Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVIII

[Kiero]

The purpose of the fuller in a sword blade is to increase flexibility, and thus make the blade less brittle.

[Mr. Mask]

Hmm, I thought I heard that it could also reduce weight, but maybe not. Thanks Kiero.

[Brother Oni]

Hmm, I thought I heard that it could also reduce weight, but maybe not. Thanks Kiero.

The fullering process also reduces weight as a mechanical function. It's typically formed by hammering down the length of the blade with a cylindrical tool, which causes bulges in the blade. These bulges can then be hammered down, widening the blade or left as they are, strengthening the blade using the same principle behind an I beam.

From the wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuller_(weapon)), this produces either a lighter blade of a fixed stiffness (with an up to 20-35% decrease in weight) or a stiffer blade of a fixed weight.


To answer the original question, there's obviously a relationship between both of the above effects and fullering the blade. Make the groove too long or deep and you will reduce or even compromise the integrity of the blade.

If you wanted weapons that inflicted wounds that wouldn't close up (and hence bleed) then I would suggest something inspired by triangular bayonets, which were reported to cause worse injuries than the straight blade ones, especially with the 'thrust-twist-remove' technique taught to British and Commonwealth soldiers.
Other sources suggest that the increased injury from triangular bayonets were solely to the increased structural integrity of the blade allowing harder thrusts and that the injuries inflicted would be no different to a flat blade bayonet used at the same strength (barring suction issues of the flat blade getting stuck in the victim).

Regardless of the actual effectiveness, triangular wounds are definitely harder to stitch up than straight ones, and the formation of scar tissue reportedly pushes the wound open.

http://49thvirginiainfantry.com/Enfield%20Bayonet%20&%20Scabbard.jpg

Edit: Some more digging indicates that some small swords, estocs and early rapiers had triangular blades and were generally used for stabbing since they were mostly edgeless (link (http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm)).

http://i.imgur.com/rqdhPZc.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KMd3G5x6CIc/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.nielo-sword.com/obrazek/3/b-jpg-661/

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The triangular blades on rapiers were mostly for strength, as far as I've heard. They're the reason those swords can be used for parrying blade on blade, while older sword types will often break when doing that.

I don't think there have been a lot of blades designed to harvest blood (blood banks have needles for that), but there are a few designs for maximizing the gruesomeness of the wound. Aside from triangular blades you could take a look at "snake blade" designs used in the kris and kalis daggers from Southeast Asia (and probably independently in several other places). One theory is that the "wavy" blade, before becoming a cool looking ceremonial weapon, was thought up for creating the widest possible stab wounds.

[ImSAMazing]

Why does Square formation works great against calvalry?

How does routing really work?

[Brother Oni]

I don't think there have been a lot of blades designed to harvest blood (blood banks have needles for that), but there are a few designs for maximizing the gruesomeness of the wound. Aside from triangular blades you could take a look at "snake blade" designs used in the kris and kalis daggers from Southeast Asia (and probably independently in several other places). One theory is that the "wavy" blade, before becoming a cool looking ceremonial weapon, was thought up for creating the widest possible stab wounds.

Alternatives to having clever weapon designs for harvesting blood, would be intelligent wound placement (heart, major arteries, etc), the overkill method (large broadheaded spears like boar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_spear)/bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_spear) spears, double handed weapons, etc) or intentional decapitation/amputation of the enemy (probably post incapacitation, but while they were still alive).

Blood spray would be indiscriminate enough so that the mages wouldn't have to disengage to use the blood to power their magic, although their weapons becoming slippery would be an issue (maybe they make extensive use of locking gauntlets (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=74528)?).


Why does Square formation works great against calvalry?

How does routing really work?

Square formations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square) put up a wall of sharp pointy objects (spears, bayonets, etc) to intimidate the horses, preventing the cavalry getting between the infantry and dispersing their formation in the way that only half a ton of a horse and rider can do. Once their formation is dispersed, the infantry lose cohesion and the combat breaks down into a series of small skirmishes, which favours the mounted man.

Due to the manoeuverability of cavalry, spears facing only in one direction are of limited use since the cavalry can go around them, thus a square with the aformentioned forest of spikey objects covers all angles.
Square formations can be broken by cavalry as mentioned in the wiki link, but it can be costly for both sides.


I'm not sure what you mean by the routing question. Routing happens when one side loses cohesion, the soldiers break then start running for their lives. Since the soldiers are more interested in running than fighting (and people only have eyes facing forwards), that opens them up for attacks from behind and combined with the often one-one nature of combat during this time, the routing side often suffers heavy casualties.

Note that routing is different from a controlled retreat - in the latter, the soldiers retain cohesion and can fight back effectively and there have been a number of battles where a withdrawing force inflicted significant casualties during the over-extended victors.

[Kiero]

Furthermore on squares, war-trained horses from the gunpowder era are not really combatants. They were trained not to freak out at the sounds of gunfire and artillery, not to fight. They were less aggressive than medieval warhorses, and wouldn't jump into a mass of men where they couldn't see where they were going to land. They were also much harder to charge into a fixed bayonet.

Routing is quite simple; when a formation loses it's cohesion entirely, men stop thinking of fighting and instead don't want to be the last one left standing around for the cavalry to kill.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Routing? Drop everything heavy and run as fast as you can, make sure the "from" is a lot more important than the "to", and hope there's no cavalry anywhere nearby that can run you down, or drop to the ground, play dead and hope no one gets close enough to make sure you are before you get chance to sneak off.

It really depends on the quality of the troops in question - poorly trained conscripts without officers and NCOs to keep them in line will run or surrender, veterans are more likely to make a fighting withdrawl to a defendable position. And if troop quality in general is bad, with poor morale, you could see a large portion of your army essentially evaporate if one unit breaks.

[Galloglaich]

Feders are not good examples to use. Not only are they blunted, but they are also much lighter and less stiff than a "real" sword. Nobody does HEMA tournament fights with full weight reproductions. A few crazy Brits fight with reproductions while wearing full plate.

No, the physics of the sword are that the whole weight of the sword, and the force of muscle behind it, hits the enemy.

That is not true, none of it is true.

As already pointed out, the 'feders' they use for tournaments actually tend to be heavier these days that most typical sharps (if you can say there is such a thing)

For example, I use one of these Regenyei feders, it's 1.4 kg

http://www.regenyei.com/images/feder/111_2.JPG

http://www.regenyei.com/en_feders_standard.html


I also think you are seriously underestimating how hard people get hit in tournaments. People fighting in HEMA tournaments don't even necessarily know each other.

Look at the strikes in this clip, I guarantee that is hard enough to split his head if it were a sharp and he had no gear, but a blade makes a poor hammer. With the minimal protection (probably some plastic and leather or rubber) he's basically perfectly safe. Not going to be knocked out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzNcbnEvv9U&feature=player_detailpage#t=121

as I've pointed out "battle of the nations" in Eastern Europe is a much better demonstration of this though, since people routinely charge across a field running for 10 meters and hit someone in the back of the head with a two-handed pole -axe, and they still don't knock them out.


Without any safety gear, a feder (let alone a blunt 4 foot poll axe) can be very dangerous, I wouldn't be surprised if you could kill somebody with a strike to the head, but with the fencing mask it's almost a non-issue. Once in a while masks do get caved in but they are usually the weaker low-rated masks...


The bottom line though is blunt trauma from edged weapons isn't really a factor against armored opponents. You folks need to get that through your head (but to do so I'll use a mace rather than a longsword!)

G

[No brains]

Couple of things:

I have a point to add to fullers, but I might not be any more accurate putting it this way. I don't really think the purpose of a fuller is to make a sword lighter, so much as to make it 'bigger'. When forging a fuller, the mass that would be used for the center of the blade gets pushed outward, expanding the surface area of a smaller sword without making it weaker. I'm basing this off of what I took from Secrets of the Viking Sword from Nova. Sorry if its a bad source, but if it is a good source and I am mistaken, maybe I just need to watch it again. I think I've heard of fullers being ground out of completed swords, but when forging a hunk of metal, its going to weigh the same no matter how its shaped.

Next, I'm curious about Greek panoplies, (holy cow, my spell check knows what panoplies are!) and padding. Did the ancients pad their plates of armor? I would guess the answer is yes, but I want to know what history and archaeology have to say. Was there ever a time or place when people didn't pad their metal armor? Did it work out badly for them?

[Storm Bringer]

Why does Square formation works great against calvalry?

How does routing really work?

as others have said, horses, being intelligent, free thinking creatures, will not willingly run onto a wall of sharp spikey things. a square formation acts to negate the mobility advantage of cavarly by removing the flanks and rear of a formation, by having everyone face out. thier are simmilar formations thoughtout history, like the scottish stilchron. horsemen will circle around squares, but its very hard form them to break one without support. however, it was not 100% required that a unit be in square to defeat cavalry. quite a few units were able to stop a cavarly charge in line.

bear in mind that squares were not immobile, but could and did move when required to do so.


with units routing, their are two things to keep in mind:

1) the primary aim of most people in battle is to survive the battle.

2) a unit takes its heaviest losses when it routs, and the slowest to run are the ones that die.

everybody in historicals battles knew these. the less brave members of a unit would be on the lookout for signs that the formation was breaking, and try to get a head start. if enough people start thinking "this unit is about to break", then it becomes a self fullilling prophesy, like a run on the bank.

[PersonMan]

as others have said, horses, being intelligent, free thinking creatures, will not willingly run onto a wall of sharp spikey things.

They do, actually. You can charge cavalry into a square, you just lose horses (and probably quite a few of the men in the front as well).

[warty goblin]

So I've got an extended question for you guys. It's starts a little fuzzy but comes down to real-world physics I promise.

In a campaign I'm running, I've got a group of blood-mage/swordsmen (inspired by ciphers from Pillars of Eternity), who have extensive training in lightly armored sword combat. They use long slashing swords designed to inflict bleeding injuries, no shields, and lighter-than-steel chain shirts. The swords have a specially-designed fuller(?), running almost the entire length of the blade and designed to catch blood shed from bleeding wounds. The idea is that they step in, melee, disengage, and use the blood they drew to power their close combat magic. That being said, here's my questions:

1. Does the fuller being deeper or longer affect the odds of catching spilled blood?

2. Does the fuller being deeper or longer affect the integrity of the sword?
Thanks for your help!
Day before yesterday I butchered a pig, the second step of which was to cut the beast's throat, for the purpose of removing as much blood as possible from the pig prior to butchering and roasting. As such there was a lot of blood on the pig, a lot on the ground, and a fair amount on the boots and lower legs of the participants. The knife, despite having been pulled straight through all the major blood vessels of the throat, was remarkably clean. There was certainly some blood smeared on the blade, but really very little; maybe half a teaspoon or so. And I doubt it's possible to get a bloodier wound than pushing a knife in under the point of the jaw and pulling outwards.

Further, in all my years of experience getting sliced open carving wood etc, I've never noticed any blood on the blade of the offending instrument at all. These were all relatively minor cuts, but some of them were made with very sharp knives and bled fairly heavily, but never on the knife blade. Even when I cut my big toe half off with a scythe, the scythe was spotless. What was left of my boot was a rather different story.

My suspicion here is that cuts don't really start to bleed heavily until the cutting object is removed from them. So the heaviest blood flow won't happen when the blade is in the wound, and any sort of fuller will have a very minor effect on where the blood ends up, unless you do something silly like not pull your blade free as rapidly as possible and start wiggling the thing around; which is a good way for the wounded party - or his buddy - to kill you while you're faffing about instead of defending yourself. So if you want fresh gore, I suspect you're better off wringing out the victim's shirt, or scooping up some really unpleasant mud.



Couple of things:

I have a point to add to fullers, but I might not be any more accurate putting it this way. I don't really think the purpose of a fuller is to make a sword lighter, so much as to make it 'bigger'. When forging a fuller, the mass that would be used for the center of the blade gets pushed outward, expanding the surface area of a smaller sword without making it weaker. I'm basing this off of what I took from Secrets of the Viking Sword from Nova. Sorry if its a bad source, but if it is a good source and I am mistaken, maybe I just need to watch it again. I think I've heard of fullers being ground out of completed swords, but when forging a hunk of metal, its going to weigh the same no matter how its shaped.


Fullers can also be ground, rather than forged, in. Note also that even a forged fuller makes a sword of any particular width and thickness lighter than an unfullered blade; therefore giving you a sword with more or less the same cutting power and stiffness, but for less weight. The fullered sword isn't lighter than another sword forged out of the same bar of metal, it's lighter than another sword forged to the same exterior dimensions.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

They do, actually. You can charge cavalry into a square, you just lose horses (and probably quite a few of the men in the front as well).


You lose so many of them even (depending on the weapons and armor etc of both sides, plus of course how much the horses feel like being kebab that day) that it's generally not worth the effort. Mounted troops with lancers were almost completely gone from the battlefield around 1600-1650, when pike and shot formations were used. Those were pretty large square formations, about 500-2000 men. About half of those were the actual pikers that fend of the cavalry, the other half were musketeers and other assorted firearm users. They'd sit on the outside of the square (because pikemen don't like getting shot in the back) and retreat amongst the pikes when a charge (either cavalry of infantry) came close. The goal of the battle was to eventually let your own squares engage in hand to hand with the opponents formation. That fase was called the push of pike, basically a really nasty rugby scrum. If your guys all push hard enough the first few rows on the other side all fall over, you get lots of easy kills and the rest of the formation breaks up in panic. To have the best chance in the push itself you'd have to hurt and disorganize the other persons formation first. One way to do that was to just shoot the other guys, that's what all the guns were for. It's also where the horses could still come in handy. Cavalry with firearms acted like skirmishers, attacking from the rear or the flank, trying to push the formation off balance. Smaller musketeer formations had the same role, and those were on their turn great targets for cavalry attacks, helping in keeping friendly pike and shot groups safe. They could also charge at artillery batteries, who must have loved that the infantry got deployed in such large and slow groups, and to chase the losers of a push of pike.

Not all of that carries over into older settings. An ancient phalanx doesn't really threaten cavalry that's just outside their reach, while a formation with guns does. But the general principle is the same, horses do not like a wall of pointy sticks, especially not when the other end of said stick is standing on the ground. And even infantry cannot just walk in between the sharp points. But the formations are slow, and provide a very target rich environment, so they are vulnerable to ranged attacks. Hence the roman shield formations, they traded danger towards others for protection for themselves.

(Lance cavalry did get back on the horse by the way. Bayonets proved a lot less lethal to horses than pikes (though not enough to justify having only half the amount of firearms that the enemy has), and especially the early plug bayonets which had to be plugged into the gun barrel before starting a fight provided great opportunities for charges of all sorts.)

[/Okay, I'm done nerding over my favorite historic type of combat now.]

[Mike_G]

They do, actually. You can charge cavalry into a square, you just lose horses (and probably quite a few of the men in the front as well).

I don't know of any instance where cavalry did deliberately charge into formed infantry and run into the bayonets on purpose.

Generally, they charge,m and either the infantry break and get ridden/clashed down, or the cavalry balk at the idea of self-impalement and shy away, then reform and try again.

There are instance of squares being broken, but generally by artillery or musketry softening them up first, or the waaaay too oft quoted example of the dead horse falling onto the bayonets of a French square, creating a breach that the other horsemen exploited.

That was a happy accident. The rider didn't try to get himself and his horse killed to make a hole. If the horse had fallen three feet in front of the square, it wouldn't have broken and he'd have been just as dead.

[Kiero]

Next, I'm curious about Greek panoplies, (holy cow, my spell check knows what panoplies are!) and padding. Did the ancients pad their plates of armor? I would guess the answer is yes, but I want to know what history and archaeology have to say. Was there ever a time or place when people didn't pad their metal armor? Did it work out badly for them?

I'd imagine they worse a leather or other textile corselet or the like underneath the cuirass, which is what the pteryges/tassets were attached to. Not only would it provide cushioning, but also insulation against heat if you'd been standing in the sun all day. The traditional way to pad a helmet was with your coiled hair (which was long and braided/plaited to provide the padding).

[MrZJunior]

Why was it that only the Europeans seem to have invented the angled bastion? Other places like India and China also had access to gunpowder artillery and a tradition of large, intricate fortifications. I would expect such an elegant and useful adaptation to have developed naturally in those areas.

Even a nation like the Ottoman Empire which had contact with European style fortresses, and even captured several which could have been studied, does not seem to have copied them.

[Gnoman]

Why was it that only the Europeans seem to have invented the angled bastion? Other places like India and China also had access to gunpowder artillery and a tradition of large, intricate fortifications. I would expect such an elegant and useful adaptation to have developed naturally in those areas.

Even a nation like the Ottoman Empire which had contact with European style fortresses, and even captured several which could have been studied, does not seem to have copied them.

IIRC, most Noteuropean regions in that time period were extremely stable compared to feudal Europe, with large power blocs fighting occasionally rather than dozens of tiny lords fighting other tiny lords because somebody's grandfather did something to somebody's horse a hundred years prior. That sort of constant warfare not only necessitated better and better fortifications, it continually damaged the old ones, which necessitated repair (and repairs are often a good opportunity for some upgrades.)

[MrZJunior]

IIRC, most Noteuropean regions in that time period were extremely stable compared to feudal Europe, with large power blocs fighting occasionally rather than dozens of tiny lords fighting other tiny lords because somebody's grandfather did something to somebody's horse a hundred years prior. That sort of constant warfare not only necessitated better and better fortifications, it continually damaged the old ones, which necessitated repair (and repairs are often a good opportunity for some upgrades.)

IIRC most small lords or republics in Europe had a great deal of trouble building and maintaining new fortifications, and that it tended to be the larger, wealthy nations like France, Spain, or the Papacy which financed fortress construction. And that still doesn't account for the Ottomans who were quite often at war during this time.

[Incanur]

There's considerable evidence that men-at-arms and other cavalry charged into pikes in at least 15th- and 16th-century Europe. Few if any commanders recommended all-in charging an ordered formation of pikers with the intent to break them, but such charges still happened at least on occasion. They typically went poorly for the cavalry involved but they were enough of a threat that manuals mentioned such charges even in the late 16th century. Sir John Smythe, for example, argued that his ideal formation of five ranks of pikers backed by halberdiers was sufficient to resist cavalry and went so far as to give instructions on how halberdiers should engage cavalry that managed to get through the front five ranks of pikers. So at least Smythe thought a dedicated charge might penetrate five ranks of pikers, albeit at some cost to themselves and with little ability to withstand halberdiers at that point. Humphrey Barwick criticized François de la Noue's plan for resisting cavalry and gave advice on which part of the horse pikers should target with their pikes when confronted by charging cavalry (he said the breast rather than the head). And you various battlefield accounts of men-at-arms and lancers charging pikers: Swiss wars against the Charles the Bold, Marignano 1515, French Wars of Religion, etc.

[Mr. Mask]

Cavalry charges on pike are given too little credit, I feel. In games, pikers win consistently and clearly--but in the reality, everyone "lost" in those situations. That's why pikers sometimes broke and ran, because if the horses really weren't going to stop, it was going to be pretty bad for them (even if it was worse for the cavalry). Another way of putting it, is you needed a decent pike to horse ratio if you expected to stop them successfully (1:1 with pikes and cavalry is not going to work, IIRC).

There was also some crazy system the Hussars had to consistently break pike formations with their cavalry, I believe? They kept charging and retreating with two or more alternating teams of horses, I think is the short version of it.

[Yukitsu]

I can't think of many good examples of infantry in good order armed with either pike or bayonet being broken by cavalry. Ones that had been hammered for a while from cannons, muskets, arrows or prolonged combat don't count in this case. Have you got any good battles where that happened?

Hussars wouldn't ever be tasked with breaking a pike formation, except perhaps the Polish heavy hussars. Hussars are light cavalry, their role was to disable artillery and harass retreating or disorderly infantry.

[Mr. Mask]

Look up cases with the Polish heavy Hussars. There was a particularly famous case where they routed several times their number in pikemen. Can't remember the name of the battle, but G might remember (I think I saw him mention it once).

[Yukitsu]

Look up cases with the Polish heavy Hussars. There was a particularly famous case where they routed several times their number in pikemen. Can't remember the name of the battle, but G might remember (I think I saw him mention it once).

There appears to have been one case in all history that pikemen that were only modestly disrupted were broken by the Polish Hussars, that being Kircholm, though it comments that these were untrained and unarmoured militia.

I think it can be taken at face value that this likely had happened, and is an example that a pike formation can be broken by cavalry but there don't seem to be many cases of it, especially given how many battles were fought where one or both sides had pike squares and their opposite had cavalry. By and large, it doesn't look like cavalry is underrated against pikes or other pole arm squares given how rarely either were beaten by cavalry alone.

[Mr. Mask]

"There appears to be one case in all history," is exactly the kind of thought process that's unfortunate. In popular media, pikes beat cavalry. This is true, but it gets simplified to the point where it lacks reality.

Again, pikemen don't "win" when horses charge into them, they survive. The cavalry may not survive, but the damage to a pike block charged by some heavy cavalry that didn't know when to quit is not pleasant. If it were pleasant, and cavalry was easily dispatched, no one would run away from a pike formation when horses were charging (which sometimes did happen). As it was, you can consistently defeat cavalry even if they charge full on, with pikemen--if you have more pikemen than cavalry, and are willing to take some losses in receiving that charge.

Here's an article I found on the tactics that were apparently employed against pikes: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

If these tactics were employed, I don't think it can be said that cavalry lacked any capability against pikes, unless the Polish Hussars were incredibly incompetent.

[SowZ]

"There appears to be one case in all history," is exactly the kind of thought process that's unfortunate. In popular media, pikes beat cavalry. This is true, but it gets simplified to the point where it lacks reality.

Again, pikemen don't "win" when horses charge into them, they survive. The cavalry may not survive, but the damage to a pike block charged by some heavy cavalry that didn't know when to quit is not pleasant. If it were pleasant, and cavalry was easily dispatched, no one would run away from a pike formation when horses were charging (which sometimes did happen). As it was, you can consistently defeat cavalry even if they charge full on, with pikemen--if you have more pikemen than cavalry, and are willing to take some losses in receiving that charge.

Here's an article I found on the tactics that were apparently employed against pikes: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

If these tactics were employed, I don't think it can be said that cavalry lacked any capability against pikes, unless the Polish Hussars were incredibly incompetent.

The superior force ran several times throughout history even though running greatly increased their odds of dying and they would have won had they stood their ground. The human psyche is complicated and people aren't rational under duress.

[Yukitsu]

"There appears to be one case in all history," is exactly the kind of thought process that's unfortunate. In popular media, pikes beat cavalry. This is true, but it gets simplified to the point where it lacks reality.

Again, pikemen don't "win" when horses charge into them, they survive. The cavalry may not survive, but the damage to a pike block charged by some heavy cavalry that didn't know when to quit is not pleasant. If it were pleasant, and cavalry was easily dispatched, no one would run away from a pike formation when horses were charging (which sometimes did happen). As it was, you can consistently defeat cavalry even if they charge full on, with pikemen--if you have more pikemen than cavalry, and are willing to take some losses in receiving that charge.

Here's an article I found on the tactics that were apparently employed against pikes: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

If these tactics were employed, I don't think it can be said that cavalry lacked any capability against pikes, unless the Polish Hussars were incredibly incompetent.

Can you find other cases in history where it happened? I can find other pike squares being broken, but almost all other cases involve them also being attacked by infantry, cannons and or musket fire with the cavalry simply being an additive force. (or it wasn't the Polish Hussars)

Notable as well, the only battle that web page cites is Kircholm, the same one I did. It seems the Polish in general just weren't charging their cavalry straight into pike formations on account of them having more effective tools for the job.

On the note of "winning" or not, the point of the pike square is to protect the gunners in a formation. It is not to directly defeat the cavalry, as obviously, an infantry square cannot force cavalry to engage them. They act as a mobile bastion on the battlefield that can provide fire against the enemy army. An infantry square that remains in place has achieved its tactical goal. The cavalry that is repelled has not.

[Incanur]

While I agree that men-at-arms and lancers could rarely rout pikers on their own, it's important to remember how relatively few men-at-arms in full plate and barding there were in 15th- and 16th-century battles. You might have a few hundred such men-at-arms against many thousands of pikers - and the men-at-arms still played an important role on the battlefield.

For example, at Grandson 1476, Louis Chalon-Chateugueyon (http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11967&p=120875&hilit=louis+Grandson+horse#p120875) and fewer than six other men-at-arms penetrated the opposing Swiss formation and managed to kill thirty Swiss before perishing themselves.

[Brother Oni]

My suspicion here is that cuts don't really start to bleed heavily until the cutting object is removed from them.

Indeed. It's why when administering first aid, you're advised not to remove any foreign objects imbedded in wounds as it's currently stopping all the blood from escaping.


Sir John Smythe, for example, argued that his ideal formation of five ranks of pikers backed by halberdiers was sufficient to resist cavalry and went so far as to give instructions on how halberdiers should engage cavalry that managed to get through the front five ranks of pikers. So at least Smythe thought a dedicated charge might penetrate five ranks of pikers, albeit at some cost to themselves and with little ability to withstand halberdiers at that point.

To add this excellent post, since the ranks are staggered so are the pikes, so even if a cavalryman gets through the first or second rows, there's still at least 3 more. Assuming 18ft pikes and the front rank loses ~4ft for grip/setting, the first row of pikes is 14ft out in front, which is a fair distance away in terms of melee combat.


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdNTVdxaafwIDWokGJ8XMTObUcnIF3x 4-0rZpZyr3XIdsi3Hc

http://www.cardiffrose.com/pike.gif


Note the grip the front rank of pikemen have - it's intended to have the best bracing they can provide (even if they kill the rider, momentum will carry both his body and horse forward into their lines), but some variations also have them prepared for melee combat. The more rearward ranks don't have the same luxury of space, so they're holding their pikes in a more expected grip.


