View Full Version : Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XIII
It's also worth noting some things have value beyond the results of the act itself. Take the boot polishing example - it, and many other appearance related requirements, help promote a sense of pride in the unit. Sure, dress uniforms are a PITA...but they do look good!
It's also worth noting some things have value beyond the results of the act itself. Take the boot polishing example - it, and many other appearance related requirements, help promote a sense of pride in the unit. Sure, dress uniforms are a PITA...but they do look good!
I don't think that's often the case. I've never met another enlisted person that was happy to have to wear Chucks on a Friday, not once. Shirt stays are uncomfortable and the like. Now you could argue that the attention to detail is an intrinsically useful value, and is. But I don't think uniforms are the best thing for Espirit de Corps.
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).
Well I was in the military, during war time, and people still didn't use them. I do agree that they were likely once practicable though, but I don't agree that nothing that is not useful has ever stood the test of time. Because that happens, "because we've always done it that way," is extremely common logic in the military, and for many things the usefulness of a tactic is no longer there, but people will still do it.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-07, 03:30 AM
Playing dress-up is a common complaint I hear from Marines, certainly. It's good and well for parades but in the field good soldiers scarcely care.
Playing dress-up is a common complaint I hear from Marines, certainly. It's good and well for parades but in the field good soldiers scarcely care.
Indeed, it could certainly be different in a peacetime force, where I know that things like that weren't quite looked at in the same. All of my experience however is from a force at wartime and things like that were thought of as "wastes of time", and in general you can't really work well in your uncomfortable dress uniform so it's counter productive as well.
It can obviously work to insure that there is some attention to detail, and I believe that's the goal, and its a useful skill, but it doesn't generally improve morale, or espirit de corps in my experience, although again, that's with a wartime military, not a peacetime one so that may be completely different and I can't speak to it.
fusilier
2014-01-07, 03:53 AM
Well I was in the military, during war time, and people still didn't use them. I do agree that they were likely once practicable though, but I don't agree that nothing that is not useful has ever stood the test of time. Because that happens, "because we've always done it that way," is extremely common logic in the military, and for many things the usefulness of a tactic is no longer there, but people will still do it.
Yeah, traditions die hard, especially in organizations like militaries. I was referring specifically to the historical use of clip loading. That change had more to do with a change in weaponry than a stubborn reluctance to give up the traditional way of doing things.
Telok
2014-01-07, 04:08 AM
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.
It's a pretty thing and I have an answer for the weight issue. But you won't like it.
Lead.
You'll want to drill a hole down the center of the blade and the hilt and fill it with a small lead rod or lead powder. You may wish to bond a metal tube to the interior of the hole in order to prevent weakening the blade and then fill the tube with the lead rod or powder. Obviously the length and diameter of the hole are going to be determined by how much weight you want to add and where that weight needs to fall in the balance. You may end up with a wider hole in the hilt than in the blade, and that will make joining everything a bit of a bugger.
Of course you need a vary long auger and very good precision on the drilling to keep the hole correctly aligned.
fusilier
2014-01-07, 04:15 AM
Indeed, it could certainly be different in a peacetime force, where I know that things like that weren't quite looked at in the same. All of my experience however is from a force at wartime and things like that were thought of as "wastes of time", and in general you can't really work well in your uncomfortable dress uniform so it's counter productive as well.
It can obviously work to insure that there is some attention to detail, and I believe that's the goal, and its a useful skill, but it doesn't generally improve morale, or espirit de corps in my experience, although again, that's with a wartime military, not a peacetime one so that may be completely different and I can't speak to it.
I've heard that using lots of brass on uniforms (historically), that the soldiers were required to keep shiny, was partly done to simply give them something to do. How's the old phrase go "idle hands are the devil's playthings"? ;-)
I don't think many enlisted men, throughout all of history, have ever cared much for busy work. The NCO's and officers would sometimes provide little rewards to those who were exemplars to encourage it though.
For example during the American Civil War, soldiers selected for guard duty would be carefully inspected, and if they had shined all the brass on their uniform and equipment, including the back of the belt keeper (something that would not be seen), they might be relieved of the duty.
My favorite story though is a post Civil War one, that took place at a Western Fort. I don't remember all the details, but I think there was a duty given to a corporal, that was basically to be a clerk for the officer of the day. It was an easy job, no drill, no fatigue duty, got to be inside, and often near the ladies of the post. So there was a lot of competition to get this duty. Every morning the perspective candidates were lined up with all their equipment and carefully inspected. The one in the best condition, uniform cleaned, no rust on the rifle, all the brass shined, etc., would be selected.
The competition was getting pretty tight and the officers were having more and more trouble selecting a candidate. One day, one of the troopers showed up to the inspection wearing a leather neck-stock. The officers were dumbfounded. Not only were neck-stocks no longer regulation, but they had become almost non-existent in the final decade of them being regulation. The officers could not figure out how the trooper had gotten one. Nonetheless they were impressed, and they gave him the duty. The next morning *all* the troopers turned out wearing neck-stocks! :-)
I've heard that using lots of brass on uniforms (historically), that the soldiers were required to keep shiny, was partly done to simply give them something to do. How's the old phrase go "idle hands are the devil's playthings"? ;-)
I don't think many enlisted men, throughout all of history, have ever cared much for busy work. The NCO's and officers would sometimes provide little rewards to those who were exemplars to encourage it though.
For example during the American Civil War, soldiers selected for guard duty would be carefully inspected, and if they had shined all the brass on their uniform and equipment, including the back of the belt keeper (something that would not be seen), they might be relieved of the duty.
My favorite story though is a post Civil War one, that took place at a Western Fort. I don't remember all the details, but I think there was a duty given to a corporal, that was basically to be a clerk for the officer of the day. It was an easy job, no drill, no fatigue duty, got to be inside, and often near the ladies of the post. So there was a lot of competition to get this duty. Every morning the perspective candidates were lined up with all their equipment and carefully inspected. The one in the best condition, uniform cleaned, no rust on the rifle, all the brass shined, etc., would be selected.
The competition was getting pretty tight and the officers were having more and more trouble selecting a candidate. One day, one of the troopers showed up to the inspection wearing a leather neck-stock. The officers were dumbfounded. Not only were neck-stocks no longer regulation, but they had become almost non-existent in the final decade of them being regulation. The officers could not figure out how the trooper had gotten one. Nonetheless they were impressed, and they gave him the duty. The next morning *all* the troopers turned out wearing neck-stocks! :-)
Which is proof that making friends with the supply guys is always critical to mission accomplishment. See for the officer's aide, I don't necessarily disagree with using inspections as part of the selection, because that's more of an attention to detail and motivation thing, which can be examined somewhat with the condition of uniforms, but it's not a good way to improve morale.
Awesome story by the way!
I've heard that using lots of brass on uniforms (historically), that the soldiers were required to keep shiny, was partly done to simply give them something to do. How's the old phrase go "idle hands are the devil's playthings"? ;-)
I don't think many enlisted men, throughout all of history, have ever cared much for busy work. The NCO's and officers would sometimes provide little rewards to those who were exemplars to encourage it though.
For example during the American Civil War, soldiers selected for guard duty would be carefully inspected, and if they had shined all the brass on their uniform and equipment, including the back of the belt keeper (something that would not be seen), they might be relieved of the duty.
My favorite story though is a post Civil War one, that took place at a Western Fort. I don't remember all the details, but I think there was a duty given to a corporal, that was basically to be a clerk for the officer of the day. It was an easy job, no drill, no fatigue duty, got to be inside, and often near the ladies of the post. So there was a lot of competition to get this duty. Every morning the perspective candidates were lined up with all their equipment and carefully inspected. The one in the best condition, uniform cleaned, no rust on the rifle, all the brass shined, etc., would be selected.
The competition was getting pretty tight and the officers were having more and more trouble selecting a candidate. One day, one of the troopers showed up to the inspection wearing a leather neck-stock. The officers were dumbfounded. Not only were neck-stocks no longer regulation, but they had become almost non-existent in the final decade of them being regulation. The officers could not figure out how the trooper had gotten one. Nonetheless they were impressed, and they gave him the duty. The next morning *all* the troopers turned out wearing neck-stocks! :-)
Yeah, I would buy that decor serves secondary functions like that. Based on my knowledge, which is less than someone who's served but still pretty good relative to most, soldiers already have their own code for who deserves respect and honor and medals/ribbons don't typically count for much. Historically, it's common for enlisted men to come up with their own 'unofficial' medals that basically amount to wearing the uniform wrong on purpose. Tying little odds and ends there. They might signify, "I was at Pascendale," or something more broad like, "I fought in WWII," or, "I've shot down six enemy planes." Stuff like that. As far as I know, officers typically ignore it either out of respect or because it is good for morale. I'm not sure how much that goes on in the modern US military, but I know that lots of soldiers are more likely to make fun of someone wearing a dress with tons of commendations on it then they are to act impressed, (especially if the guy's some young officer from West Point or somesuch. I'd expect they'd have more respect for a 20 year Sergeant proud of his recognition.)
That's just based on reading and talking to people, though. As a cadet, a lot people cared quite a bit about our ribbons and badges.
Yeah, I would buy that decor serves secondary functions like that. Based on my knowledge, which is less than someone who's served but still pretty good relative to most, soldiers already have their own code for who deserves respect and honor and medals/ribbons don't typically count for much. Historically, it's common for enlisted men to come up with their own 'unofficial' medals that basically amount to wearing the uniform wrong on purpose. Tying little odds and ends there. They might signify, "I was at Pascendale," or something more broad like, "I fought in WWII," or, "I've shot down six enemy planes." Stuff like that. As far as I know, officers typically ignore it either out of respect or because it is good for morale. I'm not sure how much that goes on in the modern US military, but I know that lots of soldiers are more likely to make fun of someone wearing a dress with tons of commendations on it then they are to act impressed, (especially if the guy's some young officer from West Point or somesuch. I'd expect they'd have more respect for a 20 year Sergeant proud of his recognition.)
That's just based on reading and talking to people, though. As a cadet, a lot people cared quite a bit about our ribbons and badges.
Eh, Ribbons can mean a lot just the right ones, deployment ribbons mean quite a bit, CARs mean quite a bit, things like NAMs and GWATs don't mean as much, and don't get me started on the firewatch ribbon. The ribbons aren't really the problem, it's more the whole dress uniform isn't really a working uniform and wearing it when it's not really productive to do so, is problematic, and uncomfortable, since you have to have shirt stays, and it's not exactly as good in extreme temperatures, and if you get it damaged you have to replace parts of it, and that's expensive.
I've never seen a butterbar with more than the two ribbons you get as freebies usually, it takes them a minute to pick up and then they've usually deployed and have at least that, and that's usually the key to being respected, to have actually done your job for reals.
Also Sergeants Major and 1st Sergeants are rarely people who "ignore things because of morale" I knew lots of guys who wanted to wear those wristbands to show that they'd lost friends, and 1st Sgts and Sgts Major always came down on that like a ton of bricks. The same thing with the gradual shift to low fades for people who were not boots, or the salty cammies. That's been my experience but I'm fairly sure that's at least through the whole of the Marine Corps and I'd be stunned if it's not the entirety of the US Armed Services.
Eh, Ribbons can mean a lot just the right ones, deployment ribbons mean quite a bit, CARs mean quite a bit, things like NAMs and GWATs don't mean as much, and don't get me started on the firewatch ribbon. The ribbons aren't really the problem, it's more the whole dress uniform isn't really a working uniform and wearing it when it's not really productive to do so, is problematic, and uncomfortable, since you have to have shirt stays, and it's not exactly as good in extreme temperatures, and if you get it damaged you have to replace parts of it, and that's expensive.
I've never seen a butterbar with more than the two ribbons you get as freebies usually, it takes them a minute to pick up and then they've usually deployed and have at least that, and that's usually the key to being respected, to have actually done your job for reals.
Also Sergeants Major and 1st Sergeants are rarely people who "ignore things because of morale" I knew lots of guys who wanted to wear those wristbands to show that they'd lost friends, and 1st Sgts and Sgts Major always came down on that like a ton of bricks. The same thing with the gradual shift to low fades for people who were not boots, or the salty cammies. That's been my experience but I'm fairly sure that's at least through the whole of the Marine Corps and I'd be stunned if it's not the entirety of the US Armed Services.
I'd believe that, makes sense. A lot of the unofficial ribbons are stuff I've read about in European military history or WWII/some Vietnam, hence why I didn't know if it happened in the US today. No idea if it was ever as big here as it was in places like Russia and Germany, even in the 20th century, but I'd totally buy it's largely a dead practice in the US now.
Yeah, I know deployment gains you the real credit. Seeing combat/a purple heart is supposed to matter, too. A large portion of my friends ended up enlisting. I was one of few who didn't, really. So no real experience other than military history/regs/etc., book stuff. But lots of second hand info. And how I hear it, almost no one is less respected or more snided about than a green Lt. walking around with rows of ribbons awarded in college/for P.T. or something who thinks he's hot crap.
I'd believe that, makes sense. A lot of the unofficial ribbons are stuff I've read about in European military history or WWII/some Vietnam, hence why I didn't know if it happened in the US today. No idea if it was ever as big here as it was in places like Russia and Germany, even in the 20th century, but I'd totally buy it's largely a dead practice in the US now.
Yeah, I know deployment gains you the real credit. Seeing combat/a purple heart is supposed to matter, too. A large portion of my friends ended up enlisting. I was one of few who didn't, really. So no real experience other than military history/regs/etc., book stuff. But lots of second hand info. And how I hear it, almost no one is less respected or more snided about than a green Lt. walking around with rows of ribbons awarded in college/for P.T. or something who thinks he's hot crap.
The ribbons vary a lot depending on Service, Air Force gives them out like candy so you could come out of school with a buncha ribbons and a PT ribbon. The Army gives a lot as well, the Marines are much skimpier with ribbons, so you wind up with less ones like the PT ribbons.
To be honest boot Lieutenants are given roughly the same amount of respect as any other boot in my experience, except they wind up being in charge of people so it actually matters.
The ribbons vary a lot depending on Service, Air Force gives them out like candy so you could come out of school with a buncha ribbons and a PT ribbon. The Army gives a lot as well, the Marines are much skimpier with ribbons, so you wind up with less ones like the PT ribbons.
To be honest boot Lieutenants are given roughly the same amount of respect as any other boot in my experience, except they wind up being in charge of people so it actually matters.
Mmm. Most my friends ended up going Army. I had a marine MSG back in school, though. But I think he transferred Army last half of his career. I don't really know a lot about the Marines. I wanted to go research, myself, so was looking into Navy. My buddies didn't seem to mind Lt.s as a rule, just the ones with a big head who thought they were better than guys who'd done eight+ years because they outranked them.
Were the majority of green Lt.s good guys, in your experience?
Mmm. Most my friends ended up going Army. I had a marine MSG back in school, though. But I think he transferred Army last half of his career. I don't really know a lot about the Marines. I wanted to go research, myself, so was looking into Navy. My buddies didn't seem to mind Lt.s as a rule, just the ones with a big head who thought they were better than guys who'd done eight+ years because they outranked them.
Were the majority of green Lt.s good guys, in your experience?
The majority of them were inexperienced and therefore terrible. Although they weren't always terrible in a way that was their fault, mostly just because the only way to learn lots of things is by doing them, and LTs are put in charge of people with literally no experience, the ones who were prior enlisted were much better in general, because they had experience.
Some LTs were absolutely terrible, because they believed they had experience or that college was equivalent to said experience (it really really isn't), and that always wound up being a big problem. But most LTs suck for the same reason that most boot LCpls suck, they do things without thinking about them, they assume they know more than they do, they come up with the dumbest ideas, only boot LTs are in a position to cause real damage with those ideas, whereas a boot LCpl really isn't.
So basically once they get experience they wind up being as good or bad as anybody else, although there are very few good officers, it takes a lot to be a good officer though, so that makes sense.
The majority of them were inexperienced and therefore terrible. Although they weren't always terrible in a way that was their fault, mostly just because the only way to learn lots of things is by doing them, and LTs are put in charge of people with literally no experience, the ones who were prior enlisted were much better in general, because they had experience.
Some LTs were absolutely terrible, because they believed they had experience or that college was equivalent to said experience (it really really isn't), and that always wound up being a big problem. But most LTs suck for the same reason that most boot LCpls suck, they do things without thinking about them, they assume they know more than they do, they come up with the dumbest ideas, only boot LTs are in a position to cause real damage with those ideas, whereas a boot LCpl really isn't.
So basically once they get experience they wind up being as good or bad as anybody else, although there are very few good officers, it takes a lot to be a good officer though, so that makes sense.
Yeah, I wonder if giving nearly anyone in the Army with a college degree officer status is a bad idea. Of course, might not be able to rope them in otherwise. Still.
Yeah, I wonder if giving nearly anyone in the Army with a college degree officer status is a bad idea. Of course, might not be able to rope them in otherwise. Still.
Well the problem is that college doesn't teach you anything about leadership in any real sense, or even how to deal with real world scenarios. Using a college education as your metric of if somebody is qualified to lead other people, is a really poor metric in my experience. I think that having that particular metric is probably what's created so many bad officers, just because college really isn't a good measure of any of the qualities that you need to be a good officer or a good leader.
Well the problem is that college doesn't teach you anything about leadership in any real sense, or even how to deal with real world scenarios. Using a college education as your metric of if somebody is qualified to lead other people, is a really poor metric in my experience. I think that having that particular metric is probably what's created so many bad officers, just because college really isn't a good measure of any of the qualities that you need to be a good officer or a good leader.
I see it with some jobs. Doctors going in as Captains, for example. That I get. Or really sought after professions like Nurse and such. Military needs those and those people will get good jobs in the private sector. Need to keep it competitive.
But yeah, a guy with a BA probably doesn't have more cause being an officer than anyone else. And now that having a college degree doesn't improve your odds of landing a good job as much as it used to, (still contributing to promotions but eh,) and since college is more expensive than ever and the military offers student loan reimbursement, maybe taking away near-automatic commissions for graduates wouldn't hurt college graduate enlistment rates that much after all.
It might mean they have to pull more officers from NCO stock, which I'd wager to be a good thing.
Of course, ROTC and military schools should still get you an enlistment
I see it with some jobs. Doctors going in as Captains, for example. That I get. Or really sought after professions like Nurse and such. Military needs those and those people will get good jobs in the private sector. Need to keep it competitive.
Doctors are a special case, and medical officers cannot generally give orders or command troops. They're not exactly officers in the regular sense, they're doctors, they work pretty much the whole time as doctors, and aren't usually allowed even to participate in a lot of the other training stuff. Also they're not even put into command in a POW situation.
But yeah, a guy with a BA probably doesn't have more cause being an officer than anyone else. And now that having a college degree doesn't improve your odds of landing a good job as much as it used to, (still contributing to promotions but eh,) and since college is more expensive than ever and the military offers student loan reimbursement, maybe taking away near-automatic commissions for graduates wouldn't hurt college graduate enlistment rates that much after all.
It might mean they have to pull more officers from NCO stock, which I'd wager to be a good thing.
Of course, ROTC and military schools could still get you an enlistment
Well the other problem is once you remove college it's not easy to pick another metric, because being a good NCO isn't equivalent to being a good officer either, necessarily, they're very different skill sets, even though the experience helps, the main problem is that the only way to become a good officer is to work at it, and have natural talent and that's not a guarantee.
Doctors are a special case, and medical officers cannot generally give orders or command troops. They're not exactly officers in the regular sense, they're doctors, they work pretty much the whole time as doctors, and aren't usually allowed even to participate in a lot of the other training stuff. Also they're not even put into command in a POW situation.
Well the other problem is once you remove college it's not easy to pick another metric, because being a good NCO isn't equivalent to being a good officer either, necessarily, they're very different skill sets, even though the experience helps, the main problem is that the only way to become a good officer is to work at it, and have natural talent and that's not a guarantee.
Yeah, I'm just saying people like Doctors and such do need to go in at a certain pay grade or no one would ever do it.
Hmm, interesting. I would still think a degree should be a consideration. It shows a certain level of commitment and intelligence, depending. But should it be almost automatic? Who do you think is more likely to succeed as an officer? A college graduate or someone who's made it to E-6 plus? I'm not trying to ask a leading question, here, I'm just wondering.
(Of course, if the best NCOs moved on more often, there might be more serious problems.)
Yeah, I'm just saying people like Doctors and such do need to go in at a certain pay grade or no one would ever do it.
Hmm, interesting. I would still think a degree should be a consideration. It shows a certain level of commitment and intelligence, depending. But should it be almost automatic? Who do you think is more likely to succeed as an officer? A college graduate or someone who's made it to E-6 plus? I'm not trying to ask a leading question, here, I'm just wondering.
(Of course, if the best NCOs moved on more often, there might be more serious problems.)
Definitely somebody that made it to E-6. College really has little to no bearing on being a good officer, none. Warrant Officers are almost all without exception vastly superior to many other officers and some of the best officers I knew were former Enlisted. I think that college should be excluded the metric altogether. Because it really doesn't measure intelligence, or commitment at the scale that would be needed for the military. I've been in the military and I'm now a college student, and I can say that the degree of commitment to complete college is entirely measured in how much money you're willing to spend, and that's scandalous. As such it's a poor metric to use to identify who can lead other people. I'd much rather have real world experience factored in when somebody enlists, because that is much more valid to my thinking than college experience.
Stephen_E
2014-01-07, 09:06 AM
Which is proof that making friends with the supply guys is always critical to mission accomplishment. See for the officer's aide, I don't necessarily disagree with using inspections as part of the selection, because that's more of an attention to detail and motivation thing, which can be examined somewhat with the condition of uniforms, but it's not a good way to improve morale.
Awesome story by the way!
From what I've read of the effects of long garrison duty, especially away from home, the point isn't to raise morale, it's to stop it going completely to sh*t.
From what I've read of the effects of long garrison duty, especially away from home, the point isn't to raise morale, it's to stop it going completely to sh*t.
Well it's to maintain discipline. Which it does do, to a degree, although that's not always done best with that sort of thing, at least in my experience. I know that once you're out of garrison most of those things relax considerably.
Mike_G
2014-01-07, 09:54 AM
Definitely somebody that made it to E-6. College really has little to no bearing on being a good officer, none. Warrant Officers are almost all without exception vastly superior to many other officers and some of the best officers I knew were former Enlisted. I think that college should be excluded the metric altogether. Because it really doesn't measure intelligence, or commitment at the scale that would be needed for the military. I've been in the military and I'm now a college student, and I can say that the degree of commitment to complete college is entirely measured in how much money you're willing to spend, and that's scandalous. As such it's a poor metric to use to identify who can lead other people. I'd much rather have real world experience factored in when somebody enlists, because that is much more valid to my thinking than college experience.
Not that any military has ever done it this way, but I'd love to see officer candidates drawn from a pool of NCO applicants. That way, you know the guy has done the job for a time, and managed to get promoted by an actual promotion board, not like PFC after six months without screwing up.
Traditionally, officers were upper class, landed gentry, or men who could equip a unit, whereas enlisted were just common people who signed up or were drafted. That tradition carries on in how enlisted troop have more equipment issued, and officers are expected to pay for more of their gear.
In other cultures, it made sense. Price Harry wouldn't be expected to start as an E-1 private. Nor would the third son of a Duke. The idea was that these men would have been brought up to command, whether it was servants, or the fact that schools for sons of the gentry were very regimented, to prepare them for leadership. (It didn't always work all that well. The "Fix bayonets and advance. Well, then, keep on fixing bayonets and advancing! Stiffen that lip!" mindset is why the Brits left a third of their command bleeding on the slopes of the strategically insignificant Breed's Hill when they could have just sailed around it and landed troops on the Neck, cutting off the rebel army and forcing a surrender.)
We don't really have that in the US. Not since the Civil War at any rate, where there were some landed gentry families with a military tradition similar to European gentry. So college was made the bar to get over.
I'd rather follow a Lieutenant who went to OCS after making Sergeant than one who got his BA in Political Science. Sure a sergeant's job is different, but he has led men, and he has done the job of his men, so he understands what he's ordering them to do.
warty goblin
2014-01-07, 10:06 AM
It's a pretty thing and I have an answer for the weight issue. But you won't like it.
Lead.
You'll want to drill a hole down the center of the blade and the hilt and fill it with a small lead rod or lead powder. You may wish to bond a metal tube to the interior of the hole in order to prevent weakening the blade and then fill the tube with the lead rod or powder. Obviously the length and diameter of the hole are going to be determined by how much weight you want to add and where that weight needs to fall in the balance. You may end up with a wider hole in the hilt than in the blade, and that will make joining everything a bit of a bugger.
I've actually considered this, though I don't think I'd use lead. Stuff's a bit past my acceptably poisonous threshold.
Of course you need a vary long auger and very good precision on the drilling to keep the hole correctly aligned.
And this is why I don't. Drilling a long, centered is a non-trivial problem that generally requires some fairly specialized equipment. Which I don't have, so I think I just have to accept being underweight as a downside of working in wood. The major upside of course being that I have the tools to do woodwork; believe me if I had metalworking equipment I'd be using that instead!
Not that any military has ever done it this way, but I'd love to see officer candidates drawn from a pool of NCO applicants. That way, you know the guy has done the job for a time, and managed to get promoted by an actual promotion board, not like PFC after six months without screwing up.
Traditionally, officers were upper class, landed gentry, or men who could equip a unit, whereas enlisted were just common people who signed up or were drafted. That tradition carries on in how enlisted troop have more equipment issued, and officers are expected to pay for more of their gear.
In other cultures, it made sense. Price Harry wouldn't be expected to start as an E-1 private. Nor would the third son of a Duke. The idea was that these men would have been brought up to command, whether it was servants, or the fact that schools for sons of the gentry were very regimented, to prepare them for leadership. (It didn't always work all that well. The "Fix bayonets and advance. Well, then, keep on fixing bayonets and advancing! Stiffen that lip!" mindset is why the Brits left a third of their command bleeding on the slopes of the strategically insignificant Breed's Hill when they could have just sailed around it and landed troops on the Neck, cutting off the rebel army and forcing a surrender.)
We don't really have that in the US. Not since the Civil War at any rate, where there were some landed gentry families with a military tradition similar to European gentry. So college was made the bar to get over.
I'd rather follow a Lieutenant who went to OCS after making Sergeant than one who got his BA in Political Science. Sure a sergeant's job is different, but he has led men, and he has done the job of his men, so he understands what he's ordering them to do.
Oh, absolutely, I just don't think that it's the best metric by itself, but I do think that it is a much better metric than college. I think they'd have to have a good selection process for the NCOs, and that would solve most of the problems.
Brother Oni
2014-01-07, 12:35 PM
I didn't realise things were so different in the US Military.
In the British Army, officer candidates (who can be graduates, serving enlisted or anybody else) undergo a selection process and if they pass, they go onto RMA Sandhurst for officer training.
It's a 44 week course where they're trained as infantry commanders (since that makes a good basis for everything) and after completion of the course, they go onto further training with their respective regiment.
About the only deference graduates get is either a couple years seniority or automatic promotion to lieutenant.
Even when a wet behind the ears Lt is deployed, there's still a senior NCO looking after him. I was speaking to a RLC Lt who was deployed to Bosnia less than 6 months after commissioning (his choice) and both he and his Ssgt (OR-7) both knew who was really in charge - they were picking a good place to site their logistics base and the Lt thought he found one (good road and rail links, plenty of hard standing), to which the Ssgt replied "It's ****, sir." :smallbiggrin:
The Ssgt turned out to be right as well.
