in a time that included more warfare than anyone can truly appreciate so it pretty much has to have worked. Nobody is going to hang on to such a system if it didn't, especially when you've got a major arms industry bursting with ideas at your back.

[AMFV]

Stripper clip reloading was the standard in pretty much every military on the planet for more than fifty years in a time that included more warfare than anyone can truly appreciate so it pretty much has to have worked. Nobody is going to hang on to such a system if it didn't, especially when you've got a major arms industry bursting with ideas at your back.

I've seen lots of things that don't work in practice getting made by folks and given to the troops, many many many things. While this doesn't appear to be one, there are many things that certainly are. Or that require significant modification to be useful.

[Thiel]

I've seen lots of things that don't work in practice getting made by folks and given to the troops, many many many things. While this doesn't appear to be one, there are many things that certainly are. Or that require significant modification to be useful.

And how many of those things remained is service unchanged for up to 60 years or more and was adopted by somewhere around two thirds of all armies of the world?

[AMFV]

And how many of those things remained is service unchanged for up to 60 years or more?

Lots of them actually. Also many things remain in service for years after they've lost value. Boot Polishing when you're not in Trench warfare was a thing until immediately before I joined, that's time consuming and has to be taught (that's 80 or so years). M16s had a host of problems when they were originally introduced, and still have some major issues to date, and they're still in service. Those ridiculous AT-4s are in service (not 60 years though, but still 40), and I've seen them shot on a range multiple times, do you know how many targets I've seen hit by them? None, and these were range training folk, and Infantry folk, the people who have trained with those weapons.

Sometimes being cheap or being a politician's friend is all you need as a weapons guy, having the best weapons isn't always necessary.

Edit: Minor Math fail, the AT-4 has only been around since 1986, which would make them 27, well I guess that's a big math fail, for some reason I was thinking 66 rather than 86.

[Thiel]

Lots of them actually. Also many things remain in service for years after they've lost value. Boot Polishing when you're not in Trench warfare was a thing until immediately before I joined, that's time consuming and has to be taught (that's 80 or so years).
But now we're into the territory of tradition, just like close order drill and honour guards.


M16s had a host of problems when they were originally introduced, and still have some major issues to date, and they're still in service.
Considering that the US military is on the A4 version it hardly remains unchanged.


Those ridiculous AT-4s are in service (not 60 years though, but still 40), and I've seen them shot on a range multiple times, do you know how many targets I've seen hit by them? None, and these were range training folk, and Infantry folk, the people who have trained with those weapons. As it happens I've seen the AT4 fired on multiple occasions and it hit most of the targets. Heck, I've shot it my self and managed to hit a target at 200m. It's also quite popular among the troops in Afghanistan.



Sometimes being cheap or being a politician's friend is all you need as a weapons guy, having the best weapons isn't always necessary.
Certainly, but it seems to me that it would be even cheaper to not make them at all.

[Rhynn]

Certainly, but it seems to me that it would be even cheaper to not make them at all.

Huhwhat?

Weapons manufacturers don't operate at a loss - quite the contrary. AMFV's point was that making a crappy but cheap (cheaper than the competitors') piece of gear is a decent way to sell it to militaries, which gets it into use; and that having political ties is an even better way to get whatever you make, good or bad, in use. (This being pretty much the standard by now; the politicians making the decisions favor the companies who bribe them best, either directly or with promises of e.g. a "sinecure" job after retiring from politics, or the ones they have an interest in by way of shares.)

[AMFV]

But now we're into the territory of tradition, just like close order drill and honour guards.


Considering that the US military is on the A4 version it hardly remains unchanged.

As it happens I've seen the AT4 fired on multiple occasions and it hit most of the targets. Heck, I've shot it my self and managed to hit a target at 200m. It's also quite popular among the troops in Afghanistan.


Certainly, but it seems to me that it would be even cheaper to not make them at all.

It's still vastly ineffective as compared to the RPG, also disposable. It's just an inferior weapon in pretty much every respect. You can't adjust the sights, or even Kentucky windage it. I mean it's not the worst thing that's around, but it is pretty markedly inferior, especially if you compare it to the RPG, which I've seen some damn impressive feats of accuracy with.