An infantry square that remains in place has achieved its tactical goal. The cavalry that is repelled has not.

If taken in isolation, I would agree with you. In reality, things are little more complex - infantry forced into square make for excellent artillery targets since they're so gathered together, so if the threat of cavalry (rather than repelled cavalry) forces enemy infantry to form square for friendly artillery to pound them, then the cavalry have also done their job.

There's a slightly off colour phrase I remember but can't remember the source of - "Infantry are the queen of the battlefield but artillery is the king and we all know what the king does to the queen".

[Straybow]

No, the physics of the sword are that the whole weight of the sword, and the force of muscle behind it, hits the enemy.That is not true, none of it is true. Really? The mass of the sword and the force behind it has no effect, it just disappears when the sword hits the target? You don't put your weight into a blow? I was responding to SowZ:

A feder doesn't come to a sharp edge, but it certainly comes to an edge of sorts. The flat on the edge is very thin. Yes, it will have less focused force than a proper sword, but only just. Either way, the physics are clear. You only have a couple ounces behind the part on the blade that hits the enemy. ... The center of mass is different for a balanced weapon vs an unbalanced weapon such as an axe or mace, but the whole mass and force is critical. If this weren't so, swords would be made as light and narrow as possible because a little drop in the "few ounces" of blade at the striking point wouldn't make a difference. As it is, narrow blades are most used for thrusting and slashing rather than downright blows (and maybe that's where SowZ got his thinking).

That the arm and body wielding it are equally critical can only be demonstrated. We show students the difference between a blow with the arm properly aligned and a weak pivoting blow or shoulder chop, much less a slash from the wrist. There is also a noted difference when the body is not well aligned behind the blow.


As already pointed out, the 'feders' they use for tournaments actually tend to be heavier these days that most typical sharps (if you can say there is such a thing) Dunno about that, none of the ~100cm blade sharps at Therion are below 1.5 kg, and only some of the shorter sharps are under 1.5 kg. These are, I believe, reasonable repros (never handled a real medieval sword, only 17th+ cen swords).

Look at the strikes in this clip, I guarantee that is hard enough to split his head if it were a sharp and he had no gear, but a blade makes a poor hammer. With the minimal protection (probably some plastic and leather or rubber) he's basically perfectly safe. Not going to be knocked out. Feders are designed to be less dangerous. Either they failed in their objective and folks fighting with them are idiots, or you're exaggerating somewhere. I guarantee you those blades are far more flexible than a repro, and getting hit with a stiff blade vs a whippy blade makes a huge difference. Otherwise they'd use blunt reproductions with a tip guard in those tournaments. If you asked some of those soft-armored tourney-goers if they'd go into the ring so armed, I surmise you'd have few takers.

Here is a link to a guy cutting a tatami with a fully rebated longsword:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9k23U-P10

I wager you can't do the same with a feder.

Still, you're right about edged vs full harness, but I'd use a quarterstaff.

[snowblizz]

There appears to have been one case in all history that pikemen that were only modestly disrupted were broken by the Polish Hussars, that being Kircholm, though it comments that these were untrained and unarmoured militia.

Modestly disrupted... hmm... by the accounts I've seen the infantry was moving down off it's hill positions in pursuit of supposedly fleeing enemies when they are suddenly counter attacked, its cavalry was routed, and partly running through infantry formations, and subsequently surrounded. I'd say they'd be fairly low on cohesion. The Poles had "missile cavalry" and had been shooting at them for 4 hours already. The Swedes IIRC were said to be fairly heavily armed in the shooting department, ie many guns to pike, but they were lighter calivers rather than heavier muskets like later on.
I'd say they were not untrained nor unarmoured, but they were deploying in the "new manner" and would not have had much experience beyond training drill.

[goto124]

How practical are corsets for combat? I wonder this everytime I see an image of an woman warrior wearing a corset (or at least a tight stiff thing wrapped around her waist).

Is having flexibility in your back really important? Or are there combat styles in which restricting your back actually helps somehow?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How practical are corsets for combat?

My guess is "not very". I think a real corset hinders movement enough to compensate for the positive "sports bra" effect.

[/but I'm a guy, so no idea really]

On the cavalry VS pikes issue: don't forget cavalry is much more expensive and harder to replace than infantry. In the late middle ages a rule of thumb was that every knight was/should be able to take on ten foot soldiers. That's the difference training, equipment and a horse make. And given that lvl 1 warriors are a lot more common than aristocrat1/fighter2's with heavy plate, a masterwork sword and a heavy warhorse (to put it in more familiar terms, even though you can drop the aristocrat level for the early modern period) it's probably fair to say you don't want to lose them much faster than that. If fifty horses charge a pike and shot formation of five hundred heads strong and do anything other than tear straight through it it's basically a loss. It's not always about winning every encounter, often you can win the battle or the war by making the enemies victories expensive enough. Thus cavalry often has better uses than straight up charging those square formations.

[Raunchel]

I've never really tried any kind of activity in a corset, but it sounds like a horrible idea to me. Those things are unpleasant and constricting, not at all what you need when you want to be moving around, running, and all that sort of thing. It basically is one of those weird ideas that fantasy artists somehow love.

[Brother Oni]

It basically is one of those weird ideas that fantasy artists somehow love.

So much like 'boob plates' then?

[Raunchel]

So much like 'boob plates' then?

Yes, and chainmail bikinis, and all that way too tight stuff you see, like those skin-tight leather whatevers. They would be an absolute pain to move around in, I mean, skinny jeans are already restricting enough.

[goto124]

Are thigh-high boots more freedom-giving than skinny jeans? Leaving your thigh exposed is another questionable thing, though probably not that bad compared to, say, the cleavage.

[Raunchel]

To be honest I don't have any such shoes, due to not working in a specific industry, but it does not seem all that comfortable. But still better than running around on stilettos, especially in the wilderness.

[SowZ]

Really? The mass of the sword and the force behind it has no effect, it just disappears when the sword hits the target? You don't put your weight into a blow? I was responding to SowZ:
The center of mass is different for a balanced weapon vs an unbalanced weapon such as an axe or mace, but the whole mass and force is critical. If this weren't so, swords would be made as light and narrow as possible because a little drop in the "few ounces" of blade at the striking point wouldn't make a difference. As it is, narrow blades are most used for thrusting and slashing rather than downright blows (and maybe that's where SowZ got his thinking).

That the arm and body wielding it are equally critical can only be demonstrated. We show students the difference between a blow with the arm properly aligned and a weak pivoting blow or shoulder chop, much less a slash from the wrist. There is also a noted difference when the body is not well aligned behind the blow.

Dunno about that, none of the ~100cm blade sharps at Therion are below 1.5 kg, and only some of the shorter sharps are under 1.5 kg. These are, I believe, reasonable repros (never handled a real medieval sword, only 17th+ cen swords).
Feders are designed to be less dangerous. Either they failed in their objective and folks fighting with them are idiots, or you're exaggerating somewhere. I guarantee you those blades are far more flexible than a repro, and getting hit with a stiff blade vs a whippy blade makes a huge difference. Otherwise they'd use blunt reproductions with a tip guard in those tournaments. If you asked some of those soft-armored tourney-goers if they'd go into the ring so armed, I surmise you'd have few takers.

Here is a link to a guy cutting a tatami with a fully rebated longsword:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9k23U-P10

I wager you can't do the same with a feder.

Still, you're right about edged vs full harness, but I'd use a quarterstaff.

Listen, we also fight with real blunts. These are actual swords that don't have a honed edge, but otherwise are real reproductions. Feders hurt more because they are generally a little heavier. I was watching people in my club duel with blunted arming swords and bucklers just yesterday. Some feders are really flexible and whippy but some aren't. Some feders are reasonably stiff. The difference in pain between the whippy and stiff feder is fairly minimal. And all tournament feders I've used are actually a little longer and heavier than the average historical longsword.

[NRSASD]

Thank you for all your help with blades and stabbing people! I never knew triangular blades actually existed, though ironically I just saw some at a museum the day after Brother Oni responded. It's rather surprising that more blood doesn't get on the cutting implement, but very interesting nonetheless.

With regards to using a corset in combat, it seems like a really terrible idea. If Pirates of the Caribbean 1 is anything to base off, it seems that corsets severely restrict the amount of air someone could breathe in. Combat is quite strenuous and anything that impairs your endurance better provide quite a lot of protection, which a corset does not. If a corset had a lot of bone or metal "staves(?)", I could see it deflecting a glancing shot from a small weapon, like a dagger or maaaybe a low poundage bow, but against anything more deadly it I doubt it.

Being able to bend forwards and backwards is also extremely important, as it is one of the easiest ways for the human body to dodge short of sidestepping. I struggled to come up with an example where back restriction in combat was a good thing, but couldn't. Anyone got any ideas?

[Mike_G]

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdNTVdxaafwIDWokGJ8XMTObUcnIF3x 4-0rZpZyr3XIdsi3Hc

http://www.cardiffrose.com/pike.gif


infantry forced into square make for excellent artillery targets since they're so gathered together, so if the threat of cavalry (rather than repelled cavalry) forces enemy infantry to form square for friendly artillery to pound them, then the cavalry have also done their job.

There's a slightly off colour phrase I remember but can't remember the source of - "Infantry are the queen of the battlefield but artillery is the king and we all know what the king does to the queen".

Which doesn't mean the square isn't effective against cavalry. In fact, it means the opposite. It means it's vulnerable to artillery. The cavalry are only a threat to a looser formation, which would be less vulnerable to the artillery.

The fact that cavalry scared the infantry into forming a square, just means that the square is the only ay the infantry felt safe from cavalry. It was a good enough formation that they were wiling to take some casualties from artillery rather than be ridden down en masse by the cavalry.

Combined arms will always have an advantage over any single troops type. Look at the British infantry squares and artillery combining to slaughter Napoleon's cavalry at Waterloo. The artillery killed horsemen on the advance, then the gunners took shelter in the squares, which the horsemen couldn't break, even when pounded by their own artillery. Eventually the cavalry got sick of riding around the squares, slashing at bayonets while getting shot at from point blank range and retreated. Then the gunners ran back out and killed more horsemen in the retreat.

A lot of battle is psychology. If the infantry stand fast, they repel the cavalry, if they run, they die. But it's hard to stand still and trust the men beside you when there's a huge mass of men and horse with pointy objects hurtling toward you at 40 mph.

Likewise, just try to make a horse run headlong it no a fence of sharp stakes. Not saying it never happened, but it's not a thing you do on purpose.

Horses are

A:Possessed of self preservation instinct, and
B: Expensive.

Infantry are often neither.

And that's coming from an infantry Marine.

[Spiryt]

From what I recall, sources sadly aren't particularly clear on how exactly hussars were breaking those pikemen formation, so it's hard to claim that some of those could be head on meeting.

Hussar pikes could be well over 5 meters long though, will plenty of pikes, particularly Moscow ones could be pretty short, not much above 3 meters.

Swedish troops in particular liked to employ something like that, as well:

http://regiment.pl/galeria/wyposaz/piki/pioro/koziol.jpg

Which was even more serious wall against horses than pikes.

[snowblizz]

Swedish troops in particular liked to employ something like that, as well:

http://regiment.pl/galeria/wyposaz/piki/pioro/koziol.jpg

Which was even more serious wall against horses than pikes.

In Swedish known as "Spanish riders". Cheavuex des Friese many other places. It is probably not far fetched to say one of the reason they did was because of their experiences in Poland.

There was also the hard placed "swinefeatherers", I think they are/were basically the same. They even tried having musket rests that doubled as that kind of obstacle (combine two and get one obstacle), but as always soldiers were liable to get them mysteriously lost during marches.....:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbigg rin:

AFAICT was a shortlived experiment but didn't stop it from being part of miniature soldiers kit anyway (Warlord Games 28mm Swedish 30YW infantry, to be specific). Gamers like those clever things real soldiers couldn't be bothered with.

[Telok]

Gamers like those clever things real soldiers couldn't be bothered with.
Gamers don't have to carry those bloody things on fifteen mile hikes in the middle of summer either.

Corsets: I'll ask my wife later today if I remember.
Boob plates: I've seem modern female epee fencers wear metal rounds and/or plastic breastplates under the jacket. It's the same reason guys wear cups, those are sensitive and squishy anatomy.

[Brother Oni]

Which doesn't mean the square isn't effective against cavalry.

I don't think I said otherwise. :smallconfused:


Boob plates: I've seem modern female epee fencers wear metal rounds and/or plastic breastplates under the jacket. It's the same reason guys wear cups, those are sensitive and squishy anatomy.

Huh, well whaddayaknow (http://www.leonpaulusa.com/acatalog/Womens_Chest_Protector.html).

http://www.leonpaulusa.com/acatalog/fencing_chest_protectors_59l.jpg

Can any ladies who wear them shed any light on the common flaws touted about boob plates, such as the inside of the cups deflecting blows onto the sternum much like a shot trap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_trap)? Or does the jacket even it out enough to prevent this and the chest protector just works as a rigid reinforcement, much like plates in a ballistic vest?

[SowZ]

I don't think I said otherwise. :smallconfused:



Huh, well whaddayaknow (http://www.leonpaulusa.com/acatalog/Womens_Chest_Protector.html).

http://www.leonpaulusa.com/acatalog/fencing_chest_protectors_59l.jpg

Can any ladies who wear them shed any light on the common flaws touted about boob plates, such as the inside of the cups deflecting blows onto the sternum much like a shot trap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_trap)? Or does the jacket even it out enough to prevent this and the chest protector just works as a rigid reinforcement, much like plates in a ballistic vest?

I of course can't say from experience, but I know that some ladies don't like them at all. I was just talking with a fencer yesterday about how she doesn't like tournaments that require her to wear a hard plastic breast protector as it hinders her flexibility too much.

[Telok]

Can any ladies who wear them shed any light on the common flaws touted about boob plates, such as the inside of the cups deflecting blows onto the sternum much like a shot trap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_trap)? Or does the jacket even it out enough to prevent this and the chest protector just works as a rigid reinforcement, much like plates in a ballistic vest?

Well how do you feel about having an epee tip deflected away from your balls and towards the inside of your thighs?

People aren't stupid about this, if something is extra vulnerable it gets extra armor. Once you're sufficently armored for the risks* you're taking you stop adding armor. So if you see real world plates on someone who wears armor because of real world risks then it probably works well enough.

*Acceptable levels of risk vary between people, cultures, time periods, cost/benefit analysis, and activities undertaken.

[fusilier]

Routing? Drop everything heavy and run as fast as you can, make sure the "from" is a lot more important than the "to", and hope there's no cavalry anywhere nearby that can run you down, or drop to the ground, play dead and hope no one gets close enough to make sure you are before you get chance to sneak off.

It really depends on the quality of the troops in question - poorly trained conscripts without officers and NCOs to keep them in line will run or surrender, veterans are more likely to make a fighting withdrawl to a defendable position. And if troop quality in general is bad, with poor morale, you could see a large portion of your army essentially evaporate if one unit breaks.

I remember reading an analysis of the Crimean War, where Russian infantry, after being broken, tended to cluster together in small groups, and fight with the cavalry sent to finish them off. The allies actually found it easier to send infantry after them to shoot them down. A different mentality I suppose.

[rs2excelsior]

I remember reading an analysis of the Crimean War, where Russian infantry, after being broken, tended to cluster together in small groups, and fight with the cavalry sent to finish them off. The allies actually found it easier to send infantry after them to shoot them down. A different mentality I suppose.

In the Napoleonic era, British NCOs were told to try and rally a small group of soldiers around them if their formation began to rout (by physically grabbing those men and preventing them from continuing to run, if necessary) so as to form a small knot of resistance. It was hoped that these clusters would help attract other fleeing men, either those who were routing reluctantly or by showing the panicked ones that there was still some resistance, and form little groups that could fight off pursuing cavalry and retire in some semblance of order. I don't know how well it worked on the battlefield, but that was the idea.

In any case, the idea of some gruff noncoms physically grabbing running soldiers, pointing them out at the enemy, and planting them somewhere is kind of funny.

[fusilier]

While I agree that men-at-arms and lancers could rarely rout pikers on their own, it's important to remember how relatively few men-at-arms in full plate and barding there were in 15th- and 16th-century battles. You might have a few hundred such men-at-arms against many thousands of pikers - and the men-at-arms still played an important role on the battlefield.

For example, at Grandson 1476, Louis Chalon-Chateugueyon (http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11967&p=120875&hilit=louis+Grandson+horse#p120875) and fewer than six other men-at-arms penetrated the opposing Swiss formation and managed to kill thirty Swiss before perishing themselves.

Just a couple things I would like to point out in this discussion:

1. Napoleonic era formations were more "closed" than pike formations -- I don't think it would matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it might tie in to the next point.

2. Formations get disrupted, it happens, and small gaps can be created and exploited. Not just through combat but while maneuvering. During the Napoleonic era (I'm not sure how much earlier, but lasting through the American Civil War) the soldiers marched *literally* shoulder-to-shoulder, i.e. they were actually in physical contact with the people next to them while maneuvering on the field. The purpose of this closeness appears to be to help keep unit cohesion (you don't have to pay much attention to where you are in the formation, as the physical contact keeps you where you need to be). Even then, larger formations often had to be careful, and occasionally stop to realign the formation. One of the jobs of file closers was to quickly fill the gaps that appear temporarily in the formation. The *slightly* more open formations of pikemen may have made it *slightly* easier to lose cohesiveness -- thus making exploiting of the formation a more frequent event. Just a potential factor.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't know how well it worked on the battlefield, but that was the idea.

I think it's a good idea, I never really thought about that. This is probably one of the reasons non-coms and officers kept using (short) polearms like spontoons or halberds well into even the nineteenth century. They act like makeshift banners that indicate "we're regrouping here". It won't restore order ones the main formation has been broken, but if you could at least get the soldiers to clump together into groups that does make everyone way less vulnerable.

[Brother Oni]

Well how do you feel about having an epee tip deflected away from your balls and towards the inside of your thighs?

People aren't stupid about this, if something is extra vulnerable it gets extra armor. Once you're sufficently armored for the risks* you're taking you stop adding armor. So if you see real world plates on someone who wears armor because of real world risks then it probably works well enough.

*Acceptable levels of risk vary between people, cultures, time periods, cost/benefit analysis, and activities undertaken.

I'm most certainly not arguing against extra armour or if people want to wear it, I'm just questioning the design.

I've never done fencing, so I can't say to that specific sport, but the ones I've done where groin protection is a concern have either not had an issue with deflections to the inner thigh (kickboxing, unless my opponent hasn't trimmed their toenails) or worn more substantial unisex armour (gambeson and mail).

There are real world armours that are tailored to the female body shape such as flack jackets and ballistic vests, but at first glance they're not very distinguishable from the male version. From what I've read, just making a smaller male version gets the proportions wrong, resulting in flexibility and protection issues and things like 'turtling' (where the vest is too rigid in the wrong places and when sitting or dismounting from a vehicle, it rides up and her head disappears down the neck hole). This article goes more into the actual detail of it: link (http://www.stripes.com/promotions/2.1066/army-testing-body-armor-made-for-women-1.189212).

Aside from the fitting issues, there's virtually no external differences as far as I can tell:

http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/new-body-armor-women-military.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8507/8583133451_0c6a605660_b.jpg

This one apparently has bust cups sewn into it, but you wouldn't be able to tell: link (http://usarmor.com/products/concealable/female).

To reiterate my original question - is there a basic design flaw with the chest protector shown above, or does the jacket 'fill in' enough for it not to be an issue?




In any case, the idea of some gruff noncoms physically grabbing running soldiers, pointing them out at the enemy, and planting them somewhere is kind of funny.

Gruff and burly no-nonsense sergeants were the backbone of the British Army during colonial times and let them conquer ~21% of the world. :smallbiggrin:

Given the recruiting stock of the British Army of the time, that sort of discipline and leadership was needed, as can be seen through the work of the provosts and regular hangings. I think Duke Wellington himself said "Ours [our army] is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the earth".

[Lilapop]

I think the question Oni is posing is: Regardless of the martial art discipline and the seriousness of the situation we are talking about - if she HAS to wear a breastplate, wouldn't she be better off with a prow-shaped one rather than with a boob plate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/G%C3%A9ricault_-_Portrait_de_carabinier_-_Louvre.jpg

[Carl]

That's a no brainer yes by Physics. That said, thats with rigid armour, i suspect simple comfort and the such like would mean that with more flexible armour like mail the penalty in protection would be worth the fitting factor. I'll fitting armour causes discomfort and discomfort is a distraction which is itself a problem in a fight.

[Brother Oni]

I think the question Oni is posing is: Regardless of the martial art discipline and the seriousness of the situation we are talking about - if she HAS to wear a breastplate, wouldn't she be better off with a prow-shaped one rather than with a boob plate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/G%C3%A9ricault_-_Portrait_de_carabinier_-_Louvre.jpg

Thank you very much for putting it more concisely and clearly for me. :smallbiggrin:

Now I know there's going to be some adjustments required for the female form (from one of the earlier links, they need to be a bit shorter in the torso, darted in the bust and taken in at the waist I think), but the general principle of a prow shape or just a single smooth curve over two prominent bulges still stands.

[Raunchel]

I think that the two metal cups you often see would in fact be rather uncomfortable, far less comfortable than a single plate at least. After all, you still have all the padding underneath, and that would already have the effect of keeping things under control to a sufficient level. Forcing them into a fixed thing only provides more ways to get hurt. And of course, it is important to keep in mind that breasts aren't all that large for most people, I know plenty of men who have more there than a lot of girls (although those guys tend to weigh a bit more),

Of course, I don't know fencing, never having done it, but it won't add much in the way of protection, as I think that the normal fencing equipment already does that quite well (most fencers do survive their matches after all). It might help a little with the impact on the breasts, but I think that a single plate would work better, and be more comfortable as well.

[goto124]

breasts aren't all that large for most people

And even if making for a particularly well-blessed woman, the basic principle of 'do not put a dagger to her sternum' still applies.

[Raunchel]

And even if making for a particularly well-blessed woman, the basic principle of 'do not put a dagger to her sternum' still applies.

Indeed.

Incidentally, does anyone know how thick padding would be on late medieval plate armour?

[Brother Oni]

Incidentally, does anyone know how thick padding would be on late medieval plate armour?

It depends.

One problem is that period terminology is a bit vague and gambeson, aketon, jack and arming doublet are all used interchangably for different types of armours.
One modern source uses the term aketon for something to be worn under armour, gambeson for standalone quilted armour and jack for something to be worn over armour.

Typically they're multiple layers of linen, which may be stuffed with cotton or wool - I've heard as thin as a 2 linen shell stuffed with wool, up to a very ornate 23 layers consisting of 18 folds of white fustian, 4 folds of linen and one fold of black fustian for the torso with variable layers for the arms. On average though, they're at least 17 layers of linen and I have heard of armours exceeding 24 layers.

Reproductions have suggested that using anything more than ~2-3lb of wool stuffing pushes them into standalone defences territory in terms of thickness and comfort and these are about 1-2cm thick.

[Incanur]

Just a couple things I would like to point out in this discussion:

1. Napoleonic era formations were more "closed" than pike formations -- I don't think it would matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it might tie in to the next point.

2. Formations get disrupted, it happens, and small gaps can be created and exploited. Not just through combat but while maneuvering. During the Napoleonic era (I'm not sure how much earlier, but lasting through the American Civil War) the soldiers marched *literally* shoulder-to-shoulder, i.e. they were actually in physical contact with the people next to them while maneuvering on the field. The purpose of this closeness appears to be to help keep unit cohesion (you don't have to pay much attention to where you are in the formation, as the physical contact keeps you where you need to be). Even then, larger formations often had to be careful, and occasionally stop to realign the formation. One of the jobs of file closers was to quickly fill the gaps that appear temporarily in the formation. The *slightly* more open formations of pikemen may have made it *slightly* easier to lose cohesiveness -- thus making exploiting of the formation a more frequent event. Just a potential factor.

16th-century pike formation could be awfully closed as well. To confront other pikers, Smythe wanted his pikers as close together as they could be while still able to give a single thrust with their pikes. Each of the first five ranks was to give one such powerful thrust in rapid succession while advancing together "as close as they can possiblie march pace with pace and step with step, as if they were one entire body." If this technique failed to break or push back the opposing formation, Smythe wanted pikers in the first rank to drop their pikes and draw swords and daggers because they simply didn't have room to recover their pikes for second thrust. Of course, he specifically contrasted this with the more open order required to facilitate repeated thrusts with the pike, which he considered entirely inappropriate for contests between large numbers of pikers. The commander he critiques apparently favor the more open approach, and some other sources indicate a preference for for the more open order.

Against cavalry charges, I think it was standard or at least common to make formations as closed as possible. For example, William Patten (https://archive.org/stream/tudortracts00polliala#page/112/mode/2up) described Scottish pikers at Pinkie Cleugh 1547 as follows: "Standing at defense, they thrust their shoulders likewise so nigh together."

[fusilier]

16th-century pike formation could be awfully closed as well. To confront other pikers, Smythe wanted his pikers as close together as they could be while still able to give a single thrust with their pikes. Each of the first five ranks was to give one such powerful thrust in rapid succession while advancing together "as close as they can possiblie march pace with pace and step with step, as if they were one entire body." If this technique failed to break or push back the opposing formation, Smythe wanted pikers in the first rank to drop their pikes and draw swords and daggers because they simply didn't have room to recover their pikes for second thrust. Of course, he specifically contrasted this with the more open order required to facilitate repeated thrusts with the pike, which he considered entirely inappropriate for contests between large numbers of pikers. The commander he critiques apparently favor the more open approach, and some other sources indicate a preference for for the more open order.

Against cavalry charges, I think it was standard or at least common to make formations as closed as possible. For example, William Patten (https://archive.org/stream/tudortracts00polliala#page/112/mode/2up) described Scottish pikers at Pinkie Cleugh 1547 as follows: "Standing at defense, they thrust their shoulders likewise so nigh together."