OCs such as doctors, lawyers, etc, can opt to do the shorter Professionally Qualified Officers course (known as the Tarts and Vicars course by everybody else) where they're taught to march in a straight line and iron their uniform before told to get on with being a doctor, lawyer, etc, so much like your ones.
These days though, the PQO course is including more actual command and infantry officer material.
-----
On a separate note, there's a new documentary on a UK team's first entry to Battle of the Nations on BBC3: Knight Club (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03qlrwk/Knight_Club/).
Looks interesting so far.
I didn't realise things were so different in the US Military.
In the British Army, officer candidates (who can be graduates, serving enlisted or anybody else) undergo a selection process and if they pass, they go onto RMA Sandhurst for officer training.
It's a 44 week course where they're trained as infantry commanders (since that makes a good basis for everything) and after completion of the course, they go onto further training with their respective regiment.
About the only deference graduates get is either a couple years seniority or automatic promotion to lieutenant.
Even when a wet behind the ears Lt is deployed, there's still a senior NCO looking after him. I was speaking to a RLC Lt who was deployed to Bosnia less than 6 months after commissioning (his choice) and both he and his Ssgt (OR-7) both knew who was really in charge - they were picking a good place to site their logistics base and the Lt thought he found one (good road and rail links, plenty of hard standing), to which the Ssgt replied "It's ****, sir." :smallbiggrin:
The Ssgt turned out to be right as well.
OCs such as doctors, lawyers, etc, can opt to do the shorter Professionally Qualified Officers course (known as the Tarts and Vicars course by everybody else) where they're taught to march in a straight line and iron their uniform before told to get on with being a doctor, lawyer, etc, so much like your ones.
These days though, the PQO course is including more actual command and infantry officer material.
-----
On a separate note, there's a new documentary on a UK team's first entry to Battle of the Nations on BBC3: Knight Club (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03qlrwk/Knight_Club/).
Looks interesting so far.
It's certainly the same, but a 44 week course doesn't help that much either, learning leadership can only be done by doing it. And good junior officers are those that listen to their SNCOs that much is certainly true, the problem is that the junior officer in the end is still in charge, and can still pick the ****hole spot even if the SSgt advises against it. That bit may be different.
The problem I think is that in the US college education is so overvalued that many junior officers believe they have this vast breadth of knowledge that their staff NCOs lack. Which translates into problems. I've met many many butterbars that were just terrible, and they went through OCS and the Intelligence Officer course, you just can't learn leadership from a course, it's not possible to.
Mike_G
2014-01-07, 01:15 PM
Officers go through Officer Candidacy School, and then (in the Marine Crops) The Basic School and Platoon Leaders Class. where they learn (in theory) to be a platoon leader, then to their specialty school.
But that doesn't mean they can lead.
A friend of mine was a Corporal in a mortar platoon. The company commander wanted the mortars advance with the rifle platoons by bounds. My friend told the commander that there would be a ton of time lost in humping the mortars and ammo to a new position, setting the baseplates, sighting etc, rather than just siting them and firing missions for the advancing rifle platoons as needed. When the officer asked about how they could keep engaging targets, he replied "The entire area of this operation is in my range fan.....Sir." Which surprised the officer.
Not every NCO will be a good office, but you don't get to be a Sergeant and lead a squad before you've been a Corporal and led a fire team, and you don't get to lead a team until you been a rifleman, so why the hell should we let you lead a platoon before you've lead a squad?
Galloglaich
2014-01-07, 04:13 PM
Interesting conversation, I have a few comments...
First, when I was in the US Army, back in the 80's, to be an E6 you needed to have a college degree. Definitely if you wanted to be an E7 or E8. I don't know if that has changed now maybe due to the wars or something but the Army was very keen on enlisted noncommissioned officers having college degrees, the more the merrier. They even encouraged us low ranked enlisted to take college courses, I took several college equivalency tests from the University of Maryland when I was in.
Second regarding officer rank, there is more than one reason to give rank, one is to lead people on the battlefield, another is to be a manager, another is so that nobody bothers you. You don't want highly trained professional specialists spending all their time pulling guard duty, delivering the mail or painting lines on the sidewalk. I think that is the main reason physicians are given officer rank.
I was a medic and one of the things that struck me, was that even well trained medics (equivalent to paramedic or LPN) were usually given NCO rank pretty fast, and real Nurses (RN) were often officers. This meant they were treated with much more respect than in the civilian world. My wife is an RN and I'm amazed how badly they treat her, and how much more important a doctor is than a nurse in the civilian world. In the military if the Doctor is a Major and the head nurse is a Captain, the head nurse is still someone who is going to be treated with a lot of formal respect and isn't going to be talked down to lightly- in the formal world of the military that could quickly lead to trouble.
The Army also had Warrant Officer ranks. I worked for a PA (Physician Assistant) who was a WA 3. That's different from in other service branches from what I understand for whom Warrant Officer is an NCO rank). But in the Army in the 80's WA was a pseudo officer rank which gave these people that silver color on their hat that made you not bother them. Other technical people including computer programmers and helicopter pilots had the WA rank when I was in, and it was useful for that purpose - nobody below the rank of captain messed with them. The old tech sergeant / specialist was kind of an enlisted equivalent but I think specialist was being phased out when I was in, I'm not sure.
Given that middle to senior ranking NCO's have college degrees now it's harder to distinguish what exactly makes an officer different. Like everyone else who commented, I was not impressed with junior officers in the US military, generally speaking. Most seemed equal parts confused and impressed with themselves. By the rank of Captain though more of them seemed to be competent, and I met quite a few majors and Lt Colonels who were impressive people. But then from 'full bird' colonel on up it seemed to go "off" again as they became more political and more privileged, and crazier. Just my experience.
It did seem to be like a class thing though, for one thing officers very often seemed to be much taller than enlisted personnel. Especially junior enlisted.
I'm not sure whether I phasing out a separate class as officers is a good or bad idea. I read somewhere that the modern trend of treating officers (at least junior to mid grade officers) equal to enlisted personnel in terms of food, housing in the field, etc., actually came from some Marine officers who had been training Chinese communists to fight the Japanese in WW II, and were subsequently blacklisted over it in the 1950's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung-ho
I think some of the elite officer schools of the US like West Point maybe aren't really that great (I'm not sure of some of the older ones like the Citadel are even being used for the real military any more), but I've heard the naval schools are better and the airforce academy system produces good pilots and other technical specialists without a doubt. I think it's good to diversify the culture and the enlisted do have kind of a monoculture (with different ethnic variants) from what I experienced, so maybe you do need two different classes. Some of the senior NCO's were kind of meat-headed I thought, and the middle ranked officers by contrast could sometimes be very bright. But you had both on both sides of the fence. There is no doubt a lot of the social structure of the US military is a weird amalgam of old Victorian traditions mixed with modern social changes, not necessarily designed for efficiency.
G
Galloglaich
2014-01-07, 04:21 PM
Ideally enlisted men should be 'craftsmen' and officers 'professionals', when it comes to things like being pilots or doctors, I think they know how to create the latter. When it comes to things like an infantry platoon commander, artillery batter commander, or a tank company commander, I'm not sure if our higher educational system is capable of reliably producing them. That's why the experience is better, generally, than training. The theory lags way behind the reality of war, something we've always had trouble coming to grips with (or anyway, for a long time).
G
Interesting conversation, I have a few comments...
First, when I was in the US Army, back in the 80's, to be an E6 you needed to have a college degree. Definitely if you wanted to be an E7 or E8. I don't know if that has changed now maybe due to the wars or something but the Army was very keen on enlisted noncommissioned officers having college degrees, the more the merrier. They even encouraged us low ranked enlisted to take college courses, I took several college equivalency tests from the University of Maryland when I was in.
To my knowledge that has never been true, they've encouraged but it was never a requirement to be a SNCO. It wasn't an automatic commission, but college wasn't as I understand it a requirement they did give extra points for it, so it may have been a de facto requirement.
Also the Marines have no such requirement, and I know at least one Navy Chief who has no college, so I imagine that it's not exactly a requirement there either. It probably helped with the promotion board, but I don't think it was a requirement.
Second regarding officer rank, there is more than one reason to give rank, one is to lead people on the battlefield, another is to be a manager, another is so that nobody bothers you. You don't want highly trained professional specialists spending all their time pulling guard duty, delivering the mail or painting lines on the sidewalk. I think that is the main reason physicians are given officer rank.
I don't think I've ever met a Lieutenant that's done any of those things. I don't disagree with giving the officer rank to doctors, particularly since they can't command. Medical Officers do not have the ability to command others, they are exempt in a POW situation, it's the same as Chaplains.
As far as Leadership and Management goes... I've never seen a Lieutenant out of college that could do either. Never, it takes them years to get the experience to do that.
I was a medic and one of the things that struck me, was that even well trained medics (equivalent to paramedic or LPN) were usually given NCO rank pretty fast, and real Nurses (RN) were often officers. This meant they were treated with much more respect than in the civilian world. My wife is an RN and I'm amazed how badly they treat her, and how much more important a doctor is than a nurse in the civilian world. In the military if the Doctor is a Major and the head nurse is a Captain, the head nurse is still someone who is going to be treated with a lot of formal respect and isn't going to be talked down to lightly- in the formal world of the military that could quickly lead to trouble.
The Army also had Warrant Officer ranks. I worked for a PA (Physician Assistant) who was a WA 3. That's different from in other service branches from what I understand for whom Warrant Officer is an NCO rank). But in the Army in the 80's WA was a pseudo officer rank which gave these people that silver color on their hat that made you not bother them. Other technical people including computer programmers and helicopter pilots had the WA rank when I was in, and it was useful for that purpose - nobody below the rank of captain messed with them. The old tech sergeant / specialist was kind of an enlisted equivalent but I think specialist was being phased out when I was in, I'm not sure.
Tihs is also not entirely correct. Warrant Officer exists in all of the service branches, it's given to SME (subject matter experts) in a particular field, so that they can have the last say in development, it's less of a command position although hell will fall on you if you ever piss off a gunner, than it is a position defined to focusing on your hi technical stuff.
Specialist is still around to this date, and Corporal has been almost phased out of the army.
Given that middle to senior ranking NCO's have college degrees now it's harder to distinguish what exactly makes an officer different. Like everyone else who commented, I was not impressed with junior officers in the US military, generally speaking. Most seemed equal parts confused and impressed with themselves. By the rank of Captain though more of them seemed to be competent, and I met quite a few majors and Lt Colonels who were impressive people. But then from 'full bird' colonel on up it seemed to go "off" again as they became more political and more privileged, and crazier. Just my experience.
Staff NCOs still do not require college. Usually picking up Captain is about where you start weeding out the incompetent officers (although that is not always the case) Also captains usually have 8+ years of experience, which is enough to know the lay of the land fairly well.
It did seem to be like a class thing though, for one thing officers very often seemed to be much taller than enlisted personnel. Especially junior enlisted.
I'm pretty sure that may have just been you, I worked in the S3T, and did height and weight for our entire battalion, I never noticed a discrepancy, the tallest person we had was a Gunny.
I'm not sure whether I phasing out a separate class as officers is a good or bad idea. I read somewhere that the modern trend of treating officers (at least junior to mid grade officers) equal to enlisted personnel in terms of food, housing in the field, etc., actually came from some Marine officers who had been training Chinese communists to fight the Japanese in WW II, and were subsequently blacklisted over it in the 1950's.
Officers aren't treated equally to enlisted in the field. They do eat last, since that's in reverse rank order, but that's more of a tradition thing. Officers almost always had better lodging at least when I was in Iraq they did.
I think some of the elite officer schools of the US like West Point maybe aren't really that great (I'm not sure of some of the older ones like the Citadel are even being used for the real military any more), but I've heard the naval schools are better and the airforce academy system produces good pilots and other technical specialists without a doubt. I think it's good to diversify the culture and the enlisted do have kind of a monoculture (with different ethnic variants) from what I experienced, so maybe you do need two different classes. Some of the senior NCO's were kind of meat-headed I thought, and the middle ranked officers by contrast could sometimes be very bright. But you had both on both sides of the fence. There is no doubt a lot of the social structure of the US military is a weird amalgam of old Victorian traditions mixed with modern social changes, not necessarily designed for efficiency.
West Point officers are usually pretty good. At least they tend to be slightly more experienced as compared to the ROTC kids.
Edit: The college thing was just confirmed by my Father who was a SNCO in the Army and was in during the 80s. He said that Sgt Maj you don't make if you don't have college unless you're amazing, it helps but it's not a requirement.
Galloglaich
2014-01-07, 04:41 PM
I guess we have to agree to disagree on most of that. Some of it may just be the difference between the Marines and the Army.
As for Warrant Officers ("Chiefs") in the Navy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_Officer_(United_States)#Navy
"all Navy warrant officers are accessed from the chief petty officer pay grades, E-7 through E-9, analogous to a senior non-commissioned officer in the other services."
What I meant was that it doesn't typically work this way in the Army (except in the Special Forces), they come through special colleges like officers do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_Officer_Candidate_School_(United_States_Ar my)
G
I guess we have to agree to disagree on most of that. Some of it may just be the difference between the Marines and the Army.
As for Warrant Officers ("Chiefs") in the Navy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_Officer_(United_States)#Navy
"all Navy warrant officers are accessed from the chief petty officer pay grades, E-7 through E-9, analogous to a senior non-commissioned officer in the other services."
What I meant was that it doesn't typically work this way in the Army (except in the Special Forces), they come through special colleges like officers do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_Officer_Candidate_School_(United_States_Ar my)
G
Same with the Navy, you have to become a Chef Petty Officer to be eligible to go to Warrant officer school. It's not exactly the same thing as a standard officer course since it focuses more on your field and less on your leadership. In your earlier analogy, Warrant Officers are the professionals, Junior Enlisted are the Craftsmen, Senior Enlisted are the professional craftsmen and certain managerial positions and officers are mid level and upper level management.
Galloglaich
2014-01-07, 06:07 PM
Same with the Navy, you have to become a Chef Petty Officer to be eligible to go to Warrant officer school. It's not exactly the same thing as a standard officer course since it focuses more on your field and less on your leadership. In your earlier analogy, Warrant Officers are the professionals, Junior Enlisted are the Craftsmen, Senior Enlisted are the professional craftsmen and certain managerial positions and officers are mid level and upper level management.
In the army the Warrant Officers don't typically come out of the enlisted ranks (not much more than Officers do anyway) whereas in the Navy apparently they almost always do. That's the difference.
G
In the army the Warrant Officers don't typically come out of the enlisted ranks (not much more than Officers do anyway) whereas in the Navy apparently they almost always do. That's the difference.
G
They come out of the Enlisted Ranks in the Army.
http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/WOEligibility.shtml
Or they can come from the other services. But they're always prior enlisted who are given a "warrant" to make them into officers rather than a commission.
Brother Oni
2014-01-07, 07:21 PM
The problem I think is that in the US college education is so overvalued that many junior officers believe they have this vast breadth of knowledge that their staff NCOs lack.
Ah, I think this is where the main differences occurs. University courses over here are much more specialised - if you were reading Chemistry, you'd just study that and its related fields (organic/inorganic, physical, molecular, etc), no humanities, no literature, no compulsory PT, etc.
This leads to specialists that know a lot about one thing, but (hopefully) keenly aware that they know sweet FA about other things, including leadership and soldiering, which may reduce the number of idiot graduate officers we produce.
I'm not saying that the British system is better, but educational and cultural (both civilian and military) differences do lead to a different type of officer.
Speaking of which, in the US military, are there any variations in the type of officers depending on their regiment?
I know in the UK, the Household Cavalry have a very firm idea of what their officers should be like, compared to the much more relaxed Royal Logistics Corp view, which would again be different to the Royal Parachute Regiment.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on most of that. Some of it may just be the difference between the Marines and the Army.
The US Army had a lot of senior NCOs in the late 70s and 80s because of the post Vietnam RIF (Reduction In Force). A lot of officers were given the choice of separating or taking NCO rank. The army's size peaked a bit over 1.5 million in 1968 and was down to ~785,000 by June 1974.
Ah, I think this is where the main differences occurs. University courses over here are much more specialised - if you were reading Chemistry, you'd just study that and its related fields (organic/inorganic, physical, molecular, etc), no humanities, no literature, no compulsory PT, etc.
This leads to specialists that know a lot about one thing, but (hopefully) keenly aware that they know sweet FA about other things, including leadership and soldiering, which may reduce the number of idiot graduate officers we produce.
It's certainly possible. I imagine that it's more likely a difference in training program more than anything else, also you have a much smaller force which allows for certain differences. In any case I would imagine that the boot lieutenant is still a thing for you guys or else you wouldn't need SNCOs to look after them and keep them from getting into trouble.
I'm not saying that the British system is better, but educational and cultural (both civilian and military) differences do lead to a different type of officer.
Speaking of which, in the US military, are there any variations in the type of officers depending on their regiment?
I know in the UK, the Household Cavalry have a very firm idea of what their officers should be like, compared to the much more relaxed Royal Logistics Corp view, which would again be different to the Royal Parachute Regiment.
Officers go to different schools depending on their specialization. But they still go through OCS and TBS as Marines, and I believe that the Army has a similar sort of thing, but a Signals Officer is going to be trained differently than an Infantry Officer, and an Aviation officer even more so.
The US Army had a lot of senior NCOs in the late 70s and 80s because of the post Vietnam RIF (Reduction In Force). A lot of officers were given the choice of separating or taking NCO rank. The army's size peaked a bit over 1.5 million in 1968 and was down to ~785,000 by June 1974.
Yes, which would explain why college was often needed to be competitive, but it was still not a stated a requirement to attain SNCO rank.
Brother Oni
2014-01-08, 03:30 AM
In any case I would imagine that the boot lieutenant is still a thing for you guys or else you wouldn't need SNCOs to look after them and keep them from getting into trouble.
Oh yes - "As green as a Second Lieutenant" is still a common (polite) phrase. :smallbiggrin:
Officers go to different schools depending on their specialization. But they still go through OCS and TBS as Marines, and I believe that the Army has a similar sort of thing, but a Signals Officer is going to be trained differently than an Infantry Officer, and an Aviation officer even more so.
Sorry I used the wrong word - I meant style of officer rather than type. A RLC officer is still primarily a logistics role (EOD guys aside), but within that he or she are pretty much free to be what kind of officer they like, relaxed, formal, whatever, as long as they get the job done.
In contrast, a Household Cavalry officer is going to be this style of officer as that's how all Household Cavalry officers have been, tradition playing a major part (and since they can trace their lineage back to the 17th Century, it's quite a heavy burden too).
Oh yes - "As green as a Second Lieutenant" is still a common (polite) phrase. :smallbiggrin:
Yep, "The three most dangerous things in the military are a Lietenant who says, 'in my experience', a Captain who says, 'I've been thinking', and a Warrant Officer who says 'Let me show you some ****!'"
Sorry I used the wrong word - I meant style of officer rather than type. A RLC officer is still primarily a logistics role (EOD guys aside), but within that he or she are pretty much free to be what kind of officer they like, relaxed, formal, whatever, as long as they get the job done.
In contrast, a Household Cavalry officer is going to be this style of officer as that's how all Household Cavalry officers have been, tradition playing a major part (and since they can trace their lineage back to the 17th Century, it's quite a heavy burden too).
Well of course there are cultural differences between battalions but it's not as pronounced as that from what I can tell, Officers move between different postings fairly often, and since command level officers do this as well the way a battalion is culturally can change every three years or thereabouts.
Storm Bringer
2014-01-08, 08:05 AM
well, the british army infarty and armour regiments are quite insular compared to both the rest of teh british army or the US army. a infantry solider is part of his regiment his whole career. the RSM of the the Coldstream Guards joined up as a private in the Coldstream. this leads to quite distinct regimental traditions and ethos, though of coruse they are all boardly simmilar.
other branches, like arty, logicistics, medics or (like me)signals, do move around in side of corps, so we are closer to the US army in that respect/ and your right, the atmosphere of a unit can change dramatically when the officers in charge change.
however, speaking of incompetent LTs, i have worked with several Lts fresh out of the factory, and htey were all.....ok. none were outstanding, but they didn't seem too stupid. i think a large part of that is that they were, all of them, willing to listen to thier staffies and stripeys when they suggested things. maybe Sandhurst puts more emphasis on offciers listening to thier troops? i don't know.
out of intrest, are the instructors at West Point and other officer training camps officers themselves?
well, the british army infarty and armour regiments are quite insular compared to both the rest of teh british army or the US army. a infantry solider is part of his regiment his whole career. the RSM of the the Coldstream Guards joined up as a private in the Coldstream. this leads to quite distinct regimental traditions and ethos, though of coruse they are all boardly simmilar.
other branches, like arty, logicistics, medics or (like me)signals, do move around in side of corps, so we are closer to the US army in that respect/ and your right, the atmosphere of a unit can change dramatically when the officers in charge change.
however, speaking of incompetent LTs, i have worked with several Lts fresh out of the factory, and htey were all.....ok. none were outstanding, but they didn't seem too stupid. i think a large part of that is that they were, all of them, willing to listen to thier staffies and stripeys when they suggested things. maybe Sandhurst puts more emphasis on offciers listening to thier troops? i don't know.
out of intrest, are the instructors at West Point and other officer training camps officers themselves?
OCS has some officer instructors, but the daily instructors are SNCOs, typically, most of them have transferred from dong Drill Instructor work in other life. The insularity might have something to do with it, or it might be a slight cultural difference over the military as a whole. Most 2nd Lts are "okay", but it becomes a problem because they are often unwilling to listen to advice, at least in my experience.
Galloglaich
2014-01-08, 12:15 PM
They come out of the Enlisted Ranks in the Army.
http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/WOEligibility.shtml
Or they can come from the other services. But they're always prior enlisted who are given a "warrant" to make them into officers rather than a commission.
The specific requirements may change from year to year but the helicopter pilots (which are most of the warrant officers) go strait into the flight / pilot training, most are young, and aren't NCO's or prior service. Same for a lot of the medical specialists. A lot of them come strait out of PA school which is similar to medical school, though earlier (Vietnam era) a lot of them came from the junior enlisted ranks (medics)
I still say this is substantially different between the Army and Navy / Marines.
G
The specific requirements may change from year to year but the helicopter pilots (which are most of the warrant officers) go strait into the flight / pilot training, most are young, and aren't NCO's or prior service. Same for a lot of the medical specialists. A lot of them come strait out of PA school which is similar to medical school, though earlier (Vietnam era) a lot of them came from the junior enlisted ranks (medics)
I still say this is substantially different between the Army and Navy / Marines.
G
Helo pilots is a fairly specific exemption, and that is different but I would suggest that the majority of Army Wobblies aren't helo pilots. Both the Navy and Marines require you to be an Officer to fly, so the comparison really isn't a direct one, since both times you can sign up (depending on your level of schooling) and go into flying even if you had no other skills at all.
Galloglaich
2014-01-08, 02:37 PM
I believe most WO in the Army are Helicopter pilots, though I could be wrong about that.
The main point though is that in the Navy, 'Chief' WO replaces the senior enlisted ranks in the Army (or Air Force, I think though I'm not certain) for all jobs (what the Army calls an MOS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_enlisted_rates#E-7_to_E-9
In the Navy "E-7 to E-9 are still considered Petty Officers, but are considered a separate community within the Navy. They have separate berthing and dining facilities (where feasible), wear separate uniforms, and perform separate duties."
Warrant Officers don't really have anything to do with senior enlisted / NCO ranks in the Army. An E-7 is just another NCO one notch about an E-6. Warrant Officers are technical specialists usually outside of the direct chain of command for most soldiers.
For example when I was a medic, our 'army boss' was an E6, Staff Sergeant, the CWO 3 was a PA, basically like the doctor, he was a technical supervisor but he didn't have anything to do with discipline or extra duty assignments and so forth.
The difference between the Navy and Army on this may be that so many of Navy enlisted personnel are technicians of one sort or another, I really don't know. But it's definitely a different system.
G
I believe most WO in the Army are Helicopter pilots, though I could be wrong about that.
The main point though is that in the Navy, 'Chief' WO replaces the senior enlisted ranks in the Army (or Air Force, I think though I'm not certain) for all jobs (what the Army calls an MOS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_enlisted_rates#E-7_to_E-9
In the Navy "E-7 to E-9 are still considered Petty Officers, but are considered a separate community within the Navy. They have separate berthing and dining facilities (where feasible), wear separate uniforms, and perform separate duties."
Senor Chief Petty Officers are absolutely not the same as Warrant Officers and senior SNCOs in all the services have their own differing duties and customs, although not the ridiculous Khakis.
Warrant Officers don't really have anything to do with senior enlisted / NCO ranks in the Army. An E-7 is just another NCO one notch about an E-6. Warrant Officers are technical specialists usually outside of the direct chain of command for most soldiers.
That's because SNCO in the Army and Marines begins at E-6, not E-7 like in the navy. And an E-6 is a SNCO, not exactly the same thing as an NCO, they have different requirements different promotion boards and different disciplinary measures and those are cross service.
For example when I was a medic, our 'army boss' was an E6, Staff Sergeant, the CWO 3 was a PA, basically like the doctor, he was a technical supervisor but he didn't have anything to do with discipline or extra duty assignments and so forth.
The difference between the Navy and Army on this may be that so many of Navy enlisted personnel are technicians of one sort or another, I really don't know. But it's definitely a different system.
G
Well the difference is that the duties of doctors, or pilots are given to officers, so you don't have the Warrant Officers who are not prior enlisted SMEs, but otherwise they're exactly the same track.
Mike_G
2014-01-08, 06:07 PM
I believe most WO in the Army are Helicopter pilots, though I could be wrong about that.
The main point though is that in the Navy, 'Chief' WO replaces the senior enlisted ranks in the Army (or Air Force, I think though I'm not certain) for all jobs (what the Army calls an MOS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_enlisted_rates#E-7_to_E-9
In the Navy "E-7 to E-9 are still considered Petty Officers, but are considered a separate community within the Navy. They have separate berthing and dining facilities (where feasible), wear separate uniforms, and perform separate duties."
Warrant Officers don't really have anything to do with senior enlisted / NCO ranks in the Army. An E-7 is just another NCO one notch about an E-6. Warrant Officers are technical specialists usually outside of the direct chain of command for most soldiers.
For example when I was a medic, our 'army boss' was an E6, Staff Sergeant, the CWO 3 was a PA, basically like the doctor, he was a technical supervisor but he didn't have anything to do with discipline or extra duty assignments and so forth.
The difference between the Navy and Army on this may be that so many of Navy enlisted personnel are technicians of one sort or another, I really don't know. But it's definitely a different system.
G
The Navy is nuts.
It's confusing to anybody who isn't Navy. But CPOs are just the higher ranked Petty Officers, nothing to do with Warrant Officers. A Chief Petty Officer is an E-7, equivalent to Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines, not sure what an E-7 is in the Army. Platoon Sergeant maybe?
But, yeah, the Navy has an Enlisted uniform, and a CPO uniform that isn't quite enlisted, but not quite officer. Your rank is your "rating" which is kinda your job. You aren't just a Corporal or Specialist who happens to be a medic, you are a Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class, HM3. And there's a doohickey in side your rank insignia with your specialty represented. And your rank ins only worn on one sleeve. And they tell time with "Bells."
We think it's all just to confuse Marines.
The Navy is nuts.
It's confusing to anybody who isn't Navy. But CPOs are just the higher ranked Petty Officers, nothing to do with Warrant Officers. A Chief Petty Officer is an E-7, equivalent to Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines, not sure what an E-7 is in the Army. Platoon Sergeant maybe?