In any case there are often things in use that are not exactly effective, often for long periods of time, tradition plays a role in this certainly, weapons manufacturers who have friends in high places, but to argue that all bad designs are filtered out as a matter of course is clearly mistaken.


Huhwhat?

Weapons manufacturers don't operate at a loss - quite the contrary. AMFV's point was that making a crappy but cheap (cheaper than the competitors') piece of gear is a decent way to sell it to militaries, which gets it into use; and that having political ties is an even better way to get whatever you make, good or bad, in use. (This being pretty much the standard by now; the politicians making the decisions favor the companies who bribe them best, either directly or with promises of e.g. a "sinecure" job after retiring from politics, or the ones they have an interest in by way of shares.)

Yep, exactly. Often things are used because they are cheap, not because they are good. And few things are both.

Edit: Also would you have hit that target if the sighting was off to the left by a few meters? And then what if the sighting on the next weapon was off to the right? Any weapon you cannot adjust the sights on, or cannot Kentucky windage if you miss a shot, is not a weapon I'd ever trust.

[Rhynn]

Yep, exactly. Often things are used because they are cheap, not because they are good. And few things are both.

Granted, sometimes quantity has a quality of its own. When you're using a limited budget for acquisitions, you need to try to balance cost with quality... and often with incomplete information about the quality. (Granted, you'd hope that in the military, the standards would be stricter, since lives are at stake.)

[AMFV]

Granted, sometimes quantity has a quality of its own. When you're using a limited budget for acquisitions, you need to try to balance cost with quality... and often with incomplete information about the quality. (Granted, you'd hope that in the military, the standards would be stricter, since lives are at stake.)

True, and a disposable weapon is generally worse on that level also, since you have to get rid of it and buy a new one any time you use it.

[GraaEminense]

Pretty pictures!

Before this disappears to far: that's a fine looking piece of wood. Looks pretty much right. How's the weight?

[Spiryt]

Overall sword: total length is 39.25 inches. Center of mass is ~ 6.5 inches from the guard. Next time I'll do a better job with the distal taper.
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p770/Godivos/10258a58-6162-4d45-b564-284ea713259b_zps9b40bf62.jpg?t=1388938786
the guard somewhat. As a bonus it looks like a peen block.
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p770/Godivos/70e6699d-4241-41a0-aa2e-d887665f8602_zps9296c289.jpg?t=1388939175

Honestly hard to tell since wood all in all looks different, but it looks like it's representing something in type XI vein, in which case 6.5 inches PoB is perfectly alright...

At least with overall distribution of mass being OK too.

[warty goblin]

Before this disappears to far: that's a fine looking piece of wood. Looks pretty much right. How's the weight?
Thanks! I'm really pleased with how this one turned out, and although there are some mistakes (fullers continue to torment me), I learned a lot making it.

I'm not sure what the overall weight is, since I don't have a scale. I'd figure a pound or so though. I can't really figure a way to get the weight up to something realistic. If I make the blade thick enough, the hilt is either way too light, or all the components end up so massive it feels horrible in the hand.


Honestly hard to tell since wood all in all looks different, but it looks like it's representing something in type XI vein, in which case 6.5 inches PoB is perfectly alright...

At least with overall distribution of mass being OK too.
Good to know. It certainly feels pretty nice in a swing, very aggressive, but rather handy in a thrust as well.

[fusilier]

Lots of them actually. Also many things remain in service for years after they've lost value. . . .

The value of some of those things aren't combat related, but to return to the issue of clips -- I agree with your logic, but it's in the context of small and/or peace-time armies. During the World Wars, wars of attrition, where resources became scarce, and simplifications to speed protection or to use fewer resources were commonly implemented -- would they continue to provide ammo on clips if the troops in the field weren't using them?

Clip loading didn't just survive under the conditions of peace-time armies, it lasted through two world-wars. And that should say something about it. The fact that it is no longer useful (or as useful), probably has more to do with fundamental changes in weapon design (i.e. higher capacity magazines), than clips having been bad from the beginning. Just because they are obsolete, doesn't meant they never held value to begin with.

(A similar argument could be made about boot polishing, as it preserves and protects the leather).