I remember reading some 17th century commentary on pike drills, and they specified both open and closed orders. Some (can't remember the name), also mentioned an extremely close order, but then went on to state that you don't need to practice it because the troops would naturally close together when confronting the enemy. Nevertheless, the detailed manuals that I've seen, do leave a gap in "close order" -- not a big one, but it's there. Likewise, the "open order" was actually quite wide, and the intention of it was for marching and maneuvering.

They had to be able to switch between these open and close order formations, depending upon what they were doing or expecting. Adding in the complications of keeping a large formation together, confusing verbal commands (Macchiavelli complained about that), and the fact that they were often experimenting, and it's easy to see how practice can diverge from theory.

[fusilier]

Against cavalry charges, I think it was standard or at least common to make formations as closed as possible. For example, William Patten (https://archive.org/stream/tudortracts00polliala#page/112/mode/2up) described Scottish pikers at Pinkie Cleugh 1547 as follows: "Standing at defense, they thrust their shoulders likewise so nigh together."

This I think is key. Napoleonic era formations were so close that this description would have been unnecessary -- regardless of what they were doing they were standing shoulder-to-shoulder (skirmishers being the exception). Whereas in the 16th century, they would *adopt* such a formation. In fairness, a Napoleonic formation wouldn't be in a square by default, they would have to enter it when they thought it was necessary. However, a line isn't a bad way to repulse cavalry either, it's just not as good as a square.

[Incanur]

Patten wrote that the Scottish pikers he fought against stood shoulder to shoulder on both attack and defense. They may have marched in more open order.

Smythe has lots of description of orders for opening and closing ranks, etc.

[Yora]

You very often see the claim that the Iron Age pretty much started because bronze became unaffordable with the collapse of tin trade at the end of the Bronze Age. However, a few days ago I saw the claim that even after the bronze age collapse, bronze items continue to have the same amount of tin in them as before. And I don't recall ever seeing mention of bronze with low tin content becoming common. This could possibly indicate that the difficulties in the tin supply where not the main reason why iron technology became adopted.
But could you actually make useful bronze with lower ratios of tin to copper? The common ratio I believe was around 9 to 1. If you would instead use 1 part tin for 11 or 12 parts of copper, would the alloy still be useful? Or would the properties be so poor that there wouldn't be any point to adding any tin to the copper anymore?

[Kiero]

You very often see the claim that the Iron Age pretty much started because bronze became unaffordable with the collapse of tin trade at the end of the Bronze Age. However, a few days ago I saw the claim that even after the bronze age collapse, bronze items continue to have the same amount of tin in them as before. And I don't recall ever seeing mention of bronze with low tin content becoming common. This could possibly indicate that the difficulties in the tin supply where not the main reason why iron technology became adopted.
But could you actually make useful bronze with lower ratios of tin to copper? The common ratio I believe was around 9 to 1. If you would instead use 1 part tin for 11 or 12 parts of copper, would the alloy still be useful? Or would the properties be so poor that there wouldn't be any point to adding any tin to the copper anymore?

Actually, I think that's the wrong way around. What happened was that iron ore was so plentiful, and occurring so close to sources of coal or charcoal, that it was simply cheaper than trying to get tin. Tin remained as available as it was, new routes were founded when things settled down again. But it couldn't compete with how cheap iron was.

Essentially, it wasn't that lack of tin left a vacuum for iron to fill. It was that iron was so cheap and readily available that it crowded out bronze. Which then remained only prized for specialised applications, like making ship's rams.

[Yora]

Iron had always been available and cheap, but it wasn't until the the sudden collapse of almost all major civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia that people widely started to use it as a substitute for the far superior bronze. Suddenly people start to figure out how to improve iron to a quality where it can be used for weapons and armor, which apparently nobody really put much effort into until that point.
The timing could hypothetically be pure coincidence, but that seems very unlikely. Bronze had been the metal of choice for 2,000 years and it gets replaced just at the same time as civilization recovers from the greatest upheaval it had ever experienced. There almost certainly must have some socio-economic factors been in play.
And in China iron didn't really become a big thing until 600 years later and they kept making everything out of bronze for that whole period.

[No brains]

Iron had always been available and cheap, but it wasn't until the the sudden collapse of almost all major civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia that people widely started to use it as a substitute for the far superior bronze. Suddenly people start to figure out how to improve iron to a quality where it can be used for weapons and armor, which apparently nobody really put much effort into until that point.
The timing could hypothetically be pure coincidence, but that seems very unlikely. Bronze had been the metal of choice for 2,000 years and it gets replaced just at the same time as civilization recovers from the greatest upheaval it had ever experienced. There almost certainly must have some socio-economic factors been in play.
And in China iron didn't really become a big thing until 600 years later and they kept making everything out of bronze for that whole period.

What are your dates for the boom in iron and the fall of those civilization? I don't mean to call your claim into question, it is just something I'm curious about myself.

[GraaEminense]

The collapse of the bronze age civilizations and the increased use of iron happen around 1200 BC.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

How long was the Roman legionary equivalent of boot camp? My google-fu seems to be failing me. I'm designing a character based on the Roman legions, but am not sure how long he'd have trained before taking his first class level.

[Dienekes]

How long was the Roman legionary equivalent of boot camp? My google-fu seems to be failing me. I'm designing a character based on the Roman legions, but am not sure how long he'd have trained before taking his first class level.

A bit hard to say, the Roman army was not a static thing. The Roman army that beat Carthage was not organized the same as the one that fought under Julius Caesar and was definitely not the one that Vespasian used to beat the Jewish rebellions.

What we do know is that by the 4th century, Vegetius wrote that a recruit was called a tiro, and his training could take up to 6 months before he became a miles. Before that and after that, I don't know.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Huh. That's very different from Pathfinder's specifications that indicate training that takes at least a year, maybe more depending on your dice rolls. :smallconfused:

[Yora]

When it comes to time, in my experience all numbers in RPGs are made up out of thin air.

[PersonMan]

When it comes to time, in my experience all numbers in RPGs are made up out of thin air.

To be fair, when you're answering questions like 'how long does it take to learn magic?' and 'how long does it take to learn to perform techniques that may or may not be possible?' there's not much else to do. :smallwink:

[SowZ]

How long was the Roman legionary equivalent of boot camp? My google-fu seems to be failing me. I'm designing a character based on the Roman legions, but am not sure how long he'd have trained before taking his first class level.

Pre or post Marian reforms? For a good chunk of Roman history, it didn't work like a modern military and was honestly more similar to the man-at-arms system that existed during parts of the medieval period. Basically, land owning Romans were expected to know how to fight as a civic duty and they provided their own weapons and armor. The noble or general rallying them might give them additional training, but it was on him to do so. There was no analogue to boot camp.

Post Marian reforms, I'm not sure if there are any reliable figures. If there are, I'm not aware of them. But Marian based his training off of combat training that already existed in the form of Gladiator schools. Such schools didn't have a set time and focused first on getting the gladiator in peak physical condition, then worrying about skills. If this was followed, the soldier would work on getting fit first before moving onto swordsmanship and such. How long it takes someone to get fit would of course vary.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Another question, this one awkwardly requiring image links:

http://europabarbarorum.com/EB1/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_thorakitai_argyras.gif

https://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/sxk/krVJWESUZKyEU0-nBuQfjsf3d_/www.honga.net/lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2pJUn2KN4jA/Umqy9dJY79I/AAAAAAAAFWw/F2CAu8rO76E/w1920-h1200-no/2013-10-26_00176.jpg.pagespeed.ce.VIZ_eVQmhvYC3v9YXmN6.jpg

https://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/sxk/cJIiGxojbIMz102k0oUvWbcrCK/www.honga.net/lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FH-aaDc6of0/Uml_45YO3MI/AAAAAAAADOU/8eIbKTkQ6VE/w1920-h1200-no/2013-10-25_00288.jpg.pagespeed.ce.-SxxDPMNVMOdPAbUPVST.jpg
I'm unsure as to whether they're spears or longspears, to use RPG parlance once more.

[Dienekes]

Looks like a dory to me. And since the people are obviously Greek, I'm going to say dory.

[Yora]

I would just call them spears. These are way shorter than pikes used after the middle ages or by the Macedonians.

http://sites.psu.edu/successoftheromans/wp-content/uploads/sites/10644/2014/04/cyno-phalanx.jpg

Now we're talking "long"!

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/fallofgreece/macedonian_phalanx.jpg

Or even longer!

[Storm Bringer]

Another question, this one awkwardly requiring image links:

http://europabarbarorum.com/EB1/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_thorakitai_argyras.gif

https://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/sxk/krVJWESUZKyEU0-nBuQfjsf3d_/www.honga.net/lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2pJUn2KN4jA/Umqy9dJY79I/AAAAAAAAFWw/F2CAu8rO76E/w1920-h1200-no/2013-10-26_00176.jpg.pagespeed.ce.VIZ_eVQmhvYC3v9YXmN6.jpg

https://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/sxk/cJIiGxojbIMz102k0oUvWbcrCK/www.honga.net/lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FH-aaDc6of0/Uml_45YO3MI/AAAAAAAADOU/8eIbKTkQ6VE/w1920-h1200-no/2013-10-25_00288.jpg.pagespeed.ce.-SxxDPMNVMOdPAbUPVST.jpg
I'm unsure as to whether they're spears or longspears, to use RPG parlance once more.

in DnD terms, thier spears, since longspears are effectively pike type weapons.

[Dienekes]

in DnD terms, thier spears, since longspears are effectively pike type weapons.

That's where D&D gets weird. The dory was a one handed spear that was as long as a glaive, or guisarme or other weapons with the reach property, while real pikes were much longer.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

And since I'm using Pathfinder rules it's even MORE problematic since they actually HAVE stats for the sarissa pike.

[Yukitsu]

I'd go with long spear and just note that the handed rules in D&D or pathfinder are kind of inconsistent and don't really conform to history. On the other hand, there is a class archetype that lets you use a long spear as a one handed weapon which essentially just is those guys. Though that class also lets you use a tower shield and Sarissa so it's not a perfect fix.

[No brains]

In 3.5 D&D, a medium human can wield a small longspear or even awl pike with a -2 to attack. I guess this makes some kind of sense as I don't think using a weapon that long in one hand can be amazingly graceful. Unless there is a record of these soldiers being very accurate and swift with their spears. Again from a game standpoint, giving up some damage and to-hit bonus makes sense when it lets a wall of guys get a bunch of attacks against a guy while they all get to hold shields too.

[SowZ]

I'd go with long spear and just note that the handed rules in D&D or pathfinder are kind of inconsistent and don't really conform to history. On the other hand, there is a class archetype that lets you use a long spear as a one handed weapon which essentially just is those guys. Though that class also lets you use a tower shield and Sarissa so it's not a perfect fix.

Those spears are only 5-7 feet, so short spears.

[Yukitsu]

Those spears are only 5-7 feet, so short spears.

It's a D&D/pathfinder problem, their long spears are only 8 foot instead of 12. Not that you couldn't use a Xyston with 1 hand. I don't know if pathfinder or D&D actually have the proper length spears for formation fighters. Pathfinder has their short spear more like one of those Impi Iklwas at 3 feet for some reason.

But yes, in real life those spears would be considered fairly short.

[Dienekes]

Those spears are only 5-7 feet, so short spears.

Ehh? Dory are roughly 7-8 feet, from what I've read. That'd put them at longspear length, and the same as your average glaive, guisarme, and ranseur which are also given the Reach attribute, and all much smaller than your average pike which should be 10-20 feet long and in my opinion attack 2 squares away.

[SowZ]

Ehh? Dory are roughly 7-8 feet, from what I've read. That'd put them at longspear length, and the same as your average glaive, guisarme, and ranseur which are also given the Reach attribute, and all much smaller than your average pike which should be 10-20 feet long and in my opinion attack 2 squares away.

I'd consider any spear under twelve feet quite short.

[No brains]

I'd consider any spear under twelve feet quite short.

Your avatar must be really tall. :smalltongue:

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'd go with long spear and just note that the handed rules in D&D or pathfinder are kind of inconsistent and don't really conform to history. On the other hand, there is a class archetype that lets you use a long spear as a one handed weapon which essentially just is those guys. Though that class also lets you use a tower shield and Sarissa so it's not a perfect fix.
That's the archetype I'm using, Phalanx Soldier. Yeah, Pathfinder's spears are:

Shortspear: 3 feet
Spear: 5 feet
Longspear: 6 to 8 feet

Guess what I'm hearing is that the spears depicted in these pics, given they are taller than their wielders but not actual sarissas, means that they're longspears. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Kiero]

Virtually every edition of D&D and many D&D-derived games get spears wrong, when you compare to spears that were actually used.

For example:

The Greek akontio was a 4-5 foot light javelin which would not survive long being used as a melee weapon. This had a much longer range than is usually assumed for a javelin.
The Greek longche was a 4-5 foot long heavy hunting javelin which was sturdy enough to be used as a spear. This was throwable, but would have a shorter range than an akontio.
The Greek doru was 7-8 feet long, but was always used one-handed, because it was used with a shield. It was counter-weighted to assist that. This was both a formation and individual weapon. You could not realistically throw this far, it wasn't weighted correctly for that.
A Macedonian sarissa (pike), by contrast, was at least 15 feet long and could be anywhere up to 23 feet long, and could only be used two-handed. But phalangites would strap a shield to their upper arm/shoulder for additional protection. Either way, this was a formation-only weapon, not for individual combat.

[Eldan]

On the other side, there's also the Ixwa used by the Zulu in melee, which could be as short as two feet. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Zulu_warrior.jpg That was actually quite an innovation, since it was used for stabbing instead of throwing and was considered quite a bit more brutal.


Wholly different question: how strong is the armour on a modern fighter jet? As with many questions, this one came from a book I read, where a pilot was sitting in his jet on an airfield and an attacker was firing on him with an assault rifle, which did not penetrate the jet's armour. Is that remotely realistic?

[Brother Oni]

Wholly different question: how strong is the armour on a modern fighter jet? As with many questions, this one came from a book I read, where a pilot was sitting in his jet on an airfield and an attacker was firing on him with an assault rifle, which did not penetrate the jet's armour. Is that remotely realistic?

Depends on the aircraft in question.

Something with ground attack abilities will be better armoured than a pure air superiority fighter, but even those jets are mostly proof against small arms (or at least the cockpit is).
That said, if the attacker fired down the engine intakes, the jet probably would probably sustain significant damage.

At the extreme end of the scale, you have the A10 Warthog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II), which is intended for close air support and is armoured up to 23mm explosive rounds. As an example of the beating it can take and still fly: link (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm).

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a.jpg
Apparently he flew 120 miles to a friendly airbase after being hit by an Iraqi SAM: link (http://warthognews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/10-jet-engine-nacelle-damaged-by.html).

[goto124]

Wholly different question: how strong is the armour on a modern fighter jet? As with many questions, this one came from a book I read, where a pilot was sitting in his jet on an airfield and an attacker was firing on him with an assault rifle, which did not penetrate the jet's armour. Is that remotely realistic?

I just realised that the jet plane (and presumbly the attacked) was on the ground, but I still wonder: what guns are you supposed to use against aircraft?

What era was this? Any clues in the books, perhaps?

[rs2excelsior]

I just realised that the jet plane (and presumbly the attacked) was on the ground, but I still wonder: what guns are you supposed to use against aircraft?

What era was this? Any clues in the books, perhaps?

Generally anti-aircraft guns :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, though, there are two ways to go. Either light repeating cannon--usually in the 20mm-30mm range, I believe, with a high rate of fire (and very often multiple barrels to facilitate that even more so), or heavy guns with proximity fuses (such as German 88mm and 128mm anti-aircraft guns used in WWII). It seems the modern trend has been toward the former option--as far as I know, all or virtually all modern gun-based AA weapons are small-caliber cannon.

Well, actually, the modern trend has been toward missile air defense, but guns are still used, and where they are, they are small rather than large caliber.


Small caliber:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/ZSU-23-4_Shilka_01.jpg
Soviet ZSU-23-4

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Montaje_Maxon.JPG/800px-Montaje_Maxon.JPG
Quad-mounted .50 caliber machine guns used in an anti-aircraft role

http://olive-drab.com/images/id_m163_1cav_pettit_469_20051202_700.jpg
US M-163 Vulcan

http://www.sixtharmygroup.com/portal/cpg/albums/userpics/10281/20MM_CREW2.JPG
WWII German 20mm Flak gun

Large caliber:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5240/7196911894_6d43b59141_b.jpg
The infamous WWII German Flak 88

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/120_mm_M1_gun_1.jpg/800px-120_mm_M1_gun_1.jpg
US 120mm AA gun used in WWII and Korea

[Eldan]

I just realised that the jet plane (and presumbly the attacked) was on the ground, but I still wonder: what guns are you supposed to use against aircraft?

What era was this? Any clues in the books, perhaps?

90s, probably, it was written then. I was just sort of leafing through one of these cheap airport thrillers while at a friend's house.

[Galloglaich]

The first experiments with armor on aircraft was toward the end of WW I, usually limited to a piece of steel (sometimes literally a 'boiler plate') bolted behind the pilots seat or his head, sometimes a piece on the ground below his feet to protect against groundfire.

The Junkers J1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_J.I) (first deployed in 1917) was one of the first aircraft actually designed with armor, in a kind of steel 'bathtub' around the pilot. Like most of the more heavily-armored planes, it was designed for ground attack. By the very end of the war armor was starting to appear as part of fighter and attack aircraft design.

In the beginning of WW II they had mostly forgotten this lesson. During the Battle of Britain for example most of the fighters on both sides had little or no armor plate and lacked self-sealing fuel tanks, and the attrition of trained pilots was appalling. But WW II fighters with 1000 + hp engines and stressed skin aluminum alloy construction were much more able to handle the weight of some armor than WW I cloth and wood aircraft, and the importance of aircraft in the war (and thus, of skilled pilots) was much greater. Within a few months they had begun putting armored plate (usually behind the pilots seat on a fighter) and standardized bullet proof glass windscreens (initially just the part directly in front of the pilot) as well as adding self-sealing fuel tanks, redundant hydraulic and control-wire systems, and so on. By 1941 all these features were pretty standard on WW II fighters, though in some places it took longer to establish. The Zero didn't get armor plate for example until the Model 52 (A6M5) which appeared in the summer of 1943. By then the Japanese had lost a huge number of skilled pilots to attrition.

All this added weight, which was compensated-for by more powerful engines. The armor also required heavier guns, Battle of Britain -era English fighters for example only had .303 machine guns, by late 1941 it was standard to have at least two 20mm cannons or .50 caliber machineguns. By the middle to end of the war (1943-1945) armament of at least 4 x 20mm machine-cannon or heavier caliber (30mm, even 37mm) was common.

By the mid-war, American and European fighters usually also featured more armor, protecting vulnerable parts of the engine like the radiator or oil cooler for example, and around the cockpit, plus more and better armored glass. Bombers were armored too, around engines, fuel tanks, crew etc., and in some cases even the wing-roots (to help prevent wings from tearing off when damaged).

http://rudolf.webservis.ru/72ag_books/mono/il2/pic/Image6.gif
Just some of the armor on the Il2 Sturmovik. The Germans called this aircraft the 'concrete bomber' due to it's phenomenal ability to absorb punishment.

Some fighters were more armored than others, and aircraft designed for ground attack were the most armored - the classic examples being the Russian Il2 Sturmovik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2) and the German Henschel Hs 129 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129) both of which had very heavy armament and armor equivalent to a light tank. I believe the Sturmovik in particular, which was extremely successful against German tanks, and had the classic 'bathtub' armor configuration, was the direct (though unacknowledged) inspiration for the A-10.

http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/fw190/aircraft_source_data_files/image015.jpg

Armored parts of a (roughly 1943 vintage) Fw 190

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/Content/1944/P51_Av_4407_DA_armor_p144_W.png
Armor on an early (also 1943) version of the P-51 Mustang

For fighters, generally the German and American fighters tended to have the most armor and strongest construction, followed by Russian, British, Italian and then Japanese aircraft. Contrary to the trope by the late war most Japanese fighters were pretty heavily armored. The N1K1 'Shiden-Kai' and J2M 'Raiden' series being two good examples of particularly tough aircraft, though they of course were too little, too late to effect the tide of the war.

That period 1943-1945 were probably the heyday of armor on military aircraft, due to the constant pressure of direct military experience on an existential scale. Most aircraft during this period would be hard to damage with an assault rifle unless you went through a really large amount of ammunition (although there is always such a thing as the 'golden BB'). During peacetime and in smaller, shorter conflicts the pressure to innovate wasn't as strong - armor starts to look like a useless impediment to wing loading for designers. The amount of armor used in aircraft tended to decline, only to increase a little bit during wars like Korea and the Vietnam war (the latter had also seen the removal of guns from most fighters, only to be hastily put back in as field experience taught planners that the much vaunted heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles that they expected would make them obsolete rarely worked as well as intended). During Korea they were having a lot of trouble with aircraft being shot down by ground fire so they quickly up-armored some aircraft and retired others (the P-51, which had been used with success in the ground-attack role but had a vulnerable radiator, was largely replaced by the Corsair and later by the purpose-built A-1 Skyraider). They went through a similar process in Vietnam, though more slowly as the military had developed more bureaucratic inertia again (partly due to .

By the later part of the 20th Century armor had again declined to a certain minimum, except in ground attack aircraft. The A-10 being one famous example, the Soviet-era, Russian Su-24 frogfoot another with the 'bathtub' armor - both of these are relatively slow-flying, strait-winged, subsonic ground-attack planes designed to have good loiter time, stable gun and missile platform, and good agility for dodging SAM's and groundfire (though that doesn't always work). Typical fighters of the 1960's-1990's era have armor roughly equivalent to mid-war WW II aircraft, a bullet proof windscreen in front of the pilot, a steel plate built into his or her seat, self sealing fuel tanks. They are also protected by strong carbon-fiber construction and sometimes material like Kevlar.

The latest innovation in all this are that today, much more modern supersonic fighters than the A-10 or Su-24 are also sometimes heavily armored, like the Russian Sukhoi Su-34, which is coming online in large numbers in the next few years.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/MAKS_Airshow_2013_%28Ramenskoye_Airport%2C_Russia% 29_%28527-15%29.jpg
The hypermaneuverable, supercruising, supersonic Su-34 has a large armored bathtub for it's two-man crew, featuring a cockpit designed for long flights with a toilet, a galley and sleeping arrangements for the two man crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34


So in your scenario, a pilot would be probably at least somewhat protected, if not invulnerable to an assault rifle on the ground, but the armor is mostly in front of or behind him or her unless it's a ground - attack aircraft or purpose-built fighter-bomber, so a person shooting at it from the side might be able to still kill the pilot.

G

[Brother Oni]

Further to rs2excelsior's post, a slightly larger 40mm calibre weapon was also popular: Bofors 40mm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun).

As with all navy equipment, their AAA tends to be a big bigger than their land equivalent: CIWS comparison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIWS).

[Gnoman]

-snip-

The Su-35 is quite literally the only post-WWII fighter aircraft (AKA not-a-bomber) that posesses armor of any description beyond the pilot seat. The F-4, F-5, , F-14, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35 don't have any, nor does the MIG-17, -19, 21, -25, -19, 31 or the Su-27. Armor is a massive weight that has zero use for a fighter pilot (it is included on the Su-35 because that is principally a ground-attack variant that could survive if attacked by fighters), and will make the fighter worse (either by degrading maneuverability (still vital in a missile age, as the performance envelope of a missile depends heavily on the relative position of the launch platform and the target) or by taking up vital electronics space. Anyone sitting in a "fighter" in 1990 (or today, if they weren't sitting in a Su-35) and fired on by an assault rifle would be shredded.

[Galloglaich]

The Su-35 is quite literally the only post-WWII fighter aircraft (AKA not-a-bomber) that posesses armor of any description beyond the pilot seat. The F-4, F-5, , F-14, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35 don't have any, nor does the MIG-17, -19, 21, -25, -19, 31 or the Su-27. Armor is a massive weight that has zero use for a fighter pilot (it is included on the Su-35 because that is principally a ground-attack variant that could survive if attacked by fighters), and will make the fighter worse (either by degrading maneuverability (still vital in a missile age, as the performance envelope of a missile depends heavily on the relative position of the launch platform and the target) or by taking up vital electronics space. Anyone sitting in a "fighter" in 1990 (or today, if they weren't sitting in a Su-35) and fired on by an assault rifle would be shredded.

Yeah, I don't know for certain about every one of those aircraft but I'm not sure I buy it.

First, armor is very valuable for a fighter, as in it can either A) help an extremely expensive pilot survive being damaged, especially by groundfire or a nearby (proximity fused) air to air missile explosion, or by gunfire which is very much still used, or B) help the aircraft itself survive to land back at base as several American Fighters have done (including once, IIRC an F-15 with half a wing gone due to an air-to-air collision.)

Second, the weight of a few hundred pounds of armor on an aircraft which has a 50,000 lb thrust engine and a 64,000 lb loaded-weight is negligible.

Third, my understanding is that they do use some forms of Kevlar protection as well in some aircraft.

Fourth, Fighters are also routinely used in the Close Air Support role (even fighters very ill-suited to do so) and are therefore vulnerable to ground fire in the same way that a dedicated CAS aircraft can be. Which is another reason to have armor.

But you might be right they may not have any for all I know, one article I read said that the ejection seat and parts of the engines are still sometimes 'armored' (made of moderately think titanium alloy which isn't as strong as steel though much lighter). I'm really only familiar with the history of this in WW II and a bit in the Korean War. I know self-sealing fuel tanks are still used, and I know some Russian fighters other than the Su - 34 have armor (like the Su-25 I mentioned, and the MiG-27 - though both are basically ground -attack aircraft).

I'd be surprised if it doesn't still show up here and there between the Vietnam and current era.