But, yeah, the Navy has an Enlisted uniform, and a CPO uniform that isn't quite enlisted, but not quite officer. Your rank is your "rating" which is kinda your job. You aren't just a Corporal or Specialist who happens to be a medic, you are a Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class, HM3. And there's a doohickey in side your rank insignia with your specialty represented. And your rank ins only worn on one sleeve. And they tell time with "Bells."
We think it's all just to confuse Marines.
It got worse when they got those new working uniforms with the shiny rank, for enlisted, it's absolutely terrible.
Galloglaich
2014-01-08, 06:52 PM
The Navy is nuts.
It's confusing to anybody who isn't Navy. But CPOs are just the higher ranked Petty Officers, nothing to do with Warrant Officers. A Chief Petty Officer is an E-7, equivalent to Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines, not sure what an E-7 is in the Army. Platoon Sergeant maybe?
But, yeah, the Navy has an Enlisted uniform, and a CPO uniform that isn't quite enlisted, but not quite officer. Your rank is your "rating" which is kinda your job. You aren't just a Corporal or Specialist who happens to be a medic, you are a Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class, HM3. And there's a doohickey in side your rank insignia with your specialty represented. And your rank ins only worn on one sleeve. And they tell time with "Bells."
We think it's all just to confuse Marines.
Ok I stand corrected, confused the crap out of me too ;)
G
Mike_G
2014-01-08, 07:08 PM
This may or may not help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_ratings
Seriously, the Navy is ...different.
Brother Oni
2014-01-09, 02:52 PM
Just found this 'game' that might be of interest to people here: Gun Disassembly (http://www.kongregate.com/games/vklimov/gun-disassembly).
I personally find it fascinating as I'm extremely unlikely to be ever able to handle a pistol (UK gun control laws), although the Americans here might find it a bit lacking compared to the real thing. :smalltongue:
Note that full screen mode is available in the options.
Just found this 'game' that might be of interest to people here: Gun Disassembly (http://www.kongregate.com/games/vklimov/gun-disassembly).
I personally find it fascinating as I'm extremely unlikely to be ever able to handle a pistol (UK gun control laws), although the Americans here might find it a bit lacking compared to the real thing. :smalltongue:
Note that full screen mode is available in the options.
Can you guys buy bows?
Storm Bringer
2014-01-10, 01:04 AM
Can you guys buy bows?
no, but shotguns and rifles are legal in the uk, for specific reasons, like being a game warden or clay pigeon shooting. But self defence is not considered a good reason to own a firearm* and, following on form that, because pistols are designed primarily for self defence, they are illegal**
* however, use of a firearm in self defence is legal, assuming you face a threat to life.
** what he law actually bans is any weapon with a barrel less than 1ft. and/or a total length less than 2ft. that wording is used to catch any "sawn off" shotguns and other such weapons, the reasoning being that the only reason you would want a gun that small is to shoot another human, which is of course a crime.
wiki page on uK gun laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)
Roxxy
2014-01-10, 01:46 AM
On the subject of organization of militaries, I've been working on a fantasy campaign setting set in a later industrial age tech level, and the military, being a possible role for players, is something I've been putting effort in, and I have some plausibility questions.
In one of my main nations, long hair on men isn't viewed as being improper or edgy. It isn't held up as being the ideal appearance, but it wouldn't make anyone question your professionalism. Since the culture doesn't attach a negative perception to long hair on males, I was thinking of having the military permit it, so long as it is clean and well groomed and doesn't extend past the elbow when at attention. It should, of course, be secured when working in any area where there is a chance of it getting in the way or getting caught in equipment, or when in a combat zone. Moustaches and beards are to be clean and well groomed, and must not interfere with the proper use of a gas mask or other PPE, or otherwise present a safety hazard. This does bring up the question of how much hair it takes to interfere with the proper use of a gas mask.
Short hair is pretty common, but it's usually around half an inch or an inch. Grooming standards are pretty strict. Buzzcuts are viewed as somewhat degrading, and therefore are only ever permitted on recruits (All of whom receive one, regardless of gender, precisely because it is degrading.).
Aside from protective equipment and safety issues, is there any glaring problem with this that I am missing?
Let's say officers were recruited for OCS through the ranks of the NCOs, with command recommendations and aptitude testing being the determining factors. Non-command officers would start out as Warrant Officers and become officers later. This includes doctors and fighter pilots. Most nominees would be in the sergeant ranks, but there is no rule saying a corporal couldn't be selected. Is there likely to be a resulting shortage of officers in the event of a war? If the age of eligibility for military service is 20, because society reckons you an adult and finished with primary education at that point, not 18, can the two extra years create a recruit shortage during a total war situation?
If the civilian education system graduates people from primary education at 20 with their choice of a University prep or trade diploma, how does this effect military training? If someone with a paramedic trade diploma enlists as a field medic, can they be sent to their unit with only a few days training after boot camp, since they learned the job in school?
Thiel
2014-01-10, 02:24 AM
In one of my main nations, long hair on men isn't viewed as being improper or edgy. It isn't held up as being the ideal appearance, but it wouldn't make anyone question your professionalism. Since the culture doesn't attach a negative perception to long hair on males, I was thinking of having the military permit it, so long as it is clean and well groomed and doesn't extend past the elbow when at attention. It should, of course, be secured when working in any area where there is a chance of it getting in the way or getting caught in equipment, or when in a combat zone. Moustaches and beards are to be clean and well groomed, and must not interfere with the proper use of a gas mask or other PPE, or otherwise present a safety hazard. This does bring up the question of how much hair it takes to interfere with the proper use of a gas mask.
If you have access to enough Vaseline you can use a gas mask with a pretty extravagant full beard.
Short hair is pretty common, but it's usually around half an inch or an inch. Grooming standards are pretty strict. Buzzcuts are viewed as somewhat degrading, and therefore are only ever permitted on recruits (All of whom receive one, regardless of gender, precisely because it is degrading.).
Aside from protective equipment and safety issues, is there any glaring problem with this that I am missing?
Not really.
http://b.bimg.dk/node-images/271/2/620x/2271545-til-bm-arkiv-f-danske-soldater-i-helmand-provinsen-afghanistan.jpg
Hexalan
2014-01-10, 03:34 AM
If hair isn't properly handled, I could see that becoming an issue. If you're in intense combat, you'll want everything to be as controlled as possible. If hair were to fall over your eyes as you try to aim your firearm, catch a spark and start burning, grabbed in hand-to-hand combat, etc., that'd be something soldiers would really try to avoid. When someone is trying to kill you, you want to limit any disadvantage you can.
Related, buzz cuts aren't just to promote uniformity. Hair can harbor lot's of nasty critters. Generally, when you gather lot's people close together for an amount of time (like an army), hair is shaved to prevent the spread of lice. Even if everything is to be cleaned and groomed, that's hard to maintain during heavy combat.
Brother Oni
2014-01-10, 03:37 AM
Can you guys buy bows?
Storm Bringer's right on shotguns and rifles - you need a good reason for a shotgun and a very good reason for a rifle. Note that certain calibres are banned (.22 for example) and owning a weapon (not just the license to use one) is particularly stringent.
You can buy bows and cross bows without a license though (I've got one!). You cannot hunt game with a bow or crossbow however so you're limited to target archery.
There's also an offence of 'Possession of an Offensive Weapon in a Public Place (http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/offensive-weapon-possessing.htm)', which you have to be careful of: the semi-recent premiere of the Disney Pixar film Brave in London had a Meridia look-a-like on the red carpet and the modern wooden recurve bow she had was backstrung, presumably to get around this issue:
http://i1.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1164449.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/brave-uk-premiere-image-3-60781819-1164449.jpg
Self bows don't like being backstrung and not stringing it would make people wonder why she was carrying a long wooden stick.
Is there likely to be a resulting shortage of officers in the event of a war? If the age of eligibility for military service is 20, because society reckons you an adult and finished with primary education at that point, not 18, can the two extra years create a recruit shortage during a total war situation?
Depends on the enemy tactics. I know on the Eastern Front during WW2, German officers were at a particularly premium since the Russian snipers were specifically targetting them.
In a total war situation, those two years can be critical, particularly after the first few years and attrition starts taking its toll. During WW1, the age for enlistment in the UK was 18, but unofficially they were taking boys as young as 16 (the boys were sneaking in and the recruiting sergeants were deliberately not asking too many question).
If someone with a paramedic trade diploma enlists as a field medic, can they be sent to their unit with only a few days training after boot camp, since they learned the job in school?
Depends on how likely they are to see combat. Basic training includes bringing everybody up to a minimum standard of fitness and if your 3 day's basic training medics can't keep up with the properly trained infantry soldiers, then they're not much use.
Likewise if they panic or have no idea what to do when the lead starts flying then they're no use to man or beast.
That said, what you're referring to already exists but only for professionally qualified applicants (doctors, lawyers, dentist, nurses, etc) who usually aren't let anywhere near the enemy. In the British Army, it's a 10 week commissioning course rather than a few days however and although they're officers, they're not allowed to be in a command position.
In light of recent experiences however they're thinking of extending it to include some actual infantry commander training, like the regular officer course.
edit: Ah, I missed the late Industrial Age requirement.
fusilier
2014-01-10, 03:42 AM
As you said late industrial I'm thinking up to the WW1 era?
Long Hair
I'll need to double check but the British in WW1 allowed Sikhs to keep their hair long. There was also a proposal floated to allow Native Canadians to keep long hair, war paint, and ceremonial headdresses. It wasn't implemented, but the idea stemmed from the perception that the Germans appeared to have an irrational fear of Native American warriors.
The French in the same war permitted fairly long beards, as long as they didn't interfere with wearing the gas mask. Many photos show French soldiers combing their goatees.
The biggest issue will be standards of uniformity. Peace-time armies of late industrial era nations usually wanted all their soldiers (at least within the same unit) to look the same." During war-time those standard might be relaxed a bit, or perhaps just not enforced.
Officers
The warrant officer positions, as I understand them, aren't really seen as stepping stones to officer positions. Instead a warrant officer is/was usually someone with specialized skills or abilities, they are specialists. A 2nd Lieutenant is usually seen as the "intro-level" officer. Not all armies have this structure though, so it may be that there were other starting-places for those embarking on the officer path. (I think adjutants may have filled that role in some European armies, officer-cadets too).
[An aside -- what appellation is used when addressing a warrant officer, when stating the full rank isn't required? For some reason I want to say "Mr." but I may have picked that up from Doctor Who.]
In the event of a big war -- like a world war -- there will most likely be a shortage of officers. Peacetime national conscription systems, like most continental armies had, will help, but they only go so far. Promoting out of the ranks can't always solve the problem. There will most likely be a lot of blundering and learning on the job. Small scale wars and colonial conflicts probably would have enough officers to expand through such a system that you describe. Although I wouldn't necessarily count on less blundering . . .
A small peacetime army, like the US had during the 19th century, could run into problems of there being not enough officer positions available. Resulting in few opportunities to advance.
Entering the army at age 20 is fine for a late 19th century army. I know that Italy conscripted recruits during WW1 based on the year it which they were born. The age dropped over the course of the war from 21 or 22, to 17-18 in the most desperate moments (in late 1917, after Caporetto, they called up the class of 1899, most would have been 18).
Education
This one depends upon what the particular job is in the military, and how the military has organized that job. Sometimes the military has its own way of doing things, and that could complicate things to the point where they would prefer to train the soldiers for the specific jobs themselves.
But in the late 19th century, the feeling that I get is that they were usually more than happy to engage someone who had the appropriate civilian skills -- I think that was pretty common with medical personnel at the time. And formal training programs for specialists only came up when there was a large demand (like during a world war). Otherwise, soldiers may have learned their special skills by having been detailed to work under the supervision of more experienced soldiers.
Sometimes, they even hired civilian contractors. Under Napoleon III the French army relied heavily upon contracted civilians for their supply wagons. This had the benefit of being able to expand and contract quickly, and it served the French well in the Crimean War. It showed its limitations during the Franco-Prussian War when civilian teamsters would often move away from the fighting (taking their wagons with them), depriving the French soldiers of needed supplies.
Brother Oni
2014-01-10, 04:18 AM
I'll need to double check but the British in WW1 allowed Sikhs to keep their hair long.
They did and they still do. That said, baptised (and some non-baptised) Sikhs always have their long hair tied up in a turban, so loose hair is not an issue.
An aside -- what appellation is used when addressing a warrant officer, when stating the full rank isn't required? For some reason I want to say "Mr." but I may have picked that up from Doctor Who.
Wiki says 'Sir/Ma'am' by their subordinates (but not saluted), 'Mr/Mrs/Ms' by their seniors: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_officer_(United_Kingdom)).
Spiryt
2014-01-10, 04:32 AM
Short hair in military is still relatively recent invention.
Prussian army of 18th century was famous for ridiculously restrictive drill, and soldiers were required to have haarzopf and precisely styled hair above their ears.
If soldiers was unable to actually provide their own hair, they were allowed (or rather required, I guess) to wear a wig...
All in the name of standardization and de-individualization, among other things.
So it's certainly possible to imagine long hair in 'modern styled' army.
Though it's also indeed probable that if it's going to be allowed, it's going to be required as well, prussian style. :smalltongue:
fusilier
2014-01-10, 04:33 AM
Wiki says 'Sir/Ma'am' by their subordinates (but not saluted), 'Mr/Mrs/Ms' by their seniors: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_officer_(United_Kingdom)).
Ah ha! Some more poking around on wikipedia show's that the United States uses a similar title, but doesn't indicate a difference between how subordinates and senior officers should refer to them.
Roxxy
2014-01-10, 05:36 AM
I don't have much time right now, so I'll just say that I know thats not how warrant officers are used IRL, but I thought it might fit in a system where people rise from the ranks to become officers. Basically, I want the WO to be someone too skilled to be an enlisted, like a surgeon or a fighter pilot, but without the command responsibility of an officer. Once they gain enough experience, they could become an officer the same way an enlisted could.
On the subject of organization of militaries, I've been working on a fantasy campaign setting set in a later industrial age tech level, and the military, being a possible role for players, is something I've been putting effort in, and I have some plausibility questions.
In one of my main nations, long hair on men isn't viewed as being improper or edgy. It isn't held up as being the ideal appearance, but it wouldn't make anyone question your professionalism. Since the culture doesn't attach a negative perception to long hair on males, I was thinking of having the military permit it, so long as it is clean and well groomed and doesn't extend past the elbow when at attention. It should, of course, be secured when working in any area where there is a chance of it getting in the way or getting caught in equipment, or when in a combat zone. Moustaches and beards are to be clean and well groomed, and must not interfere with the proper use of a gas mask or other PPE, or otherwise present a safety hazard. This does bring up the question of how much hair it takes to interfere with the proper use of a gas mask.
Short hair is pretty common, but it's usually around half an inch or an inch. Grooming standards are pretty strict. Buzzcuts are viewed as somewhat degrading, and therefore are only ever permitted on recruits (All of whom receive one, regardless of gender, precisely because it is degrading.).
Aside from protective equipment and safety issues, is there any glaring problem with this that I am missing?
The facial hair regs had more to do with gas masks, the hair on your head regulations had to do with lice and other unpleasant things of that nature. I don't see any significant problem with long hair if it's kept properly restrained as such, it would make wearing a helmet extremely uncomfortable though
Let's say officers were recruited for OCS through the ranks of the NCOs, with command recommendations and aptitude testing being the determining factors. Non-command officers would start out as Warrant Officers and become officers later. This includes doctors and fighter pilots. Most nominees would be in the sergeant ranks, but there is no rule saying a corporal couldn't be selected. Is there likely to be a resulting shortage of officers in the event of a war? If the age of eligibility for military service is 20, because society reckons you an adult and finished with primary education at that point, not 18, can the two extra years create a recruit shortage during a total war situation?[/Quote]
Maybe, that really depends on the total force numbers before the war, if you create a glut of officers or relax the standards if you're mobilizing for war, mobilizing generally involves things being relaxed or changed in that regard.
If the civilian education system graduates people from primary education at 20 with their choice of a University prep or trade diploma, how does this effect military training? If someone with a paramedic trade diploma enlists as a field medic, can they be sent to their unit with only a few days training after boot camp, since they learned the job in school?
Definitely not, a lot of Boot training has to do with insuring people can follow orders quickly and without question, a real-life medic would want to save people even when they couldn't be practicably saved, and that's a problem. Some of it has to do with certain standards of physical fitness.
Now if you're wanting a military that can be rapidly mobilized, then incorporate some military training into civilian life, make everybody have to go through basic training in high school and then put them into a reserve status, although you'd still need more than a couple days to bring reservists back up to speed (probably a couple of weeks) it's much more plausible.
snowblizz
2014-01-10, 07:20 AM
Now if you're wanting a military that can be rapidly mobilized, then incorporate some military training into civilian life, make everybody have to go through basic training in high school and then put them into a reserve status, although you'd still need more than a couple days to bring reservists back up to speed (probably a couple of weeks) it's much more plausible.
That's the basic premise of conscription (right?), at least as it's applied here. Stuff every 18 year old in uniform for 9-12 months and teach them the basics. *When* needed you have a large pool of quasi-trained semi-professionals to fill in holes with.
Depending on how militarised (sometimes totalitarian can substitute) a society is then such things could be incorporated early on as was and is done in many countries. I'm unsure how specific I dare be, already got 1 warning for using a Real World (tm) example once.
Pre-WW2 N. Germany trained their armed forces on the expectation of rapid expansion, so soldiers (officers) were trained for at least one grade higher than they were.
The ACW and Americans in WW2 I think provide good examples (?) of what happens when you unexpectedly expand the military. Able commanders can definitely be found outside the established corpse, but they tend to be exceptions. That said training officers doesn't guarantee good results either.
Regarding facial hair. I'm thinking as mentioned if allowed would tend towards somekind of ranking. Officers would probably be more flamboyant and especially those who feel they are cooler than others, eg cavalry officers and aviators (if present).
That seems to be quite analogous to history in the period. Napoleons Grenadiers and Guards had to have beards and/or moustaches IIRC.
Storm Bringer's right on shotguns and rifles - you need a good reason for a shotgun and a very good reason for a rifle. Note that certain calibres are banned (.22 for example) and owning a weapon (not just the license to use one) is particularly stringent.
You can buy bows and cross bows without a license though (I've got one!). You cannot hunt game with a bow or crossbow however so you're limited to target archery.
There's also an offence of 'Possession of an Offensive Weapon in a Public Place (http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/offensive-weapon-possessing.htm)', which you have to be careful of: the semi-recent premiere of the Disney Pixar film Brave in London had a Meridia look-a-like on the red carpet and the modern wooden recurve bow she had was backstrung, presumably to get around this issue:
http://i1.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1164449.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/brave-uk-premiere-image-3-60781819-1164449.jpg
Self bows don't like being backstrung and not stringing it would make people wonder why she was carrying a long wooden stick.
Depends on the enemy tactics. I know on the Eastern Front during WW2, German officers were at a particularly premium since the Russian snipers were specifically targetting them.
In a total war situation, those two years can be critical, particularly after the first few years and attrition starts taking its toll. During WW1, the age for enlistment in the UK was 18, but unofficially they were taking boys as young as 16 (the boys were sneaking in and the recruiting sergeants were deliberately not asking too many question).
Depends on how likely they are to see combat. Basic training includes bringing everybody up to a minimum standard of fitness and if your 3 day's basic training medics can't keep up with the properly trained infantry soldiers, then they're not much use.
Likewise if they panic or have no idea what to do when the lead starts flying then they're no use to man or beast.
That said, what you're referring to already exists but only for professionally qualified applicants (doctors, lawyers, dentist, nurses, etc) who usually aren't let anywhere near the enemy. In the British Army, it's a 10 week commissioning course rather than a few days however and although they're officers, they're not allowed to be in a command position.
In light of recent experiences however they're thinking of extending it to include some actual infantry commander training, like the regular officer course.
edit: Ah, I missed the late Industrial Age requirement.
Why is .22 banned? It's perfect for target shooting because of cheap ammo but too weak to reliably kill anybody and too short range to commit lots of other types of crimes. I suppose it is quiet?
Brother Oni
2014-01-10, 07:45 AM
That's the basic premise of conscription (right?), at least as it's applied here. Stuff every 18 year old in uniform for 9-12 months and teach them the basics. *When* needed you have a large pool of quasi-trained semi-professionals to fill in holes with.
I think you mean mandatory/compulsory military service rather than conscription, but yes.
Regarding facial hair. I'm thinking as mentioned if allowed would tend towards somekind of ranking. Officers would probably be more flamboyant and especially those who feel they are cooler than others, eg cavalry officers and aviators (if present).
That seems to be quite analogous to history in the period. Napoleons Grenadiers and Guards had to have beards and/or moustaches IIRC.
As mentioned previously, beards and other facial hair are an issue when fitting gasmasks and other PPE. If gas masks aren't needed or yet invented, then facial hair would be more common, particularly if grooming equipment and supplies (shaving cream, razors, etc) aren't being delivered.
Other than that, it's cultural norms and whether you can grow the hair. A babyfaced 20 year old 2nd Lt isn't going to be able to grow the same luxurious facial hair that a middle aged veteran sergeant is going to be able to, even in the Victorian era.
Why is .22 banned? It's perfect for target shooting because of cheap ammo but too weak to reliably kill anybody and too short range to commit lots of other types of crimes. I suppose it is quiet?
Some checking indicates that I was mistaken - all handguns except .22 calibre were banned as a result of the fallout from the Dunblane School Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre), and .22 pistols were subsequently banned in a later amendment.
.22 rifles are still available, subject to the stringent requirements listed previously. A point of note is that getting a Shotgun or Firearms license is not a right here and the police can refuse any application under the somewhat nebulous 'good reason' clause: link (http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm).
That link indicates that they can even revoke an existing license if they feel you no longer have a 'good reason'.
GraaEminense
2014-01-10, 07:49 AM
Now if you're wanting a military that can be rapidly mobilized, then incorporate some military training into civilian life, make everybody have to go through basic training in high school and then put them into a reserve status, although you'd still need more than a couple days to bring reservists back up to speed (probably a couple of weeks) it's much more plausible.
If you want a society that can mobilize huge armies, you start early. Significantly increase the importance of phys ed in schools, encourage extracurricular activites that teach soldierly skills (polo is basically cavalry 101, for example), or just flat out require kids to join an outdoorsy scout organization (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzhgAtA_1Y0). Basic training in high school is not a bad idea, but with luck you could have a good percentage of high-schoolers already with decent skills and ready for specialization.
The idea that "everyone is a soldier" is alien to most people today, but it´s been done and is not implausible.
jaybird
2014-01-10, 09:11 AM
[An aside -- what appellation is used when addressing a warrant officer, when stating the full rank isn't required? For some reason I want to say "Mr." but I may have picked that up from Doctor Who.]
Canadian Forces usually go by "Warrant".
snowblizz
2014-01-10, 09:24 AM
I think you mean mandatory/compulsory military service rather than conscription, but yes.
Yes you are right. Although Wikipedia does say "Conscripton: yes" and there's an article for "Conscription in Finland". What would be difference in meanings?
As mentioned previously, beards and other facial hair are an issue when fitting gasmasks and other PPE. If gas masks aren't needed or yet invented, then facial hair would be more common, particularly if grooming equipment and supplies (shaving cream, razors, etc) aren't being delivered.
Other than that, it's cultural norms and whether you can grow the hair. A babyfaced 20 year old 2nd Lt isn't going to be able to grow the same luxurious facial hair that a middle aged veteran sergeant is going to be able to, even in the Victorian era.
And that was part of why I was thinking it would form something of a status symbol if permitted. Then again I may be slightly too influenced by Dwarfs. :smallwink:
If you want a society that can mobilize huge armies, you start early. Significantly increase the importance of phys ed in schools, encourage extracurricular activites that teach soldierly skills (polo is basically cavalry 101, for example), or just flat out require kids to join an outdoorsy scout organization (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzhgAtA_1Y0). Basic training in high school is not a bad idea, but with luck you could have a good percentage of high-schoolers already with decent skills and ready for specialization.
The idea that "everyone is a soldier" is alien to most people today, but it´s been done and is not implausible.
Yes, that was I was referring to, a large reserve force is the way to create the military that can be mobilized. You can start either before or after high school, but the size of the reserve force is entirely the deciding factor. Even if you force people to serve temporarily and then transfer them into the reserves it works nearly as well.
Also I've not seen that boy scouts were that much better at soldiering than anybody else, so I doubt that it would have as much of an importance as you would think, direct military training and a large reserve corps that periodically trains is the way to be able to mobilize quickly.
Stephen_E
2014-01-10, 10:27 AM
Yes, that was I was referring to, a large reserve force is the way to create the military that can be mobilized. You can start either before or after high school, but the size of the reserve force is entirely the deciding factor. Even if you force people to serve temporarily and then transfer them into the reserves it works nearly as well.
Also I've not seen that boy scouts were that much better at soldiering than anybody else, so I doubt that it would have as much of an importance as you would think, direct military training and a large reserve corps that periodically trains is the way to be able to mobilize quickly.
Isn't that basically a description of Switzerland?
Isn't that basically a description of Switzerland?
I've heard Switzerland is very similar to that, yes. But I don't know enough about Switzerland to actually speak to it. But the concept is the same.
snowblizz
2014-01-10, 10:31 AM
Also I've not seen that boy scouts were that much better at soldiering than anybody else, so I doubt that it would have as much of an importance as you would think, direct military training and a large reserve corps that periodically trains is the way to be able to mobilize quickly.
The outdoorsy scout organisation linked there wasn't exactly the boy scouts.
Technically speaking we don't know what the results would have wound up being, they didn't quite have the time to fully blossom (thankfully). But the outdoorsy scout organisation would have taught obedience (fanaticism...) and physical fitness. A lot of the basics of workings as a unit would have been there already when the wee blonde lads ended up in the armed forces...
I've heard Switzerland is very similar to that, yes. But I don't know enough about Switzerland to actually speak to it. But the concept is the same.
Essentially all Scandinavian countries works on this premise. Small countries that expect to invaded by larger neighbours...
The outdoorsy scout organisation linked there wasn't exactly the boy scouts.
Technically speaking we don't know what the results would have wound up being, they didn't quite have the time to fully blossom (thankfully). But the outdoorsy scout organisation would have taught obedience (fanaticism...) and physical fitness. A lot of the basics of workings as a unit would have been there already when the wee blonde lads ended up in the armed forces...
True I've never worked with those who were in the organization you're referring to, and I've heard that it was responsible for the quality of their NCO Corps, it certainly wouldn't hurt, I was just saying that direct military training is probably required for a good reserve force, whether you do that in school (certainly possible and that has been done), or you could do it after (The Switzerland Model), they'd both give you large reserve forces.
Brother Oni
2014-01-10, 11:11 AM
Yes you are right. Although Wikipedia does say "Conscripton: yes" and there's an article for "Conscription in Finland". What would be difference in meanings?
I was under the impression that compulsory military service was only for a fixed time (typically a year) while conscription was indefinite (usually until the crisis is over).
Reading up about it though, I can't see a difference between a 1 year conscription period and a 1 year compulsory military service, so it may just be a translation/image thing or I'm just mistaken.
If there's a difference, it might be the difference of being drafted to undergo basic training and then leave after a year or so, and being drafted to form actual combat units.
Until conscription was suspended here in Germany, that's how it went. And given the foreign security situation since 1990, doing your year of basic training was pretty much everything conscripts ever did. (Not sure if there were regular refresh-trainings, but those are also constitutionally permitted.)