[Gnoman]

First, armor is very valuable for a fighter, as in it can either A) help an extremely expensive pilot survive being damaged, especially by groundfire or a nearby (proximity fused) air to air missile explosion, or by gunfire which is very much still used, or B) help the aircraft itself survive to land back at base as several American Fighters have done (including once, IIRC an F-15 with half a wing gone due to an air-to-air collision.)


The smallest air-to-air cannon in use today is 20mm, and rotary autocannon fire so fast that a quick burst will throw twenty or thirty shells into a plane. Enough armor to stop that just isn't going to fly very well. The same is true of AAMs - a 20 pound shape charged warhead is going to spew out fragments so fast that armor will have a very difficult time stopping them, and even with massive amounts there's a very high chance of FODing the engine, tearing up the control surfaces so bad that you can't keep the thing in the air, knocking out the flight computer (which is fatal to any fly-by-wire type aircraft) or putting so many holes in the fuel tank that no amount of self-sealing will prevent a fire. The only thing that can protect a plane from anything more potent than a MANPADS missile or small arms fire is not getting hit, and armor will just make that harder.

Ground attack aircraft make good use of armor because they make their attack runs so low that most of the big stuff can't engage them and so slow that machine guns, rifles, and MANPADS have a very easy time engaging them - multipurpose aircraft such as the F-16 literally cannot mimic these attack profiles (they generally have too high a minimum speed, which is one reason getting rid of attack aircraft is sheer idiocy) and rely much more on expensive guided weapons or controversial cluster bombs for their attacks.



Second, the weight of a few hundred pounds of armor on an aircraft which has a 50,000 lb thrust engine and a 64,000 lb loaded-weight is negligible.


Not so - if we assume that a plane has only five hundred pounds of armor, that's still two AAMs or one ATG weapon, and adding those weapons can and does make significant difference in aircraft performance.


Fighters are made of aluminum or sheet steel with the exception of very high speed interceptors like the Mig-25 that are made of titanium alloy to withstand the temperatures of high-speed flight. I've spoken to aircraft maintenance techs both in the family (uncle in the Navy, another in the Air Force) and at air shows that talked about dropped tools damaging aircraft significantly.

[fusilier]

Fighters are made of aluminum or sheet steel with the exception of very high speed interceptors like the Mig-25 that are made of titanium alloy to withstand the temperatures of high-speed flight. I've spoken to aircraft maintenance techs both in the family (uncle in the Navy, another in the Air Force) and at air shows that talked about dropped tools damaging aircraft significantly.

I don't think anyone is talking about armoring the skin of an airplane -- but instead having internal armor panels that protect key components (like the cockpit). I don't know if that's done anymore, but as Galloglaich pointed out it was common during WW2, to one extant or another (fighters having less, ground attack aircraft more). Do they no longer make canopies out of bullet proof glass?

[Brother Oni]

Third, my understanding is that they do use some forms of Kevlar protection as well in some aircraft.


From what I've read, this is typically a spall liner on the inside of the 'bath tub'.

[Carl]

@Gnoman: So much fail there. An air to air cannon will not be hitting a plane with 30 odd cannon shells unless it's a very low speed engagement, and even then they won;t all hit the anywhere near the same parts of the aircraft unless the range is suicidally short.

Modern Aircraft use such high RoF guns precisely because thanks to all the various factors that apply to cause shell dispersion only a percentage of the shells fired at the target will end up actually on trajectories that produce impacts. SO the aim is to put enough shells in the air to get enough hits to get a kill. Getting that many shells in the air in the incredibly limited firing windows aircraft maneuvering at high subsonic velocities or above requires very extreme rates of fire.

Also whilst Shaped charges have been used in SAM's and AAM i suspect what you're actually thinking of is annular ring warheads which are entirely different but very destructive to thin aircraft skins. Though not through fragmentation. Some MANPADS use them too but they're much smaller danger radius's so still more survivable.

[Gnoman]

I don't think anyone is talking about armoring the skin of an airplane -- but instead having internal armor panels that protect key components (like the cockpit). I don't know if that's done anymore, but as Galloglaich pointed out it was common during WW2, to one extant or another (fighters having less, ground attack aircraft more). Do they no longer make canopies out of bullet proof glass?

Canopies are made of "bullet proof glass", but the sides of the aircraft are not - if a bullet hits anywhere except the canopy or the back of the pilot seat, the only thing that will save the pilot is the bullet lodging in a control console or something- which will still destroy the plane. Most rounds will penetrate "bullet proof" canopies anyway.

@Carl

My reference to a lot of shells hitting is to what would happen if you tried to armor a fighter - which would result in a very low speed engagement due to weight, and not prevent the cannon from shredding the plane anyway.


As for warheads, I used the phrase "shaped charge" because it is complicated to explain what "annular ring warhead" means, and "shaped charge" gets the idea of "much more deadly than a simple fragmentation of this size" across.

[Carl]

Gnoman: Armour won;t slow a plane down though. It will affect acceleration but it has little if any effect on aerodynamics so aside from the effects of slightly increased wing loadings on performance envelope it's pretty minimal.

[Mr. Mask]

Will it effect fuel consumption noticeably?



On a side note, how could you improve the technology of hand grenades? If you make them much stronger, they'll start to endanger your own troops. You could add in some IF chip reading and triggers, so it won't activate within killing range of your own troops, but that sounds a questionable improvement.

[Brother Oni]

On a side note, how could you improve the technology of hand grenades? If you make them much stronger, they'll start to endanger your own troops. You could add in some IF chip reading and triggers, so it won't activate within killing range of your own troops, but that sounds a questionable improvement.

Grenades with a 3m kill zone don't suddenly stop being lethal at 3.01m, so any such modification would be of dubious safety. It also prevents the weapon being used in the equivalent of danger close ranges - there is risk to the user, but the situation makes the risk acceptable.

[Lilapop]

On a side note, how could you improve the technology of hand grenades? If you make them much stronger, they'll start to endanger your own troops. You could add in some IF chip reading and triggers, so it won't activate within killing range of your own troops, but that sounds a questionable improvement.

Accurate cooking comes to mind as a middle ground between set-duration fuses and hightech sensors. Just a little turning knob that lets you change the fuse time from -2 to +5 seconds relative to the current default. Aerodynamics and dedicated handles for higher range, and hull shape, outside padding and spinning for controlled bounces to "shoot around corners" might also be possible.
That last part is going into sci-fi territory again though.

[Brother Oni]

Accurate cooking comes to mind as a middle ground between set-duration fuses and hightech sensors. Just a little turning knob that lets you change the fuse time from -2 to +5 seconds relative to the current default. Aerodynamics and dedicated handles for higher range, and hull shape, outside padding and spinning for controlled bounces to "shoot around corners" might also be possible.
That last part is going into sci-fi territory again though.

I was thinking about it some more and it helps if you consider what you want a grenade to do.
Considering an anti-personnel grenade, it needs to be lightweight, cheap, easily thrown with a sufficient kill zone to take out a small group of attackers.

I believe Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun had grenades who used bulky frisbees, thus achieving good aerodynamic capabilities and hence range.

One suggestion I would make instead of the +/- timer, just give it a straight timer in seconds or a contact fuse mode with a minimum arming timer (preventing the enemy from throwing it back, but equally stopping the user from blowing themselves up on a mis-throw). Again a more aerodynamic shape like a discus might be more useful, but it would take more training to effectively throw one of those than something like a Mills bomb or a stick grenade (a hard ceramic case might be useful for increasing fragmentation effects).

Other than that, it's a case of balancing cost with explosive power. I would think adding flight adjusting and stabilising capabilities as well as targeting sensors would push the price per unit up far too much, but it's something to consider for a sci-fi game.

Considering other applications other than anti-personnel, you have anti-armour grenades, such as the RKG-3 anti-tank grenade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RKG-3_anti-tank_grenade) (which has a sort of mini-parachute to ensure the grenade strikes armour at 90 degrees for optimal penetration capabilities) and other anti-personnel concealment grenades like white phosphorus.

[Mr. Mask]

I suppose if power armour and better materials became a thing, anti personnel grenades would be more like anti armour grenades. When you start getting powered armour and better personal armour, that also means the range you can throw grenades increases, and the proximity you can risk with grenades.

[ka_bna]

I was thinking about it some more and it helps if you consider what you want a grenade to do.
Considering an anti-personnel grenade, it needs to be lightweight, cheap, easily thrown with a sufficient kill zone to take out a small group of attackers.

I believe Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun had grenades who used bulky frisbees, thus achieving good aerodynamic capabilities and hence range.


In Tiberian Sun, those grenades were indeed discs (although I think of them like explosive footballs), thrown/aided by a mechanic wrist launcher. A feature of the discs were that they can bounce on the ground, so you can throw them even further. Of course the conflict zones in Tiberian Sun are different than the conflict zones nowadays. (http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Disc_thrower)

[Brother Oni]

I suppose if power armour and better materials became a thing, anti personnel grenades would be more like anti armour grenades. When you start getting powered armour and better personal armour, that also means the range you can throw grenades increases, and the proximity you can risk with grenades.

Except that if the power of the grenade goes up to counter the improved armour, the proximity won't change either, or at least drop off at a lesser rate.

[Thiel]

Except that if the power of the grenade goes up to counter the improved armour, the proximity won't change either, or at least drop off at a lesser rate.

DIME (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive) might be of some use.

[fusilier]

On a side note, how could you improve the technology of hand grenades? If you make them much stronger, they'll start to endanger your own troops. You could add in some IF chip reading and triggers, so it won't activate within killing range of your own troops, but that sounds a questionable improvement.

Historically, I think one of the major improvements has been a more uniform fragmentation -- I don't know if there's much more room for development.

All-ways fuzes (a category of impact fuze) have been used since at least WW1, but were often questionable -- possibly with new technologies they can be made reliable and safe. I don't know if there are any current grenade designs that use them. Modern accelerometers might be useful, if they can be made cheap enough.

[Brother Oni]

DIME (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive) might be of some use.

True, provided it doesn't get itself banned by various treaties against chemical weapons. As I see it, there's no way to separate the two effects, since the microparticles are critical to achieving the limited lethality range, but turning a material into microparticles can turn it from previously inert to very reactive chemically and biologically - gold for example.

As fusilier said though, grenades may have reached the limits of its development, much like firearms - there's simply not that more we can do to improve it.

[Mr. Mask]

Perhaps rather than improving grenades, we could improve grenade launchers in some way? I say that tenuously, since as far as I know mortars and grenades launchers are pretty good and I'm not sure how you could improve them. If you got improved grenades/explosives, you could try to make a lighter mortar/grenade launcher that is just as powerful, or one of the normal weight which is more powerful. Actually, it'd be pretty amusing/interesting if grenade, explosive and rocket technology improved to the point where you had grenade and rocket launchers as the primary weapons of infantry/powered infantry, where instead of shooting bullets you shoot explosives. That might work under the right scifi conditions (say, mid-range fighting, heavy personal powered armour, etc.).

[Carl]

That's more or less exactly what honorverse does, with a seperate smaller secondary mag of solid shot for those situations where you really need to use something with no collateral potential. Given we've had IRL cannon rounds as small as 15mm and some HMG ammo has limited fragmentation effects were creeping ever closer to the capability. Though where not going to be matching honourverse Pulsar's anytime soon. Those are a bit, well, insane.

[Brother Oni]

Perhaps rather than improving grenades, we could improve grenade launchers in some way? I say that tenuously, since as far as I know mortars and grenades launchers are pretty good and I'm not sure how you could improve them. If you got improved grenades/explosives, you could try to make a lighter mortar/grenade launcher that is just as powerful, or one of the normal weight which is more powerful. Actually, it'd be pretty amusing/interesting if grenade, explosive and rocket technology improved to the point where you had grenade and rocket launchers as the primary weapons of infantry/powered infantry, where instead of shooting bullets you shoot explosives. That might work under the right scifi conditions (say, mid-range fighting, heavy personal powered armour, etc.).

There's those proposed grenade launchers designed to cause their grenades to airburst over the target, thus bypassing cover (XM25 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE) and OICW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29_OICW)).

That said, a number of sci-fi universes have essentially small rapid-fire rocket launchers as the standard infantry firearm - off the top of my head, the bolter of Warhammer 40K and the pulse rifle from the Aliens franchise, and Carl's mentioned the Honorverse.

[Mike_G]

There's those proposed grenade launchers designed to cause their grenades to airburst over the target, thus bypassing cover (XM25 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE) and OICW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29_OICW)).


While the OICW is dead (thank God), the airburst fuse is being used on the Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher, and the lighter Striker version.

That's a good idea.

The OICW was too heavy, had worse range, and the 20mm grenade had crappy fragmentation, because it's just too small, and the fuse was pretty sophisticated and took up lot of space better filled with explosive. The 40 mm grenade that the old M203 used was far more punch.

So the rifle part was worse than an M16, and the grenade launcher was less deadly than the M203, and the damn thing weighed a ton. 18 .3 pounds versus 11 for the M16 with the M203 mounted under it.

And we just don't need everybody to have a grenade launcher.

[Carl]

That said, a number of sci-fi universes have essentially small rapid-fire rocket launchers as the standard infantry firearm - off the top of my head, the bolter of Warhammer 40K and the pulse rifle from the Aliens franchise, and Carl's mentioned the Honorverse.

Indeed though i thought the alien pulse rifle was just caseless fragmenting, not actually explosive? Also be careful of re-using 40K's example. We allready have shotgun ammo that in automatic shotguns can mimic every aspect of a bolter except the rocket assist part and they're perfectly man portable and firable by a normal human without excessive recoil. But to be fair to GW when it was conceived the very idea of such a weapon was fairly ridiculous sounding. Also as noted Honorverse Pulsars are a bit well, insane.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

For Pulse Rifles:
Ripley: Lieutenant, what do those Pulse Rifles fire?
Gorman: 10mm explosive tipped caseless, standard light armour piercing round - why?

As for 40k Bolters, given Space Marines are perfectly suited to operate in vacumn and low/zero-g, their bolters being minimal-recoil would make a lot of sense (a small charge to expel the round from the gun, then the rocket kicks in and accelerates the round to impact velocity without the person firing it either flying backwards or spinning around).

I personally go with there being two kinds of bolters/rounds that are broadly equivalent in their lethality - the hyper-expensive and difficult to make, but technologically superior Marine version, and a cheaper, mass produced "everyone else" version that has the massive recoil.

[Carl]

I personally go with there being two kinds of bolters/rounds that are broadly equivalent in their lethality - the hyper-expensive and difficult to make, but technologically superior Marine version, and a cheaper, mass produced "everyone else" version that has the massive recoil.

Thats the problem actually, there are two kins of bolter. The massive recoil normal version and the "this will kill an unaugmented human if they try to fire it" marine version. With a few rare exceptions 40K treats marine bolters as completely unfirable by normal humans due to physically dangerous recoil.

[Carl]

Hey i'm part of another forum and an interesting discussion has popped up that falls within the environs of this thread, (well within the subjects we normally discuss more than the thread title). I'll link it in a moment but it's wandered pretty far off it's original topic and an interesting side discussion about the difference between truth and perception of Medieval and earlier rates of marriage and/or sex between individuals below the common age of consent in the western world today, (16-18 in most of the western world). Given the number of serious Scholar's wandering this thread i thought i'd solicit some answers from you lot for them. I've linked them across and will happily copy across responses back and forth, within reason anyway :p. Thread Linky (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?278203-Fantasy-vs-Medieval) for the curious, the line of discussion i've just raised begins around post 60.

[Mabn]

Why do submarines come up for air? They have a long lasting power source and a plentiful supply of water, why don't they make oxygen via electrolysis and scrub out carbon dioxide?

[Carl]

Why do submarines come up for air? They have a long lasting power source and a plentiful supply of water, why don't they make oxygen via electrolysis and scrub out carbon dioxide?

As far as i'm aware the nuclear one's do exactly that.

[Mabn]

Then if they don't need to make themselves a target by surfacing does the bigger profile on radar outweigh the gains in speed per volume allocation or is there some other reason submarines are not made really huge?

[Roxxy]

I'm wondering exactly what issues Britain has had with allowing my transgender brethren in the military, and what issues America is likely to have now that we decided it ought to be allowed here (too bad I have an RE4 reentry code, or I'd go enlist again as soon as the new policy came into effect).

Also, I'm wondering how things would likely work in a country that handles things a bit differently. Such as the nation of Vendalia in my fantasy campaign setting, which uses mid 20th century technology and is culturally largely Californian. The Vendalian military recruits women and allows them in all roles, including combat roles, and does not have seperate sleeping or sanitary facilities for males and females. This mirrors Vendalian civilian culture, which does not expect that locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or dormitories should be segregated by gender. Vendalians grow up with boys and girls changing in front of each other and sharing the same public restrooms and locker rooms, and the military doesn't see any need to do it differently. In a military like that, how different should the issues regarding transgendered individuals to serve be compared to real life Britan and America?

[Yaktan]

Probably the square-cube law. Submarines need to withstand tremendous pressures when they dive deep, so you need something strong enough to hold up, which gets harder the bigger you make it. Also, 600 feet long seems reasonably huge to me?

[Mabn]

the square cubed law shouldn't be a factor. The pressure increases with volume on a given unit of surface area, but the armor per internal volume that can be devoted to that area increases at a linked rate? Unless the pressure reaches a point where the material of the skin is locally flash-pulverized... Also, the angle of force exertion would get worse with an expanded radius cross-section I suppose. The are some design shapes that shouldn't suffer from that though.

[Telwar]

As far as i'm aware the nuclear one's do exactly that.

Yah. Pretty much for food, and weapon/crew reloads.

[Carl]

@Mabn: Why would they. You build something exactly the size it needs to be to meet specific mission requirements. I believe there was actually a serious study at some point of a very, very large submersible aircraft carrier, (don't quote me on that though as i don;t have anything like an authoritative source on it, it's one of those off hand text mentions you get sometimes), but for our current missions subs are about as large as they need to be.

[Mabn]

I figured militaries seem to like large expensive ships and find uses for them, I was wondering why submarines were smaller than aircraft carriers and oil tankers. If I was finding advantages for such a design I would say the thick frame and numerous compartments such a design would require should resist minor attacks well and the huge engine you could put on it would make it very fast, so since it is a submarine and thus hard to detect it could make surprise attacks, take nonfatal damage, and flee. A highly concentrated force able to pick battles of opportunity as it were.

[Carl]

No militaries are fond of equipment that meets mission requirements. Sometimes that's big, sometimes it isn't. But for reference your average ballistic missile sub is heavier than anything less than an aircraft carrier, (and oil tankers are much, much heavier than an aircraft carrier btw).

[SowZ]

I figured militaries seem to like large expensive ships and find uses for them, I was wondering why submarines were smaller than aircraft carriers and oil tankers. If I was finding advantages for such a design I would say the thick frame and numerous compartments such a design would require should resist minor attacks well and the huge engine you could put on it would make it very fast, so since it is a submarine and thus hard to detect it could make surprise attacks, take nonfatal damage, and flee. A highly concentrated force able to pick battles of opportunity as it were.

There hits a point where more armor and larger size just doesn't scale with offensive capabilities. Explosives will exist that can still punch a hole through your hull. Which can still sink you. Especially with submarines where air pressure and taking on water are such big factors and even a minor hull breach can be a big deal.

[Carl]

Also subs are only hard to detect at slow speeds. That said it would be a lot more survivable for sure. The problem is there's no mission parameters that require something that huge ATM. Survivability alone doesn't justify the cost.

[SowZ]

Also subs are only hard to detect at slow speeds. That said it would be a lot more survivable for sure. The problem is there's no mission parameters that require something that huge ATM. Survivability alone doesn't justify the cost.

I actually can't think of a plausible scenario where you wouldn't be better off with several light, quick subs with devastating payloads as opposed to one monster sub.

[Brother Oni]

Thats the problem actually, there are two kins of bolter. The massive recoil normal version and the "this will kill an unaugmented human if they try to fire it" marine version. With a few rare exceptions 40K treats marine bolters as completely unfirable by normal humans due to physically dangerous recoil.

Plus the fact that marine bolters are the wrong size for smaller humans. As I understand it (people with access to the RPG sourcebooks can correct me), there are three types of bolters which all use different ammunition, .50, .75 and 1.00 calibres which correspond to normal, marine and heavy bolters respectively.

The issue is that gyrojet ammunition shouldn't have any real recoil, which gives rise to limited lethality at close range (the bolter round doesn't have time to accelerate compared to a standard one). One fan explanation is that bolter rounds have a tandem charge, one 'normal' charge to give it the power of an equivalent weapon then the gyrojet kicks after the round clears the barrel.

I'd also be careful of equating shotgun rounds to bolter rounds based solely on calibre. A 9mm round may have a bigger bullet than a 5.56mm one, but I wouldn't want to fire the 5.56 out of a handgun.


I figured militaries seem to like large expensive ships and find uses for them, I was wondering why submarines were smaller than aircraft carriers and oil tankers. If I was finding advantages for such a design I would say the thick frame and numerous compartments such a design would require should resist minor attacks well and the huge engine you could put on it would make it very fast, so since it is a submarine and thus hard to detect it could make surprise attacks, take nonfatal damage, and flee. A highly concentrated force able to pick battles of opportunity as it were.

With submarines, overall shape for hydrodynamics (?) is of more importance than with surface ships, which other than their keel, can have pretty much any shape they need above water.

Armour is also of limited use underwater since water transmits shockwaves more efficiently than air, so things like depth charges don't need to be as close or have as large a charge to inflict damage to a submarine.

Finally sonar works differently to radar - you couldn't evade radar by changing to a different density layer of air for example, so presumably that would have an effect on the shape and size of a submarine. I've also been told that when SSBNs go to silent running, the crew aren't allowed to even talk too loudly as sonar can be that sensitive, which is a far cry from the noise an aircraft carrier generates.


I actually can't think of a plausible scenario where you wouldn't be better off with several light, quick subs with devastating payloads as opposed to one monster sub.

Depends on the minimum size required to have that devastating payload plus logisitics. A single large SSBN would be better logisitically than two smaller subs, and if those two smaller subs can't carry as many SLBMs as a single larger one, the single is better strategically. Additionally range/coverage is generally not be an issue with this weapon system, so with exception of redundancy, one of the advantages of having multiple units is diminished.

[Milodiah]

Talking about anything in 40k is pretty much impossible in terms of detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis is simply impossible, because the multiple writers simply don't agree on what's what. Some of the writers think bolters are more than enough to dig right through power armor and blow up on the inside, while others are of the opinion that bolter rounds plink right off it. Some are of the opinion that an Imperial Guard heavy bolter (used in the same tactical role as a .50 machine gun) is weaker than a Space Marine standard boltgun, while others insist that the IG heavy bolter is the Space Marine heavy bolter, and is therefore stronger than a boltgun. Some fluff says lasgun mags are 30 shots, some say 150 shots. Some people say the lasgun is supposed to have the stopping/maiming power of a .50 cal and blow off limbs, while others treat it as the weak type of sci-fi laser that probably aren't lethal if you're at all important to the story.

These people have yet to even come to a consensus on what some weapons look like when fired (meltagun, anyone?).

In all seriousness, the best way to even try to gauge weapon effectiveness in that game/setting is the actual tabletop materials, but even then they wildly between editions...


Also, off the recoil of bolters...these writers have absolutely no idea what they are talking about in terms of more-or-less established sci-fi weaponry. The Necrons use "Gauss weapons" which shoot arcs of green lightning, for Christ's sake. They've just fallen prey to the Law of Inverse Recoil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawOfInverseRecoil), is all...it's so deadly, so it must have a ton of recoil!

[Carl]

The issue is that gyrojet ammunition shouldn't have any real recoil, which gives rise to limited lethality at close range (the bolter round doesn't have time to accelerate compared to a standard one). One fan explanation is that bolter rounds have a tandem charge, one 'normal' charge to give it the power of an equivalent weapon then the gyrojet kicks after the round clears the barrel.

I'd also be careful of equating shotgun rounds to bolter rounds based solely on calibre. A 9mm round may have a bigger bullet than a 5.56mm one, but I wouldn't want to fire the 5.56 out of a handgun.

Oh it's definitely fired by a charge just like a normal gun round. Very obvious from various artwork.

Also the Shotgun comparison is completely accurate if not overstating experienced recoil. From depictions of 40K explosives vs soft targets we can say that if he 40K verse has chemical explosives more advanced than ours it's be degrees, not by orders of magnitude, (unlike honorverse). By extension that limits the power of propellants. That combined with clear depictions of the cartridges puts a firm limit on powder volume which puts a firm limit on operating pressures and that in combination with clear depictions of the barrel length puts a cap on achievable velocity and thus experienced recoil with a round of a given weight.

In addition marine bolters are supposed to be too heavy for a normal human to lift, (again given displayed dimensions, operating pressures, e.t.c this is completely wrong, there's no way it should be massing as much or more than a full tripod mounted M2 HMG), if we take that as accurate it would greatly reduce experienced recoil. I suspect even if a Bolter was matching an actual IRL 20mm AAA gun performance out the muzzle the recoil wouldn't be as dangerous as most sources make it, (probably still not healthy to fire and completely uncontrollable, but not rip your arm from your socket bad, probably safely firable from a bipod tough).

That why i used the shotgun example, whilst the extra mass of the RAP segment would add some recoil, (multiplier equal to the square root of the change in mass of the round fired), to the design even with a shotgun style mass it shouldn't be that much harder to manage than an automatic shotgun with slug ammo. At worst it would be bad enough to need a bipod, (like the M240 and similar weapons IRL).

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Thats the problem actually, there are two kins of bolter. The massive recoil normal version and the "this will kill an unaugmented human if they try to fire it" marine version. With a few rare exceptions 40K treats marine bolters as completely unfirable by normal humans due to physically dangerous recoil.
From memory, in most cases, it's just said that a normal human firing a Marine bolter would be a bad thing - no one ever tries it to see if it's true. So it could be a normal human knows the kick a normal bolter gives, sees the much larger and heavier Marine bolter (all the better to run towards the enemy and smack them over the head with, given how most people play Marines :smallwink: ) and thinks "no chance". But if they did try it, they'd probably find it was a lot easier to use than a normal one.

But I agree - I think they need a few less arts graduates and a few more science/engineering graduates on staff. :smallwink:

Point blank range lethality is more an issue for bolt pistols, and maybe they've got some clever system that can ignite the gyrojet in the barrel rather than after launch, if the target's within a certain range, with more resilient materials in the breach to absorb the blast (or bolt pistols are essentially disposable, and after each fight, the Marine draws a new one and the old one goes back to the techmarines to be rebuilt, or bolt pistols use single stage rounds).


Talking about anything in 40k is pretty much impossible in terms of detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis is simply impossible, because the multiple writers simply don't agree on what's what.
Let's be honest, most of the time, the same writer doesn't agree on what's what, let alone two of them. :smallamused:

[Mr Beer]

In addition marine bolters are supposed to be too heavy for a normal human to lift

The Weapon Too Heavy For Normal Humans To Even Lift is an irritating trope appearing in bad fantasy as well. It seemed unlikely to me even as a child; someone would have to be well past inhumanly strong to be swinging a 200lbs+ weapon around.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

There's a heck of a difference between being able to lift a weapon, and being able to use it effectively during combat.

[Carl]

The Weapon Too Heavy For Normal Humans To Even Lift is an irritating trope appearing in bad fantasy as well. It seemed unlikely to me even as a child; someone would have to be well past inhumanly strong to be swinging a 200lbs+ weapon around.

Well 200lb's is on the high side by a wide margin. Even 50Lb's would be beyond most people ability to lift as anything except a dead weight, (i.e you couldn't lift and carry it like a normal weapon, hence my comparison to the M2 HMG). But Marines are actually strong enough to heft a 200lb weapon if they wanted. Based on what i know of Halo for example, (limited to secondary sources though so bear that in mind), a 40K space marine butt naked could probably beat the Master Chief in his powered armour for raw strength. Though like they're bolters nothing about the modifications they receive should make them as strong or as heavy, (half a ton out or armour), as fluff claims.

It's not just engineering graduates GW is short on. Somewhere a biologist is crying too.

[Brother Oni]

It's not just engineering graduates GW is short on. Somewhere a biologist is crying too.

I can't say comment on the comparison with a Halo Spartan, but the space marine initiation process isn't as bad as you might think.

The age of space marine initiates (pre puberty) so that the development has maximum effect makes good sense, as does the order of implants, with the long term development and control organs going in first.

It's also generally vague enough that a lot of the handwaving is acceptable - ceramic and metallic dietary supplements to incorporate those materials into vastly increased bone density and number, along with the improved musculature adding weight and strength (and I wouldn't be surprised if these were also augmented with interwoven artifical fibres to improve strength) would account for most of the weight.
Consider Andre the Giant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_the_Giant) - at a listed 2.26m and 240kg, he's about the right height for a space marine and his weight doesn't include the additional physical development and augmentations a space marine has. I'm not sure whether you got this 'half a ton' value from as I've read values of ~350kg.

I'll admit that a lot of the other organs make a biologist cry (omophagea for example), and the best reason I can come up with for male only marines are sex linked histocompatibility complexes on the implanted organs (the Emperor used his own DNA and didn't want to spend the additional development time on removing them during the Primarch project), but the process is generally logical in principle.

[Carl]

It's possible there's been some official value given that's reasonable but the half ton was the commonly quoted value in general discussion when i was last seriously active in the communities.

As far as the rest, it's not that the process is unrealistic. It's the results. a lot of sources treat space marines as far stronger and far faster than they should be given that their nerve structures are bog standard human and their muscles whilst larger, and possibly with a better oxygen supply for size, are still normal human muscles. Yet feats of speed and strength that are just wildly out of line are par for the course for them even without armour. The way they're treated they'd need a significantly altered nerve structure and some form of volume for volume super muscle tissue to begin to approach their displayed speed and power.

[Kiero]

It's possible there's been some official value given that's reasonable but the half ton was the commonly quoted value in general discussion when i was last seriously active in the communities.

As far as the rest, it's not that the process is unrealistic. It's the results. a lot of sources treat space marines as far stronger and far faster than they should be given that their nerve structures are bog standard human and their muscles whilst larger, and possibly with a better oxygen supply for size, are still normal human muscles. Yet feats of speed and strength that are just wildly out of line are par for the course for them even without armour. The way they're treated they'd need a significantly altered nerve structure and some form of volume for volume super muscle tissue to begin to approach their displayed speed and power.

I'm not even going to pretend 40k is remotely realistic, but perhaps they're also assuming variations to the human frame, like muscle attachment? Take apes, for example, humans have a juvenile ape's muscle attachment. Which is why adult apes (gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees) are significantly stronger than us, even though they might be lighter. An orangutan, for example, can fold a metal key into any shape they want with just their grip strength.

[Gnoman]

Why do submarines come up for air? They have a long lasting power source and a plentiful supply of water, why don't they make oxygen via electrolysis and scrub out carbon dioxide?

As explained by others, but deserving of a fuller explanation - submarines can be broadly defined into two classes, which are conventional (designated SS, SSG, or SSB depending on role (attack, cruise missile, ballistic missile respectively)) and nuclear (SSN, SSGN, and SSBN in the same categories). Conventional subs run on batteries while submerged, and use diesel or advanced equivalent engines to recharge them. These ships must surface or snorkel (just what it sounds like, they go to shallow depth and stick a tube out of the water) in order to run their engines when the batteries run low. These also tend to be much smaller boats, and are much more limited in air purification capability (which requires power in some form or other) so they get rather nasty if they don't replenish their air regularly. The advantage of this class of boats is that they are incredibly cheap compared to the nukes, are easy to maintain and scrap, and are noticeably quieter while running on batteries.

Nuclear boats are powered by nuclear reactors - they have no air-burning fuel aboard (except in missile engines and possibly outboard motors for commando teams) and the reactor provides so much power that the only limitations on submerged time is how long the crew can put up with being crammed into a steel tube and how much food is aboard. They also have unlimited combat endurance (no breaking off to recharge batteries) and never need to run very noisy engines. The disadvantages of these are that they are very expensive, require exquisitely trained crews to operate the reactor, are more expensive to maintain and scrap, and are detectably louder than a conventional boat running on batteries because reactors need constant cooling, and sonar can hear the pumps.


Then if they don't need to make themselves a target by surfacing does the bigger profile on radar outweigh the gains in speed per volume allocation or is there some other reason submarines are not made really huge?

There's a lot of restrictions on how big a sub can practically be, but before we get into those it is best to go over the three main categories and their missions.

Ballistic Missile (SSB/N)
These exist for the sole purpose of carrying nuclear-tipped (in theory a country like Iran, Japan or Germany that does not possess nuclear warheads but has good shipbuilding capabilities could build non-nuclear variants, but none are known to exist) Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles from invulnerable platforms (you can't shoot what you can't find, and the size of the ocean and the stealth of the sub make tracking difficult) anywhere in the ocean and preventing nuclear war by making a disarming first strike impossible (even if you glass every land-based silo and catch every bomber on the ground, the subs will still be able to shoot back). Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and India are the only known users of these ships - exemplars are the US Ohio class and the Soviet Akula/Typhoon class.

These have to be very large (the missiles are not small), very strong (they go quite deep, and were once often deployed in the Arctic Circle with the expectation of breaking through the ice to launch their missiles), and very, very quiet (getting detected makes their very existence as a Force Of Last Resort pointless.

A single heavy torpedo or two light torpedos will usually be enough to sink this category of boat.

Cruise Missile (SSG/N)

This class carries cruise missiles and has two completely different tactical roles depending on which navy they're serving in. Soviet/Russian designs were intended to close the North Atlantic to NATO shipping if WWIII broke out, and thus carried very fast, very powerful, very long-ranged sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles such as the SS-N-19 Shipwreck carried on the Oscar-class. The Royal Royal Australian Navy uses the designation for their Harpoon-carrying subs as well.

The other navies that use the type (the US and possibly Israel) intend them for land attack - the initial US seaborne nuclear deterrent was nuclear-armed cruise missiles, Israel is alleged to possess boats with the same purpose, and the US currently operates the Ohio-class SSGN which carries 144 land-attack Tomahawks.

A single heavy torpedo or two light torpedos will usually be enough to sink this category of boat.

All other navies rely on Attack Submarines for cruise missile firing.

Attack Submarines (SS/N)
This is the most varied class, and can be subdivided further into coastal subs, interceptors, and cruisers.

Coastal subs are primarily intended for shoreline defense - keeping warships or missile carrying subs from getting into attack positions. They're also quite good for commando insertion or ambushing ships in shallow areas where bigger subs are much easier to detect. The US Virginia-class was intended as this type although capable enough to serve as a cheaper cruiser as well. Other examples include the German 206 class and the DPRK Sang-O class. A single light or heavy torpedo will usually be enough to sink this category of boat.

Interceptors

As far as I'm aware, only one sub was built for this role, the Soviet Alfa/Lira class. Extremely fast (for a sub) and with an extremely strong (and expensive) titanium hull, these were intended as a "ready force" that would dash from Soviet ports on the outbreak of war and savage NATO ships and subs that other subs couldn't intercept. Further development was cancelled in favor of cruiser designs. A single heavy torpedo or two light torpedos will usually be enough to sink this category o.

Cruisers
These are "Master-of-all-trades" ships - they can perform any role except firing ballistic missiles, carry an impressive torpedo and missile loadout, have balanced stealth, speed, and agility, and are used for everything from landing commandos, conducting electronic spying, following potentially hostile subs or ships, and (if war were declared) conducting all-out attacks on the enemy be he found on land or sea. A single light or heavy torpedo will usually be enough to sink this category of boat.

With this in mind, what are the disadvantages of being large

1. Economics
Ultra-large subs such as the Ohio, Typhoon, or Oscar are extremely expensive. The nations with the largest naval budgets managed to build less than thirty such boats combined in a 40 year period, and nobody else even tried - a French or British Boomer is much smaller and carry fewer missiles.

2. Engineering
So large a hull carries a lot of engineering challenges - you have to find a way to build it for one thing, and need facilities to put out hull sections in the scale required. It is simply much easier to design a smaller boat.

3. Speed
An attack submarine is small enough to be fast enough to perform evasive maneuvers that a bigger, slower ship just can't pull off -such a sub can evade a long-range torpedo or roil the water enough to confuse the seeker and a big boat simply can't; or dash away from a firing position before a helicopter can drop torpedos or a patrol boat can fire anti-submarine mortars.

4. Stealth

Active sonar will pick up a bigger sub from farther away, Magnetic Anomaly Detectors will pick it up better, and the moment you venture into shallow water they'll literally be able to see you from space.

5. Lack of benefit
Durability simply doesn't scale with size - a bigger boat might be able to handle a helicopter or aircraft light torpedo that would kill a smaller one, but a heavy torpedo such as the ones every submarine in the world fires would still inflict a crippling if not fatal wound. The only reason to build a bigger boat is to cram in more stuff, and the only "stuff" worth the tradeoff is ballistic missiles -every other mission is actively hampered by making the hull bigger.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

It's possible there's been some official value given that's reasonable but the half ton was the commonly quoted value in general discussion when i was last seriously active in the communities.

As far as the rest, it's not that the process is unrealistic. It's the results. a lot of sources treat space marines as far stronger and far faster than they should be given that their nerve structures are bog standard human and their muscles whilst larger, and possibly with a better oxygen supply for size, are still normal human muscles. Yet feats of speed and strength that are just wildly out of line are par for the course for them even without armour. The way they're treated they'd need a significantly altered nerve structure and some form of volume for volume super muscle tissue to begin to approach their displayed speed and power.
Personally, I go with 6'6" to 7' and a ballpark weight of 300lbs with minimal body fat - basically, NFL middle linebacker + "a bit" territory. Big enough to get leverage when necessary, small enough to be agile and actually fit in normal human environments, and still roughly within human physiological design limits.

[Carl]

Durability simply doesn't scale with size - a bigger boat might be able to handle a helicopter or aircraft light torpedo that would kill a smaller one, but a heavy torpedo such as the ones every submarine in the world fires would still inflict a crippling if not fatal wound.

This is simply false. Durability is a factor of the number of watertight compartments a weapon can breech vs the number the target can afford to lose. A bigger sub will always have more compartments and be able to afford to lose more of them. That said it will undoubtedly take a very large increase in size before that sort of thing kicked in. As i understand it the biggest limitation right now is that subs aren't big enough for significant subdivision along any axis except their length. As such survival capability vs attacks does not increase with size as much as expected, and you'd need a dammed big sub before you could get serious lateral and multi-deck compartmentalisation.

@Kiero: Care to elaborate on that. I'm well aware that most primates pound for pound are stronger than humans. But muscle is muscle, is muscle is muscle. The force it can exert isn't going to change based on attachment points so attachment points shouldn't be having any effect on a primate's strength. It's like saying changing how a hydraulic piston attached will change how much force is applied, assuming you want the same range of movement, (so you can't use leverage), it's not going to have any effect.

Besides i'm pretty sure that kind of thing is determined when the attachments are first formed which is way before the SM induction process.


Personally, I go with 6'6" to 7' and a ballpark weight of 300lbs with minimal body fat - basically, NFL middle linebacker + "a bit" territory. Big enough to get leverage when necessary, small enough to be agile and actually fit in normal human environments, and still roughly within human physiological design limits.

The problem is they've been clearly shown not to be so. They're described as being able to rip normal humans limb from limb with their bare hands and have reaction times that are insanely fast, both reactions and actual movement thereafter.

[Gnoman]

This is simply false. Durability is a factor of the number of watertight compartments a weapon can breech vs the number the target can afford to lose. A bigger sub will always have more compartments and be able to afford to lose more of them. That said it will undoubtedly take a very large increase in size before that sort of thing kicked in. As i understand it the biggest limitation right now is that subs aren't big enough for significant subdivision along any axis except their length. As such survival capability vs attacks does not increase with size as much as expected, and you'd need a dammed big sub before you could get serious lateral and multi-deck compartmentalisation.


I actually transposed a couple of words there - my intended meaning was "Durability doesn't simply scale with size" - in other words, just making something bigger doesn't make it stronger.

[Kiero]

Personally, I go with 6'6" to 7' and a ballpark weight of 300lbs with minimal body fat - basically, NFL middle linebacker + "a bit" territory. Big enough to get leverage when necessary, small enough to be agile and actually fit in normal human environments, and still roughly within human physiological design limits.

That's not how they're described, especially in the fiction. They're not human at all, they're transhuman giants with altered anatomy and physiology. They've always been described as in the 8'-9' tall range, and a lot heavier than 300lbs. In Eisenhorn, for example, the Marine Librarian the inquisitor has a gentile conversation with is described as having a finger the size of a baton.

[Carl]

That's not how they're described, especially in the fiction. They're not human at all, they're transhuman giants with altered anatomy and physiology. They've always been described as in the 8'-9' tall range, and a lot heavier than 300lbs. In Eisenhorn, for example, the Marine Librarian the inquisitor has a gentile conversation with is described as having a finger the size of a baton.

Actually the official Fluff in the codex's states a height increase of around 20%. To reach 8 feet they'd have to be over 6 and a half feet and 9 feet would require someone approaching the current record holder. In this case Eisenhorn is simply wrong.

[Raunchel]

6'6" is quite doable really, there are plenty of people that size, especially when you are really selective.

[SowZ]

6'6" is quite doable really, there are plenty of people that size, especially when you are really selective.

And when your population makes 'Billions' look minuscule, even moreso.

[Mr Beer]

Well 200lb's is on the high side by a wide margin. Even 50Lb's would be beyond most people ability to lift as anything except a dead weight, (i.e you couldn't lift and carry it like a normal weapon, hence my comparison to the M2 HMG).

Maybe it's because I'm a literal person, but when I read the phrase "So heavy that a normal man could not even lift it", I parse that as "lift" not "heft". Verbs like "use", "fire", "swing" etc. obviously change the meaning drastically.


But Marines are actually strong enough to heft a 200lb weapon if they wanted. Based on what i know of Halo for example, (limited to secondary sources though so bear that in mind), a 40K space marine butt naked could probably beat the Master Chief in his powered armour for raw strength. Though like they're bolters nothing about the modifications they receive should make them as strong or as heavy, (half a ton out or armour), as fluff claims.

It's not just engineering graduates GW is short on. Somewhere a biologist is crying too.

40K weapon silliness annoys me less than most fantasy weapon silliness a lot of the time, since the entire setting is quite obviously a total pastiche of everything that is grimdark and in no way to be read seriously.

[Yora]

In a fight between two people with swords, axes, or spears, is there any advantage to being on higher ground? Lots of RPGs give a bonus to attack for character who are on higher elevation than their characters. And with armies moving over large battlefields and the higher ground meaning charging uphill for the enemy, being on top of a hill is really useful.
But in a swordfight it seems rather counter intuitive. If you are at a higher elevation, you have to reach down to hit your enemy and can only strike at his head and shoulders, where his own weapon and shield will be and he has a good view of you, while you put your feet in easy reach and have difficulty to block strikes at ankle level.
Intuitively, I'd rather stand lower than my opponent.

[SowZ]

In a fight between two people with swords, axes, or spears, is there any advantage to being on higher ground? Lots of RPGs give a bonus to attack for character who are on higher elevation than their characters. And with armies moving over large battlefields and the higher ground meaning charging uphill for the enemy, being on top of a hill is really useful.
But in a swordfight it seems rather counter intuitive. If you are at a higher elevation, you have to reach down to hit your enemy and can only strike at his head and shoulders, where his own weapon and shield will be and he has a good view of you, while you put your feet in easy reach and have difficulty to block strikes at ankle level.
Intuitively, I'd rather stand lower than my opponent.

Try hopping backwards on a hill while fighting and not lose your balance. Consider that lunging uphill is also far more difficult than lunging uphill.

With spears, the advantage is even more pronounced.

[Mr Beer]

In a fight between two people with swords, axes, or spears, is there any advantage to being on higher ground? Lots of RPGs give a bonus to attack for character who are on higher elevation than their characters. And with armies moving over large battlefields and the higher ground meaning charging uphill for the enemy, being on top of a hill is really useful.
But in a swordfight it seems rather counter intuitive. If you are at a higher elevation, you have to reach down to hit your enemy and can only strike at his head and shoulders, where his own weapon and shield will be and he has a good view of you, while you put your feet in easy reach and have difficulty to block strikes at ankle level.
Intuitively, I'd rather stand lower than my opponent.

You get more momentum with an overhead swing at a target lower than head height.

Easy kicks to the groin and torso and shoves/bashes to the upper chest and face would also be more effective IMO.

Conversely, your opponent's head being out of easy reach seems like a distinct disadvantage.

[Mr. Mask]

I wanted to do some research into how the military equivalent of the police's internal affairs operates. Alternatively, how internal affairs works in secret services.

Anyone able to tell me a little or where I can look to get a good idea of this?

[Carl]

6'6" is quite doable really, there are plenty of people that size, especially when you are really selective.

No there really aren't. I've worked a customer handling business for long enough to have seen in excess of a million people and very few significantly exceeded 6 feet in height. I'm not saying they don't exist because they sure as hell do. My cousin's boyfriend is 6"4'. But there in a very distinct minority. Given the range of different worlds and the range of different recruits from each world even recruiting solely the taller end of the population wouldn't produce an average of 6"6'.

[Milodiah]

No there really aren't. I've worked a customer handling business for long enough to have seen in excess of a million people and very few significantly exceeded 6 feet in height. I'm not saying they don't exist because they sure as hell do. My cousin's boyfriend is 6"4'. But there in a very distinct minority. Given the range of different worlds and the range of different recruits from each world even recruiting solely the taller end of the population wouldn't produce an average of 6"6'.

Quadrillions of human beings. Tens of thousands of Space Marines.

(Although sometimes it bloody well doesn't feel like, considering they're apparently everywhere at once)


But yes, Space Marines generally aren't supposed to be nine or ten feet tall...if it says anything, their actual models on the tabletop are almost the same height as Guardsmen (although the tabletop takes scale, among hundreds of other things, drags it to the toilet, and gives it a swirlie for cramping its style). Also, take a look at the list of hilarious **** the gene-seed apparently does to Space Marines. (http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Gene-Seed) I'd like to draw special attention to the Betcher's Gland and the Omophagea. Yup. These are things that make sense.

[Yukitsu]

No there really aren't. I've worked a customer handling business for long enough to have seen in excess of a million people and very few significantly exceeded 6 feet in height. I'm not saying they don't exist because they sure as hell do. My cousin's boyfriend is 6"4'. But there in a very distinct minority. Given the range of different worlds and the range of different recruits from each world even recruiting solely the taller end of the population wouldn't produce an average of 6"6'.

It looks like people over 6'6 are about 1% of the average population in North America, so that value doesn't seem to be too strenuous given the selectivity of the Space Marines.

[Carl]

Quadrillions of human beings. Tens of thousands of Space Marines.

(Although sometimes it bloody well doesn't feel like, considering they're apparently everywhere at once)


The problem is that's not the recruitment pool size of most marine chapters. A few rare exceptions aside they mostly recruit from pre-industrial revolution worlds where planetary populations are much smaller than even earth today. Nor do they try and recruit the tallest and we have plenty of examples of marines who pre-augmentation were not noticeably taller than their fellow man.


But yes, Space Marines generally aren't supposed to be nine or ten feet tall

Well that was what i was trying to illustrate. Official sources say between 7" and 8" in height but the 20% enlargement fits with that given the typical ranges of human height.

[Brother Oni]

I'm not even going to pretend 40k is remotely realistic, but perhaps they're also assuming variations to the human frame, like muscle attachment? Take apes, for example, humans have a juvenile ape's muscle attachment. Which is why adult apes (gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees) are significantly stronger than us, even though they might be lighter. An orangutan, for example, can fold a metal key into any shape they want with just their grip strength.

There's a number of reasons why adult apes are apparently stronger than us - muscle attachment as you've mentioned, they have an 'all or nothing' approach to muscle activation thus they overuse their strength on most tasks which also reduces their fine motor control and finally they either lack the same muscle damage self limiters that humans have (humans can overcome these limits as well, but generally only in exceptional circumstances, like a mother lifting a rolled car off her children).

I remember a study that indicated weight for weight, chimpanzee muscle tissue was also stronger than human muscle tissue, but I can't find it now and it may have been superceded by the above studies on ape strength.


@Kiero: Care to elaborate on that. I'm well aware that most primates pound for pound are stronger than humans. But muscle is muscle, is muscle is muscle.
The force it can exert isn't going to change based on attachment points so attachment points shouldn't be having any effect on a primate's strength. It's like saying changing how a hydraulic piston attached will change how much force is applied, assuming you want the same range of movement, (so you can't use leverage), it's not going to have any effect.
Besides i'm pretty sure that kind of thing is determined when the attachments are first formed which is way before the SM induction process.[/


I disagree - even in humans you have fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibres (fast is better at explosive contractions like power lifting while slow twitch is better at long term work like marathons) and with the Biscopea monkeying around with hormone development in puberty, space marines do end up inhumanly developed (imagine what a body builder would look like if he started taking steroids when he was 13).

Attachment points do absolutely have an effect on force generated since where they're located is different relevant to the joint: link (https://brettpyne.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/chimpanzee-strength-vs-human-strength/).

While the musculature is determined prior to the induction process, there's nothing stopping them from changing the muscle fibre type or attachments during the process (a lot of the recruit's time is spent in surgery).


No there really aren't. I've worked a customer handling business for long enough to have seen in excess of a million people and very few significantly exceeded 6 feet in height. I'm not saying they don't exist because they sure as hell do. My cousin's boyfriend is 6"4'. But there in a very distinct minority. Given the range of different worlds and the range of different recruits from each world even recruiting solely the taller end of the population wouldn't produce an average of 6"6'.

According to this set of US population statistics (link (https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0209.pdf)), at most 0.5% of the population reaches 6'6" or greater, which is 5,000 people out of every 1,000,000.

Bear in mind that recruits are selected on the basis of genetic, physical, psychological and mental testing. It's certainly possible that if you have the right HLA tissue typing for the implanted organs, it's going to also additionally pre-select for other physical attributes like height.


I wanted to do some research into how the military equivalent of the police's internal affairs operates. Alternatively, how internal affairs works in secret services.

Anyone able to tell me a little or where I can look to get a good idea of this?

Some information on the British Army's RMP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Military_Police): link 1 (http://www.army.mod.uk/agc/provost/31537.aspx), link 2 (http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/royal-military-police-special-investigations-branch-20060730.pdf).

If you don't mind a drama of it, the BBC series Red Cap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cap_(TV_series)) covers the RMP in more detail, although it's more their day to day operations rather than internal affairs works.

I think there's also some episodes of Spooks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooks) (the UK's Security Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI5) better known as MI5) which have exactly what you want, but trawling through all 10 seasons (even British seasons) might be more work than you want to do.

[Carl]

@Oni: Basically what that article is saying is that A) chimps have more leverage on their muscle attachments. As i allready pointed out that's going to reduce the range of movement they're capable of unless something about point B also counteracts that. Inescapable physics. B) they use a different type of muscle fibres that are faster and stronger than ours. C) Ape's can use 100% of their muscle mass much more easily.

The problem is we have a very exhaustive list of what they do to marines. Altered muscle attachments or muscular strand types, (assuming they could even overcome the disadvantages of those 2), isn;t mentioned. Given how exhaustive the lore on the process is i don't foresee that kind of detail being left out if present. Though that article made very interesting reading as it helps give possible explanations of a lot of other scfi extreme strength scenarios.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Quadrillions of human beings. Tens of thousands of Space Marines.