Given the "unique" role of military in Germany, conscripts can only be drafted for combat for the defense of the domestic territory. Those send on missions overseas are all professional career soldiers who signed up for the full package.
I was under the impression that compulsory military service was only for a fixed time (typically a year) while conscription was indefinite (usually until the crisis is over).
Reading up about it though, I can't see a difference between a 1 year conscription period and a 1 year compulsory military service, so it may just be a translation/image thing or I'm just mistaken.
I think it's a translation thing, conscription is generally used to many any involuntary military service. At least in common usage.
If there's a difference, it might be the difference of being drafted to undergo basic training and then leave after a year or so, and being drafted to form actual combat units.
Until conscription was suspended here in Germany, that's how it went. And given the foreign security situation since 1990, doing your year of basic training was pretty much everything conscripts ever did. (Not sure if there were regular refresh-trainings, but those are also constitutionally permitted.)
Given the "unique" role of military in Germany, conscripts can only be drafted for combat for the defense of the domestic territory. Those send on missions overseas are all professional career soldiers who signed up for the full package.
This is true, although reservists tend to be organized into more or less cohesive units in the US at least. I'm not sure how that would transfer to a setting like Kalma's. I think that having some military training in high school or thereabouts might help.
To answer the question about the eighteen year olds I think that the cutoff at 20 wouldn't be too lowering a force multiplier.
snowblizz
2014-01-10, 07:00 PM
Given the "unique" role of military in Germany, conscripts can only be drafted for combat for the defense of the domestic territory. Those send on missions overseas are all professional career soldiers who signed up for the full package.
Not that unique actually. Works more or less the same here. Except I don't think there are any actual career soldiers except officers/NCOs. A reservist can apply for crisis management training and then subsequently apply for a fixed term contract as peace keeper. The main difference is you aren't actual career soldiers. I know a guy who was in Kosovo for a bit, works at a bank now.
Am bit fuzzy on the details since I never had to do that mandatory military service (or the "equivalent" civil punishment, refuse to call it service since it's not actually intended to be anything that). Crimean war and all that jazz.
This is true, although reservists tend to be organized into more or less cohesive units in the US at least.
Cohesive how?
I assume reservist here will have travel back to their old unit (because most are rather specialised, and so you can't just go anywhere for a refresher on driving a tank say) to train but I'm not sure if they call up all your army buddies at the same time or what. Since it's never applied to me and thus not been a concern.
fusilier
2014-01-10, 07:06 PM
I don't have much time right now, so I'll just say that I know thats not how warrant officers are used IRL, but I thought it might fit in a system where people rise from the ranks to become officers. Basically, I want the WO to be someone too skilled to be an enlisted, like a surgeon or a fighter pilot, but without the command responsibility of an officer. Once they gain enough experience, they could become an officer the same way an enlisted could.
That sounds reasonable. You could use a rank like cadet or something similar. In some systems the lowest officer ranks are out ranked by some of the higher NCO ranks. The navy has a midshipman rank that fills that role. For a while there was the semi-formal rank of "passed midshipman" which was a midshipman that had passed his exams, and was eligible to be, but had not been, promoted to lieutenant (you can't promote someone unless there is a vacancy to be filled).
That sounds reasonable. You could use a rank like cadet or something similar. In some systems the lowest officer ranks are out ranked by some of the higher NCO ranks. The navy has a midshipman rank that fills that role. For a while there was the semi-formal rank of "passed midshipman" which was a midshipman that had passed his exams, and was eligible to be, but had not been, promoted to lieutenant (you can't promote someone unless there is a vacancy to be filled).
They still have a lot of things like that, sometimes they promote somebody to an "acting rank" without giving them the promotion or extra pay if there's a sudden and unexpected vacancy. Also if you pick up staff in the Marines you still have to wait to actually promote. It's worse in the Navy where chiefs have to go through their weird hazing thing before promoting.
Cohesive how?
I assume reservist here will have travel back to their old unit (because most are rather specialised, and so you can't just go anywhere for a refresher on driving a tank say) to train but I'm not sure if they call up all your army buddies at the same time or what. Since it's never applied to me and thus not been a concern.
Well in the US you're with a reserve unit and you meet once a month, it allows you to maintain training and unit cohesion, if you deploy it'll generally be with those people, although that's not always the case.
Thiel
2014-01-10, 07:26 PM
I have a question this time.
I'm working on setting where WWII hasn't happened (yet) and Europe is divided roughly into four blocks, Britain and France in the west, a post-Nazy but still expansionist Germany, "Super Poland" which includes Poland, Czechoslovakia and parts of Ukraine and Romania, and lastly there's the Soviet Union.
On top of that there's Italy to the south and a militarily unified Scandinavia to the north.
The entire thing started out as an RP and one of the offshoots of that is that Scandinavia has a colony in south east asia.
Anyway, on to the question. I'm looking for a light machinegun to arm long range foot patrols in said colony. The year is 1950, so the gun has to have been available in the late forties at the latest. On the other hand, given Scandinavia's firmly neutral stance it can be sourced just about anywhere, though you'd need a pretty compelling reason for buying Soviet.
Weight is probably the main requirement since the troops will be lugging it around on foot along small footpaths.
Oh and it'll be replacing the Madsen LMG.
fusilier
2014-01-10, 07:51 PM
I have a question this time.
I'm working on setting where WWII hasn't happened (yet) and Europe is divided roughly into four blocks, Britain and France in the west, a post-Nazy but still expansionist Germany, "Super Poland" which includes Poland, Czechoslovakia and parts of Ukraine and Romania, and lastly there's the Soviet Union.
On top of that there's Italy to the south and a militarily unified Scandinavia to the north.
The entire thing started out as an RP and one of the offshoots of that is that Scandinavia has a colony in south east asia.
Anyway, on to the question. I'm looking for a light machinegun to arm long range foot patrols in said colony. The year is 1950, so the gun has to have been available in the late forties at the latest. On the other hand, given Scandinavia's firmly neutral stance it can be sourced just about anywhere, though you'd need a pretty compelling reason for buying Soviet.
Weight is probably the main requirement since the troops will be lugging it around on foot along small footpaths.
Oh and it'll be replacing the Madsen LMG.
Russian weapons were popular in Finland because they shared the same caliber.
How did Scandinavia become unified? I'm a little unclear on the phrase "militarily unified" -- was there a military conquest? Or a military alliance? If the army is unified, and has been for some time, they probably would have settled on "one" of the weapon standards used by those nations. Pick which one, and then find a light machine gun in the appropriate caliber.
Here's a link to Finnish light machine guns:
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/LMG1.htm
MG 42 could work well. It's such a solid design it's still used as the standard light machine gun in the german army (as MG 3 build to fire NATO rounds). And we usually love to use modern high-tech stuff for everything.
M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle could also fit well, since it was still used until the 60s.
--
I am looking for a helm style for a warrior culture I am writing. It should both look badass, but also be realistically practible. Which from what I've learned so far (mostly here), means no horns, wings, or anything of that nonsense that makes great handles for an enemy.
So far, I've been zeroing in on corrinthian helms and germanic spectacle helms. That cheek and nose guard combination quite appeals to me, obscuring the face while still leaving eyes and mouth relatively open. Barbutes also have that feature, but seem a bit plain to me and difficult to individually customize.
I am also quite fond of sallets and japanese kabuto, but I don't think these two general styles would blend well together.
What doesn't work so much for what I have in mind are helms that only have tiny eye slits and breathing holes, or anything with a kind of spine coming out of the top, like phrygian or persian helms.
Does anyone remember any helms that might be worth taking a look at for me?
Fortinbras
2014-01-11, 07:36 PM
I have a few questions about those high/late medieval swords with diamond cross sections (Oakshott Type XV's).
1. How early are the earliest examples of those sorts of blades? Have any been found from before say, 1275 or so?
2. Where those long stabbing blades designed for piercing mail, slipping into chinks in plate, or both? My impression is that knights, especially in the early period of plate, tended to have mail covering any areas left uncovered by plate, so it seems like one would need to be able to pierce the mail in any case, but I know mail was pretty darn tough.
3. How effective were those thicker blades for cutting?
Silverbit
2014-01-11, 07:58 PM
Yora:
I've recently done some helmet research myself.
The Frogmouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog-mouth_helm) helmet looks very solid and martial, but the eye-slit might be too small for your needs. It was mainly used mounted.
The Morion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morion_(helmet)) (AKA the Conquistador helmet) is rarely used, and I rather like the look of it.
The Barbute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbute) is rather like a sleeker version of the Corinthian helmet.
Hope you find these helpful!
Stephen_E
2014-01-11, 10:47 PM
MG42 has a serious problem for long range foot patrols. It's a beautiful weapon but it's an absolute ammo hog. Bren might be better. IMO not quite as good a weapon but much more economical on ammo.
The other major factor other than weight of Gun and ammo is the option of using the ammo of your dead enemies. As Fusilier mentioned the Finn's chose weapons with Soviet calibers for just that reason.
fusilier
2014-01-12, 01:15 AM
MG42 has a serious problem for long range foot patrols. It's a beautiful weapon but it's an absolute ammo hog. Bren might be better. IMO not quite as good a weapon but much more economical on ammo.
The other major factor other than weight of Gun and ammo is the option of using the ammo of your dead enemies. As Fusilier mentioned the Finn's chose weapons with Soviet calibers for just that reason.
That and they had been a part of the Russia Empire prior to the revolution . . . so they were already using Russian weapons. They also captured a lot of weaponry during WW2, so it worked out well.
warty goblin
2014-01-12, 01:15 AM
Does anyone remember any helms that might be worth taking a look at for me?
Go oldschool. Go kegelhelm (http://www.zum.de/Faecher/G/BW/Landeskunde/rhein/kultur/museen/blmka/ausst/helden/helm.htm).
Actually in general if you want terrifying headgear (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Center/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2997735), the bronze age has you covered. Folks went in for horns back then.
Cealocanth
2014-01-12, 01:44 AM
One of my players forced a call last week, and I'm really not sure if shooting a round through two feet of solid sea ice is even theoretically possible.
What is the maximum thickness of sea ice a Portuguese made, 16th century musket round could penetrate completely when using a conventional weapon of the period and common black powder? Let's assume that the musket is held directly up to the ice, straight downward.
An oddly specific question, I know. Still, if anyone has any help on this question, I would be more than appreciative.
Knaight
2014-01-12, 01:55 AM
One of my players forced a call last week, and I'm really not sure if shooting a round through two feet of solid sea ice is even theoretically possible.
What is the maximum thickness of sea ice a Portuguese made, 16th century musket round could penetrate completely when using a conventional weapon of the period and common black powder? Let's assume that the musket is held directly up to the ice, straight downward.
While I can't give you specific numbers, two feet seems completely absurd. Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foZlciP6gUQ) a modern .40 bullet, fired from a pistol. A musket would probably do better, but it would have to do something to the tune of a hundred times better to punch through, and well more than that to punch through with much kinetic energy left at the end. That's not happening.
Spiryt
2014-01-12, 05:12 AM
I have a few questions about those high/late medieval swords with diamond cross sections (Oakshott Type XV's).
1. How early are the earliest examples of those sorts of blades? Have any been found from before say, 1275 or so?
2. Where those long stabbing blades designed for piercing mail, slipping into chinks in plate, or both? My impression is that knights, especially in the early period of plate, tended to have mail covering any areas left uncovered by plate, so it seems like one would need to be able to pierce the mail in any case, but I know mail was pretty darn tough.
3. How effective were those thicker blades for cutting?
Yes, it is believed that they were seen as early as very late 13th century.
Generally, diamond section isn't much 'rocket sciency' and was being seen here an there in medieval Europe, if only at towards the tips of blades.
As far as function goes, only thing we can really say that it was made for heavy thrusting.
More precise, more powerful, more 'stiff' obviously.
They are really depicted very, very frequently in unarmed scenes in manuals of all kind. So, like all swords, they weren't really intended for all that forceful bashing trough stuff, likely.
As far as cutting goes, it really depends on many things - starting with the fact that diamond shaped blade, type XV or else, wouldn't have to be 'thicker' at all. Blade could have very steep angles between the central ridge and edges after all and still form 'diamond' in cross section.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-12, 04:20 PM
I have heard that there is evidence that warhorses were trained to kick (or, "punch") shields and enemies. Anyone know much as to this?
All I've heard is that there is evidence for it, and I saw a brief demonstration. I don't know how good the evidence is. I'm left to wonder about the worth of the manoeuvre when considering the risk of presenting your horse's forelegs.
Mr Beer
2014-01-12, 04:39 PM
One of my players forced a call last week, and I'm really not sure if shooting a round through two feet of solid sea ice is even theoretically possible.
What is the maximum thickness of sea ice a Portuguese made, 16th century musket round could penetrate completely when using a conventional weapon of the period and common black powder? Let's assume that the musket is held directly up to the ice, straight downward.
Seems highly unlikely, I believe you can drive a fully laden truck over two foot of ice. I mean I understand that provides a different type of stress but still.
warty goblin
2014-01-12, 05:17 PM
I have heard that there is evidence that warhorses were trained to kick (or, "punch") shields and enemies. Anyone know much as to this?
All I've heard is that there is evidence for it, and I saw a brief demonstration. I don't know how good the evidence is. I'm left to wonder about the worth of the manoeuvre when considering the risk of presenting your horse's forelegs.
If your horse is that close to the enemy, their legs are already an available target. And a kicking horse can easily be lethal - something people would be well aware of at that time. Between worrying about the horse's two hooves and whatever its rider is swinging at you, I'd think this could be a quite difficult move to block.
Seems highly unlikely, I believe you can drive a fully laden truck over two foot of ice. I mean I understand that provides a different type of stress but still.
Yeah, I'm really not buying a bullet punching through two feet of hard frozen ice.
jaybird
2014-01-12, 05:51 PM
One of my players forced a call last week, and I'm really not sure if shooting a round through two feet of solid sea ice is even theoretically possible.
What is the maximum thickness of sea ice a Portuguese made, 16th century musket round could penetrate completely when using a conventional weapon of the period and common black powder? Let's assume that the musket is held directly up to the ice, straight downward.
An oddly specific question, I know. Still, if anyone has any help on this question, I would be more than appreciative.
Not sure about musket balls, but during Pykrete testing a rifle round (7-8 mm caliber, ~50 mm length) was able to shoot through a foot of ice. Comparing the kinetic energy of the rounds should get you a decent approximation.
Mike_G
2014-01-12, 06:48 PM
Not sure about musket balls, but during Pykrete testing a rifle round (7-8 mm caliber, ~50 mm length) was able to shoot through a foot of ice. Comparing the kinetic energy of the rounds should get you a decent approximation.
It's not that simple.
Musket balls are spherical and soft. They are heavy but slow. This makes them seem to have lots of energy, but it's not nearly as good at penetrating than a fast, pointy, jacketed round.
Incanur
2014-01-12, 09:05 PM
Stumbling across this MIT steam-canon test (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/steamCannon/ArchimedesSteamCannon.html) has made me wonder why the technology didn't take off in ancient and medieval times. Yes, the fire seems awkward, but the researchers got 23,000 J at 300+ m/s out of a 2ft barrel! The 1 shot per 2 minutes shooting rate isn't too bad either.
Cealocanth
2014-01-12, 09:34 PM
So after some research, I found that musket balls would actually have more penetrating power than modern bullets (at least when looking at sheer force involved), however, since modern bullets are jacketed and are made of harder materials than musket balls, which are usually made out of lead, the bullet is more likely to penetrate accurately because the force of the musket ball against the ice overcomes the maximum compressive strength of lead.
In other words, the musket ball would become flatter than a pancake and veer off course quickly. If it does make it through the ice, there's no chance of the ball actually hitting the target. Not having a rifled barrel doesn't help here either.
So next time someone wants to try to shoot through solid ice over 1.74 feet thick, "magic musket balls" would be the only answer to why it would work.
Thanks for your help, guys. :smallsmile:
Thiel
2014-01-12, 10:43 PM
Stumbling across this MIT steam-canon test (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/steamCannon/ArchimedesSteamCannon.html) has made me wonder why the technology didn't take off in ancient and medieval times. Yes, the fire seems awkward, but the researchers got 23,000 J at 300+ m/s out of a 2ft barrel! The 1 shot per 2 minutes shooting rate isn't too bad either.
Metallurgy and metalworking. Making a pressure vessel strong enough is no mean feat today, let alone back then. Cannons are much simpler since they don't have to be pressure tight for more than a fraction of a second.
Incanur
2014-01-12, 10:59 PM
Metallurgy and metalworking. Making a pressure vessel strong enough is no mean feat today, let alone back then. Cannons are much simpler since they don't have to be pressure tight for more than a fraction of a second.
It doesn't look like this design has to be pressure-tight for any longer. The MIT folks specifically speculate that making a powerful steam cannon probably would have been possible with the technology of Archimedes's day. They also cryptically refuse to share the details of their design out of fear it could cause harm: "In fact, the solution is so simple, effective, and dangerous that we have decided not to disclose the details."
On the other hand, the barrel does look like a modern mass-produced steel tube. Perhaps it wouldn't function as well with classical metallurgy.
It does give me more respect for those dwarven steam cannons in the old Master of Magic computer game. I may add steam cannons to my no-gunpowder fantasy universe.
Matthew
2014-01-13, 12:01 AM
I have heard that there is evidence that warhorses were trained to kick (or, "punch") shields and enemies. Anyone know much as to this?
All I've heard is that there is evidence for it, and I saw a brief demonstration. I don't know how good the evidence is. I'm left to wonder about the worth of the manoeuvre when considering the risk of presenting your horse's forelegs.
I have seen some period drawings with war horses apparently fighting one another, and know that some "spirited" sorts can have pretty bad tempers, but I am drawing a blank on evidence for them being trained to attack. The only time it might be useful is in the press of męlée, which is a time I would think the rider would want to be in close control of his mount.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-13, 12:09 AM
Goblin: When you put it that way it might be good for preventing them slicing at your horse's legs, if you're at that range. The slowness of the attack worries me.
Matt: I only heard mention evidence exists on a program, with nothing to estimate the value of. The, "source," is here: http://youtu.be/nol6S8W69UI?t=5m12s
Incanur
2014-01-13, 12:30 AM
I have seen some period drawings with war horses apparently fighting one another, and know that some "spirited" sorts can have pretty bad tempers, but I am drawing a blank on evidence for them being trained to attack. The only time it might be useful is in the press of męlée, which is a time I would think the rider would want to be in close control of his mount.
There is some evidence (http://books.google.com/books?id=LLHomhe_fMUC&pg=PA143&dq=warhorse+%2B+bite+%2B+kick&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GnnTUtqsF8KHqgHD3YHYDA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=warhorse%20%2B%20bite%20%2B%20kick&f=false) for the notion; Albert the Great apparently expected warhorses to bite and kick. I can't find it now, but I remember reading a 16th-century source that described warhorses trained to pick up weapons (or whatever) in their teeth for the convenience of their riders. So perhaps they could be trained to attack on command as well. Of course, there are various accounts of warhorses going berserk too.
Matthew
2014-01-13, 12:47 AM
Matt: I only heard mention evidence exists on a program, with nothing to estimate the value of. The, "source," is here: http://youtu.be/nol6S8W69UI?t=5m12s
I do so love television history, especially when hosted by Terry Jones, a man with no political agenda whatsoever ... Sounds like the only evidence for training is interpretation of one (or more) manuscript illuminations, unless they were just presenting the weakest evidence they could think of.
There is some evidence (http://books.google.com/books?id=LLHomhe_fMUC&pg=PA143&dq=warhorse+%2B+bite+%2B+kick&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GnnTUtqsF8KHqgHD3YHYDA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=warhorse%20%2B%20bite%20%2B%20kick&f=false) for the notion; Albert the Great apparently expected warhorses to bite and kick. I can't find it now, but I remember reading a 16th-century source that described warhorses trained to pick up weapons (or whatever) in their teeth for the convenience of their riders. So perhaps they could be trained to attack on command as well. Of course, there are various accounts of warhorses going berserk too.
Oh yeah, war horses definitely have the potential to be aggressive (some of them have brutal tempers even in the stables), and Albert's description is not alone as an idealised notion of what the war horse should do, but whether it is based in reality or fantasy is another question, and the degree to which they were trained to do so is where I am drawing a blank. It is definitely possible they were, I just cannot think of many examples of the results in practice, even in epic and romance literature. Incidentally, the cover illustration of that book was the primary one I had in mind!
Mr. Mask
2014-01-13, 01:26 AM
Matt: Yeah... I don't know what his agenda is, but it would require effort to not notice there is one. I am all too aware of how sadly common this is in many sources of history.
Anyone who has dealt with a horse knows they're capable of certain and deadly attack. However, I had wondered if this was something you wanted to avoid them doing in combat, or if it was something to encourage.
Mike_G
2014-01-13, 08:34 AM
I think it might be encouraged when in the press just to keep infantry away and to create some space for the cavalryman to maneuver. A horse hemmed in by a crowd is an easy target, most weren't thoroughly armored, and if he stays fairly still, hacking at his unprotected leg or belly, then getting at the unhorsed rider would be fairly easy for footsoldiers. I could see a horse being trained to lash out at footmen who get close. It's not a tactic likely to kill a lot of pikemen, but it might keep them from pressing in and overwhelming the cavalrymen.
warty goblin
2014-01-13, 09:37 AM
Goblin: When you put it that way it might be good for preventing them slicing at your horse's legs, if you're at that range. The slowness of the attack worries me.
Horse kicks aren't slow. With the back feet they're so fast you can't even see them.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-13, 09:55 AM
Goblin: I was thinking that too as I saw the demonstration. Those kicks looked slow. Check the link I posted above.
Mike: Horses ought to do that naturally. Problem might be teaching them when is and isn't a good time to do this (namely for horse archers, who don't want to get stuck horse-boxing with infantry).
Galloglaich
2014-01-13, 10:50 AM
Horses trained for war can be pretty aggressive, you can see just a hint of that looking at Kyrgyz horse-wrestling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C86d-vGEIDg
... the horses get into it and become ornery.
My understanding is that warhorses were trained to kick and so on, I can't remember the source though. It is also true though that they could be vulnerable.
I don't think there is any real limit to metallurgy which would have prevented steam cannons in the 16th or probably the 15th Century.
The Oakeshott type XV swords can be very good cutters depending on the shape of the blade. It's complex of course and other things like blade thickness are important factors, but very generally, XV swords with broad blades tend to cut very well, narrower ones less so. I have an Albion Constable and it cuts extremely well. This was actually a surprise to the community when the good replicas first started coming on the market - everyone assumed they would only be good for thrusting. But they are among the better cutters, why isn't certain but it may have something to do with the profile taper, which I suspect may have a similar effect to a saber.
Normally for cuts the broader the blade at the center of percussion the better it cuts (like a falchion) but obviously there is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak.
G
Incanur
2014-01-13, 11:16 AM
I don't think there is any real limit to metallurgy which would have prevented steam cannons in the 16th or probably the 15th Century.
Of course, by that point, there's little reason to bother. The projectile weight and range given by Leonardo da Vinci - one talent (32kg?) and six stadia (1100m?) - suggest a powerful weapon competitive with gunpowder cannons, but gunpowder seems more convenient and reliable. So perhaps da Vinci rather than Archimedes invented the steam cannon, and it came too late to be useful. This still makes classical/medieval steam cannons an interesting what if.
Laughingmanlol
2014-01-13, 12:35 PM
This may have been asked before, but I'm wondering what sort of technological advances are needed in order to create firearms? I'm considering putting some gunpowder, used for mining, in a dungeon, and I'm expecting my players will try and make gunpowder weapons. What sort of barriers in terms of metallurgy, forging, and other scientific advances are there to making effective firearms, assuming a pretty standard Pathfinder medieval setting? Do you have any recommendations for means of overcoming them, both mundane and magical?
Spiryt
2014-01-13, 12:44 PM
This may have been asked before, but I'm wondering what sort of technological advances are needed in order to create firearms? I'm considering putting some gunpowder, used for mining, in a dungeon, and I'm expecting my players will try and make gunpowder weapons. What sort of barriers in terms of metallurgy, forging, and other scientific advances are there to making effective firearms, assuming a pretty standard Pathfinder medieval setting? Do you have any recommendations for means of overcoming them, both mundane and magical?
Gunpowder is one - some more or less sound understanding of (al)chemy is required to produce potassium nitrate consistently. And to discover the qualities of it's combination with charcoal and sulfur.
The other is ability to forge/cast some nice barrel with a tiny hole in it.
Very simple guns are not 'complicated' weapons at all, as far as technology goes.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-13, 01:19 PM
Laugher: The original firearms were a metal pipe with a hole at one end, and a little hole near the back so you could ignite the powder with a match. The original ammo was a large crossbow bolt (designed to fit snugly into the barrel). After a while they swapped to round shot.
If you want to know how you get modern firearms... watch a series called, "Tales of the Gun," and you'll get an idea how complicated it gets.
Brother Oni
2014-01-13, 03:16 PM
To give some more details, the earliest recorded western firearm is the hand cannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_cannon) which soon developed into the culverin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culverin).
These early culverins were very heavy (some preserved specimens weigh close to 20kg, not including the wooden stock/handle).
From an earlier thread, I remember that Pathfinder has rules for culverins?
Note that this is the earliest firearm - use of gunpowder as a propellant was known for some time before this:
Fire arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_arrow)
Hwacha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha)
Fire lance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance)
As Spiryt indicated, firearms are very simple things: all you need is decent quality gunpowder (which has its own issues of purity and proper mix of components) and a simple vessel strong enough to withstand the stresses involved. Early metallurgy was comparatively crude, hence early cannons and firearms had very thick barrels: pot-de-fer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot-de-fer).
You don't even need to use metal for the barrel - apparently the Chinese early firearms used a bamboo tube, although I can't find any information on whether such weapons were reusable: Huo Qiang (http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/siegeweapons-earlyguns.html).
Thiel
2014-01-13, 05:10 PM
Cannons were quite often made out of wood (Built p like a barrel) and even leather.
Wardog
2014-01-13, 07:02 PM
Gunpowder is one - some more or less sound understanding of (al)chemy is required to produce potassium nitrate consistently. And to discover the qualities of it's combination with charcoal and sulfur.
The other is ability to forge/cast some nice barrel with a tiny hole in it.
Very simple guns are not 'complicated' weapons at all, as far as technology goes.
Making a gun is very easy.
The trick is to make one that goes off when you want it to, doesn't go off when you don't, hits what you are aiming at, and doesn't blow up in your face at the same time.
Also, on the subject of UK gun laws that was raised earlier: there are some pistols that are UK-legal. But they have to meet the "barrel>30cm, total>60cm" rule (leading to rather odd-looking things), and cannot be semi-auto (unless they are .22; the same rule applies to rifles). Or if they are muzzle-loading, in which case the previous rules don't apply.
https://www.shootingshow.co.uk/Go-Shooting-Pistols.html
Mr Beer
2014-01-13, 07:25 PM
Cannons were quite often made out of wood (Built p like a barrel) and even leather.
I thought "leather" cannons were in fact copper wrapped with leather.
fusilier
2014-01-13, 10:28 PM
This may have been asked before, but I'm wondering what sort of technological advances are needed in order to create firearms? I'm considering putting some gunpowder, used for mining, in a dungeon, and I'm expecting my players will try and make gunpowder weapons. What sort of barriers in terms of metallurgy, forging, and other scientific advances are there to making effective firearms, assuming a pretty standard Pathfinder medieval setting? Do you have any recommendations for means of overcoming them, both mundane and magical?