Actually, about a million Marines (and that's just R&F, by the time you've included their officers, specialists, pilots, vehicle crews and so on, you can probably double that). In a society where a single Hive (not a hive world, a hive on a hive world) has billions of people. And where someone who's actually made it into a chapter will get some of the best healthcare and nutrition available in that society.



But yes, Space Marines generally aren't supposed to be nine or ten feet tall...if it says anything, their actual models on the tabletop are almost the same height as Guardsmen (although the tabletop takes scale, among hundreds of other things, drags it to the toilet, and gives it a swirlie for cramping its style). Also, take a look at the list of hilarious **** the gene-seed apparently does to Space Marines. (http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Gene-Seed) I'd like to draw special attention to the Betcher's Gland and the Omophagea. Yup. These are things that make sense.
I'd say the Betcher's Gland is one of the more possible - extract some cells from the stomach lining, give them a little gene-therapy to allow them to make venoms as well as acid, replicate them in a support medium until there's enough to make into a gland, add some muscles around the outside, some motor neurones to allow for muscle control, then implant it in the neck with a duct into the mouth and train the recipient how to use it.

Why you'd want to do it is another thing. :smallamused:

[Kiero]

@Oni: Basically what that article is saying is that A) chimps have more leverage on their muscle attachments. As i allready pointed out that's going to reduce the range of movement they're capable of unless something about point B also counteracts that. Inescapable physics. B) they use a different type of muscle fibres that are faster and stronger than ours. C) Ape's can use 100% of their muscle mass much more easily.

The problem is we have a very exhaustive list of what they do to marines. Altered muscle attachments or muscular strand types, (assuming they could even overcome the disadvantages of those 2), isn;t mentioned. Given how exhaustive the lore on the process is i don't foresee that kind of detail being left out if present. Though that article made very interesting reading as it helps give possible explanations of a lot of other scfi extreme strength scenarios.

An exhaustive list, written by people who are demonstrably clueless about biology, anatomy and physiology, not to mention in the wider context engineering, physics and so on.

[Milodiah]

Actually, about a million Marines (and that's just R&F, by the time you've included their officers, specialists, pilots, vehicle crews and so on, you can probably double that). In a society where a single Hive (not a hive world, a hive on a hive world) has billions of people. And where someone who's actually made it into a chapter will get some of the best healthcare and nutrition available in that society.


The Codex Astartes says that there's only supposed to be 1,000 full Astartes per chapter. Granted, several chapters don't follow the Codex, but others are seriously understrength from losses, which pretty much balances it out. But then again, there are way more than the founding 10 or so chapters that are still loyalists, and therefore the count is difficult. At the most, however, I'd say 100,000.


I'd say the Betcher's Gland is one of the more possible - extract some cells from the stomach lining, give them a little gene-therapy to allow them to make venoms as well as acid, replicate them in a support medium until there's enough to make into a gland, add some muscles around the outside, some motor neurones to allow for muscle control, then implant it in the neck with a duct into the mouth and train the recipient how to use it.

Why you'd want to do it is another thing. :smallamused:

"Brother Captain, why are we able to spit acid from our mouth when that would require us to first remove our helmet?"

"Ah, you must be new, battle brother. Let me remind you of today's Thought of the Day: 'Only the awkward ask questions; only the foolish ask them twice."

"..."

"..."

[Carl]

An exhaustive list, written by people who are demonstrably clueless about biology, anatomy and physiology, not to mention in the wider context engineering, physics and so on.

Well yeah. That was kinda the point of my post that stated this whole damned sub discussion...


Actually, about a million Marines (and that's just R&F, by the time you've included their officers, specialists, pilots, vehicle crews and so on, you can probably double that). In a society where a single Hive (not a hive world, a hive on a hive world) has billions of people. And where someone who's actually made it into a chapter will get some of the best healthcare and nutrition available in that society.


Again though most are recruiting from pre-industrial revolution tech worlds. So the size of your average hive world isn't exactly relevant.

[Milodiah]

Well yeah. That was kinda the point of my post that stated this whole damned sub discussion...

Never open the can of worms that is internal inconsistencies in the logic of the 40k universe.

Because it's actually a shipping container. Numbered 1 of about 200,000.

[Carl]

:biggrin:

I just spent the last couple of minutes in a laughing fit. But ever so true.

TBH i only made the original notation that started this specifically because this thread tends to stay on the "semi-realistic speculation" side of things, even if we don't all quite agree on the definition thereof and 40K is explicitly 99.99999% made-up lolz.

[Mr. Mask]

Oni: Thanks Oni! If Spooks is good, I could try watching through it.


While I look that stuff up, anyone know much about UN Peacekeeping rules of conduct? I tried to look up the most recent handbook (2013), but the link is busted.

[Brother Oni]

Never open the can of worms that is internal inconsistencies in the logic of the 40k universe.

Because it's actually a shipping container. Numbered 1 of about 200,000.

I think that's the best way to approach 40K in this thread, for the sake of our collective health. :smallbiggrin:



Oni: Thanks Oni! If Spooks is good, I could try watching through it.

While I look that stuff up, anyone know much about UN Peacekeeping rules of conduct? I tried to look up the most recent handbook (2013), but the link is busted.

I can attest to the quality of the first season, but I haven't watched any others. Bear in mind that the series ran from 2002-2011, so the political situation and world outlook from that time is slightly different to now.

I'm not sure what you mean by rules of conduct. If you mean Rules of Engagement, then there's this page on the UN website (http://ask.un.org/faq/14531) (first link is broken), which covers how the ROE is determined.

If you want to know what the ROE actually is, it varies from operation to operation and you're best off looking under a specific operation name.

[Milodiah]

I'm in the process of reading the US Army field manual 3-19-15, Civil Disturbance Operations. It primarily deals with riot control, though, at least in the first section.

Scariest thing so far: they have a specific matrix for escalating response, split into armed and unarmed crowds and lethal and nonlethal force. Top of the lethal force response: aerial and indirect fires. With a footnote that amounts to "ask your boss first".

[Mr. Mask]

Yeah, a lot of links to important documents on their site are busted. Weird.

Essentially, I was wondering if UNPK troops can effectively engage an enemy army. All the cases I know of, they're not allowed to do anything and their restrictions are pretty severe (or outright insane).


Milo: That sounds pretty interesting. At what point do they swap from non-lethal suppression weapons to lethal force, in the manual's description? I think someone was making a game about riots, a while back. Riot: Civil Unrest, I think it was.

[Storm Bringer]

Yeah, a lot of links to important documents on their site are busted. Weird.

Essentially, I was wondering if UNPK troops can effectively engage an enemy army. All the cases I know of, they're not allowed to do anything and their restrictions are pretty severe (or outright insane).


Milo: That sounds pretty interesting. At what point do they swap from non-lethal suppression weapons to lethal force, in the manual's description? I think someone was making a game about riots, a while back. Riot: Civil Unrest, I think it was.

to my knowledge, Rule no 1 of peacekeeping is: if their is no peace to keep, get out of the way.

peacekeepers primary aim to keep enemies apart so that minor incidents that could flare up into renewed conflict dont happen. the majority of peacekeepers are equipped with just infantry weapons and APCs. if one side is bringing in heavy equipment and planning a major offensive, the peacekeepers are not going to stop them, realistically.

[Brother Oni]

Scariest thing so far: they have a specific matrix for escalating response, split into armed and unarmed crowds and lethal and nonlethal force. Top of the lethal force response: aerial and indirect fires. With a footnote that amounts to "ask your boss first".

Of course - what use is a chain of command if you can't pass the responsibility for decisions upwards? :smalltongue:


Essentially, I was wondering if UNPK troops can effectively engage an enemy army. All the cases I know of, they're not allowed to do anything and their restrictions are pretty severe (or outright insane).

Direct self defence is generally permissable, everything else is up for debate, including defence of civilians supposedly under protection (see the Srebrenica massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre)).

Getting further into this trips the board rules on politics, but that word pretty much explains everything you need to know about UN peacekeeping restrictions.

Edit: Stormbringer said it better than me.

[Straybow]

Listen, we also fight with real blunts. These are actual swords that don't have a honed edge, but otherwise are real reproductions. Feders hurt more because they are generally a little heavier. I was watching people in my club duel with blunted arming swords and bucklers just yesterday. Some feders are really flexible and whippy but some aren't. Some feders are reasonably stiff. The difference in pain between the whippy and stiff feder is fairly minimal. And all tournament feders I've used are actually a little longer and heavier than the average historical longsword. Apples and oranges, still. Of course your repro arming swords are generally lighter than feders designed to be used as longswords, and a lighter weapon's impact ought to hurt less unless radically different in design.

All the longswords I've been able to find that are significantly less than 1.5kg are significantly shorter than the 100cm blade length of your reference feder (or G's reference). All the longswords with comparable blade length are the same or greater weight. I think I saw one that was about 2 ounces lighter and about as minimally shorter, but after clicking so many links I lost track of which one. But please, if you can find a 100cm bladed repro that is significantly lighter, let me know.

A narrow blade has a smaller sweet spot. A whippy blade spends energy whipping, and while the total energy to target may be similar a portion of the energy isn't imparted until the blade whips back, meaning the impulse is lower. Both would be safety features in a blunt, and weaknesses in a sharp. The amount of pain perceived depends so much on exactly where the blow lands, whether in or out of the sweet spot, whether at full force or before, or past optimal extension and thus below full force again, etc.

I repeat, if feders aren't designed to be safer than repros, why bother with them? If medieval swords (other than estocs) were never made that narrow, there was a reason. They were the ones whose necks were on the line, not us modern HEMA guys.

BTW, in our study group we never used body/limb armor, just head and hand. Our full-force bouts with repros were very limited, usually sword and buckler vs staff, when we wanted the real heft of the repro to face the challenge of getting past the staffman's guard. Getting in reach of the staffman was a win for the swordsman, and only a touch was given.

[Spiryt]

All the longswords I've been able to find that are significantly less than 1.5kg are significantly shorter than the 100cm blade length of your reference feder (or G's reference). All the longswords with comparable blade length are the same or greater weight. I think I saw one that was about 2 ounces lighter and about as minimally shorter, but after clicking so many links I lost track of which one. But please, if you can find a 100cm bladed repro that is significantly lighter, let me know.

.

That's not so hard, at least if you accept ~98cm:

http://albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-cluny.htm

Originals:

http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF07.pdf

Those ones even have quite extensive guards and still under 1.5 kg

http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF15.pdf

http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF14.pdf


100 cm+ blades on longswords were actually relatively uncommon, anyway, at least before 1500.


If this weren't so, swords would be made as light and narrow as possible because a little drop in the "few ounces" of blade at the striking point wouldn't make a difference.

Well, plenty of swords absolutely were made as narrow and light as possible though...

The ones with serious cutting in mind were often made as wide and light as possible, of course, because narrow blade doesn't really slashes trough anything all that well.

[Mr. Mask]

If the UN wanted to have an international joint-military venture against a military target, what protocol would that go under (as in, what do I look up to research protocol for such a venture)? Would it not exactly be a UN thing, but more of an alliance between the nations similar to those in the world wars?

[Gnoman]

If the UN wanted to have an international joint-military venture against a military target, what protocol would that go under (as in, what do I look up to research protocol for such a venture)? Would it not exactly be a UN thing, but more of an alliance between the nations similar to those in the world wars?

It would look exactly like the Korean War. That conflict was exactly what you're describing (the non-Korean forces fighting for South Korea fought beneath the banner of the UN under UN Resolution 82) except that at least one UN nation (the Soviet Union, which had been boycotting UN meetings in an attempt to force the UN to replace the Republic Of China with the People's Republic Of China as the recognized Chinese government) backed the other side.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

How was the shotel sword wielded?

I can't seem to find any pictures of actual ones in use, so the best evidence I have comes from video games:

http://darksouls.wdfiles.com/local--files/curved-swords/shotel-onhand-large.jpg

This version from Dark Souls seems to indicate that it's wielded with the tip facing forward like an oversized sickle.
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/445078868790346518/F0A9CFE3FFAC5335A77C2B3CAB856F585AD1538A/

This version, from a mod for Total War: Atilla that makes the Axumite Kingdom (the original shotel users) playable, indicates the opposite direction, with the shotel being wielded almost like a D&D scimitar or khopesh.
Which version is correct?

[Milodiah]

Surprisingly, the manual insists that nonlethal weapons are a supplement to lethal, and that if you're firing nonlethal munitions the situation has probably escalated so badly that you'll probably be using lethal munitions pretty soon anyway. It emphasizes that confrontation is likely to trigger more violence, so it rather goes Show of Force (buzz them in a helicopter, roll in some armored vehicles, etc), escalate broadcasts from information to warnings, demonstrate force (there are some fun ones in there, such as something they call "demonstrate precision sniper fire capabilities" which I'm pretty sure just means 'do some trick shooting there, cowboy'), then suggests attempting to disperse the crowd by entering it in crowd movement formations, riot agents like tear gas (although it specifies not to do that if they're packing firearms, just skip to the next part), and finally fire on them. But it does also encourage things like negotiation and de-escalation, as well as attempting to single out and apprehend major agitators inside the crowd.

A rather major emphasis is a good standoff distance between the crowd and the formation, typically overlapping with the lethal zone of nonlethal munitions.

[No brains]

I'm trying to think of some good title to give a character, but I know diddly squat about medieval command structures. What I want the title to tell is that this person is the highest ranking person who actively fights on the front lines. I want it to give a similar impression to the "Sergeant-Major" joke found here (http://www.military-quotes.com/jokes/military-humor.htm#RANK%20RECOGNITION%20MADE%20EASY).

I have some more info if more context will help. This character originally wanted to join a Romanesque military as a plain soldier and doesn't like to be thought of as above a foot soldier, but is willing to accept promotions as long as they can keep fighting. If possible, they would prefer a Roman-sounding title if it isn't remarkably out of place with contemporary naming conventions. Their current army would probably use naming conventions similar to what the French did in 1200 or so.

Their army is primarily made up of mindless undead, but they are part of a living division made up of mercenaries (I don't know if volunteer soldiers existed in the past as they do today) who are paid to fight in ways that are easier to carry out with sentient troops. This character doesn't possess any power to command undead and so cannot lead them, but is not uncomfortable by their presence and appreciates their usefulness.

While the like to fight with two swords, their basic array of fantastic mythical powers makes them tough enough to fight alongside heavy infantry and fast enough to run alongside cavalry. Maybe they could throw boulders with the artillery, but would prefer to be shot out of them to breach fortifications.

Aside, but possibly useful, where did the royal family fit into the command structure in the past? Was the Monarch a commander in chief? Where did their spouses, children of age, and relative fit in?

Thanks!

[Tobtor]

I'm trying to think of some good title to give a character, but I know diddly squat about medieval command structures. What I want the title to tell is that this person is the highest ranking person who actively fights on the front lines. I want it to give a similar impression to the "Sergeant-Major" joke found here (http://www.military-quotes.com/jokes/military-humor.htm#RANK%20RECOGNITION%20MADE%20EASY).

I have some more info if more context will help. This character originally wanted to join a Romanesque military as a plain soldier and doesn't like to be thought of as above a foot soldier, but is willing to accept promotions as long as they can keep fighting. If possible, they would prefer a Roman-sounding title if it isn't remarkably out of place with contemporary naming conventions. Their current army would probably use naming conventions similar to what the French did in 1200 or so.

Medieval armies of north and western Europe around 1200 wasn't as organised. Usually the army consisted of knights/nobles and lower standing squires/men-at-arms, in many countries still supplemented with levied peasants (though peasant armies was going out of favour in many regions). Peasants would be relatively well trained compared to what is often portrayed in modern media, but of course not professional soldiers.

Standing armies was in such areas relative rare and/or small. Instead armies where dispersed at the manor houses/castles of the nobles, except for smaller royal entourages etc. Each noble or knight might have had a handful men around, who could either be full time soldiers (guards or sergeants) or landless knighst/squires (often brothers/sons/relatives of the knight), or in many cases among smaller estate knights double as overseers, stable masters, tax collectors etc in peacetime (at least in north-western Europe and I think eastern Europe, Italy with its city states is a bit different as was the Byzantine empire, cities in Northern Europe would also have militias, who would be part time soldiers and/or required to provide military service).

This structure means that most commanding officers of higher rank would be noble or at least knighted. The "companies" would be structured around a knight or noble and his men. Larger "groups"/"divisions" within the armies would be structured around higher nobles (counts/dukes etc), and these could be placed under command of a prince or noble trusted by the king. This goes for the "classic" feudal armies of France etc. Companies of city millitias and/or mercenary companies would be structured partly separate from this (at 1200) main part of the army (as time goes militias and mercenary companies would grow in importance). They would form their own companies and could have very diverse command structure. For city millitias either organised around the city or city guilds or as local custom prescribed.

Complex and linear military structure we know of modern armies was not practised. And most commanding officers would be ready to fight. Large non-fighting groups of officers wasn't really a thing by 1200. Sure the king, prince, marshal and a few generals would be heavily guarded and depending on personal taste perhaps not partake in charges etc (though many Kings and especially princes did fight frontline).

So finding the top-rank still front-line is up to current organisation of the army and the taste of the top nobles, but many dukes and kings fought direct combat (if not in the first charge, then at least as the battle wore on). Especially in France where chivalry codes where dominant, bravery in combat was required. The King might remain at home or at the back of the main fighting, but the prince would be required to show himself worthy of his (future) position.


Their army is primarily made up of mindless undead, but they are part of a living division made up of mercenaries (I don't know if volunteer soldiers existed in the past as they do today) who are paid to fight in ways that are easier to carry out with sentient troops. This character doesn't possess any power to command undead and so cannot lead them, but is not uncomfortable by their presence and appreciates their usefulness.

I suggest finding a medieval mercenary company and model the command structure after those. Again, the head could often be a noble or a group of nobles. From slightly later, from the 14th century, you might find information on the white company or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company).

Otherwise for a distinct French high to late concept see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routiers

You can also look into the Italian mercenary groups, since they where very popular and sometimes of a more permanent nature.

Anyhow; the head of a mercenary company was often called Captain (or cognate in various languages). I am no specialist in the lower ranking offciers and from the account I have seen the titles vary a great deal between regions, times and even companies. The Captain could be noble (often in England/France) or commoner rising to fortune. You could decide that the last was more true in your setting (the whole undead army thing might not seem as chivalric or romantic to the nobles).



Aside, but possibly useful, where did the royal family fit into the command structure in the past? Was the Monarch a commander in chief? Where did their spouses, children of age, and relative fit in?

In most cases; then yes. The king/queen would be the commander in chief. At least in theory. This is of course still the principle in many present day monarchies - but today its always very theoretical. In the high medieval period around 1200, the strong monarchs would have a very direct control over the army. Most would have a special second in command or in practise head of the army sort of person, titles could vary but Marshal or related cognates were common.

How children and relatives fit into military structure was up to the king (and his council/court), and was always a consequence of current power relations. It would be very usual to place the heir apparent as "field commander" of an army (to learn the robes, and also have a very loyal commander). In many cases the King would be related to several of the major noble families (through marriage of himself or his predecessors to women from noble families, or through marriage of his sisters/daughters to such families), and since it was common to appoint high standing nobles as generals he would likely be somewhat related to many of the high ranking commanders (especially if the family ties was such as they provided him loyalty of the noble - related without the noble had a direct claim on the throne).

Conclusion: most commanders could fight directly, even high nobles such as Dukes and Kings. There isnt as sharp as shift between non-fightin and fighting officers as in modern armies. Mercenary companies would have a captain at the head, likely with a group of lieutenants and sergeants to help organise the force. If the main force is undead you do not really need a lot of supply-officers anyway (just "people" to command the undead in battle make sure they adjust to the situation).

If I were you, I would have the armies split up, so you have a mercenary or appointed noble general (with a small staff and personal guards) commanding several companies, where one large and permanently hired consist of undeads and is headed by a captain and a small groups of clerics or whoever controls/guide the undead, and several smaller auxiliaries companies (between 50-500 men depending on function) hired for special missions/functions (archers, shock troops, scouts, cavalry), each headed by a captain, and this captain would be fighting close combat along his men.

This way you get a somewhat chaotic medieval structure to the army command structure, and you can still have the growling of the common soldier against the general and his/hers staff, and have a commander very much on the side of the troops (the Captain).

[Mr Beer]

Aside, but possibly useful, where did the royal family fit into the command structure in the past? Was the Monarch a commander in chief? Where did their spouses, children of age, and relative fit in?

'the past' makes this quite a broad question.

In the standard quasi-feudal system you can use for D&D, the ruler would have their own men that they directly command and then also barons who report to said ruler, who also have their own men. Together, you have an army, but loyalties are often more towards individual barons than the monarch.

If you narrow it down to a particular time period and location, you can probably get a much more exact and informative answer.

EDIT

nm, just read Tobtor's post and ignore mine

[fusilier]

I'm trying to think of some good title to give a character, but I know diddly squat about medieval command structures. What I want the title to tell is that this person is the highest ranking person who actively fights on the front lines. I want it to give a similar impression to the "Sergeant-Major" joke found here (http://www.military-quotes.com/jokes/military-humor.htm#RANK%20RECOGNITION%20MADE%20EASY).

I think Tobtor summed it up quite well. I did some research into Italian "ranks" during the early Renaissance and discovered that they didn't really exist, and certainly not in a form that we would recognize.

"Captain" is the generic term -- anybody who commanded a company (often a very flexible term) would be referred to as a "Captain". It was more of a title than a rank. The captain in charge of an army would usually be called a captain-general, although a few other titles were (rarely) used which had different precedence. The Spanish tercios provide an interesting example of the use of the term captain -- the captain of the first company was the commander of the tercio, the captain of the second company was the sergeant-major (responsible for forming the tercio on the field).

The term "lieutenant" literally means "place holder" -- the lieutenant was in charge of a company when the captain was away.

Getting down into the lower "ranks" gets tricky. The term sergeant is often encountered, but it's all over the place (originally it meant servant). Man-at-arms is another term often encountered. Corporal seems to be derived from caposquadra -- someone in charge of a squadron, a formation of 25 lances. But it's something of an ad hoc term. It's not a permanent "rank". Colonel (from colonello) is similar, but referred to a captain in charge of "column" of troops -- a variable formation usually made up of more than one company (perhaps formed from pieces of various companies).

Other terms referred to the "role" of the soldier - crossbowman, sword and shield, shield-bearer etc. Not really a rank per say, but could very well indicate differences in pay.

[Mr. Mask]

UNPK, Gnoman, Oni, etc.: Would you say it reaches to the extent where UNPK are disallowed from having artillery, military attack aircraft, MBTs and such, that they'd be entirely useless in any war situation? Just clarifying for something. Was wanting to have some UNPK show up in a war scenario against a nation that's left the UN, and wondering what they'd be allowed to do if things got extreme (say, if they came under attack, or civilians some distance away came under attack).

[Storm Bringer]

UNPK, Gnoman, Oni, etc.: Would you say it reaches to the extent where UNPK are disallowed from having artillery, military attack aircraft, MBTs and such, that they'd be entirely useless in any war situation? Just clarifying for something. Was wanting to have some UNPK show up in a war scenario against a nation that's left the UN, and wondering what they'd be allowed to do if things got extreme (say, if they came under attack, or civilians some distance away came under attack).



they would not be peacekeepers in that situation. they would be like the US in the 1991 gulf war, a regular army working under a UN resolution.

[Carl]

@Mask: The thing to understand is that AFAIK the UN does not have it's own troops. it does not have it's own equipment. Everything they use including the men are on loan from a UN member. Pretty much no nation is going to hand over it's best military gear to a third party that's not entierly under their control. Most can;t even afford to hand over all that much in the way of major hardware because they barely have enough for their own defence.

[Mr. Mask]

Thought so. Just wanted to clarify to be sure. I may be some UNPK show up in the less tumultuous area, but clearly they're not much better than armed police for military support (armed police may have less restrictive guidelines).

[PersonMan]

Question: Even if, in a long-term sense, a modern military force can sustain massive losses and continue functioning, what does it look like in the short term? If you have, say, a division of 10,000 men, how many can you lose and expect the force to continue fighting? What sort of circumstances would lead to a collapse, which to a breakdown into smaller, still functioning and cohesive units?

[Mr. Mask]

Well, if it's small losses over time, there were a few units in WW2 and other wars that lost something like 3000% its number. But with repeated replacements and rest between losses, they were still very effective.

For how much you need to lose at once, I think that's normally 10% in a short space of time. The Romans referred to this as decimation, that your enemy has had enough people die that they need resupply and rest to: replace all the dead officers; front line men; supply men; missing, spent and broken equipment; discharging and rest of wounded men; and general morale recovery. From what I've seen, this 10% figure also occurred in WW2 and other conflicts, where losing 10% of your force rapidly would break down cohesion. Not to say a force will always break at that point--if they have nowhere to run, or if they're just really stubborn, some forces have fought literally to the last man.

[snowblizz]

Question: Even if, in a long-term sense, a modern military force can sustain massive losses and continue functioning, what does it look like in the short term? If you have, say, a division of 10,000 men, how many can you lose and expect the force to continue fighting? What sort of circumstances would lead to a collapse, which to a breakdown into smaller, still functioning and cohesive units?

Surely the answer is something like 99%. A modern division is mostly a desktop artefact, you don't expect the division to fight, you expect the smaller constituent units to fight, like companies I guess. Most modern soldiers shouldn't be that familiar with more than their own company I'd say. Not that I've been in any military but compared to say elementary and high-school where we were like 300 and 150 respectively and I just about knew on sight everyone, but I didn't know everyone's name other then the grade above and below pretty much.

Normal deployment itself is already a breakdown into smaller still functioning and cohesive units. So whether all the other companies are shot to hell shouldn't affect you that much. Until you are withdrawn somewhere and get to watch the news again at least...:smalltongue:

A collapse as such depends entirely on the morale of said units, whether the individuals are committed to "the cause" enough. Plenty of modern units have fought on after appalling casualties and eg in WW2 they just reconstituted units with the survivors as a core of experts to train up the new batch of recruits.

[Mr. Mask]

If you lose men over enough time, you can lose pretty much any number without the unit being destroyed. Rapid decimation tends to be an issue for any given unit of troops. If you have ten brigades, and you lose 10% of your men, that doesn't normally mean losing one full brigade, it normally means most of your brigades have taken losses, and your force is in disarray. Of course, if it is that only one of your brigades got trapped and wiped out, then you're correct, it doesn't have much effect on the rest of the force.

[Mike_G]

Ten percent is an oft-quote figure, but there are plenty of historical example of divisions that lost far greater percentages and remained effective.

It depends a lot on the morale of the unit. Small units have fought to 90% casualties and kept fighting, but in a division, most losses occur at the rifle platoon level, so 10% losses in a division probably means 25% of the actual front line men are casualties. Cooks, bakers, radio operators, the General's driver, the guy who waters the Major's oak leaves, these guys don't tend to get shot, but they do count as part of a division. If you lose the fighting edge of the unit, the support elements can't very well keep on fighting.

Read up on Stalingrad or the Battle of the Bulge to see examples of units that held out after insanely high loss percentages. The Japanese defenders of most islands in the Pacific kept fighting to virtually 100% losses. The last few holdouts weren't effective in a "might still win the battle" way, but they were still a threat to allied troops, still cause casualties and tied up units who had to secure the area..

[rs2excelsior]

Question: Even if, in a long-term sense, a modern military force can sustain massive losses and continue functioning, what does it look like in the short term? If you have, say, a division of 10,000 men, how many can you lose and expect the force to continue fighting? What sort of circumstances would lead to a collapse, which to a breakdown into smaller, still functioning and cohesive units?

It really depends. And honestly, what you're talking about probably wouldn't happen.

Morale in a battlefield situation is a really sticky question to try and answer with blanket statements. Veteran troops can break and run under a mere scattering of fire, and green troops can dig in and hold long past the point where they should have stopped fighting. Both of these situations are the exception rather than the rule, of course, but it can happen.

Battlefield morale is linked to the troops' level of training and determination going in, their logistical situation, their impression of the overall battlefield situation, etc. Sometimes, a small unit's (squad's) morale is closely linked to one or two veteran or aggressive soldiers, and if those key men are killed, the squad will cease to function. Or they might not. It's related to the idea that only something like 25% of a given military force will fight actively to kill the enemy; the rest fight primarily to avoid harm. Take away those individuals seeking out the enemy, and the rest become much less effective.

That said, loss of morale, as I understand it, is generally a small-to-large kind of thing. One company's position collapses, which weakens the positions of the other companies, which (combined with potentially seeing or hearing about the other company retreating) causes the rest of the battalion to break, which weakens the brigade's position, and so on. You might have scattered units still in good order and holding out, but it's doubtful that an entire division command structure would collapse and leave the majority of the division's units in good order, unless your rear-area security was absolutely abysmal. And even so, a division's headquarters is a fairly dispersed affair, to avoid that kind of situation.


For how much you need to lose at once, I think that's normally 10% in a short space of time. The Romans referred to this as decimation, that your enemy has had enough people die that they need resupply and rest to: replace all the dead officers; front line men; supply men; missing, spent and broken equipment; discharging and rest of wounded men; and general morale recovery. From what I've seen, this 10% figure also occurred in WW2 and other conflicts, where losing 10% of your force rapidly would break down cohesion. Not to say a force will always break at that point--if they have nowhere to run, or if they're just really stubborn, some forces have fought literally to the last man.

Technically, decimation referred to the act of deliberately killing every tenth man in a cohort or legion guilty of cowardice or mutiny, not casualties during battle. [/nitpick]

Actually, bringing up the Roman army, reported casualties in historical battles (which are always a bit suspect, but still) seem to range around 5% or less in the victorious army, and much higher--often on the order of 40% or higher--for the defeated one, especially during the civil wars where Roman legions faced off against one another. That suggests that the casualties during a fight were very low--maybe around 5% for each side--and most of the losses to the loser were inflicted during the subsequent rout and pursuit.


Surely the answer is something like 99%. A modern division is mostly a desktop artefact, you don't expect the division to fight, you expect the smaller constituent units to fight, like companies I guess. Most modern soldiers shouldn't be that familiar with more than their own company I'd say. Not that I've been in any military but compared to say elementary and high-school where we were like 300 and 150 respectively and I just about knew on sight everyone, but I didn't know everyone's name other then the grade above and below pretty much.

Normal deployment itself is already a breakdown into smaller still functioning and cohesive units. So whether all the other companies are shot to hell shouldn't affect you that much. Until you are withdrawn somewhere and get to watch the news again at least...:smalltongue:

Umm... I seriously doubt that this is true. I don't think any military force anywhere, at any time, could be expected to take 99% casualties and still keep fighting. Even units that get pretty well massacred and still fight on I wouldn't expect to have taken 99% casualties. And a division is not quite so insular as you seem to think--you can see other units break (or even have retreating men running through your unit's area), or even just begin to hear the sounds of fighting around or behind you, which has a massively negative effect on morale. Plus the deterioration of communication between units and with headquarters as the situation worsens.

As an example, in WWI, a battalion of the US 77th Infantry Division (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Battalion_(World_War_I)) was cut off from support and surrounded during an assault for about 6 days, and when it was rescued, only 194 of about 554 men were still in fighting shape (about 65% killed, wounded, or captured). That battalion took what was considered pretty horrific casualties--they kept fighting long after they theoretically should have.

[Straybow]

That's not so hard, at least if you accept ~98cm: http://albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-cluny.htm Interesting, the text description says it has rapier-like handling. See below. Of the 22 New Generation Albion longswords in production, only one other has nearly 100cm blade and weight significantly less than 1.5kg (The Galloglass (http://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-irish-bastard-xix.htm)).

Originals:
http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF07.pdf
Those ones even have quite extensive guards and still under 1.5 kg
http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF15.pdf
http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/DatenblattZEF14.pdf Ah, well, my German was very long ago and I didn't search non-English sites.


100 cm+ blades on longswords were actually relatively uncommon, anyway, at least before 1500. I only specified because that is the blade length of the heavy feders G cited.

Well, plenty of swords absolutely were made as narrow and light as possible though...

The ones with serious cutting in mind were often made as wide and light as possible, of course, because narrow blade doesn't really slashes trough anything all that well. Yes, narrow blades like rapiers and some judicial combat longswords are for stabbing. Which is the point I made regarding SowZ's post: that narrow, light blades aren't good for cutting and cleaving. They don't give the heavy impact necessary for cleaving, which is the reason feders have light blades (the two linked by G had center of balance 3-4 cm closer to the crossguard than repros of similar length and weight), even if their overall weight isn't less.

[Mr. Mask]

Mike, rs2, Person, Casualties: Fair enough, I didn't really expand on that properly. I agreed a unit can fight to the last man very literally, even when retreat is possible. So, more accurately, a unit just loses a lot of its effectiveness by the time 10% of the men have died. When your unit has lost 10% of its men, that's typically when you pull them back from the front lines and replace them with another.

I think I made it sound like units will very typically retreat at 10% losses, but that would be an exaggeration. Under certain circumstances, that is a point when many units would retreat, but in some cases, men would stay and fight long after their effectiveness is lost, even if it might've done their side better to fall back and regroup. So as others said, more correctly than I, morale does seem to be the main factor in whether a unit retreats/breaks or not.

As for breaking up into smaller units, you can get that effect somewhat by driving wedges into a formation, force them into smaller pockets of resistance. For some reason, the mechanics of why that reduces fighting effectiveness for the split-up units still confuses me (I have trouble fully understanding group mechanics).

[Closet_Skeleton]

How was the shotel sword wielded?


I have no idea how it was wielded, but the correct form of the blade is to have a edge on the inside like a sickle and the outer edge (that would be sharp on a scimitar) completely blunt.

However the only shotel I've ever seen (in the Royal Armouries in Leeds) had the outside edge sharp and the inner edge blunt, but the description in the museum states that this was a mistake made by the British manufacturer not understanding the foreign weapon he had been commissioned to forge.

Since European sword blades were a major export to Asia from the 16th century its possible that a lot of real shotels are 'incorrect'.


Aside, but possibly useful, where did the royal family fit into the command structure in the past? Was the Monarch a commander in chief? Where did their spouses, children of age, and relative fit in?

Wives sometimes accompanied their husbands on campaign but did not fight or lead troops in that case. However, when the husband was absent women did reasonably often act as their proxy and lead troops. This was more likely in a siege situation where the wife would lead the defence of the castle if her husband was away but there are examples of field battles (but still in mostly defensive wars).

A late medieval military unit is the knightly order. This would be made up of noblemen in a special club sworn to the king, so basically a collection of friends more than a formal military organisation.


The term sergeant is often encountered, but it's all over the place (originally it meant servant). Man-at-arms is another term often encountered.

Sergeant-At-Arms originally meant elite non-noble troops and was often synonymous with Man-at Arms or a more elite version. They could be both foot and mounted troops and wore the best armour available to their employer. Sergeants started doing other roles because they were trusted and needed.


Other terms referred to the "role" of the soldier - crossbowman, sword and shield, shield-bearer etc. Not really a rank per say, but could very well indicate differences in pay.

Those are mostly pay grades. A Gendarme lance in late medieval France consisted of 1 knight, (a heavy cavalryman and probably minor nobleman), 1 page (noncombatant) and 1 coutillier (a less armoured cavarlyman who probably wasn't noble) and 3 archers (who also had horses but were expected to dismount to shoot). However sometimes the 'archers' were equipped and fought with lances as lighter cavalrymen but still got archer pay.

[fusilier]

Sergeant-At-Arms originally meant elite non-noble troops and was often synonymous with Man-at Arms or a more elite version. They could be both foot and mounted troops and wore the best armour available to their employer. Sergeants started doing other roles because they were trusted and needed.

I don't know about Sergeant-At-Arms. From what I've read, the Sergeants were kind of like assistants to knights or men-at-arms (certainly in the Italian context). They had military training and were armed/equipped, and were definitely above the paiges or squires that were also typically supporting a knight/man-at-arms. In Italy the sergeants could be formed up as a kind of medium cavalry during battle. Because they had experience and training, they could be detailed to provide leadership to other units, like infantry, and that appears to be how the modern rank of Sergeant developed.

In Italy the "Lance" varied, but the three-man version usually consisted of a man-at-arms, a similarly equipped sergeant, and a squire/page (the "man-at-arms" was basically a professional knight). Italian "Lances" were, increasingly just a support structure for the man-at-arms. On the other hand French Lances were a more rounded overall fighting unit, as you noted:



Those are mostly pay grades. A Gendarme lance in late medieval France consisted of 1 knight, (a heavy cavalryman and probably minor nobleman), 1 page (noncombatant) and 1 coutillier (a less armoured cavarlyman who probably wasn't noble) and 3 archers (who also had horses but were expected to dismount to shoot). However sometimes the 'archers' were equipped and fought with lances as lighter cavalrymen but still got archer pay.

I know you are correct about the "Francs Ordonnance Archers" not, necessarily, being "archers" -- but I get the feeling that was more of the exception than the rule. For example, I've seen no evidence that in Italy, a "shield-bearer" was ever anything but. However, there may be more instances like the "Archers" that I'm not aware of.

EDIT --
Francs Archers were infantry, Ordonnance Archers were mounted, although I think something similar occurred with them (i.e. eventually they were not all "archers").

[Closet_Skeleton]

definitely above the paiges or squires that were also typically supporting a knight/man-at-arms.

At least in the simplified version of knighthood, paiges and squires have a guaranteed promotion scheme to turn them into knights, while Serjeants-at-arms do not.

I'm sure Serjeants did get promoted to men-at-arms and even knights on occasion.


(the "man-at-arms" was basically a professional knight)

The whole concept of knights as a special thing is kind of dubious for most of the medieval period. It probably developed towards the end of the 12th century. "Norman Knights" are often mentioned in English sources but what we think of as a knight is probably a post-Norman period concept.

Knights as we understand them probably existed at some point, but where and when is hard to pin down. That the categories be blurred is more the norm. One extreme possibility is that knighthood didn't really exist until after so called knights stopped being a battlefield role completely.

Knight also just means 'servant' (though most non-English translations of it actually mean horsemen).


but I get the feeling that was more of the exception than the rule.

That units keep inappropriate names as their roles change is a rule but how common simple descriptive titles like archer was inaccurate I have no idea.

Then there are situations like archers drawing their swords and charging into combat which don't actually represent a job change, just a tactical instance. Sometimes that kind of oddity becomes a new norm, for example with the (well after the medieval period) British Heavy Dragoons whose name implies they're musketmen but usually functioned as lance armed shock cavalry.


Francs Archers were infantry, Ordonnance Archers were mounted, although I think something similar occurred with them (i.e. eventually they were not all "archers").

Plenty of cavalry units fought primarily as infantry, German men-at-arms and ritters being an example in some periods.

[Galloglaich]

Interesting, the text description says it has rapier-like handling. See below. Of the 22 New Generation Albion longswords in production, only one other has nearly 100cm blade and weight significantly less than 1.5kg (The Galloglass (http://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-irish-bastard-xix.htm)).
Ah, well, my German was very long ago and I didn't search non-English sites.

I only specified because that is the blade length of the heavy feders G cited.
Yes, narrow blades like rapiers and some judicial combat longswords are for stabbing. Which is the point I made regarding SowZ's post: that narrow, light blades aren't good for cutting and cleaving. They don't give the heavy impact necessary for cleaving, which is the reason feders have light blades (the two linked by G had center of balance 3-4 cm closer to the crossguard than repros of similar length and weight), even if their overall weight isn't less.

I've kind of lost track of what your original point was, but you seem to be a bit confused in general about swords. Here are some more data points for clarity.

Light sparring swords or feders

You do find these, for example the Hanwei feder, this is more of a 'true feder' than the Regenyei or the Albion Meyer or the various Polish and other Central European swords most people actually spar with these days. It's cheap, very light and is actually a little whippy, unlike most of the ones used today. It is ok for light sparring but doesn't hold up well to tournament level fencing, because it will bend and break. This is probably due to the relatively poor heat-treatment and steel compared to antiques it was based on, but it does also have pretty light build.

http://www.kultofathena.com/images/SH2333_1_l.jpg

http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=SH2333

Darkwood armoury used to also make a weapon called the 'Scrimator' which we have two of in our club. It's short, only about 43 or 44", and it's light, I'd say for sure less than 3 lbs. But much stiffer than the Hanwei. More like a modern tournament feder.

Features of HEMA feders and tournament swords compared to re-enactment blunts

Feders and sparring swords in use today for training and tournaments are actually fairly stiff and very strongly made. This is because of the needs of the modern tournament scene, and the necessity to hold up against things like fencing masks, bucklers and other swords. Weapons for sparring are not limited to longswords and rapiers as in the past but now include messers, single swords, cut-thrust swords and so on. The latter can't really be called feders.

One thing you seem to be really confused about is how they bend. Feders are designed to bend in the thrust. Not when cutting. Even the Hanwei which is by far the bendiest and 'whippiest' of them all, doesn't really bend along the edge, only along the flat. If you fight with perfect edge alignment they don't bend.

The main reason for this is that so long as you have a fencing mask with some back of the head protection, the thrust is the really dangerous thing that can kill you with one of these. A 'cut' can break a bone but isn't as likely to kill. Tournament swords and modern HEMA feders are made for handling, realistic feel and weight, durability, and safety, in roughly that order.

Re-enactment swords which is what I think you are referring to when you say 'blunts' are basically made with extra thick edges to withstand constant bashing against steel armor, helmets, shield rims, and other tournament swords with lots of effort but zero finesse! They are made to stand up to abuse, mainly, and not much else. Some of them can be really heavy, up to 5 lbs, far beyond what a real sword was likely to weigh, and they often have elements like chrome in the steel which make them stiffer than a real sword and a bit heavier and more brittle.

HEMA feders compared to real sharps, and antiques

I have a couple of antiques as well as some Albion sharps. The antiques have a much nicer balance and feel, but weight is about the same, in all cases a little less than the feders and tournament blunts that we have and considerably less than re-enactment blunts. Stiffness varies, I have a 19th Century Talwar which is probably as whippy in sideways movement as the Hanwei feder is, but it's still stiff enough in the cut to cut very well. Same for an old MRL longsword I have. My Albion Constable on the other hand (Oakeshott XVa) is extremely stiff. All of them handle about the same as the sparring swords we use.

G

[Galloglaich]

Seems to be a whole lot of confusion about this subject as well.

The main problem in analysis of a medieval army is that they were very different based on time, place, and who they worked for. There were many different and very distinct types of medieval armies. Even within an army different branches (heavy and light cavalry, archers / marksmen/ crossbowmen, heavy and light infantry and so on) could be organized along very different lines.

I can't say that I've got a complete understanding of the length and breadth of medieval military structures but I know a bit about continental European armies in the high (1100-1350) and late medieval period (roughly 1350-1500), due to research for a book I know the Viking era armies pretty well, both in the West and in the East, and I also once did a pretty detailed study once of Frankish / Carolingian armies in the 9th and 10th Centuries. They were surprisingly similar in organization to the late medieval armies but I suspect that is due to the unusual sophistication (for the time) of the Carolingian State.

Types of armies in the late medieval period include the armed forces of Crusading Orders (Teutonic Knights, Hospitalers), armed forces of major and minor princes, independent mercenary companies, urban militias, independent clan / peasant armies (Switzerland, Tyrol, Frisia, Scotland), nomadic cavalry armies, and peasant levies.

Organization varied a great deal between each type. But here is a very brief overview for late medieval northern Europe.

Nomadic Cavalry The questioner which started this part of the thread, talking about an army of undead or whatever, might want to look at the nomadic cavalry armies as a model. The Mongol / Tartar etc. armies were organized on the decimal system, each 10 men had a leader, each 100, each 1,000, up to 10,000 which was called a tumen. Leaders of Nomadic armies usually commanded from the rear, though they might go into the fight when the reserves were deployed. Ottoman cavalry had several different types of organization but it's a little too much to get into here. Their Sipahi were organized a lot like heavy cavalry fighting for princely armies, only more strict, their Gazi light cavalry raiders were a lot less strict and more like a cavalry version of a clan / peasant army.

Heavy cavalry was usually organized into Lances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lances_fournies) (also called 'gleve' or 'helm'), which was typically 3-5 mounted fighters based around one heavy cavalryman on an armored horse; Banners, which were commanded by high ranking nobility, and could be of different sizes depending on the specific place and time, but might be on average made up of 20-50 lances (so 60-250 riders in total), and sometimes Banners would be organized into Battles, which might be a whole wing of an army (left, center, right etc.). About 20% of each formation would be made up of the heaviest cavalry (for late medieval usually meaning a armored rider on an armored horse), the majority would be lancers, at least partly armored riders on unarmored horses, and the rest mounted archers or crossbowmen. There were also differences between organization for muster (who and what would be brought to the army with you according to your feudal obligations) vs. organization in the field. Banners were led by nobles and varied by the individual qualities of the leaders, who were chosen based on a combination of their aristocratic rank and their general renown among other nobles. Though morale was usually good, they could suddenly peel off at a moments notice.

Crusading Orders were organized along bureaucratic and linear lines a lot like modern armies, including officers and noncommissioned officers, structure for logistics and so on. Rank was by merit, with senior leadership being elected from within the Order. This was also the case with the more highly organized mercenary companies such as the Swiss, some if not all of the Condottieri, and the Landsknechts you see appearing toward the very end of the medieval period. The Crusading Orders had specific terminology for every rank and position. They were often integrated with aristocratic heavy cavalry when in the field.

Mercenary Companies ranged from loose to highly organized and bureaucratic often had elected leaders north of the Alps, or noblemen / strongmen in places like Italy. in the field they would be grouped into different blocks, the Swiss for example had a very specific pattern they used of 3 blocks, and then smaller groups called forlorn hopes, often consisting of gunners, marksmen or skirmishers. Each group would have a commander and subordinates.

Princely armies were usually a combination of a heavy cavalry force with some infantry, the former being personal vassals of the prince, the latter being typically either clan armies, town militia or mercenary companies, or sometimes peasant levies. Though princely armies were well organized, the prince always had a formidable bodyguard of his own and this would sometimes have to be deployed and led by the prince himself. Very powerful princes (kings) were sometimes considered too important to risk in combat and often appointed a separate commander for the army.

Town militias were organized into separate cavalry and infantry wings, with additional contingents for artillery and siege equipment and so on. They were typically very well supplied and equipped with lots of special gear and specialist artisans (carpenters, blacksmiths and so on) tapping on the towns skilled labor resources. Cavalry would be organized much like a princely army, with leaders appointed by the town council, and often including burgomeisters and town councilmen among their ranks (notably there was a high casualty rate among these men). Infantry was organized mostly from the craft artisans and was organized by lane, with a lane captain, and quarter, with a quarter captain. Each lane may be a row in the square or column, and may also correspond to a different guild (since the streets were often grouped by craft). So you might have a column of butchers next to a column of weavers and so on. They also had bureaucratic organization for supplies and had a quartermaster for each quarter in charge of logistics. Discipline was usually strict and pretty good but the armies could also vote to remove a captain or return to the city if they didn't like how things were going (which often happened when they were fighting for princes).


At least in the simplified version of knighthood, paiges and squires have a guaranteed promotion scheme to turn them into knights, while Serjeants-at-arms do not.

I'm sure Serjeants did get promoted to men-at-arms and even knights on occasion.

A sergeant or a man at arms often meant just a knight who was equipped by their Lord instead of owning their own stuff (especially the horse which was the most expensive thing). Often these were serf-knights or unfree knights.

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




The whole concept of knights as a special thing is kind of dubious for most of the medieval period. It probably developed towards the end of the 12th century. "Norman Knights" are often mentioned in English sources but what we think of as a knight is probably a post-Norman period concept.

Knights as we understand them probably existed at some point, but where and when is hard to pin down. That the categories be blurred is more the norm. One extreme possibility is that knighthood didn't really exist until after so called knights stopped being a battlefield role completely.

Knight also just means 'servant' (though most non-English translations of it actually mean horsemen).

You are confusing the German word 'knecht' which is the original (very old) root for the English knight, with the concept of a knight itself. Knights are a slippery and complex subject but not quite as opaque as you are saying here, at least for the high to late medieval periods. The German term for a knight was a ritter (rider)



That units keep inappropriate names as their roles change is a rule but how common simple descriptive titles like archer was inaccurate I have no idea.

Then there are situations like archers drawing their swords and charging into combat which don't actually represent a job change, just a tactical instance. Sometimes that kind of oddity becomes a new norm, for example with the (well after the medieval period) British Heavy Dragoons whose name implies they're musketmen but usually functioned as lance armed shock cavalry.

Swords were sidearms for basically everybody. The lance was the main weapon of the knight, the pike or halberd for the infantry, the bow, crossbow or firearm for the marksmen, but they all had swords (or some close equivalent, like a messer or a falchion) for backup.




Plenty of cavalry units fought primarily as infantry, German men-at-arms and ritters being an example in some periods.

That was actually pretty rare except for the English.

G

[fusilier]

Plenty of cavalry units fought primarily as infantry, German men-at-arms and ritters being an example in some periods.

Yeah, I think we're in basic agreement about most of these things. Probably looking at things from different perspectives. Terms also evolved over time -- "dragoons" is a good example. At some point dragoons were mounted troops that were supposed to dismount to skirmish with firearms, but from an early point they may have been expected to be *able* to fight from horseback. By the 18th century they were often just straight up cavalry -- but not always.

I like to distinguish between units that were intended to fight on horseback (cavalry), and units that were mounted for strategic mobility (mounted/mounted infantry). However, the distinction could absolutely be blurred. Sometimes forces that were probably intended to be more like mounted infantry, might be used for patrolling and raiding on horseback -- taking a light cavalry role, at more of the strategic level. Even if in a pitched battle they would most likely be dismounted.

I do get the feeling that a sergeant was supposed to become a full man-at-arms in the Italian lance, with a page or squire being at an even earlier stage of process. Although limited resources may have prevented this (by the mid-15th century, a full man-at-arms was very heavily armored as was his horse).

[fusilier]

Plenty of cavalry units fought primarily as infantry, German men-at-arms and ritters being an example in some periods.

Also, Italian men-at-arms sometimes did this as a ploy. The defeat of the Swiss pike/halberd squares at Arbedo was accomplished by dismounting the men-at-arms and having them attack on foot using their lances as pikes. I believe this goes back to some tactics developed during the 14th century in the Hundred Years War.

During sieges it was common to dismount the men-at-arms, when using them in an assault (although I seem to recall one instance where French men-at-arms refused to do so, it being beneath their dignity -- so they sat out the assault completely).

[Incanur]

As far as French mounted archers go, at least according to regulations even into the 16th century they were supposed to have crossbows or bows and be able to shoot them mounted or dismounted. It's unclear whether they actually did, but there are some accounts of French mounted archers using their bows/crossbows in the Italian Wars. Mounted crossbowers appear in some circa 1500-artwork, so it's quite possible some or many of archers of the ordonnances did wield their bow/crossbow from the saddle.

[rs2excelsior]

About 20% of each formation would be made up of the heaviest cavalry (for late medieval usually meaning a armored rider on an armored horse), the majority would be lancers, at least partly armored riders on unarmored horses, and the rest mounted archers or crossbowmen.

Would the fully armored cavalry be split off into its own formation, or would the heavy cavalry and somewhat less armored lancers be used in one large mass? It seems like the extra lancers could add impetus to a charge by the fully armored cavalry, but at the same time, a larger number of slightly more mobile horse backed up by the shock cavalry makes sense, too.