The use of gunpowder for mining is a later development than it's use in projectile weapons. Unfortunately, the claims are all over the map, with claims that it wasn't used in mining until the early 17th century, or as early as the late 15th century. (The confusion may come from the fact that it was first used to mine fortress walls in the late 15th or early 16th century).
Early meal powder generated rather low pressures. While the first cannons seem to have been made out of bronze, pretty quickly they were constructed out of iron-staves and hoops -- which worked but is actually quite weak -- and it allowed the construction of fairly large cannons, given the technology of the times (bronze casting technology would eventually catch up, and the superguns of the 15th century were usually bronze).
As others have noted, there are wood cannons, and leather cannons (although they're more of a composite). Hand-gonnes were pretty simple --
But, there was one key thing that made hand gonnes practical in the field, and that was the development of match-cord (which is like a slow burning fuse). Prior to match-cord the standard way of lighting a cannon was to thrust a heated wire through the vent. The wire needed to be heated with fire, so it wasn't very practical to use hand-gonnes except from a static position where braziers could be available. Some time in the latter half of the 14th century match-cord was developed and that allowed the troops to take their own fire with them, however it did involve a change in how to fire the weapon. It wasn't practical to put the match down the vent-hole, and filling the match hole with powder would make it burn like a fuse. The solution was to pour a small amount of powder *around* the vent-hole and ignite that with the match, the resulting "flash" would travel through the vent and ignite the main charge.
Some of the early Asian gunpowder weapons (which aren't quite guns or cannons), had a fuse that hung out the mouth of the weapon, so they had no vent hole. These were more like fireworks that you pointed at your enemy, sometimes with several projectiles added in, but they were very short ranged.
(See "fire lance")
DoctorFaust
2014-01-13, 11:58 PM
So I have heard tell of a thing called a bastard saber in a few discussions I've had online before, and since I haven't been able to find any historical pictures or anything from a reputable source about them, I thought I should just ask if they are real or not.
I figure that it's probably a slashing weapon, meant to be wielded with either one or two hands, and dissimilar enough from the katana or kilij families to warrant it's own name. Any knowledge you guys have would be appreciated.
TheHoodedTeddy
2014-01-14, 07:21 AM
Questions about a repeating crossbow:
Can you hand the clips on your belt without the bolts falling out?
How do you hold one so you can see past the clip and still aim decently?
Brother Oni
2014-01-14, 07:34 AM
So I have heard tell of a thing called a bastard saber in a few discussions I've had online before, and since I haven't been able to find any historical pictures or anything from a reputable source about them, I thought I should just ask if they are real or not.
Only thing I can find on a 'bastard sabre' is a reference to a Hungarian weapon: link (http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?81571-Hungarian-bastard-sabre).
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=67040&d=1185111404
The information on that page indicates that there is a surviving specimen in the Hungarian National Museum (http://www.hnm.hu/) but its English pages are a bit lacking and I can't read Hungarian to navigate the more complete pages.
Questions about a repeating crossbow:
Can you hand the clips on your belt without the bolts falling out?
How do you hold one so you can see past the clip and still aim decently?
What type of repeating crossbow?
The Chinese cho ku nu (http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm) did not have a detachable magazine (I presume this is what you mean by 'clip'), and bolts were loaded loose by hand (there were no ammunition clips).
It was used more as suppression fire on formations, thus precision aiming wasn't really necessary or possible. Due to the specific mechanism, the bolts used with a cho ku nu didn't have flights and combined with its limited power, effective range was only about 100m with poor penetrative capabilities (the heads were typically dipped in poison to improve lethality).
Thiel
2014-01-14, 08:16 AM
Re: Bastard Sabre
They could also be talking about a cutlass like weapon since that's a specialised offspring of the sabre. In fact it wasn't uncommon to grind down a longer cavalry or infantry sabre that had been beaten up.
Incanur
2014-01-14, 11:31 AM
As far as repeating crossbows go, note that Yingxing Song (also transliterated as Sung Ying-hsing) considered them too weak for military service at the end of the Ming era (1637), writing that they were more suitable as a home-defense weapon for driving off bandits.
TheHoodedTeddy
2014-01-14, 04:16 PM
I was more talking about the one in the 3.5 player handbook. It shows a detatchable clip. Also, I've been arguing with a buddy that well fitted full plate armor has superior range of motion to chainmail. Am I right about this?
warty goblin
2014-01-14, 04:30 PM
I was more talking about the one in the 3.5 player handbook. It shows a detatchable clip. Also, I've been arguing with a buddy that well fitted full plate armor has superior range of motion to chainmail. Am I right about this?
I don't think so. Mail is heavy and can be awkward to move in if you aren't used to it, but it gives pretty much complete freedom of movement. Certainly in the times I've worn it, I've never been unable to bend any part of my body due to the mail being to rigid, because it's entirely non-rigid. There may be things I can't do in it due to the weight of the stuff, but that's a somewhat separate issue.
I haven't worn plate harness, but I can't see it being that flexible. A single piece breastplate won't let you bend between neck and waist, simply by its construction. There's no way to armor the inside of the elbow effectively with plate steel that doesn't restrict the degree one can bend the joint. Now by all accounts a well made suit of plate does allow substantial mobility, but I'd be extremely surprised if it was at the level of mail alone. Mail is basically just an enormously heavy knit sweater after all, and doesn't really restrict movement any more than that.
Galloglaich
2014-01-14, 04:41 PM
Of course, by that point, there's little reason to bother. The projectile weight and range given by Leonardo da Vinci - one talent (32kg?) and six stadia (1100m?) - suggest a powerful weapon competitive with gunpowder cannons, but gunpowder seems more convenient and reliable. So perhaps da Vinci rather than Archimedes invented the steam cannon, and it came too late to be useful. This still makes classical/medieval steam cannons an interesting what if.
I can imagine two respects where it could be useful particularly for defense. You don't need any powder. You don't have to keep the powder dry.
Of course you do need fuel to burn but they had coal by then and you could store a LOT of that and it was much cheaper than gunpowder though it's hard to compute which would actually be more efficient. But coal doesn't blow up easily like gunpowder does.
G
Knaight
2014-01-14, 05:09 PM
So I have heard tell of a thing called a bastard saber in a few discussions I've had online before, and since I haven't been able to find any historical pictures or anything from a reputable source about them, I thought I should just ask if they are real or not.
The term itself seems questionable, but I'd be very surprised if nobody had made a curved sword that could be used in one or two hands - which, given the probably sloppiness of the term, is all that's being referred to here.
In particular, early Song China had a fair amount going on with sword development involving lengthening dao designs. While I wasn't able to find a reference to anything that would fit the "bastard saber" description with a cursory look it does seem likely that a few would show up.
warty goblin
2014-01-14, 05:13 PM
The term itself seems questionable, but I'd be very surprised if nobody had made a curved sword that could be used in one or two hands - which, given the probably sloppiness of the term, is all that's being referred to here.
I'd figure a kriegsmesser could probably fit that bill.
Brother Oni
2014-01-14, 05:34 PM
I was more talking about the one in the 3.5 player handbook. It shows a detatchable clip.
Do you mean this one?
http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss8/Monroid/xbowz.jpg
If you're looking for a gameplay answer, I suggest treating them like a quiver or quarrel case, thus they can be hung from a belt without issue.
If you're for a real world answer, then that case is far too large for just 5 bolts (it looks about the same size as a cho ku nu's magazine and that holds twice as many bolts), so assuming that it's not a mistake on the part of the artist, the bolts are going to rattle round, especially when hung on a belt, which can cause damage or potentially cause feeding issues.
According to the SRD, the range increment for a repeating crossbow is the same as its normal counterpart, which implies the repeating bolts have flights; these could potentially cause fouling in the mechanism (it could explain the spacing though).
I think the image is good at representing the concept of the weapon, but falls down when you start looking at detail into it (as an example, I have no idea how that winch is supposed to work. It looks like a cranequin, except the handle is mounted in the wrong axis, thus it will interfere with the spanning).
Also, I've been arguing with a buddy that well fitted full plate armor has superior range of motion to chainmail. Am I right about this?
I'm with warty on this - mail is going to have a superior range of motion as it's non-rigid.
Knaight
2014-01-14, 05:42 PM
I'd figure a kriegsmesser could probably fit that bill.
I could see that.
fusilier
2014-01-14, 07:56 PM
I think the image is good at representing the concept of the weapon, but falls down when you start looking at detail into it (as an example, I have no idea how that winch is supposed to work. It looks like a cranequin, except the handle is mounted in the wrong axis, thus it will interfere with the spanning).
It's probably *supposed* to be a lever, and not a crank. It would function in a back-and-forth motion (through approximately 180 degrees), rather than a full 360 degree circular motion.
I'm with warty on this - mail is going to have a superior range of motion as it's non-rigid.
Sometimes mail is reinforced with leather thongs threaded through the links, which will stiffen it up. But basic chainmail is usually pretty flexible, and is often a component of a suit of plate armor.
fusilier
2014-01-14, 08:07 PM
The term itself seems questionable, but I'd be very surprised if nobody had made a curved sword that could be used in one or two hands - which, given the probably sloppiness of the term, is all that's being referred to here.
In particular, early Song China had a fair amount going on with sword development involving lengthening dao designs. While I wasn't able to find a reference to anything that would fit the "bastard saber" description with a cursory look it does seem likely that a few would show up.
Heh. When I first heard the term "bastard saber", I thought it referred to some sort of short saber, not one that could be wielded with one or two hands. :-) "Bastard" is a pretty ambiguous term. In cannons it usually refers to a cannon with a thinner than usual barrel.
Generically it just means "irregular."
Knaight
2014-01-14, 09:01 PM
Heh. When I first heard the term "bastard saber", I thought it referred to some sort of short saber, not one that could be wielded with one or two hands. :-) "Bastard" is a pretty ambiguous term. In cannons it usually refers to a cannon with a thinner than usual barrel.
Generically it just means "irregular."
It's a pretty ambiguous term, but there's been a lot of corruption of popular terminology complements of fantasy (novels, D&D, videogames, etc.). Given that the original context was online discussions without anything going on in the way of sources, that seemed more likely.
Incanur
2014-01-14, 09:04 PM
Also, I've been arguing with a buddy that well fitted full plate armor has superior range of motion to chainmail. Am I right about this?
Probably not. Writing at the end of the 16th century, Sir John Smythe noted that halberdiers could wear mail sleeves instead of arm harness because this would leave them freer to use their weapons:
and yet if those halbarders or battleaxes in stead of pouldrons and vambraces did weare sleeues of good reueted maile that might couer all their shoulders and armes euen from vnder their Collers, breasts and backes, to the verie Gauntlets, considering that by the good defence and easinesse of such sleeues of maile, they might mannage their halbards the better, I would for my part allowe them for verie well armed.
Smythe went on to write that pikers needed arm harness because they were in the front ranks. Humphrey Barwick, who disagreed fiercely with Smythe on the bow-vs.-gun question, wrote that halberdiers should go without vambraces in order to wield their weapons better. Earlier, Fourquevaux assigned sleeves of mail to halberdiers without explanation.
They're all talking about mass-produced plate armor, so custom-crafted suits would presumably hinder movement less, but I still don't see how plate could be more flexible than mail.
I can imagine two respects where it could be useful particularly for defense. You don't need any powder. You don't have to keep the powder dry.
Of course you do need fuel to burn but they had coal by then and you could store a LOT of that and it was much cheaper than gunpowder though it's hard to compute which would actually be more efficient. But coal doesn't blow up easily like gunpowder does.
That just makes me wonder some more why Leonardo da Vinci's idea never took off as far as we can tell. Perhaps he kept it to himself and the knowledge never spread.
DoctorFaust
2014-01-14, 11:39 PM
It's a pretty ambiguous term, but there's been a lot of corruption of popular terminology complements of fantasy (novels, D&D, videogames, etc.). Given that the original context was online discussions without anything going on in the way of sources, that seemed more likely.
I did a bit of looking after seeing this and it turns out that the people were in fact talking about something almost identical to a kriegsmesser. Thanks for the help!
TheHoodedTeddy
2014-01-15, 08:22 AM
Yes, that picture is the one I was referring too, and you can see why I had questions.
I also remember seeing some documentary that tested topoftheline, personally fitted plate against chainmail. The plate had interlocking portions that slide over eachother for which I can't remember the term and It's bugging me.
Edit: I found a link to something with proof. When can we get the DnD rulebooks ammended?
http://m.imgur.com/a/3j1jA
EDIT 2: adding to the other discussion, I thought Bastard (weapon) was just one that fit between two catagories. I believe the bastard sword wast like the bastard child of the longsword and the greatsword.
Galloglaich
2014-01-15, 11:18 AM
I did a bit of looking after seeing this and it turns out that the people were in fact talking about something almost identical to a kriegsmesser. Thanks for the help!
See also the similar schweizersabel
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1375/07/1375071780793.jpg
Weapons in the messer / schweizersabel family were very common from around the 14th-17th Century particularly in Central Europe (roughly Switzerland to Poland say).
In the West (French etc.) especially you also had the falchion which depending on the variant could sometimes fit that description.
http://www.foxtail.nu/bjorn/images/pj_falchion.jpg
G
Brother Oni
2014-01-15, 01:00 PM
I also remember seeing some documentary that tested topoftheline, personally fitted plate against chainmail. The plate had interlocking portions that slide over eachother for which I can't remember the term and It's bugging me.
Edit: I found a link to something with proof. When can we get the DnD rulebooks ammended?
http://m.imgur.com/a/3j1jA.
Except that nobody was claiming that plate was restrictive, just restrictive compared to mail, which was your original question.
Taking a look at this armour from your link:
http://i.imgur.com/rdyvg7S.jpg
I count 7 plates covering the front of the torso, so 6 points where the armour can flex?
In comparison, how many places can a mail shirt flex?
http://www.museum-joanneum.at/upload/file/Kettenhemd.jpg
Incanur's also posted a historical reference to where mail was preferred over plate because of its improved range of movement.
TheHoodedTeddy
2014-01-15, 01:10 PM
Now I do feel silly. But plate armor is still better than it says in the books, and I believe in a lot of ways it has better protection, with little loss of RoM. So I lost that arguement with my friend. But I still bring up a valid, if overestimated, point.
Also, I'd say that's more folding and twisting than flexing and pivoting.
Knaight
2014-01-15, 01:24 PM
Now I do feel silly. But plate armor is still better than it says in the books, and I believe in a lot of ways it has better protection, with little loss of RoM. So I lost that arguement with my friend. But I still bring up a valid, if overestimated, point.
Also, I'd say that's more folding and twisting than flexing and pivoting.
D&D (and most media sources) vastly overestimate how cumbersome and heavy armor actually is, and often underestimate the protective value*. This applies to plate and mail both, and between the two of them mail does restrict motion less.
*I don't know how much bad fantasy I've read in which people hack through plate armor with a sword with little issue, but it's entirely too much.
Brother Oni
2014-01-15, 02:14 PM
But plate armor is still better than it says in the books, and I believe in a lot of ways it has better protection, with little loss of RoM.
Preaching to the choir here.
Also, I'd say that's more folding and twisting than flexing and pivoting.
Sorry I'm a biochemist not an engineer. I'm not too sure on the exact terminology. :smalltongue:
Incanur
2014-01-15, 03:46 PM
Yes, decent armor generally didn't hinder movement too much in the short term. However, it did significantly increase fatigue over the long term. Conditioned warriors could, according various sources, wear quality full-plate harness for an entire day and remain in fighting shape. On the other hand, the half or three-quarters harness commonly worn by infantry in the 16th century certainly made marching more difficult. In practice, infantry soldiers would at times discard some or all of their harness to ease the march. Fourquevaux and other writers specifically noted that one of the advantages of heavy armor was that it hindered flight. Knowing they weren't likely to outrun their foes, armored men thus had an incentive to stand their ground.
So, armor did significantly affect mobility, but not in quite the way that D&D and company model it.
Mike_G
2014-01-15, 04:28 PM
For simple game purposes, it's hard to add a "fatigue" multiplier and not make things much more complicated.
A penalty to max speed and skills like Jump, Climb, etc isn't completely outrageous, and it doesn't add a whole new complex game mechanic.
I feel confident that an unarmored man could beat an armored man in a footrace, so letting unarmored characters move faster isn't unreasonable.
warty goblin
2014-01-15, 04:36 PM
Thus the Dark Eye's solution of giving each skill it's own formula for how much encumbrance matters. And because of the way DSA's skill system works, those penalties hurt.
fusilier
2014-01-15, 04:50 PM
Yes, decent armor generally didn't hinder movement too much in the short term. However, it did significantly increase fatigue over the long term. Conditioned warriors could, according various sources, wear quality full-plate harness for an entire day and remain in fighting shape. On the other hand, the half or three-quarters harness commonly worn by infantry in the 16th century certainly made marching more difficult. In practice, infantry soldiers would at times discard some or all of their harness to ease the march. Fourquevaux and other writers specifically noted that one of advantages of heavy armor was that hindered flight. Knowing they weren't likely to outrun their foes, armored men thus had an incentive to stand their ground.
So, armor did significantly affect mobility, but not in quite the way that D&D and company model it.
I would like to add that the fatigue doesn't come merely from the weight of the armor, but also from the heat. So physical conditioning wasn't simply about being able to carry the weight.
Knaight
2014-01-15, 05:03 PM
I would like to add that the fatigue doesn't come merely from the weight of the armor, but also from the heat. So physical conditioning wasn't simply about being able to carry the weight.
This is particularly true with helmets. They generally aren't that heavy, but anything that covers most of the face is pretty much an oven.
Galloglaich
2014-01-15, 05:05 PM
Heat was actually the biggest issue in some cases, especially for plate armor which didn't breathe obviously. Heat exhaustion seems to have been the cause of several major defeats of knightly armies in the middle ages.
There is also a reason why infantry didn't usually wear lower-leg armor, it seemed to slow them down a lot.
A mail shirt however really might not slow you down much at all, only incrementally I would guess (a second or two off of a 100 meter dash I would guess) no more than wearing say, a winter jacket.
G
Jay R
2014-01-15, 05:13 PM
Heat was actually the biggest issue in some cases, especially for plate armor which didn't breathe obviously. Heat exhaustion seems to have been the cause of several major defeats of knightly armies in the middle ages.
There is also a reason why infantry didn't usually wear lower-leg armor, it seemed to slow them down a lot.
A mail shirt however really might not slow you down much at all, only incrementally I would guess (a second or two off of a 100 meter dash I would guess) no more than wearing say, a winter jacket.
G
In the SCA, chain doesn't make me fight particularly slower. It does make me run much slower. Also, it makes me wear out earlier. This doesn't affect the first melee. It certainly does affect the fourth battle of the day.
It's much worse than a winter jacket.
Galloglaich
2014-01-15, 05:48 PM
Yeah but two things
1) is that SCA style 'butted mail' or is it riveted mail? Butted mail, though not real, is very popular with SCA because it's so easy to make - but in order for the crimped rings to hold together they have to be much thicker and therefore a LOT heavier.
For example this shirt weighs an astonishing 31 lbs. And that's Aluminum!
http://www.bytheswordinc.com/p-14193-butted-chain-mail-shirt-40-910932.aspx?gclid=CM6u7JOfgbwCFSho7AodGBYAEA
By contrast a steel riveted mail shirt (with lighter, smaller rings) weighs 10 or 15 lbs
2) Are you talking about a whole panoply ('suit of armor') or just a shirt / byrnie?
G
Knaight
2014-01-15, 06:13 PM
New question time: About how small can links on mail get before it starts to cause structural issues? More specifically, if you assume that the labor issues inherent in mail are somehow minimized, what's the smallest practical ring size?
warty goblin
2014-01-15, 06:17 PM
New question time: About how small can links on mail get before it starts to cause structural issues? More specifically, if you assume that the labor issues inherent in mail are somehow minimized, what's the smallest practical ring size?
I've got butted mail gauntlets. The rings have an internal diameter of IIRC 1/4, and they work fine. I've also worn butcher's mail gloves that have interior ring diameters of maybe 1/8 inch tops, and they work fine.
The bigger problem I think is minimal wire thickness. I know my 16 or 18 gauge butted mail hauberk has problems with tearing at the neck, because it can't support the rest of the shirt very well. I can't figure anybody wanting to go much finer than 18 gauge for armor though, that's not a lot of metal between them and sharp things.
fusilier
2014-01-15, 06:18 PM
New question time: About how small can links on mail get before it starts to cause structural issues? More specifically, if you assume that the labor issues inherent in mail are somehow minimized, what's the smallest practical ring size?
I've seen an original mail shirt, believed to have been Indian made, where near the neck the rings became so fine and tiny, that it was speculated that children made them. The owner of the shirt was demonstrating how to make riveted chain mail, and he couldn't make anything that small. Not sure on what the practical limits may be.
Rhynn
2014-01-15, 08:55 PM
For simple game purposes, it's hard to add a "fatigue" multiplier and not make things much more complicated.
HarnMaster has a pretty great solution: your fatigue rate is determined by your load carried and your Strength (your Endurance determines how fast you recover fatigue when you pause for a breath). This doesn't front-load penalties for wearing armor, but a dude with 10 lbs. of weapons and 50 lbs. of quilt, mail, and a helm is going to tire out much, much faster than a dude with a 2 lbs. sword and some clothing on.
Brother Oni
2014-01-16, 03:15 AM
1) is that SCA style 'butted mail' or is it riveted mail? Butted mail, though not real, is very popular with SCA because it's so easy to make - but in order for the crimped rings to hold together they have to be much thicker and therefore a LOT heavier.
Old habits die hard, I guess. :smalltongue:
We discussed this in an earlier thread - while butted mail is of dubious authenticity in the West, it was a thing in Japanese armour (they used both riveted and butted/twisted links): kusari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_(Japanese_mail_armour)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hidden_kusari.JPG
Mike_G
2014-01-16, 07:29 AM
HarnMaster has a pretty great solution: your fatigue rate is determined by your load carried and your Strength (your Endurance determines how fast you recover fatigue when you pause for a breath). This doesn't front-load penalties for wearing armor, but a dude with 10 lbs. of weapons and 50 lbs. of quilt, mail, and a helm is going to tire out much, much faster than a dude with a 2 lbs. sword and some clothing on.
I played Harn a long time ago and liked it, but lot of people found it cumbersome, ,as you were constantly modifying your rolls. Wounds also produced a running penalty, so it was a lot of bookkeeping. It's less accurate, but easier to just slap a penalty on at the beginning.
Galloglaich
2014-01-16, 11:29 AM
Old habits die hard, I guess. :smalltongue:
We discussed this in an earlier thread - while butted mail is of dubious authenticity in the West, it was a thing in Japanese armour (they used both riveted and butted/twisted links): kusari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_(Japanese_mail_armour)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hidden_kusari.JPG
But even there they mostly just used that around the margins, armpits, thighs, arms etc. and they tend to use thinner wire.
The SCA style mail with complete panoplies of the heavy 16 gauge butted links is as far as I know, a complete fantasy. And as others noted, often is too weak and heavy to even support it's own weight.
G
Galloglaich
2014-01-16, 11:37 AM
New question time: About how small can links on mail get before it starts to cause structural issues? More specifically, if you assume that the labor issues inherent in mail are somehow minimized, what's the smallest practical ring size?
Apparently pretty small, I think 5 or 6mm or less, and more importantly, it's how they are put together (both thickness of the links and the particular 'weave' that links them together), you can see in the image Brother Oni posted upthread (http://www.museum-joanneum.at/upload/file/Kettenhemd.jpg), where the mail around the neck and head is very tight, and it gets more open further out from the neck. My understanding is they have some old mail at the Smithsonian which is made so tightly that you can't stick a pin through it.
They used to make mail like that in the late Medieval era and through the 17th Century, with very fine links often for personal civilian protection to be worn under ordinary street clothing. These shirts were often also tempered (they would make the mail, and then heat-teat and temper the whole thing). These could be extremely expensive.
In some of the fencing manuals they advise you to hug an individual you think you might be getting into a fight with to check to see if he's wearing mail under his clothing.
G
Mr. Mask
2014-01-16, 11:46 AM
Mike: I've been wondering how to combat just that... Even with a system that makes tracking all the modifiers bearable, it's annoying to have to track your Endurance every time you act. Check-boxes are an idea, but having to regularly check them and erase them isn't a lot better.
Incanur
2014-01-16, 11:48 AM
A while back, I timed myself short-distance sprinting in a weighted vest/jacket (10-20lbs) and sprinting without it. I don't remember noticing any significant difference, though the extra weight added to fatigue. Folks certainly can run in a full late harness. (See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4) at 35.18 for example.) It'd be interesting to see some detailed tests on much different kinds of armor affect running and fighting speed. I tend to think that well-fitted armor on an experienced wearer didn't reduce fighting speed enough to matter much. The long-term fatigue effect has lots experimental and historical support, but short-term effects remain murky.
Ill-fitting or poorly designed armor could cause all the stereotypical problems. According to Sydney Anglo (http://books.google.com/books?id=keDBwirOTQwC&pg=PA219&dq=d%27evoli+%2B+anglo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lgrYUr--ENHboASW94L4BA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=d%27evoli%20%2B%20anglo&f=false), the late 16th-century military writer Casare d'Evoli described the mail faulds and leg armor of the Ferraruoli - mounted pistoleers - as hindering not only running but evening walking. And he described their pauldrons as hindering blows with the sword.
fusilier
2014-01-16, 05:34 PM
Mike: I've been wondering how to combat just that... Even with a system that makes tracking all the modifiers bearable, it's annoying to have to track your Endurance every time you act. Check-boxes are an idea, but having to regularly check them and erase them isn't a lot better.
GURPS (3rd edition, although probably the same for 4th), assesses fatigue only at the end of a battle that lasted more than 10 seconds. The amount of fatigue is primarily based upon encumbrance, but can be modified by local conditions. The GM has discretion to add extra fatigue if the battle went on for a long time, like 2-3 minutes, although that's over 120 combat rounds, so it's not likely.
This makes sense as adrenaline will probably keep the fatigue from kicking in until the danger is over (on the other hand, I think that having high adrenaline levels for a while can cause fatigue of itself).
Mr. Mask
2014-01-16, 06:59 PM
Thank you for telling me that idea, Fusilier. Going to put some thought into it, discuss it with some guys I know. It might be an excellent work around.
Brother Oni
2014-01-16, 07:32 PM
The long-term fatigue effect has lots experimental and historical support, but short-term effects remain murky.
The only other short term effect I can think of, is the increased momentum - you'll find it harder to change direction or decelerate suddenly in armour.
For added hilarity, try it on a surface that has less traction (like wet grass) with period appropriate shoes (which also have less grip than modern shoes).
As fusilier said, between adrenaline, phosphocreatine and muscular stores of glycogen, you can output extreme physical performance for short periods, like those 10 seconds when you're sprinting for the bus. After these energy stores have been exhausted, that's when oxygen debt and other toxic metabolic byproducts start to affect performance.
Deffers
2014-01-16, 07:51 PM
I find it weird that plate is more arguing than chainmail. I mean, doesn't a chainmail armor have much poorer weight distribution by comparison to a suit of plate? Beyond that, wouldn't the heat issues be similar? I mean, closed helmets can be used with both, right? And both would rapidly become a PITA. So why the disparity?
fusilier
2014-01-16, 09:06 PM
I find it weird that plate is more arguing than chainmail. I mean, doesn't a chainmail armor have much poorer weight distribution by comparison to a suit of plate? Beyond that, wouldn't the heat issues be similar? I mean, closed helmets can be used with both, right? And both would rapidly become a PITA. So why the disparity?
As far as heat is concerned, chainmail has pretty good ventilation compared to plate armor. :-) Ventilation isn't a matter of being able to breathe, but allowing air to circulate and cool the body down. Also, plate armor will heat up in the sun a lot more than chain mail.
In fairness, most armor systems involved layers, and wearing heavy cotton or leather armor with chainmail, is going to add a fair amount of heat. Plate armor adds yet another level, which doesn't "breathe" as well as those others. Most writers seem to agree that plate-armor is more fatiguing to wear, and heat is a major component.
I've only worn chain mail a couple of times and it was the butted kind. It was comfortable when first put on, but by the end of the day, with the weight just hanging from me, it was pretty tiring -- but, I've been informed that the trick is wearing belts properly to shift the weight to the hips and off the shoulders. Mail certainly had flexibility.
Deffers
2014-01-16, 10:18 PM
Huh. Good to know-- so if air could circulate better, then perhaps plate would be less fatiguing? My admittedly ludicrous first thought was "stick a fan inside it like a PC." My second was, maybe you could use some water? Like, I'm guessing there's fabric inside that suit of armor, yeah? It's not just bare skin rubbing up against moving metal plates, because that's a recipe for ouch. Which implies, in my mind, that there's fabric which water could be poured on and heat might be exchanged that way.
Either that, or go to, like, Denmark. :P Beat the cold by working up a sweat as an armored war-god.
warty goblin
2014-01-16, 10:44 PM
You get water inside your armor plenty fast on a hot day. It's called sweat, and it doesn't help at all. You'd really not to saturate the padding underneath, as that would make it swell up and hinder your movement. It's also not a good idea to keep ferrous metals in contact with moisture due to rust.
You're better off with a thin layer of cloth over the armor to keep the sun off.
Deffers
2014-01-16, 10:57 PM
Good point-- the fibers would expand, which is not something I took into account.
I wonder-- would copper pipes carrying water fit into a plate harness? The idea being that you could empty the water in the pipes, screw on the bottom lid, and then refill it with new water. Like a water jacket for people. Is there actually enough room inside a plate harness to do something like that? Obviously it wouldn't have happened in olden times, but I'm just getting speculative here.
Mr Beer
2014-01-16, 11:00 PM
Good point-- the fibers would expand, which is not something I took into account.
I wonder-- would copper pipes carrying water fit into a plate harness? The idea being that you could empty the water in the pipes, screw on the bottom lid, and then refill it with new water. Like a water jacket for people. Is there actually enough room inside a plate harness to do something like that? Obviously it wouldn't have happened in olden times, but I'm just getting speculative here.
If you have access to modern materials, I would think a network of capillaries through a one-peice undergarment, with water being circulated through them and back round a cooling unit would be a good solution.
Figgin of Chaos
2014-01-16, 11:02 PM
Of melee weapons, which are generally better against armored opponents? From what I've seen of games with an armor penetration mechanic, the scale goes like this:
Swords are the worst against armored opponents
Axes are okay against armored opponents
Hammers are the best against armored opponents
I've heard this is actually backwards, though. Which one is it?
TuggyNE
2014-01-16, 11:17 PM
If you have access to modern materials, I would think a network of capillaries through a one-peice undergarment, with water being circulated through them and back round a cooling unit would be a good solution.
That's how space suits (which are basically airtight impact-resistant armor) generally function, so it should work fine.
ETA:
Of melee weapons, which are generally better against armored opponents? From what I've seen of games with an armor penetration mechanic, the scale goes like this:
Swords are the worst against armored opponents
Axes are okay against armored opponents
Hammers are the best against armored opponents
I've heard this is actually backwards, though. Which one is it?
That's fairly reasonable, although with the caveat that some swords are specifically designed to work well against even very heavily-armored opponents, though not by penetrating. I.e., as I understand it, "two-handed" swords tend to work more in a flexible grappling sort of way, targeting joints and creating injuring forces through the armor, than by just hacking straight through.
To some extent it also depends on the armor type, especially when dealing with very narrow penetrating weapons like bodkin-tipped arrows, but the analysis above is for plate harness.
Rhynn
2014-01-16, 11:20 PM
Swords are the worst against armored opponents
Axes are okay against armored opponents
Hammers are the best against armored opponents
Swords - longswords specifically - were one of the primary weapons used against armored opponents by professional warriors, and we have illustration after illustration in several period manuscripts (fechtbuchs) dealing with harnischfechten (fighting in armor) with longswords.
Here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html) is some basics on the topic.
The great advantage of the sword was that it would also be extremely effective against opponents with no armor, and was extremely versatile - a sword is much better at defense than a single-handed axe or mace (in large part because you can hold it between yourself and your opponent, forcing them to get around or past it before they can even have a chance to hurt you - a mace or axe you'd have to hold back and try to swing at them before they get inside your reach).
I don't actually think axes would be any good against armored opponents - it's a hacking/chopping weapon that. By "hammers" I'm not sure whether you're imagining ridiculous fantasy sledgehammers, a nonexistent weapon, or real warhammers (http://ritterruestung-handgeschmiedet.de/englishversion/weapons/pictures/warhammer.jpg)?
Actual warhammers were probably quite good against armor - denting it, probably causing concussion or even fractures through helmets, although I don't imagine they'd be as useful striking the torso or a limb (with more flesh). They concentrated force into a very small area, as did maces. Many maces in the period of plate armor were flanged (usually with flanges that tapered to a very small point of contact), or had extremely small heads (almost similar to modern collapsible batons), to concentrate the force into a small point.
Obviously, two-handed pollhammers and pollaxes were even better, since two hands increases the strength of the blow.
Incanur
2014-01-16, 11:38 PM
I've been researching airguns lately for my own no-gunpowder fantasy setting. I find them fascinating. For fantasy purposes, what's most interesting is how relatively weak they were and are. The most famous military airgun, the Girandoni repeating rifle, probably managed only 200-300 J (www.beemans.net/Austrian airguns.htm) at the muzzle. Only the most powerful and expensive modern airguns, like the Barnes Chief Justice (http://shooting.org/Guns/Airguns/Barnes_Pneumatic/Chief_Justice), get up to around 1000 J. According to Alan Williams's armor tests, a lead ball with 300 J wouldn't even be able to defeat mail with a thick quilted jack behind it. A hardened 2mm plate would likely stop 1000-J lead slug from the Chief Justice; 3mm certainly would. Thus, I don't think airguns would be able to drive armor from the battlefield. In many ways, the Girandoni rifle at 200-300 J (or a bit more) resembles the warbow: it shoots fast (20+/minute) but must hit an unarmored spot to cause a serious injury. I suspect such a weapon, particularly given its reliability issues, could exist alongside bows and crossbows without displacing them. Honestly I'm not sure the Girandoni would prove competitive on the 15th-century battlefield.
Compressed-air cannon, on the other hand, could potentially (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite_gun) approximate gunpowder artillery - at least with steam power. Without steam power or some such, compressing enough air would be a tremendous amount of work! Compressed air (or whatever gas) containers could also theoretically (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWivPYuLiOE) service as grenades, bombs, or rockets.
The idea of airguns alongside bows, crossbows, and armor intrigues me. I may have to pursue it. :smallsmile:
warty goblin
2014-01-17, 12:42 AM
Good point-- the fibers would expand, which is not something I took into account.
I wonder-- would copper pipes carrying water fit into a plate harness? The idea being that you could empty the water in the pipes, screw on the bottom lid, and then refill it with new water. Like a water jacket for people. Is there actually enough room inside a plate harness to do something like that? Obviously it wouldn't have happened in olden times, but I'm just getting speculative here.
Sure, as long as you didn't have to actually fight in the thing. Copper is heavy. Water is heavy. The whole kit and caboodle is fitting under forty plus pounds of steel, and you need to be able to move with some degree of coordination. Staying cool won't be much help when your less well temperature-controlled enemy thunks you over the head and stabs you in the eye.
Brother Oni
2014-01-17, 03:15 AM
I've only worn chain mail a couple of times and it was the butted kind. It was comfortable when first put on, but by the end of the day, with the weight just hanging from me, it was pretty tiring -- but, I've been informed that the trick is wearing belts properly to shift the weight to the hips and off the shoulders.
Yup. You need to lift the mail up slightly, put a belt on the outside of it, then let it 'hang' off the belt. This way your shoulders are only effectively carrying half the weight (assuming it's a full length shirt/hauberk that goes down to the knees or lower thigh).
Huh. Good to know-- so if air could circulate better, then perhaps plate would be less fatiguing? My admittedly ludicrous first thought was "stick a fan inside it like a PC."
Actually I know the EOD suits that the British Army bomb disposal guys wear did have fans installed for Iraq and Afghanistan (when they weren't being sent the wrong NI kit).
Either that, or go to, like, Denmark. :P Beat the cold by working up a sweat as an armored war-god.
It works for a bit, but you still get overheated. I believe there was a battle where knights were collapsing from heat exhaustion in a snowstorm (the Battle of Towton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton) in 1461).
Mr. Mask
2014-01-17, 03:19 AM
Rhynn: While they were the primary weapons of duels some of the time, swords were a side arm and backup weapon in war (there were some people who used two-handers in pike formations and the like as a primary weapon). Longsword duelling in armour isn't about overcoming your opponent's armour, it's about overcoming your opponent. The sword is used rather like a large crowbar, an extension of yourself for wrestling. I recall one move from some manuals where you're meant to thrust through part of the breastplate, the key point being to have the opponent at your mercy first--I haven't seen any good tests for how reliably you can puncture this part of the armour, but I do not doubt this being a legitimate plan (manuals rarely tell you, "the first three stabs might glance off... so hang on tight to your enemy's sword!").
Swords definitely are the most versatile, easy to use weapon. The reason they haven't been the primary weapon of war more often, is simply that they are not effective enough against armour. The longsword is better than just a dagger (probably) or your hands, but that doesn't mean to say it holds well against other weapons for the same task. Axes and hammers are awkward weapons, retained simply because they are effective against armour.
You mention that a warhammer would likely not hurt a man in harness that dearly. The same is to be said of the longsword. Though swords normally are far more damaging, you're not going to get a very deep thrust through armour; the spike of a warhammer likely similar to this. That being said, I am talking in the sense of a one handed warhammer, compared to a two handed sword. As you mentioned, polehammers and two-handed hammers like the bec de corbin are a very different story, fine for torso hits.
snowblizz
2014-01-17, 03:35 AM
Actual warhammers were probably quite good against armor - denting it, probably causing concussion or even fractures through helmets, although I don't imagine they'd be as useful striking the torso or a limb (with more flesh). They concentrated force into a very small area, as did maces. Many maces in the period of plate armor were flanged (usually with flanges that tapered to a very small point of contact), or had extremely small heads (almost similar to modern collapsible batons), to concentrate the force into a small point.
My understanding was that if you wanted to actually penetrate the armour then you need a warhammer or mace. Or they were designed with the penetration in mind so to say. Further, penetrating the armour will cause a dent, which while not lethal in of itself will start to mess up the mobility of your plate armour. I'm thinking of one of the pics linked to earlier about real plate suits showing the kinds of movement a high quality plate armour could have. So even if you have not physically hurt your opponent their ability to fight is diminished. IIRC there was suggestions that eg denting a breastplate may make it harder to breathe and I'm thinking a blow powerful enough to penetrate armour hitting your weapon arm might well break or fracture bone, at the very least I'm thinking there's a good chance you might drop your weapon from a temporarily numb hand.
Of course the shorter warhammers and maces I think were usually used by cavalry? That would greatly increase the hittign force, but also ofc ourse mean you'd be mostly smacking heads with them.
Would I be right in thinking that any such broad classification as axe<hammer<sword or whatever sort of misses the point that weapons are variously good and designed to be used in context. And therefore subject to a lot of variability.
Brother Oni
2014-01-17, 07:41 AM
... and I'm thinking a blow powerful enough to penetrate armour hitting your weapon arm might well break or fracture bone, at the very least I'm thinking there's a good chance you might drop your weapon from a temporarily numb hand.
Breaking bones are definitely possible - you only have to look at the injuries sustained during the Battle of Nations tournaments.
The documentary of Team UK I linked to earlier even has footage of a fighter taking such a hit (one on one duel with swords and the match was stopped due to his breaking his forearm).
Galloglaich
2014-01-17, 11:01 AM
Regarding armor and 'breathing' and weight
People tend to always discuss these things in terms of extremes.
Keep in mind, plate armor has a wide range of weights. The earliest and the latest full armor panoplies tended to be pretty heavy, in the 60-80 lb range, and this can definitely tire you out. It was only certain armors designed specifically to be light, and generally made with steel, which were in that 'nice' 35-40 lb range. These are mostly Gothic harnesses made in Germany or Northern Italy in the period roughly 1440 - 1520.
Mail again, varies pretty widely. A mail shirt can weigh as little as 10 pounds, which isn't a major hindrance on any level. But an entire mail panoply, including leggings, full arm coverage, coif etc., can be in the 40 - 50 pound range and that is definitely going to slow you down and wear you out much quicker. I agree with other assessments that it's generally more in the long term than short term that well made armor will slow you down, but as others noted poorly made armor (which was much more common in the Early Modern period esp. late 16th century into the 17th) was often very restrictive in movement. The problem described above with the pauldrons restricting arm movement and over-hand strikes (or guards) is incidentally a common issue with poorly made modern armor replicas.
Breathing
Definitely a problem with all forms of armor and definitely an issue specifically with plate armor. There are even tournament harnesses made with holes in them like swiss cheese but obviously you can't use those in a real battle. The textile armor worn beneath or sometimes above metal armor was typically made from textiles (linen for example) which was light and breathed well even when saturated with sweat. Fighting in a hotter climate, the Arabs tellingly used silk which was both stronger (allowing it to be thinner) and breathed better, usually they made it integrated with their mail.
http://media.snimka.bg/5038/016330999.jpg
http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/736x/d9/24/09/d9240937278c0f0bf3c5fd352b4e1d3c.jpg
Role of sword on the battlefield
The 15th Century novel Tiran Lo Blanc, written by a knight and praised by the cynical Cervantes as one of the few such novels that were realistic, mentions the hero several times running around the battlefield cutting helmet straps and killing opponents. Opening a visor was another obvious way - for that matter, during hand to hand combat, most fighters fought with an open visor or an open -faced helmet; the closed visor or full-helmet* was used during cavalry charges and when under sustained missile-fire.
The reason they used open faced helmets so much was because you need to see and breathe during a fight.
Gamers and lay people generally struggle with the idea of what the role of the sword was if it wasn't a primary weapon. Other people have already pointed out the main advantage of a sword - it's versatility. The sword is also one of the fastest weapons for it's size. Against a fully harnessed opponent, you do use the sword for leverage, but I think using terms like 'crow-bar' are still very misleading. A sword is much lighter and better balanced than a crowbar and it's really a completely different kind of thing. As Petter Johnsson pointed out the way a sword is made is much more like an airplane wing than a crowbar.
A man in armor is actually quite vulnerable if on the ground or otherwise immobile, if the opponent knows what they are doing. The sword (or pollaxe, spear, axe, hammer etc.) is used dynamically and with great agility. You can get an idea what it's like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CoDu6vrCcX8#t=72
There are many vulnerabilities to attack even in a fully armored opponent, the face (with or without opening a visor or removing a helmet) the throat, armpits, groin etc. are often lightly protected and a half-sword thrust (or a dagger thrust) from above may pierce mail and definitely textile that covers these areas. In many panoplies the backs of the legs and the groin may not be covered at all, especially those lighter gothic panoplies.
Beating people with swords
This has been a long argument between HEMA people and the SCA and some other re-enactors over the last 20 years. Repeated bashing over and over may eventually cause a few breaks, but I think Bohurt / Battle of Nations has actually proven pretty well that relying on hurting your opponent this way in a real fight is a pretty low percentage option likely to fail. People get hit VERY hard in Battle of Nations not just with swords but also axes, polearms and even hammers and maces, and the number of serious injuries is actually fairly low (not that I'm saying it isn't extremely dangerous, it is!)
I think the documented historical techniques, half-swording, mortschlag and so on, are actually far more effective. They don't use them as much in BOTN because they rely much more on thrusting which is illegal in the rules, and because they don't study the historical techniques as much.
...vs cutting and piercing people with swords
But more often, the reality is, most people on the battlefield would only be partly armored, even the most heavily armored knights were usually on horses which were not fully protected and could be quickly injured with swords.
Sidearm vs primary weapon
The sword was almost always historically a sidearm (with some exceptions) but the primary weapons of the day; lance, spear, javelin, bow, gun, crossbow, pike, and later halberd and other polearms, were much less versatile and often became relatively useless outside of the narrow range of circumstances they were specialized for. Lances broke very often. Pikes and spears also broke and were much less effective at close range. All hafted weapons were easier for a victim to seize or grab than a naked sword blade was. Most medieval missile weapons tended to be limited to one or a few shots severely limiting their value at short range (especially compared to an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine)
The sword was a sidearm but obviously an indispensable one. There are reasons why so many millions of people carried them around for more than 2000 years.
G
http://i038.radikal.ru/0811/39/26aca635cd23.jpg
* during the time of the heaume or so called great-helm, they used to wear the big helmet during the cavalry charge and take it off for the melee, relying on the bascinet or cervelliere worn underneath, which was an open faced helmet. Later they added a visor to the bascinet which obviated the need for the other helmet. The guy with the barrel casque fighting one on one is basically yet another monty python myth.
Incanur
2014-01-17, 11:18 AM
Maces, warhammers, and such like impact weapons get surprisingly little attention in the 16th-century military manuals I've read. Despite the prevalence of armor, no author I know of thought infantry should carry short impact weapons in stead of or in addition to swords and daggers. Fourquevaux explicitly wanted his pikers turned targetiers in the press to only thrust at unarmed parts with their swords: namely the legs, feet, and face. He mentioned the mace for cavalry but only in passing and without any detail. Juan Quijada de Reayo (http://books.google.com/books?id=lqZ2J8lsSrYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=iberian+jousting&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1lTZUsC3GsKCyAGQyoHQCQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=war&f=false)'s mid-16th-century jousting manual contains brief instructions for war that give the following order of weapon use: lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, and dagger. Fourquevaux likewise suggested that men-at-arms would wield their swords before their maces. So there's no indication in these two sources that the mace or hammer on horseback performed better against an armored foe than the sword.
On the other hand, I've seen at least two 17th-century sources that that do plainly favor impact weapons over the sword against armored opponents.
Overall, cavalry impact weapons appear to have worked well enough, but didn't necessarily trump the sword's ability to get around armor.
As far as seeming contradiction of swords being both secondary weapons and highly valued, Sir John Smythe explained this one clearly:
And as they doo mistake the conuenient arming of horsemen and footmen, so they also mistake the weaponing of them: for whereas Swords of conuenient length, forme and substance, haue been in all ages esteemed by all warlike Nations, of al other sorts of weapons the last weapon of refuge both for horsemen, and footmen, by reason that when al their other weapons in fight haue failed them, either by breaking, losse, or otherwise, they then haue presentlie betaken themselues to their short arming Swords and Daggers, as to the last weapons, of great effect & execution for all Martiall actions.
Swords got respect because they were secondary weapons. While a knight or soldier would typically start a battle with lance, pike, halberd, bow, or crossbow, if it were hard-fought he'd end up with sword or dagger in hand.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-17, 11:26 AM
G: I used the term crowbar to relay a key point: You don't go cutting through plate armour like fantasy films. I don't like the term, "aeroplane wing," since while it does convey the lightness and quickness of a sword, you aren't using it for gliding.
Incanur: The first instance sounds like Roman tactics. Unless your enemies decide to go all out on armour from head to toe, Roman tactics are proven effective. More importantly they're expected to counter pike formations, which means they desire a weapon that works well at very close quarters.
One handed swords can be designed with more reach than one handed maces, axes or hammers. Depending on the armour popular in the area and military theory of the day, they might have considered the better reach, quickness and general versatility being preferable.
Galloglaich
2014-01-17, 12:00 PM
Maces and warhammers were important and common sidearms for cavalry on the Steppe, notably the Mongols and the Turks, and were quickly copied by cavalry in Central and Eastern Europe. Notably in addition to the sword or saber.
Light maces are especially ubiquitous, apparently for riding by and bashing someone on the head - of course in a typical cavalry ride-by attack the impact can be almost doubled by the speed of the horse(s), which is one of the reasons the light maces you often see typically had a wrist thong so you could hang onto it after the strike. It was also apparently very popular to throw those light maces at opponents or their horses.
You see maces or war-hammers in the Russian Druzhina and Polish (pre and post hussar) cavalry panoplies from pretty early-on, and this was also copied by the Teutonic and Livonian knights, but all these guys tended to be very heavily armed. It wasn't unusual for a cavalryman to have a lance, a bow or crossbow, a sword or saber on the hip, possibly another longer (longsword or later schiavona or palash) sword or estoc on the saddle, plus a mace, and a dagger... also a lasso and later on a brace of pistols (or for some up to 6 pistols).
Axes were also quite popular with the Turks especially and show up in their art and quite a bit in the historical record. I suspect one of the reasons was to quickly disable or kill your enemies horses. This is also one of the main uses for two-handed swords and other two-handed infantry weapons.
And I think of course the most important of the axe, mace, flail and hammer type weapons were the big two-handed varieties used by infantry. The big berdyche / sparth type axe popular from the British Isles to Italy to Russia; the two-handed flegel or flail of the Czechs (also appreciated by the Germans, Poles and others); the godendag of the Flemish; the halberd of the Swiss (and later the bill / roncha, the glaive and all the other assorted polearms) were all extremely important battlefield weapons that really changed the nature of battle.
To help provide context of what armored combat was really like, here is a 1st hand account of a fight by a 15th Century German knight, fighting with the Portuguese in North Africa which I had put in the Codex:
The infidel threw his shield in front of him, and laying
his spear on his arm he ran swiftly at me, uttering a
cry. I approached, having my spear at the thigh, but as
I drew near I couched my spear and thrust at his
shield, and although he struck at me with his spear in
the flank and forearm, I was able to give him such
mighty thrust that horse and man fell to the ground.
But his spear hung in my armor and hindered me, and I
had great difficulty in loosing it and alighting from my
horse. By this time he also was dismounted. I had my
sword in my hand; he likewise seized his sword, and we
advanced and gave each other a mighty blow. The
infidel had excellent armour, and though I struck him
by the shield he received no injury. Nor did his blows
injure me. We then gripped each other and wrestled so
long that we fell to the ground side by side. But the
infidel was a man of amazing strength. He tore himself
from my grasp, and we both raised our bodies until we
were kneeling side by side.
I then thrust him from me with my left hand in order to
be able to strike at him with my sword, and this I was
able to do, for with the thrust his body was so far
removed that I was able to cut at his face, and
although the blow was not wholly successful, I
wounded him so that he swayed and was half-blinded. I
then struck him a direct blow in the face and hurled
him to the ground, and falling upon him I thrust my
sword through his throat, after which I rose to my feet,
took his sword, and returned to my horse. The two
beasts were standing side by side. They had been
worked hard the whole day, and were quite quiet.
When the infidels saw I had conquered they drew off
their forces. But the Portuguese and Christians
approached and cut off the infidel’s head, and took his
spear, and placed the head upon it, and removed his
armour. It was a costly suit, made in the heathen
fashion, very strong and richly ornamented...
-from the diary of the German knight Jorg von Ehingen, who
fought with the Portuguese in 1467.
G
Galloglaich
2014-01-17, 12:05 PM
G: I used the term crowbar to relay a key point: You don't go cutting through plate armour like fantasy films. I don't like the term, "aeroplane wing," since while it does convey the lightness and quickness of a sword, you aren't using it for gliding.
Well, take it up with Peter Johnsson. I think what you are missing is that the sword is gliding through the air with every cut or guard transition. If you ever start to do serious test-cutting you can understand this much better. There is a big difference between a real sword and something like a machete. It's also critical for fencing; correct edge alignment is what allows the steel swords and feders to be so much faster than nylons or even shinai.
G
Mr. Mask
2014-01-17, 12:18 PM
The longsword is indeed as quick as you describe, I hope I did not insinuate otherwise. I was discussing specifically the use of longswords in armoured duels, which is more like a staff, or crowbar, or some other long, grapply, hooky... thing?
Rhynn
2014-01-17, 02:25 PM
Longsword duelling in armour isn't about overcoming your opponent's armour, it's about overcoming your opponent. The sword is used rather like a large crowbar, an extension of yourself for wrestling. I recall one move from some manuals where you're meant to thrust through part of the breastplate, the key point being to have the opponent at your mercy first--I haven't seen any good tests for how reliably you can puncture this part of the armour, but I do not doubt this being a legitimate plan (manuals rarely tell you, "the first three stabs might glance off... so hang on tight to your enemy's sword!").
Did you even look at the link I posted, which illustrates (illuminates, even!) half-swording and sword-grappling?
Do you think there's anything in the above I'm not aware of? If so, what on earth gave you the impression?
Mr. Mask
2014-01-17, 02:45 PM
The way I understood it you gave Chaos a summary. I argued with the finer points of your summary, giving a sort of counter-summary(?). I also have an unfortunate habit of including excess information, which has lead me to this embarrassing incident where it seemed I was trying to teach you basics you know well already.
FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-17, 11:21 PM
Hey all!
I'm working on homebrew content for RuneQuest 6 - in particular, I'm desigining an additional set of combat styles, which are specific to assorted cultures within the setting. Right now I'm saying that each combat style has four weapons it's associated with, and whose use it gives bonuses to; I'm also planning to include a handful of feats or special abilities with each style, if I can come up with anything good. I'm trying to make the selection of weapons as realistic as possible, while still keeping it varied.
Mostly it's coming along easily enough, but there are a few where I'm drawing a complete blank - I know where the style comes from in the culture/setting, but not what it would actually be like. Help out with any of these you can? Ideas for special abilities to associate with each style would be nice, but mostly I want to know what sorts of weapons would fit with each of these categories.
- A style developed by sailors/pirates in a very maritime culture - I'm thinking a lot of light weapons, weapons that double as tools (hatchets, etc,) weapons you can use one-handed so you have the other hand free for balance/grabbing onto something it the boat lurches, and maybe something like a hook on a pole that could be used en masse to draw a ship in close for boarding, or trip enemy sailors/drag them overboard.
-A style primarily used by slavers, intended to focus on disabling/incapacitating enemies rather than killing them.
-A style developed by primitive bandits/barbarians in a very poor forested region - a lot of brutal weapons good for hit-and-run tactics, lacking any reliable access to metal or smiths.
-A style developed for use by aristocrats and their immediate bodyguards - a lot of focus on defense or control, assuming access to really good weapons and armor.
-A style intended for barely-trained soldiers. (So, a set of weapons that get good value for money in untrained hands.)
-A style for extraordinarily well-trained soldiers (Specifically, slave soldiers bred and trained from birth - so, weapons that are extremely dangerous, but only in the hands of a master.)
-A style for assassins - easily concealable weapons that may not be much good in a fight, but can be used to kill very quickly and reliably when used on an unsuspecting target.
Deffers
2014-01-18, 03:01 AM
For peasant soldiers, you want a billhook. You take some farming implements with pointy ends, like tree branch cutting axes. Then you add a spike. Then you affix it to a nine foot long pole. Then you pull the hooked end up a man's groin, rip his femoral artery as you pull it out, then stab him through his mail hauberk with the pointy end. If some tosser with a horse comes at you, you use the hook to help him dismount. A falchion's another good one-- it's a choppier weapon used by archers. A pike's a good one if you've got some buddies. Some fellows from Switzerland did wonderful things with them, maybe you've heard of them. :smallbiggrin:
For masters, go for poleaxes--as I understand it, these were very complex polearms to use well, because they were a hammer, and axe, and a spear all at once. They were also somewhat shorter than, say, a pike. Not SHORT, but you get my point. Great for taking out armored dudes of various descriptions with that combo of a hammer, spear, and axe. Blades meant to parry are also quite good. Paradoxically, so are zweihanders-- I recall reading somewhere in the Playground that in infantry units consisting mostly of dudes with halberds, the guy with the zweihander got double pay a) because it was a more dangerous weapon to be using and b) because he had a crucial role in breaking formations of pikemen-- part of why it was more dangerous to be using a zweihander :P. Doppelsoldners, they were called.
Those are all my ideas right now, though.
endoperez
2014-01-18, 03:49 AM
Perhaps some sort of lasso would be appopriate for either the Barbarians / forest-dwellers, or for the slavers. Mostly they were used against (semi-domesticated) animals like horses in the wild west, or reindeer in Lapland. However, since the people are already very skilled with them, they might be able to use them to e.g. pull down horsemen and other such tricks. And, obviously, if a few guys are keeping a guy in place by pointing weapons at him, and then guys behind the front line throw ropes or net at the guy in the middle, he can be captured alive with much less trouble.
For the slavers, look for police equipment and riot gear. Japan had some really cruel-looking historical examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsukub%C5%8D
Basically, a T-shaped polearm that the guy can't grab, that can be used to trip him or to push him against a wall. The other two are for twisting around loose garments, trapping the victim in his or her own clothing. The third one is a polearm with which you go for the neck. Similar weapons are described in the article for "mancatcher":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancatcher
For aristocrats, look into Chinese kungfu styles. Well-paid masters training the rich in martial arts, with unique weapons, in a curriculum that often includes everything from grappling to unarmed combat to weapons... seems like a match.
There are two styles that are known for being favoured by bodyguards.
The first one is bagua, and it's a very mobile style, emphasizing mobility and walking circles around your opponent's attacks to get close. If you've seen the Avatar cartoon, Airbending was based on it. They were no pacifists though, they have some really brutal-looking tools unique to the style.
http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/images/s380.jpg
These were usually used in pairs. They could be represented as a variant of parrying daggers - if someone with a spear tries to run past you, a bodyguard, having a knife that can block and hook and control it helps you do something about the spear without getting hurt, but it's still small enough to be carried on your body without seeming threatening.
http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s380_full.html
Baji is a more direct style, and traditionally known for its spearwork (for weapons), and direct short-range aggression, including elbow strikes. While bagua is about going around the enemy's attack, baji is about going IN for the attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qqMh_21Wkw
Figgin of Chaos
2014-01-18, 03:51 AM
Thanks to everyone who answered my question about melee weapons and armor penetration. I've got a better idea of how it works now.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-18, 10:23 AM
After thinking of a scene where Russia placed machine guns behind their own soldiers, shooting any who retreated, I was wondering about equivalent cases to that in history.
Know of any good equivalents? I can think of some where families were held hostage as incentive. The French at Agincourt cut down their own crossbowmen when they retreated from the English archers.
snowblizz
2014-01-18, 03:33 PM
Perhaps some sort of lasso would be appopriate for either the Barbarians / forest-dwellers, or for the slavers. Mostly they were used against (semi-domesticated) animals like horses in the wild west, or reindeer in Lapland.
A lasso is a steppe weapon, not a forest weapon. For obvious reasons, i.e. trees. Eg the Huns used them as weapons.
Mathis
2014-01-18, 04:41 PM
Snowblizz, how would a forest stop me from throwing a lasso? There is nothing about the use of a lasso that makes it more difficult to use in a forest setting than say any kind of bow, a fairly popular hunting tool even in forests. You won't be throwing it at insane ranges, most likely you will be close enough to whoever or whatever you are throwing it at that your target will be inside of, well, throwing distance hehe. I think seeing a people residing mostly in forests using the lasso as one of their weapons in war would be pretty cool.
Knaight
2014-01-18, 04:51 PM
Snowblizz, how would a forest stop me from throwing a lasso? There is nothing about the use of a lasso that makes it more difficult to use in a forest setting than say any kind of bow, a fairly popular hunting tool even in forests. You won't be throwing it at insane ranges, most likely you will be close enough to whoever or whatever you are throwing it at that your target will be inside of, well, throwing distance hehe. I think seeing a people residing mostly in forests using the lasso as one of their weapons in war would be pretty cool.
It depends on how dense the forest is, but it's worth noting that there are several major differences between lassos and arrows in flight. An arrow can punch right through the edge of a bush, which would catch a lasso. A lasso takes up way more space in flight, and thus can't pass through as small areas. So on and so forth.
In a dense forest, these are a problem. In a sparse forest, it's not as much of an issue.
Berenger
2014-01-18, 05:05 PM
- A style developed by sailors/pirates in a very maritime culture - I'm thinking a lot of light weapons, weapons that double as tools (hatchets, etc,)
Why should those weapons double as tools? A ship is one of the few locations where you have the luxury of free carrying capacity and at least several minutes of premonition before a fight begins.
jaybird
2014-01-18, 05:15 PM
Why should those weapons double as tools? A ship is one of the few locations where you have the luxury of free carrying capacity and at least several minutes of premonition before a fight begins.
You'd actually be surprised at how jam-packed ships are with kit.
Mathis
2014-01-18, 05:43 PM
Good point Knaight, thank you for elaborating.
FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-18, 08:51 PM
Why should those weapons double as tools? A ship is one of the few locations where you have the luxury of free carrying capacity and at least several minutes of premonition before a fight begins.
I meant less "mundane tool for everyday use" and more "tool with battlefield utility" - like, a polearm with a hook can be used to pull your ship in closer, hatchet can be used to sever ropes/hack through doorways, apparently there was something called a "Boarding Axe" which had an ice-pick like thing on one side you can use to climb the sides of a ship...
fusilier
2014-01-19, 02:12 AM
I meant less "mundane tool for everyday use" and more "tool with battlefield utility" - like, a polearm with a hook can be used to pull your ship in closer, hatchet can be used to sever ropes/hack through doorways, apparently there was something called a "Boarding Axe" which had an ice-pick like thing on one side you can use to climb the sides of a ship...
Ah, I was going to suggest "belaying pin" -- one of my favorite sailor weapons.
I'm pretty sure there was a hook of some sort used to help grapple ships, possibly it was just a "gaff" (of course, grapples were used). A gaff would have other practical uses too. Boarding pikes were also used, but these appear to have just been short pikes.
fusilier
2014-01-19, 02:27 AM
Hey all!
I'm working on homebrew content for RuneQuest 6 - in particular, I'm desigining an additional set of combat styles, which are specific to assorted cultures within the setting. Right now I'm saying that each combat style has four weapons it's associated with, and whose use it gives bonuses to;
. . .
Is there an approximate technology level to work with? Standard fantasy, gunpowder?
-A style developed by primitive bandits/barbarians in a very poor forested region - a lot of brutal weapons good for hit-and-run tactics, lacking any reliable access to metal or smiths.
Bows, clubs, spears. Bows are very good for hit-and-run tactics.
-A style developed for use by aristocrats and their immediate bodyguards - a lot of focus on defense or control, assuming access to really good weapons and armor.
In a street-fight: rapiers and daggers, maybe a buckler. Crossbows.
-A style intended for barely-trained soldiers. (So, a set of weapons that get good value for money in untrained hands.)
Crossbows (guns?), spears, bill-hook (already mentioned). Perhaps large shields (pavises) and spears -- that's very defensive and very static, more useful in large numbers. Falchions, and similar weapons (also already mentioned). Pikes -- but not in the "Swiss style", in the older more stationary/defensive mode.
-A style for extraordinarily well-trained soldiers (Specifically, slave soldiers bred and trained from birth - so, weapons that are extremely dangerous, but only in the hands of a master.)
Pikes -- in the "Swiss style" -- which relies upon cohesion with rapid movement.
Swords typically require a lot of training, but are rarely the primary weapon, although there were sword-and-shield soldiers, and two-handed sword wielders, etc.
You have a lot of options, because most weapons can be pretty deadly with enough experience. Swords require it, but halberdiers and spearmen can certainly have a good reputation for foot soldiers. On horseback, it runs from heavy lancers to mounted archers.
Thiel
2014-01-19, 02:31 AM
You'd actually be surprised at how jam-packed ships are with kit.
As packed as they were they still left enough space for all the specialist tools needed. Also, it was general policy at the time to keep weapons locked way from the the men except during drill or combat.
Anyway, in terms of weapons you've got boarding axes (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/qwer3/axes.jpg) which is a one handed predecessor to the fire axe, boarding pikes (http://ageofsail.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pike-team.jpg), cutlass' (http://amhistory.si.edu/onthewater/assets/object/full/2009-5627.jpg) and of course the individual seaman's knife and various improvised weapons such as rammers and belaying pins.
The of course there's the pistols (http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/seaserviceshort1.jpg) and muskets (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Sea_Pattern_Brown_Bess.jpg)
FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-19, 01:23 PM
Is there an approximate technology level to work with? Standard fantasy, gunpowder?
Varies by location - there's a few places that have rifles, but they haven't really caught on in most places. The reasons for this pretty much lie in the magic system - it's easier to enchant bows and arrows, and there are very few scientists/technologists, as smart people tend to just end up as mages. Rifles are basically a cultural weapon at this point, limited to societies with limited access to magic, or religious bias against magic, or really well-developed academic/scientific institutes.
Thiel
2014-01-20, 04:59 AM
Varies by location - there's a few places that have rifles, but they haven't really caught on in most places. The reasons for this pretty much lie in the magic system - it's easier to enchant bows and arrows, and there are very few scientists/technologists, as smart people tend to just end up as mages. Rifles are basically a cultural weapon at this point, limited to societies with limited access to magic, or religious bias against magic, or really well-developed academic/scientific institutes.
Why not enchant the guns and gunpowder and get the best of both worlds?
Galloglaich
2014-01-20, 09:42 AM
Perhaps some sort of lasso would be appopriate for either the Barbarians / forest-dwellers, or for the slavers. Mostly they were used against (semi-domesticated) animals like horses in the wild west, or reindeer in Lapland. However, since the people are already very skilled with them, they might be able to use them to e.g. pull down horsemen and other such tricks. And, obviously, if a few guys are keeping a guy in place by pointing weapons at him, and then guys behind the front line throw ropes or net at the guy in the middle, he can be captured alive with much less trouble.
Lasso's were in very large scale battlefield use on the steppes of Central Asia from about the 6th Century BC (that we know of, probably earlier) through the 18th Century at least. They were one of the most popular ways to deal with heavy cavalry (which existed on the steppe across that same timeframe) and part of the standard weapon panoply of most steppe nomad warriors.
They were one of the go-to weapons of the Mongols, who were most definitely slavers (though also slaughterers).
Some people even think the 'wings' of the famous winged hussars of Poland were intended to foil lassos.
G
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 09:45 AM
Why not enchant the guns and gunpowder and get the best of both worlds? ...You know, I've often wondered how magic guns would work...
Less fouling in the barrels? More velocity from the shot? A more durable barrel which can take stronger gunpowder blasts? Greater accuracy? Exploding bullets (they actually had those during the American Civil war)?
According to what system of magic?
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 09:51 AM
Well, different magic systems get results from different methods, but from what I know they tend to get similar results. A magical sword in most fiction will cut better, for example.
Galloglaich
2014-01-20, 09:53 AM
- A style developed by sailors/pirates in a very maritime culture - I'm thinking a lot of light weapons, weapons that double as tools (hatchets, etc,) weapons you can use one-handed so you have the other hand free for balance/grabbing onto something it the boat lurches, and maybe something like a hook on a pole that could be used en masse to draw a ship in close for boarding, or trip enemy sailors/drag them overboard.
As already mentioned, boarding pikes, gaffes, hand-axes, and of course, the cutlass. Plus guns and crossbows if you want to be historical.
-A style primarily used by slavers, intended to focus on disabling/incapacitating enemies rather than killing them.
Somebody already mentioned Japanese and Chinese police weapons I think, like the man-catcher - these were also used in Venice by the municipal police / town-watch
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CYlSbGUW9xk/T1SIWF0TGGI/AAAAAAAAALs/wFcvwXS5L0Y/s400/3188595470_90d4f13394_b.jpg
-A style developed by primitive bandits/barbarians in a very poor forested region - a lot of brutal weapons good for hit-and-run tactics, lacking any reliable access to metal or smiths.
See Samogitia in Lithuania. Though they did have metal of course, they were kind of metal-poor. They were a pagan tribe who successfully resisted 200 years of invasions from Christian Crusaders including the Sword Brothers, the Teutonic Knights and the Livonian knights, all of whom came to grief in their infamous forest, 'the grauden'. Plus occasional incursions by the Mongols and the Russians.
They used lassos, throwing axes, spears, darts, javelins, swords and some kind of boomerang type object. Plus a lot of other dirty tricks like throwing hornets nests into enemy convoys and using smoke for cover and tiger pits and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samogitia#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldership_of_Samogitia
-A style developed for use by aristocrats and their immediate bodyguards - a lot of focus on defense or control, assuming access to really good weapons and armor.
Look at the bodyguards of the Doge of Venice, with their Schiavona swords.
-A style intended for barely-trained soldiers. (So, a set of weapons that get good value for money in untrained hands.)
pikes or spears, ala 17th Century
-A style for extraordinarily well-trained soldiers (Specifically, slave soldiers bred and trained from birth - so, weapons that are extremely dangerous, but only in the hands of a master.)
Sounds like you are talking about Mamelukes or Janissaries, both of whom fit that description (slave soldiers trained from early youth, if not birth) and had their own characteristic weapons and kit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary
-A style for assassins - easily concealable weapons that may not be much good in a fight, but can be used to kill very quickly and reliably when used on an unsuspecting target.
You could go Renaissance Italy or Japan for that one.
G
Matthew
2014-01-20, 10:30 AM
* during the time of the heaume or so called great-helm, they used to wear the big helmet during the cavalry charge and take it off for the melee, relying on the bascinet or cervelliere worn underneath, which was an open faced helmet. Later they added a visor to the bascinet which obviated the need for the other helmet. The guy with the barrel casque fighting one on one is basically yet another monty python myth.
Worth noting, though, that manuscript illuminations do show knights fighting on foot in great helms and on horse in bacinets.
FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-20, 10:39 AM
Why not enchant the guns and gunpowder and get the best of both worlds?
Right now I'm saying it's more difficult because A: the explosive shocks wear down enchantments unless they're really, really well crafted, and B: enchanting smaller objects is harder, so enchanted arrows/bolts are typically cheaper and more powerful than enchanted bullets.
AgentPaper
2014-01-20, 01:53 PM
Right now I'm saying it's more difficult because A: the explosive shocks wear down enchantments unless they're really, really well crafted, and B: enchanting smaller objects is harder, so enchanted arrows/bolts are typically cheaper and more powerful than enchanted bullets.
Seems like a better answer would be: Guns are already plenty powerful enough to blast through people and most armor, so enchanting them to shoot better doesn't help that much, and the bullet moves too quickly for most "seeking" enchantments to help hit a target. The only real way to make a gun more effective through magic would be some kind of magical reloading system, but such things are either undiscovered as of yet or very difficult to craft. You could enchant a gun to fire faster/bullets to fly further, but unless you're a trained sniper you won't get much help from it since you still can't hit anything.
Bows on the other hand can be enchanted readily, to increase the power of the shot to be similar to bows, to increase velocity and help aim the relatively slow projectile, and since the arrow stays in the target, you can even make it catch fire, place a curse, or poison them. A few enchantments can make a bow about as powerful as a gun and is about as easy to make (an apprentice wizard can do the enchantments), but has a much higher rate of fire.
Seems like a better answer would be: Guns are already plenty powerful enough to blast through people and most armor, so enchanting them to shoot better doesn't help that much, and the bullet moves too quickly for most "seeking" enchantments to help hit a target. The only real way to make a gun more effective through magic would be some kind of magical reloading system, but such things are either undiscovered as of yet or very difficult to craft. You could enchant a gun to fire faster/bullets to fly further, but unless you're a trained sniper you won't get much help from it since you still can't hit anything.
Well that would depend on how good your seeking enchantments were, wouldn't it? Secondly there are many many many things you could enchant a gun to work with effectively, less recoil is certainly one. You could enchant a gun to be recoilless and that would improve accuracy drastically. I assume that's probably within the boundaries of most junior wizards. You could enchant the bullets not to be as affected by the wind, that might take some more magic, but then you'd get a lot of accuracy out of your weapon, a splitting charm could still work on bullets. Also guns aren't necessarily powerful enough to blast through most armor.
Bows on the other hand can be enchanted readily, to increase the power of the shot to be similar to bows, to increase velocity and help aim the relatively slow projectile, and since the arrow stays in the target, you can even make it catch fire, place a curse, or poison them. A few enchantments can make a bow about as powerful as a gun and is about as easy to make (an apprentice wizard can do the enchantments), but has a much higher rate of fire.
Bullets of small caliber frequently spend some time in the target, you could cause a pretty wide distribution of poison or whatever (although that's of questionable legality and morality). We don't necessarily know enough about the magic system, but an army with recoil-less guns that aren't affected by wind would be damn hard to stop.
AgentPaper
2014-01-20, 03:52 PM
We don't necessarily know enough about the magic system, but an army with recoil-less guns that aren't affected by wind would be damn hard to stop.
Hard for a real-world army to stop, maybe, but if you've got an army kitted out with magic bows with enchantments to increase the power of the bow, then not really. You only really need one enchantment on the bow, to enhance the power of the shot. Assuming that it doubled the power of the bow, you could issue easy-to-draw shortbows with a 60lb draw weight, which fires with the power of a 120lb English Longbow. Since the draw weight is so much lower, you don't need the extreme physical conditioning normally required for such a bow, it's easier to hold and aim, and you can more easily fire continuously for extended periods of time.
After draw weight, you would also try to get arrows enchanted with seeking enchantments, that basically pull them towards nearby living creatures. This would pull double duty, both making them more likely to hit a target, and also increasing their impact velocity a bit near the end. This is probably an even simpler enchantment than the bow power one, but since you have to do it for every arrow, it's a bit more expensive to have for an army than the bows are.
Basically, the idea is that enchantments can make up for the inherent flaws of bows to make them equal or superior to guns in most ways, while enchanting a gun to have higher rate of fire (it's main drawback compared to a bow) is much more difficult. Guns could still definitely fulfill a role as a sniper weapon, though, using the no-recoil and air-resistance-ignoring enchantments you mentioned. That kind of thing in the hands of a trained sniper could be lethal from very, very far away, and the bullet moves so fast that you've got basically no time to react even if you've got some kind of magic warning system looking out for projectiles aimed at you.
Hard for a real-world army to stop, maybe, but if you've got an army kitted out with magic bows with enchantments to increase the power of the bow, then not really. You only really need one enchantment on the bow, to enhance the power of the shot. Assuming that it doubled the power of the bow, you could issue easy-to-draw shortbows with a 60lb draw weight, which fires with the power of a 120lb English Longbow. Since the draw weight is so much lower, you don't need the extreme physical conditioning normally required for such a bow, it's easier to hold and aim, and you can more easily fire continuously for extended periods of time.
Still not even close to as effective as a rifle that can ignore wind and has no recoil, not even a little bit close to that. A longbow is hard pressed to be accurate to a hundred yards, a rifle can be accurate to five or six or seven hundred (possibly much farther with enchantments)
After draw weight, you would also try to get arrows enchanted with seeking enchantments, that basically pull them towards nearby living creatures. This would pull double duty, both making them more likely to hit a target, and also increasing their impact velocity a bit near the end. This is probably an even simpler enchantment than the bow power one, but since you have to do it for every arrow, it's a bit more expensive to have for an army than the bows are.
Basically, the idea is that enchantments can make up for the inherent flaws of bows to make them equal or superior to guns in most ways, while enchanting a gun to have higher rate of fire (it's main drawback compared to a bow) is much more difficult. Guns could still definitely fulfill a role as a sniper weapon, though, using the no-recoil and air-resistance-ignoring enchantments you mentioned. That kind of thing in the hands of a trained sniper could be lethal from very, very far away, and the bullet moves so fast that you've got basically no time to react even if you've got some kind of magic warning system looking out for projectiles aimed at you.
Well the thing is that guns aren't merely superior because they are easier to fire and have a more rapid rate of fire. They are superior for many other reasons, they have a higher ammunition capacity, they are accurate at much higher ranges (and with the enchantments I specified would be accurate in the hands of an average user at much higher ranges). If a basically trained Marine can hit a man-sized target a 500 yards in Wilcox (which is basically a wind tunnel, or therabouts), then imagine how accurate an average person could be at much higher ranges without having to worry about recoil, or with a weapon that adjusted for breath control.
I just don't see any enchantment that could make bows superior to rifles if they were applicable to both weapons.
Edit: The fundamental problem is that rifles are superior to bows, and enchantment may narrow that gap some, but not much, certainly less than one would imagine.
AgentPaper
2014-01-20, 04:04 PM
I just don't see any enchantment that could make bows superior to rifles if they were applicable to both weapons.
Ah, this is the difference here. I'm assuming musket-level technology. If we've got people running around with WW1-era rifles, then the bow is pretty much dead. Though depending on what the magic system is like and how advanced bow enchantments have gotten, some kind of repeating crossbow loaded up with magic might give rifles a run for their money until they figure out how to mass-produce them.
Thiel
2014-01-20, 04:09 PM
I can think of plenty things that would make the gun several times more deadly than it already is.
If we're dealing with muzzle loaders then a barrel that shrinks slightly after the bullet is loaded, causing complete opturation would significantly increase the power of the weapon for instance. If you do it right you could even exploid it to make the charge self seating so you don't have to deal with a loading rod.
Making the barrel self cleaning has obvious advantages, so would a magic ignition source.
And quite probably the biggest of all would be self adjusting sights. No need to make the bullets immune to wind, make the gun itself adjust for it. Same with recoil. Enchanting the steel to make it stronger would also be nice.
Also, I'd be surprised if the explosive shock experienced by a gun barrel is significantly larger than that experienced by a bow.
Ah, this is the difference here. I'm assuming musket-level technology. If we've got people running around with WW1-era rifles, then the bow is pretty much dead. Though depending on what the magic system is like and how advanced bow enchantments have gotten, some kind of repeating crossbow loaded up with magic might give rifles a run for their money until they figure out how to mass-produce them.
Fair enough, although I imagine that magic would be able to bring musket level tech fairly close to rifles as far as actual effectiveness goes. Also muskets probably aren't too quick for seeking enchantments. It would really depend on what stage in musket technology we were.
AgentPaper
2014-01-20, 04:21 PM
Fair enough, although I imagine that magic would be able to bring musket level tech fairly close to rifles as far as actual effectiveness goes. Also muskets probably aren't too quick for seeking enchantments. It would really depend on what stage in musket technology we were.
I'm sure they could make them just as effective per shot, but as I mentioned reloading would be a major stumbling block. Self-cleaning would help, which depending on the magic system that could be difficult to do already, but unless you can get magic to basically do the whole loading process at accelerated speed, you're not going to be anywhere near the fire rate of a bow.
I'm sure they could make them just as effective per shot, but as I mentioned reloading would be a major stumbling block. Self-cleaning would help, which depending on the magic system that could be difficult to do already, but unless you can get magic to basically do the whole loading process at accelerated speed, you're not going to be anywhere near the fire rate of a bow.
Well that really depends on at what stage in Musket technology we're at. Also we'd still have a significant range advantage over bows, and that's really going to be the deciding factor as far as I can tell. Being able to engage your target several hundred yards away, is going to put you significantly more effective in most battles than the archers would be, furthermore with the enchantments I've discussed that would mean that you could kill archers at more than five times their maximum effective range, there's a reason that the muskets supplanted bows even on equal terms fairly soon after they were developed.
Edit: That's the problem we're discussing two technologies that have had a historical comparison already if magic can equally enhance both of them, then the one that already won, will still win.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 04:37 PM
Well, the first guns were specialist weapons. Then they made cheaper, easier to use ones which economically outdid bows despite being inferior in almost every sense. It took a while for the guns to outdo the bow, and there were still some advantages going for the bow for a while.
Ben Franklin wanted to arm the American revolutionary army with crossbows. Since everyone was experienced with guns and not crossbows, and they didn't have the manufacturing industry for crossbows, it was abandoned despite being the superior weapon on the field/on paper.
Well, the first guns were specialist weapons. Then they made cheaper, easier to use ones which economically outdid bows despite being inferior in almost every sense. It took a while for the guns to outdo the bow, and there were still some advantages going for the bow for a while.
Ben Franklin wanted to arm the American revolutionary army with crossbows. Since everyone was experienced with guns and not crossbows, and they didn't have the manufacturing industry for crossbows, it was abandoned despite being the superior weapon on the field/on paper.
I'd seriously question that assessment from Ben Franklin, who was not a professional soldier and has come up with some other really out there ideas (DST being one of them). Also if crossbows were superior why didn't the English use them? They did have the manufacturing industry and could have trained their soldiers in their use, yet they didn't which suggests that they at the very least believed muskets to be superior.
England had relatively little urbanization or manufacturing industry in the Middle Ages when the gun first appeared - compared to other parts of Europe. It was basically a rural backwater, with a few urban centers mostly on the coasts, (and one large one in London). They caught up with 'The Continent' in the 16th Century and pulled ahead in the 17th, largely due to the Atlantic / Pacific trade and colonies. By then the gun had been much improved and was clearly superior.
G
Yes, but that still predates Ben Franklin's desire to use crossbow, which I suspect may not have been the smartest thing he ever did.
Galloglaich
2014-01-20, 04:53 PM
England had relatively little urbanization or manufacturing industry in the Middle Ages when the gun first appeared - compared to other parts of Europe. It was basically a rural backwater, with a few urban centers mostly on the coasts, (and one large one in London). England tended to lag behind on many technologies, though ironically it was an English monk, Roger Bacon, who first published the gunpowder formula in Europe.
For example, you can see this map of printed manuscripts in Europe before 1500 (incunabula) England is a little bit 'behind the power curve'
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Printing_towns_incunabula.svg/554px-Printing_towns_incunabula.svg.png
The English caught up with 'The Continent' in the 16th Century and pulled ahead in the 17th (after their Civil War especially) and 18th, largely due to the Atlantic / Pacific trade and colonies.
By the time of Franklin the gun had been much improved and was clearly superior, though of course crossbows were not entirely out of the running compared to a single-shot musket and his idea does invoke an interesting thought experiment such as the one we had a while back in this thread about longbows.
G
England had relatively little urbanization or manufacturing industry in the Middle Ages when the gun first appeared - compared to other parts of Europe. It was basically a rural backwater, with a few urban centers mostly on the coasts, (and one large one in London). England tended to lag behind on many technologies, though ironically it was an English monk, Roger Bacon, who first published the gunpowder formula in Europe.
For example, you can see this map of printed manuscripts in Europe before 1500 (incunabula) England is a little bit 'behind the power curve'
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Printing_towns_incunabula.svg/554px-Printing_towns_incunabula.svg.png
The English caught up with 'The Continent' in the 16th Century and pulled ahead in the 17th (after their Civil War especially) and 18th, largely due to the Atlantic / Pacific trade and colonies.
By the time of Franklin the gun had been much improved and was clearly superior, though of course crossbows were not entirely out of the running compared to a single-shot musket and his idea does invoke an interesting thought experiment such as the one we had a while back in this thread about longbows.
G
As I said it depends mostly on what stage in the technology we were at.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 05:02 PM
A good high powered crossbow is better than the guns in use at the time of the American Revolution, including the rifles which were in high demand. More accurate, more range, more hurt, and loses less power when used at range.
A good high powered crossbow is better than the guns in use at the time of the American Revolution, including the rifles which were in high demand. More accurate, more range, more hurt, and loses less power when used at range.
Again I think that the British Empire would probably have used them, it's also much much slower to reload since you have to crank it, so it's a good weapon in some respects, but not in terms of speed of fire, which is often more important than accuracy in the strictest sense.
Mathis
2014-01-20, 05:10 PM
That's pretty interesting Mr Mask, do you have any numbers? Id love to see some sources that support this?
AgentPaper
2014-01-20, 05:11 PM
Edit: That's the problem we're discussing two technologies that have had a historical comparison already if magic can equally enhance both of them, then the one that already won, will still win.
What I'm saying is, that it's easier to enhance bows than it is to enhance guns, allowing them to pull ahead overall. For a bow, all you need is something that amplifies force, while for a gun you need complex, multi-stage effects that clean the barrel, load a bullet, negate the recoil, and negate air resistance. And all of that is on top of the industrial and technological infrastructure that you need to mass-produce muskets in the first place.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 05:15 PM
A Mind Forever Voyaging: The difference between muskets, and bows and crossbows was much greater when the British swapped to muskets. It was no more economical than before, as far as I'm aware.
I don't know a good example of reload time for wind up crossbows. I don't think it will be so much worse than the muskets that this draw back would undo the many other advantages.
If rate of fire was the main concern, then bows are the champion weapon, or some of the lighter crossbows.
Mathis: Not on hand, no. If you feel my data is inaccurate, you are free to pull up stats. I have trouble finding good crossbow data, but most of the rifles and muskets of the time are well documented.
What I'm saying is, that it's easier to enhance bows than it is to enhance guns, allowing them to pull ahead overall. For a bow, all you need is something that amplifies force, while for a gun you need complex, multi-stage effects that clean the barrel, load a bullet, negate the recoil, and negate air resistance. And all of that is on top of the industrial and technological infrastructure that you need to mass-produce muskets in the first place.
Well for a musket all you need is something that reduces certain forces and then the other advantages start to cause them to pull ahead.
The difference between muskets, and bows and crossbows was much greater when the British swapped to muskets. It was no more economical than before, as far as I'm aware.
I don't know a good example of reload time for wind up crossbows. I don't think it will be so much worse than the muskets that this draw back would undo the many other advantages.
If rate of fire was the main concern, then bows are the champion weapon, or some of the lighter crossbows.
Well the problem is that there are other concerns, and dramatically slowing the rate of fire is a serious problem.
FreakyCheeseMan
2014-01-20, 05:38 PM
Edit: The fundamental problem is that rifles are superior to bows, and enchantment may narrow that gap some, but not much, certainly less than one would imagine.
This is the reason why I'm making guns harder to enchant - the only way I see the possibility of balance between the two is if you're pretty much always going to be comparing mundane firearms to magical bows and arrows. (In which case, there's a lot of things that could bridge the gap - arrows that go through walls, fire around corners, glide through the atmosphere in search of a target picked out by scrying, explode on impact, deliver mind-control effects, pull the target magnetically back towards the attacker (or continue to push them steadily away), etc.
Mind, the larger magical/military situation complicates it even more , given the peculiarities of the setting I'm working on - there's no tech, but there are things like purely-magical spaceships that are in common usage, so while the basic arms-and-armor tech isn't that far off from medieval, there are things like orbital insertions, long-distance communcations, aerial recon, artillery (probably not the straight-up exploding kind, but things like summoned creatures, mass necromancy spells, etc.)
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 05:40 PM
A Mind Forever Voyaging: The reload time isn't likely to be dramatically different. I have generally be an advocate for rate of fire myself, and do wonder if the bow would have been a better plan sans economics (and sans problems of having proficient recruits). There are other advantages to the crossbow, such as not being able to double or triple load it (for reasons of not wanting to kill or mistakes), and potentially a simpler reloading process. Issues such as maintaining the crossbows may have been a major concern.
Mathis
2014-01-20, 06:56 PM
I don't have anything to criticize, I just want more information is all. If I have picked up anything from this thread however it is that I should be skeptical of a claim that one weapon is outright better than another. Just so I understand you correctly though, your claim is that a crossbow of high quality contemporary to the American Revolution is better than a likewise contemporary rifle in terms of stopping power, accuracy and range?
A Mind Forever Voyaging: The reload time isn't likely to be dramatically different. I have generally be an advocate for rate of fire myself, and do wonder if the bow would have been a better plan sans economics (and sans problems of having proficient recruits). There are other advantages to the crossbow, such as not being able to double or triple load it (for reasons of not wanting to kill or mistakes), and potentially a simpler reloading process. Issues such as maintaining the crossbows may have been a major concern.
Well I imagine that range was probably a deciding factor. Again really we'd have to discuss the technological era, but by the 1600s I'm fairly sure that Muskets were vastly superior, you'd run into the problem of having diminishing returns from being able to reload faster than you can aim. I imagine that in many ways once you take that into account guns start to be superior, also they require less room and allow ranks to really be used effectively, in ways that bows simply don't. I mean for an individual a bow might be a better weapon, at that point, but I doubt the same would hold true for an army.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 07:18 PM
Mathis: Rereading my post, my tone may have been defensive unintentionally. Sorry about that. I genuinely would be happy to have data put against me, since I hate it when I can't find data, and hate it if my data is inaccurate.
Yes, I have a fair certainty that a high quality crossbow made with that time's technology (assuming the art of crossbow making wasn't lost) would be a superior weapon in terms of range, stopping power, and accuracy. If I knew which specific crossbows were likely choices, I might be able to contend further points.
Franklin proposed using bows due to a shortage of gunpowder. He thought a bow was better than a musket without powder...better than a club in other words. While he did attempt to extoll the virtues of a bow in his letter, I doubt he considered it better than a musket with plenty of powder much less a rifle.
Here's his quote (with minor edits for readability):
We have got in a large Quantity of Saltpetre 120 Ton, and 30 more expected. Powdermills are now wanting [lacking]. I believe we must set to work and make it by hand. But I still wish with you that Pikes [spears] could be introduc’d; and I would add Bows and Arrows. Those were good Weapons, not wisely laid aside.
1. Because a Man may shoot as truly with a Bow as with a common Musket.
2. He can discharge 4 Arrows in the time of charging and discharging one Bullet.
3. His Object is not taken from his View by the Smoke of his own Side.
4. A Flight of Arrows seen coming upon them terrifies, and disturbs the Enemy’s Attention to his Business.
5. An Arrow sticking in any Part of a Man, puts him hors du Combat [out of combat] ’till ’tis extracted.
6. Bows and Arrows are more easily provided everywhere than Muskets and Ammunition.
His first claim is correct but the second seems to rely on comparing a well trained archer to a conscript. An archer will still be quicker (with a bow, not a crossbow) but the difference isn't as great as he claimed. While he got claim three correct, the fourth and fifth are a wash at best, and the sixth is an incorrect assumption. It would require significant investments in individual training.
He was comparing to mass produced smooth bores also, not to rifles. He also had examples of native archery failing against the colonists' guns from conflicts close to home. I suspect it was mostly wishful thinking on Franklin's part after all, he was also suggesting pikes.
Edit: Corrected number references.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 08:05 PM
A Mind Forever Voyaging: Greater accuracy and range means you can unnerve the other guys and disrupt their formation before they can fire on you, hopefully reducing their capacity to injure you. High rate of fire means that when you get into range you strike a more damaging blow, and rate of fire can make up for accuracy, sometimes more than half.
I'm afraid I have difficulty understanding your point about diminishing returns. If you mean rate of fire would outdo the greater accuracy, it depends on how big the difference is.
I'm not sure why you consider guns to make a much more effective use of ranks and formations. Guns fire in a straight line with little arc, so on flat ground you can only have two or three ranks of men firing. With arrows, most of the formation can fire on a formation sized target.
Raum: His claims seem to be that the bow is the better weapon.
Well, the common muskets didn't shoot very true... The method of warfare at the time was still to fire at extremely short ranges with the poor quality muskets, so assuming the archers would be able to do an equivalent job on a formation-sized target isn't unreasonable. The rifles sometimes changed that, where units were pinned at greater distances by sharpshooters. I've heard their numerousness enlarged and downplayed, so I'm uncertain how great their effect was (just that it did impact things).
Hard to say with the fourth claim. On one hand you can see the arrows coming... invisible death is scary when you're not used to it, but death you seem able to avoid makes you feel more keen to try and avoid it. Arrows would also draw more blood, which can have dramatic psychological effects. And they are more disabling which makes them seem more fierce. But... war is already so bloody, scary, and everything else, that this claim seems hopeful.
The fifth one is a slight exaggeration at worst, and might not be giving arrows enough credit. People think of arrows as little sticks that poke into people... but they'd be using broad heads. Can you keep going after an arrow hits you arm? Sure, some people have kept going after losing an arm (it doesn't entirely take your arm off... just severs any meaningful connection). Can you continue if an arrow is in your leg? If standing is optional, yes. Torso? If you don't need to move at all, or if you're on PCP, maybe. The areas you can be hit with an arrow, without being disabled, are few. Moving hurts, living hurts, and you're bleeding too much. He also didn't mention how difficult it can be to extract arrows--particularly barbed ones, designed to cause as much pain, suffering, and organ removal as possible during the process (fish hooks are enough that you can get sent to a trauma surgeon for their removal).
Without details about the case with the natives losing to guns, I can't comment. The weapons you use can be a minor point to other factors, or they can make quite a difference.
In the American Civil War, Stone Wall Jackson was very keen that his men be skilled with the bayonet. A rifle with a bayonet is a poor man's pike. Pikemen had been used along with musketeers extremely successfully in Europe. I'm not sure when the practice ended and what the reasons behind it were exactly.
The sixth point relates to the availability of timber in America, not to the availability of archers. Franklin's idea lacked insight that their industry was set up to produce guns, and that everyone was experienced with guns (with many skilled shooters).
Rhynn
2014-01-20, 08:24 PM
How are arrow-wounds more bloody than GSWs? Even with a broad head, an arrow is going to leave a smaller wound channel, and if it doesn't have a broad head, it might even be relatively snugly plugged, compared to a musket ball leaving essentially a gaping hole.
A rifle with a bayonet is a poor man's pike. Pikemen had been used along with musketeers extremely successfully in Europe. I'm not sure when the practice ended and what the reasons behind it were exactly.
It ended because a musket with a bayonet was better. Unlike a pike, it could shoot.
Pikemen were used primarily to deter cavalry charges (which would wreak havoc on musketeers if timed right, and ruin artillery). Once your musketeers had bayonets, they could form squares and deter cavalry charges (provided they had the discipline, which pikemen needed anyway). Bayonets turned musketeers from essentially "archers" to essentially "heavy infantry" (line infantry), and heavy infantry that stands its ground pretty much beats a cavalry charge. When the heavy infantry can also unleash a volley at the cavalry charge well before they reach the infantry, it's a pretty horrible prospect to charge them.
Mr. Mask
2014-01-20, 08:53 PM
As I said, everything is already so bloody... the difference mightn't be much. Blades and knives draw more blood as a rule, internally and externally, simply because bullets are blunt and blades are sharp.
Heck, even pikemen weren't always enough to deter cavalry charges. Light infantry with bayonets work mostly by picking enough horses off as they close to break the cavalry charge, the same way archers and crossbowmen would break them. It's not something that heavy infantry could best as a matter of course. If it was, cavalry wouldn't have been worth the investment.
Rhynn
2014-01-20, 09:04 PM
Light infantry with bayonets work mostly by picking enough horses off as they close to break the cavalry charge
Light infantry in the age of the musket and rifle generally fought in a skirmish line (almost by definition). I can't see them withstanding a cavalry charge, at least frequently - no doubt it may have happened.
Line infantry formed up in a square with bayonets will demolish cavalry charging them, though, mostly. I recall reading (almost certainly in these threads) of one case of such a square breaking (might have been pikemen & musketeers, close enough here) because of a freak accident where a horse in the lead died and basically barreled through the formation, creating a gap for the rest to ride into...
It's not something that heavy infantry could best as a matter of course. If it was, cavalry wouldn't have been worth the investment.
Heavy infantry, especially with spear or pikes, absolutely were by far the best at breaking cavalry charges. Cavalry did not, as a rule, charge into formed-up heavy infantry. If the heavy infantry did not break when the cavalry was charging at them, the cavalry would wheel about and ride away.
Wheeling about and riding away from a square of bayonet-equipped muskets or rifles (with ring or socket bayonets, anyway) would make it quiet likely you'd get shot again, obviously. (Fixing plug bayonets against a cavalry charge was something of a bigger commitment, obviously!)
Cavalry was used to break infantry that was wavering, retreating, or engaged, preferrably by charging at the flank or rear - hence why you positioned cavalry at the flanks of your formation, to outflank the enemy infantry line and "roll it" up the battlefield, starting a collapse at one flank. (Also, to intercept enemy cavalry placed to do the same to you.)
Once the infantry was broken, cavalry could ride them down, keeping them from reforming.
Cavalry, light cavalry in particular, was also used to harry troops that could not withstand them (like unprotected archers or musketeers or artillery), and to ride down retreating or routing enemies.
As muskets and then rifles became more common, light cavalry became more and more common and heavy (armored and lance-armed) cavalry became more and more rare, until "cavalry" pretty much just meant "light cavalry" in the 19th century. This emphasized their role as harriers and flankers, and left them even less capable of breaking formed-up line infantry with bayonets.
A Mind Forever Voyaging: Greater accuracy and range means you can unnerve the other guys and disrupt their formation before they can fire on you, hopefully reducing their capacity to injure you. High rate of fire means that when you get into range you strike a more damaging blow, and rate of fire can make up for accuracy, sometimes more than half.
I'm afraid I have difficulty understanding your point about diminishing returns. If you mean rate of fire would outdo the greater accuracy, it depends on how big the difference is.
I'm not sure why you consider guns to make a much more effective use of ranks and formations. Guns fire in a straight line with little arc, so on flat ground you can only have two or three ranks of men firing. With arrows, most of the formation can fire on a formation sized target.
The problem is that history has proven you wrong, people tend to use the best weapon for the job, and certainly the rest of Europe could have continued to use bows, but they did not, or crossbows for that matter.
The point about diminishing returns is that you can hit a point of fire where you need to reload and then aim, and then depending on how quickly you can aim, that's the factor of significance. A crossbow (or a musket) needs to be removed from the shoulder to be reloaded, so you can't maintain your aim, so quickly rate of fire becomes less important because speed of aim is more important. Also rate of fire is less important since Muskets work over a greater distance than crossbows generally, as such you can fire several times before the crossbowman has fired even once.
The point about lines deals with the fact that you need greater spacing between bowmen to have a functional line, also once you have line fighting speed of reload is less important, since one line is reloading while the other is firing, once you've hit the point where you can reload that quickly (and muskets do) everything else is wasted effort and you're better off using a weapon that improves on other aspects.
As I said, everything is already so bloody... the difference mightn't be much. Blades and knives draw more blood as a rule, internally and externally, simply because bullets are blunt and blades are sharp.
Heck, even pikemen weren't always enough to deter cavalry charges. Light infantry with bayonets work mostly by picking enough horses off as they close to break the cavalry charge, the same way archers and crossbowmen would break them. It's not something that heavy infantry could best as a matter of course. If it was, cavalry wouldn't have been worth the investment.
Musket balls tumble around inside the body, causing much more damage than a blade ever could. Small caliber rounds today are known for much the same effect.
Raum: His claims seem to be that the bow is the better weapon.No, he stated "Those were good Weapons, not wisely laid aside". "Good" weapons, not better...but they might do in a pinch since "Powdermills are now wanting".
Hard to say with the fourth claim. On one hand you can see the arrows coming... invisible death is scary when you're not used to it, but death you seem able to avoid makes you feel more keen to try and avoid it. Arrows would also draw more blood, which can have dramatic psychological effects. And they are more disabling which makes them seem more fierce. But... war is already so bloody, scary, and everything else, that this claim seems hopeful.Arrows in the sky vs the crashing noise of volleys and waves of smoke - it's a wash. As for damage, the Brown Bess fired a ~3/4 inch ball of lead. Enough to shatter femurs.
The fifth one is a slight exaggeration at worst, and might not be giving arrows enough credit. Crafting bows wasn't something they mass produced at the time (if ever). They certainly didn't have assembly lines set up to roll them off in large batches...or even experience with having done so elsewhere. This is only true if the colonists can't acquire gunpowder.
In the American Civil War, Stone Wall Jackson was very keen that his men be skilled with the bayonet. A rifle with a bayonet is a poor man's pike. Pikemen had been used along with musketeers extremely successfully in Europe. I'm not sure when the practice ended and what the reasons behind it were exactly.Sure, bayonet has been taught for centuries. I think the US Marine Corp may still teach it though the Army had stopped last I heard. A bayoneted rifle is simply better than bare hands and was a near requirement as long as rifle armed troops could expect hand to hand combat.
The sixth point relates to the availability of timber in America, not to the availability of archers. Franklin's idea lacked insight that their industry was set up to produce guns, and that everyone was experienced with guns (with many skilled shooters).When Franklin wrote that, the colonies had few gunsmiths and little gunpowder. In 1774 there was only one powdermill (in Philadelphia). At least two more were built in 1776 in NJ and PA, the one in PA was burnt by the British twice* in 1777.
*At least Tory sympathizers were blamed the first time - however they were acquitted. General Howe's troops burnt it down the second time, but not until after most operations had been moved.
Mike_G
2014-01-20, 09:14 PM
Heck, even pikemen weren't always enough to deter cavalry charges. Light infantry with bayonets work mostly by picking enough horses off as they close to break the cavalry charge, the same way archers and crossbowmen would break them. It's not something that heavy infantry could best as a matter of course. If it was, cavalry wouldn't have been worth the investment.
Not really.
Horses are reluctant to charge into a wall of men with pointy sticks. Most cavalry charges didn't overrun steady infantry formations. Formations where the men broke and fled got run down and slaughtered. Formations that held generally saw the cavalry charge wheel away before contact. The longbopws at Agincourt probably didn't do as much to stop the French cavalry as the palings.
It's great to shoot some cavalry, but what usually determines the success or failure of a charge is psychology, not casualties. Cavalry cover ground fast. You won't get many shots, and under combat conditions, most of your shots won't kill enemies.
Until repeating rifles and weapons like the Maxim gun, anyway. Then you could just kill enough of the charging enemy to break his charge. But bows or muzzle loaders couldn't do it through hits, they relied on close formation and pointy objects to keep horses away. Then it was up to the artillery to shoot up the close formation, and the cavalry threat to keep them from spreading out to avoid the artillery.
And yes, before I get assaulted with anecdotes, there are a few exceptions, like the one about the wounded horse landing on the front lines of a French square and disrupting it so the other cavalry could exploit the breach. But that was luck.If that horse feel down ten feet away, the square would probably held.
And cavalry have a lot of value as recon, scouting, hit and run troops, as well as tactical speed and the ability to over run and ride down troops oin open order pretty easily. Even if their use against formed infantry was limited. Which is was.
I mean, the Saxon shield wall held for quite a while at Hastings, even without pikes or many archers. Just spears, stout comrades and big, brass balls.
Mike_G
2014-01-20, 09:16 PM
Wow. That was a lot of ninjas.
Rhynn
2014-01-20, 09:19 PM
Incidentally, is that bit about European observers of the American Civil War being baffled at its savagery one of "those things" or based on reality? I vaguely recall reading (in these threads!) about wars using similar weapons and tactics having taken place in Europe already...
The basic idea is that the Europeans couldn't believe the Americans just stopped their infantry at fairly close musket range and fired volley after volley at each other, instead of charging in with bayonets (which, instead of a bloody melee, generally results in one side breaking and running away, with rather less loss of life, at least for the victors).
Although, if the reports related in e.g. Dave Grossman's On Killing are anything to go by, that volley firing was actually surprisingly ineffective at causing casualties, possibly in large part because surprising numbers of the men either didn't fire their muskets at all or intentionally missed...
Edit:
Wow. That was a lot of ninjas.
The "black pajamas and ninjatos" kind or the "enemy uniform and setting things on fire" kind? :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:
Anyway, I was probably mostly just parrotting stuff I picked up reading things by e.g. you and other writers in this thread better-informed than I...
Mike_G
2014-01-20, 09:39 PM
Incidentally, is that bit about European observers of the American Civil War being baffled at its savagery one of "those things" or based on reality? I vaguely recall reading (in these threads!) about wars using similar weapons and tactics having taken place in Europe already...
The basic idea is that the Europeans couldn't believe the Americans just stopped their infantry at fairly close musket range and fired volley after volley at each other, instead of charging in with bayonets (which, instead of a bloody melee, generally results in one side breaking and running away, with rather less loss of life, at least for the victors).
Although, if the reports related in e.g. Dave Grossman's On Killing are anything to go by, that volley firing was actually surprisingly ineffective at causing casualties, possibly in large part because surprising numbers of the men either didn't fire their muskets at all or intentionally missed...
Civil War casualty rates were pretty high. The Minie ball let musket fire get the accuracy of rifles but keep the loading speed of muskets. Even if individual soldiers didn't aim carefully, and some never fired, the volume of fire and the greater accuracy of a rifled musket made standing gunfights at under a hundred yards pretty bloody.
Compare casualties in American Civil War battles with casualties in American Revolutionary War battles. The basic advance in infantry weaponry was the percussion cap and the Minie ball. The weapons weren't much faster, but more reliable and straighter shooting. But more regiments got shot flat in the ACW.
Rhynn
2014-01-20, 09:51 PM
Civil War casualty rates were pretty high..
Oh, absolutely, but from what I've read lately (granted, in On Killing, and I don't know how tight Grossman's history is there), the firing was ineffective... but there was a terrifying volume of fire.
Grossman references Paddy Griffith in saying that individual soldiers in the ACW may have fired as many as 400 shots (these being the ones doing the shooting and killing), almost certainly requiring them to have used multiple muskets (due to fouling them by 40).
From On Killing (again based on Paddy Griffith's research):
A soldier could generally fire four or five rounds a minute. In training, or while hunting with a rifled musket, the hit rate would have been at least as good as that achieved by the Prussians with smoothbore muskets when they got 25 percent hits at 225 yards, 40 percent hits at 150 yards, and 60 percent hits at 75 yards while firing at a 100-foot by 6-foot target. Thus, at 75 yards, a 200-man regiment should be able to hit as many as 120 enemy soldiers in the first volley. If four shots were fired each minute, a regiment could potentially kill or wound 480 enemy soldiers in the first minute.
With the rifled muskets of that era, the potential hit rate was at least as high as that achieved by the Prussians with smoothbore muskets when they got 60 percent hits at seventy-five yards. But the reality was a minute fraction of this.
An average engagement would take place at thirty yards. But instead of mowing down hundreds of enemy soldiers in the first minute, regiments killed only one or two men per minute. And instead of the enemy formations disintegrating in a hail of lead, they stood and exchanged fire for hours on end.
That paints a pretty terrifying image, incidentally, of a gruesome grind of slow attrition by gunfire.
fusilier
2014-01-20, 10:22 PM
Incidentally, is that bit about European observers of the American Civil War being baffled at its savagery one of "those things" or based on reality? I vaguely recall reading (in these threads!) about wars using similar weapons and tactics having taken place in Europe already...
The basic idea is that the Europeans couldn't believe the Americans just stopped their infantry at fairly close musket range and fired volley after volley at each other, instead of charging in with bayonets (which, instead of a bloody melee, generally results in one side breaking and running away, with rather less loss of life, at least for the victors).
Well in terms of savagery, the Franco-Austrian (or Austro-Sardinian) War of 1859 is often held up as standard. The creation of the Red Cross traces itself to a witness to the Battle of Solferino.
However, that war was also noted for the "Furia Francese", the furious bayonet assaults of the French that typically won the day.
In that framework, American soldiers during the Civil War did seem reluctant to close to hand-to-hand, and some historians have argued that if they had been more aggressive battles could have been concluded quicker and more decisively.
As for casualties taken during volley fire -- the statistics vary considerably. I'll need to double check my sources, but at Fredericksburg almost an entire Confederate regiment was wiped out by a new (full-strength) Maine regiment (the 17th) in one volley! Then at other times two sides seem to blast away at each other for a long time with little damage done to either.
Rhynn
2014-01-20, 10:29 PM
As for casualties taken during volley fire -- the statistics vary considerably. I'll need to double check my sources, but at Fredericksburg almost an entire Confederate regiment was wiped out by a new (full-strength) Maine regiment (the 17th) in one volley!.
That does sound like a huge difference! Could it be as "simple" as the 17th having been trained in a way that led to all or most of the men actually shooting to kill?
I'm honestly not even sure how accepted the "most soldiers didn't shoot" idea is, although Grossman does seem to be citing multiple sources, including General S. L. A. Marshall (who, I understand, got his statistics by talking to American soldiers during WW2 immediately after engagements, and came to 15-20% of them actually shooting to kill enemies) ...
My understanding is that this research led to serious changes in training doctrine, focusing on psychological conditioning (exemplified by such apparently unrelated things as viciously violent marching songs), which led to enormous increases in the rate of front-line soldiers actually shooting to kill... a steady rise since WW2.
Are there statistics on what the percentage is these days among, say, the US Army and USMC combat troops?
fusilier
2014-01-20, 10:31 PM
Grossman references Paddy Griffith in saying that individual soldiers in the ACW may have fired as many as 400 shots (these being the ones doing the shooting and killing), almost certainly requiring them to have used multiple muskets (due to fouling them by 40).
Uhh. Fouling is an issue, but it's unlikely that the musket would unserviceable at around 40 rounds. I'll have to do some research but I'm pretty sure in tests they got more than a 100 shots before they started to run into problems. Cleaning rounds were sometimes used as well. Also 400 rounds is ten-times as many as the cartridge box holds. While extra ammo was sometimes carried in the pack, 60-80 rounds were typically the max carried. Ammunition could be brought up from the wagons, but blasting away for hours at close ranges probably wasn't very common.
At 30 yards smoothbore muskets would be devastating (using buck and ball, which was the standard load for smoothbores at the time). It was noted during the Civil War that the smoothbores actually outperformed the rifles at those ranges.
Rhynn
2014-01-20, 10:41 PM
Uhh. Fouling is an issue, but it's unlikely that the musket would unserviceable at around 40 rounds.
I have no idea personally - I was just paraphrasing.
Also 400 rounds is ten-times as many as the cartridge box holds. While extra ammo was sometimes carried in the pack, 60-80 rounds were typically the max carried. Ammunition could be brought up from the wagons, but blasting away for hours at close ranges probably wasn't very common.
That's part of Grossman's point. From On Killing, page 21: "The extra ammunition and muskets must have been supplied and loaded by the firers' less aggressive comrades." (He gave 40 as the usual number of shots carried by one soldier.)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.