You also make mention of "unfree" knights. How would one come into that position? Would these be knights or descendants of knights who could no longer afford armor/a horse, or servants promoted to that position? How would the number of serf-knights compare to those of free (presumably land-owning) knights?

And yes, I understand that all of these things probably varied quite a bit over time and space, and any answer that'll fit here will probably be a tremendous oversimplification, but I wondered if there was any overall pattern.

[Straybow]

I've kind of lost track of what your original point was, but you seem to be a bit confused in general about swords. Here are some more data points for clarity. Ok, well, my original point was SowZ' contention (that that only the "few ounces" of blade at the point of impact mattered for cutting) is a very poor understanding of physics. Unless he really meant "slashing lightly without much force," as might be expected for rapier-style fighting. Or from students who haven't trained to hit hard.

I'm aware that the primary "safeness" of the feder is the rounded and flared tip and the flex in the thrust. Both can be accomplished with a wide blade. The narrow, lighter blade is less suited to delivering a powerful cleaving blow, even if the overall weight is equal or a little greater. The closer the center of mass to the point of impact, the greater the impact; hence the design of hammers and axes. The closer to the hands, the weaker the impact, for the same driving force and weight. It's just the facts.

Many blunt practice swords are made sturdier than combat weapons. They can take more abuse that way, and help the student develop strength. Reproduction blunts that are the weight and balance of a "real" sword should still hit distinctly harder than a narrow feder of similar weight, because the center of mass is further out from the hilt. HEMA guys generally don't do full contact bouts with these without some serious plate armor.

And, as you've probly noticed, lots of blows in tournaments are struck with poor alignment and you see the whippiness of the feders. I would expect more of that in less skilled hands in the training hall. There would be less of that with wider blades. The wider the section, the more the difference in feel between edge-aligned handling and off-aligned handling. It's kinda self-correcting.

[Closet_Skeleton]

You are confusing the German word 'knecht' which is the original (very old) root for the English knight, with the concept of a knight itself.

No I'm not, I don't know how you're interpreting that from my post.

Chevalier (french) and Knight (English) are translations of each other but their etymologies are not. Ritter (German) and Chevalier (french) are translations and their etymologies are translations. Knight (english) and Knecht (german) are not translations but their etymologies are. Knight and sergeant are similar roles whose etymologies have similar meanings.

Knights were originally servants, that's why they have that name. Knight as a special status thing comes from after the Crusades started and wasn't developed yet in 1066.


Swords were sidearms for basically everybody.

I thought that was implicit in what I was saying. Though I'm not sure if this is supposed to be you disagreeing with me or just elaborating on my point.


Would the fully armored cavalry be split off into its own formation, or would the heavy cavalry and somewhat less armored lancers be used in one large mass? It seems like the extra lancers could add impetus to a charge by the fully armored cavalry, but at the same time, a larger number of slightly more mobile horse backed up by the shock cavalry makes sense, too.

Mixed formations certainly existed. This is probably more of a tactical question than one of procedure.

The 17th century Polish Hussaria tended to only have one or two ranks of actual lancers despite them all being reasonably heavily armoured. I don't know if earlier heavy cavalry worked in a similar way.

Shock cavalry still have to be very highly mobile, they'd be slower than light cavalry but wouldn't always fight that differently. Cavalry charges are more about timing and manoeuvring than brute force. Sometimes heavy cavalry were basically wasted and forced to fight like slower light cavalry.

Light and heavy cavalry aren't always the most useful terms. One era's light cavalry might be another era's heavy cavalry. Sometimes its weapons, sometimes its armour and other times its the breed of horse that determines cavalry 'weight'.Bronze age chariots were the ancestor of light cavalry but basically the heaviest 'cavalry-like' unit. The 15th century German Reiter might be wearing articulated plate better than any medieval knight would have had access to but been forced into a harassment role with his pistols due to the prevalence of pike formations.

[PersonMan]

What sort of formations would make sense for a country using a mix of conscript/city militia troops armed with spears and large shields? Technology level is roughly that of 1000, with some anachronisms (crossbows, a few examples of articulated plate armor, etc.).

I was mostly thinking of something other than a pike square-esque shape (as I've been planning on having that kind of formation be utilized by a specific faction in the setting), but wasn't sure what sort of formation to use.

[Carl]

I was mostly thinking of something other than a pike square-esque shape (as I've been planning on having that kind of formation be utilized by a specific faction in the setting), but wasn't sure what sort of formation to use.

Unless the spears are very short various pike esque formations are virtually always going to be the best use thereof. And if the spears are that short then a sword, an axe, a mace, a hammer, or whatever is probably going to be superior.

[Mendicant]

What sort of formations would make sense for a country using a mix of conscript/city militia troops armed with spears and large shields? Technology level is roughly that of 1000, with some anachronisms (crossbows, a few examples of articulated plate armor, etc.).

I was mostly thinking of something other than a pike square-esque shape (as I've been planning on having that kind of formation be utilized by a specific faction in the setting), but wasn't sure what sort of formation to use.

A militia army armed with spears and shields sounds a lot like a hoplite formation, and depending on what kind of enemy they're typically fighting might benefit from a diagonal heavy-right or heavy-left arrangement such as what the Thebans used at Leuctra (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_formation). If the army is made up of mostly conscripts or militia with a much smaller core of elite troops, you can use the elites as a maneuver element that's supported by a massive wing, while the weaker wing and center pull back a bit and avoid getting into combat. This isn't a great tactic if your enemy is highly mobile though.

[rs2excelsior]

Shock cavalry still have to be very highly mobile, they'd be slower than light cavalry but wouldn't always fight that differently. Cavalry charges are more about timing and manoeuvring than brute force. Sometimes heavy cavalry were basically wasted and forced to fight like slower light cavalry.

Light and heavy cavalry aren't always the most useful terms. One era's light cavalry might be another era's heavy cavalry. Sometimes its weapons, sometimes its armour and other times its the breed of horse that determines cavalry 'weight'.Bronze age chariots were the ancestor of light cavalry but basically the heaviest 'cavalry-like' unit. The 15th century German Reiter might be wearing articulated plate better than any medieval knight would have had access to but been forced into a harassment role with his pistols due to the prevalence of pike formations.

Well, obviously. The whole point of cavalry is maneuverability (otherwise you don't put them on a horse), and I know that weapons and armor changed. I was just using the term "heavy" to differentiate men on armored horses from those on unarmored ones :smallannoyed:


What sort of formations would make sense for a country using a mix of conscript/city militia troops armed with spears and large shields? Technology level is roughly that of 1000, with some anachronisms (crossbows, a few examples of articulated plate armor, etc.).

I was mostly thinking of something other than a pike square-esque shape (as I've been planning on having that kind of formation be utilized by a specific faction in the setting), but wasn't sure what sort of formation to use.

Pike squares.

The biggest advantage of a spear is that you can poke someone at a distance, and a shield allows you to cover yourself and the people next to you. If you have a lone spearman and someone with a sword or an axe manages to get in close, the spearman can't really respond, so it helps to have another guy behind you with another spear, and a couple of people next to you to make a shield wall.

Combine that with the morale effect. With militias and especially conscripts, the dense formation will help them keep their nerve, since we're probably talking about mostly inexperienced soldiers (and in any case, not professional soldiers--even if Fred the Baker has seen a couple of fights, he's still a baker first and a soldier second and probably really wants to get back to baking rather than fighting). Put the more experienced men on the front and back ranks, and the green troops in the middle are less likely to balk. Granted, that means your experienced men in the front take higher casualties... That said, the dense formation and inexperienced troops also means you'll have difficulty maneuvering over rough terrain or moving very quickly.

It doesn't have to be a square, though. Ancient Greek citizen-militias generally fought in about eight-rank-deep lines (at least, I think that's the general consensus, it's hard to tell exactly how they fought). An unwieldy formation, to be sure, but effective in combat.

Really, though, the pike square/phalanx or some variation thereof has been the general formation throughout history for spear-armed troops for a reason--it works.

[Yukitsu]

What sort of formations would make sense for a country using a mix of conscript/city militia troops armed with spears and large shields? Technology level is roughly that of 1000, with some anachronisms (crossbows, a few examples of articulated plate armor, etc.).

I was mostly thinking of something other than a pike square-esque shape (as I've been planning on having that kind of formation be utilized by a specific faction in the setting), but wasn't sure what sort of formation to use.

During that era, cavalry was king. Infantry weren't well enough trained due to the lack of large national institutions willing to drill a large conscript or militia force since that took them out of the field or mines or lumbermills depending on the season. They would have fought as more or less a mob of men that may or may not be able to maintain good enough order to maintain their shield wall, but would be unlikely to maintain it while manuevering, and their spears would be too short to let them fend off cavalry easily.

The formation I would arguably use is a large, loose line of spears with multiple ranks of crossbows in front that can fall back behind the spears as necessary, though this force could be routed by a superior force of articulated plate armour knights and would get completely wrecked by a force of long bows.

[Carl]

During that era, cavalry was king. Infantry weren't well enough trained due to the lack of large national institutions willing to drill a large conscript or militia force since that took them out of the field or mines or lumbermills depending on the season. They would have fought as more or less a mob of men that may or may not be able to maintain good enough order to maintain their shield wall, but would be unlikely to maintain it while manuevering, and their spears would be too short to let them fend off cavalry easily.

COunter examples coming in in 3...2...1...

[Yukitsu]

COunter examples coming in in 3...2...1...

China is the best counterexample of that period, but I don't know enough about their armies to make a guess as to how they otherwise functioned, and articulated plate definitely makes me assume a European style setting. During that era, well equipped and well drilled men at arms were expensive enough that it was worth investing in a horse for them. In some battles, those sorts would fight dismounted, but that would usually be for terrain or because the knights in that side were so poorly disciplined that they couldn't maintain a battle line while mounted, they'd just charge into the enemy.

[MrZJunior]

The Byzantine army was also very well drilled during that period.

[Spiryt]

The 17th century Polish Hussaria tended to only have one or two ranks of actual lancers despite them all being reasonably heavily armoured. I don't know if earlier heavy cavalry worked in a similar way.
.

Hmmm, do you have any sources for that?

I don't think there really are any, so it's all kind of a guess.

In theory at least, during the reign of Istvan Bathory, all Polish-Lithuanian formation got unified - so there were no more shooters, lighter riders in Hussar formations, nor Hussars in shooter formations (which were mostly abandoned during those times as well).

[VoxRationis]

What sort of formations would make sense for a country using a mix of conscript/city militia troops armed with spears and large shields? Technology level is roughly that of 1000, with some anachronisms (crossbows, a few examples of articulated plate armor, etc.).

I was mostly thinking of something other than a pike square-esque shape (as I've been planning on having that kind of formation be utilized by a specific faction in the setting), but wasn't sure what sort of formation to use.

Well, it needn't be square, but the natural conclusion is some sort of dense formation with the men lining shield to shield and projecting their spears forward. The Greek phalanx is the most obvious, because the force you've described are exactly like hoplites. If the spears are shorter, the formation is going to end up looking more like a Germanic shield wall, but the idea is similar.

Edit: The appearance of plate armor and crossbows implies a more developed infrastructure and technological base than Europe in AD 1000, as both are highly involved items to make which demand a great degree of skill and knowledge. It probably means you'll be able to have well-disciplined mass infantry formations capable of fending off cavalry, since you're recruiting from larger cities rather than a mass of tiny villages.

[Carl]

China is the best counterexample of that period, but I don't know enough about their armies to make a guess as to how they otherwise functioned, and articulated plate definitely makes me assume a European style setting. During that era, well equipped and well drilled men at arms were expensive enough that it was worth investing in a horse for them. In some battles, those sorts would fight dismounted, but that would usually be for terrain or because the knights in that side were so poorly disciplined that they couldn't maintain a battle line while mounted, they'd just charge into the enemy.

Greeks and Romans mayhaps?

The tech level he's describing isn't in many respects very far ahead of that period. For that matter i'm pretty sure past discussions have covered examples from the 1,000 AD period too, though details escape me.

Well trained militaries aren't a factor of time period or tech level, they're a factor of the underlying society structure.



But yeah as countless people have noted including myself you can't really have that equipment mix and not get formations that approximate the same general functionality concepts of pike squares even if they have differences of one form or another. In fact i'd go so far as to say given examples set again heavily by greek and roman forces in the classical period that there's a limit to how big a difference you can have in skill levels. Well trained and disciplined troops are able to effectively defeat many times their own numbers in poorly trained and disciplined ones, so i'd argue any society that can't produce an effective pike like formation with that equipment mix is going to get creamed by a nation that can field full-on pike formations.

[Spiryt]

There's nothing about 'plate armor' or 'crossbow' suggesting necessity for any more developed infrastructure and so on.

Especially that those terms are rather broad.

Of course, plate armor in particular would be rather silly and out of place without all the steps that led to it. To the point it would be hard to explain how someone devised it in the first place.

And in reality of ~1000 Europe functional suit would indeed cost absolute fortune, and it probably wouldn't be nearly as easy to fit and tailor it properly.

Crossbows are way easier, powerful composite bows were being made for ages in relatively 'crude' conditions, so were all simple machines used to span them. Something like cranequin would of course be way more out of place.

So in general, you can introduce 'anachronistic' stuff, but you have to be careful if you don't wan it to feel rather out of place.

[Kiero]

Yeah, I think we're in basic agreement about most of these things. Probably looking at things from different perspectives. Terms also evolved over time -- "dragoons" is a good example. At some point dragoons were mounted troops that were supposed to dismount to skirmish with firearms, but from an early point they may have been expected to be *able* to fight from horseback. By the 18th century they were often just straight up cavalry -- but not always.

I like to distinguish between units that were intended to fight on horseback (cavalry), and units that were mounted for strategic mobility (mounted/mounted infantry). However, the distinction could absolutely be blurred. Sometimes forces that were probably intended to be more like mounted infantry, might be used for patrolling and raiding on horseback -- taking a light cavalry role, at more of the strategic level. Even if in a pitched battle they would most likely be dismounted.


One of the reasons for the shift of dragoons from mounted infantry to cavalry was a tawdry one: dragoons were paid less than cavalry. Reason being their original function in the 17th century was that of "mounted labourers" (in Gustavus Adolphus' army that made much use of them); versatile troops who could be engaged doing all the necessary, but often menial tasks that aristocratic cavalrymen though they were too good to do. Notable that one of their standard pieces of equipment was an axe, probably of the sort pioneers used for clearing trails, felling trees, breaching fortifications and so on.

So unsurprisingly, dragoons, being commoners, were paid a lot less than true cavalry of the time. Over time many dragoons were "upgraded" to cavalry units (but not cavalry pay) and by the time you hit the 19th century many of the cavalry units are starting to be phased out in favour of cheaper dragoons.


Well, it needn't be square, but the natural conclusion is some sort of dense formation with the men lining shield to shield and projecting their spears forward. The Greek phalanx is the most obvious, because the force you've described are exactly like hoplites. If the spears are shorter, the formation is going to end up looking more like a Germanic shield wall, but the idea is similar.

For absolute clarity, the Greek hoplite phalanx used a spear which was around 8' long (the doru) and a large shield (the aspis). This wasn't as densely packed as the Macedonian pike phalanx, which used 15' to 21' pikes (the sarissa) and smaller shields strapped to the shoulder or upper arm.

[VoxRationis]

I have another rowing question. Does anyone know how East Asian ships were rowed? I see few mentions of them in any of the books or resources I have, and the few visuals I've seen either neglect propulsion entirely (because they're old paintings and they apparently didn't care about that sort of thing) or show an improbable-seeming setup with near-vertical oars. As strange as this seems by its own, another source I have claims the Korean turtle ship's oars were rowed by eight men apiece, which would be difficult considering how upright the oars were. So how would an atakebune or panokseon be rowed? Does anyone know anything about this?

[fusilier]

What sort of formations would make sense for a country using a mix of conscript/city militia troops armed with spears and large shields? Technology level is roughly that of 1000, with some anachronisms (crossbows, a few examples of articulated plate armor, etc.).

I was mostly thinking of something other than a pike square-esque shape (as I've been planning on having that kind of formation be utilized by a specific faction in the setting), but wasn't sure what sort of formation to use.

Pikes, or long spears at least, had been used for a long time before the introduction of swiss pike squares/columns. While I don't think they were universal, there were places/periods where they were common.

The tactic was to form the infantry in deep lines with large shields (pavises) and the pikemen providing defense for all the infantry. They could also be used to provide cover for the cavalry when they needed to reform. These formations were, however, very static. Although, I should emphasize that pikemen were not totally static, just slow moving by later standards.

Moving a line coherently is a tricky process and often slow, it gets worse the longer the line becomes. Deeper formations like squares/columns can be moved more quickly -- this fact was exploited by the French in the late 18th century, mixing experienced troops in line with less experienced troops in columns. The Swiss used deep columns/squares of pikemen, and surprised everybody with their mobility. The fact that "pikes" were being used before the remarkable successes of the Swiss can be observed by the language used: around 1500, you see many reports, not of militia being trained to use pikes, but of militia being trained to use pikes "in the Swiss manner".

So, if using large shields and long spears, in a "pre-Swiss" pike era, then dense lines four or so ranks deep with the other infantry mixed in (where they can be shielded by the pikes and shields), is reasonable solution. The whole formation would probably maneuver pretty slowly on the field. The description of the Hungarian Black Army, showed that men armed with swords and shields, would rush out of these formations, conducting like a battlefield raid, then retreat to back the safety of the pavises and long spears, when the enemy responded.

Otherwise, they make a good cover for a core unit of cavalry. Examples in the Middle Ages, like the Battle of Legnano show that well managed infantry could stand up to cavalry -- however, even at that battle there was a core of cavalry that was able to take cover behind the infantry when necessary, and sally forward to take advantage of specific situations.

[Galloglaich]

Mounted crossbowers appear in some circa 1500-artwork, so it's quite possible some or many of archers of the ordonnances did wield their bow/crossbow from the saddle.

That's a pretty silly statement. There are hundreds of images of mounted crossbowmen from as early as the 13th Century, I've posted dozens myself (mostly 15th Century) in various incarnations of this thread over the years, quite a few that you have commented on. Is your memory fading?

Talhoffer devotes a section on dealing with mounted crossbowmen at close quarters in 2 different versions of his fechtbuch, and the Diebold Schilling chronicles of the various Swiss towns alone have hundreds of images of mounted crossbowmen in action, all from works published between 1460 and 1480.

There are also of course numerous anecdotes and records describing mounted crossbowmen in combat, from Spain to Poland and back, between the 14th and 15th Centuries.

Just one of many examples from Talhoffer, showing you how to parry a lance while shooting the lancer in the chest.

https://img.ie/bavzw.jpg

So yeah I think it's pretty well established that mounted crossbowmen did shoot from the saddle in the medieval period. Mounted archers did as well, not just on the Eurasian steppe but in Europe, even in the British Isles. The only question still remaining about crossbowmen is did they span their weapons while on horseback; I think there is considerable evidence that they did but it's not really proven yet.

G

[Galloglaich]

Would the fully armored cavalry be split off into its own formation, or would the heavy cavalry and somewhat less armored lancers be used in one large mass? It seems like the extra lancers could add impetus to a charge by the fully armored cavalry, but at the same time, a larger number of slightly more mobile horse backed up by the shock cavalry makes sense, too.

There appears to have been no fixed rule. In some cases there was a mix of infantry and cavalry in the 'lance' as summoned for the muster, but then the cavalry kept aloof and the infantry joined the ranks (notably in France and in some cases in Burgundian records). In some cases the lance seems to have operated as deployed, including occasionally special infantry called 'trabant' who would accompany the knight or heavy lancer on foot, as you see in this famous Durer painting Ritter und Landsknecht

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/D%C3%BCrer_-_Ritter_und_Landsknecht.jpg

Most often the various forms of cavalry (light and heavy lancers, and mounted archers or crossbowmen) seems to have been grouped together in smaller armies, but in large armies a lot of times the heavy cavalry would fight in one big block.



You also make mention of "unfree" knights. How would one come into that position? Would these be knights or descendants of knights who could no longer afford armor/a horse, or servants promoted to that position? How would the number of serf-knights compare to those of free (presumably land-owning) knights?

I don't mean to be rude but I posted a link to the wiki which explains it. They were serfs who were given the status of knighthood, but only as servants of a specific Lord (or sometimes a town or a Church property like an abbey). Over many generations they gradually became part of the lower nobility. In Germany they were called Ministeriales but there appear to have been similar phenomenon all over Europe. I think this is actually what many 'sergeants' and 'men-at-arms' were.



And yes, I understand that all of these things probably varied quite a bit over time and space, and any answer that'll fit here will probably be a tremendous oversimplification, but I wondered if there was any overall pattern.

Right, it's hard to generalize - it's much easier to make sense of it if you kind of divide Europe into different regions, like France, the Iberian Peninsula, the British Isles, the North sea and Baltic zones, the Alpine Zone, Italy, and the Balkans. And Byzantium and Russia too.

And then subdivide by early, Carolingian, High, and Late medieval periods.

I know it seems like too many categories but you are going to have a much better and easier time making sense of medieval Europe if you approach it that way.

G

[Incanur]

That's a pretty silly statement. There are hundreds of images of mounted crossbowmen from as early as the 13th Century, I've posted dozens myself (mostly 15th Century) in various incarnations of this thread over the years, quite a few that you have commented on. Is your memory fading?

So aggressive! :smallamused: That's appropriate for many fencing styles but not so much for this forum. Of course I'm aware of the history of mounted crossbowers in Europe, much of it visual, some of it textual. It's the role of the archers of the ordonnances that isn't clear. They're often described by historians and enthusiasts as second-class men-at-arms, lancers, or what not. I was pointing out that there's some evidence they may have actually operated as mounted archers/crossbowers at least at times, as in the unambiguous depictions in various 15th- and 16th-century illustrations. (On the other hands, some folks don't trust illustrations.) There's also evidence that ordonnance archers dismounted to shoot; it's likely they fought difference ways depending on the circumstances and/or the exact time period.


There are also of course numerous anecdotes and records describing mounted crossbowmen in combat, from Spain to Poland and back, between the 14th and 15th Centuries.

And earlier, back to the 13th century (https://books.google.com/books?id=dvTyDyt-Ru4C&dq) at least.


The only question still remaining about crossbowmen is did they span their weapons while on horseback; I think there is considerable evidence that they did but it's not really proven yet.

Sir John Smythe expected the mounted crossbowers he wanted for his ideal army to span from the saddle, using gaffles (goat's-foot levers). Of course, that was well after the widespread use of mounted crossbowers. That's just the first thing that springs to mind; I image there's other evidence for it.

[Galloglaich]

Ok, well, my original point was SowZ' contention (that that only the "few ounces" of blade at the point of impact mattered for cutting) is a very poor understanding of physics. Unless he really meant "slashing lightly without much force," as might be expected for rapier-style fighting. Or from students who haven't trained to hit hard.

"Trained to hit hard" sounds like you are training to use impact weapons, not blades. For blades you have to learn to cut which is a very different mechanic than a 'hit', and to thrust.


I'm aware that the primary "safeness" of the feder is the rounded and flared tip and the flex in the thrust. Both can be accomplished with a wide blade. The narrow, lighter blade is less suited to delivering a powerful cleaving blow, even if the overall weight is equal or a little greater. The closer the center of mass to the point of impact, the greater the impact; hence the design of hammers and axes. The closer to the hands, the weaker the impact, for the same driving force and weight. It's just the facts.

Yes this is definitely true for hammers, but very generally speaking, European swords typically had a balance point close to the cross or hilt, for balance and because impact isn't the main goal with a blade, cutting is. Blades make very poor hammers.



HEMA guys generally don't do full contact bouts with these without some serious plate armor.
And, as you've probly noticed, lots of blows in tournaments are struck with poor alignment and you see the whippiness of the feders.

I've tried to explain this a couple of times, the only feders I know of which are whippy are those Hanwei feders and nobody uses those for tournaments. The Regenyei, Ensifer etc. that people actually use these days are pretty formidable, heavy weapons and they don't bend unless you thrust hard into something. Frankly this is partly an adaption to the fencing masks and jackets we wear now that they apparently didn't wear back in the day so it's not really historical. They are adapted for the modern tournament scene.

But they are not what you are describing. I don't think you really know what a HEMA tournament is like, you might want to actually attend one one day to see for yourself. These aren't the dainty blades you seem to be thinking about, nor is the fencing light or easy

https://youtu.be/esI1fIAHNgY?list=PLEL8eO2v3Ew4IlQiHOqXWXiGov6-9A_JX&t=15


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8a/8f/19/8a8f194128b4bcb15df3b66864af0f14.jpg

Feders do tend to be a bit narrower than most antique sharps but antique sharps aren't usually that thick in the cross section either.

For example

http://www.zornhau.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/zef-waffen/zornhau-zef-7-gross.jpg

http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/Zornhau-ZEF-6-gross.jpg




I would expect more of that in less skilled hands in the training hall. There would be less of that with wider blades. The wider the section, the more the difference in feel between edge-aligned handling and off-aligned handling. It's kinda self-correcting.

All swords bend, actually wider swords tend to bend more - sharps bend, antiques bend, if they didn't they would break. This is why, once they had developed the technology for it, they always used tempered (spring) steel to make swords instead of hardened steel.

G

[Galloglaich]

Sir John Smythe expected the mounted crossbowers he wanted for his ideal army to span from the saddle, using gaffles (goat's-foot levers). Of course, that was well after the widespread use of mounted crossbowers. That's just the first thing that springs to mind; I image there's other evidence for it.

There is, but there is also evidence of them dismounting and fighting like dragoons. Gaffle and similar spanners, I suspect, were part of what made this possible. It's debatable but they probably used the more complex cranequin's as well.

The reality is practice probably varied across Europe, but in the places where crossbows were most popular (Spain, Poland, parts of Italy, Germany, Bohemia and so on) they probably did the whole nine yards for a while, until they were replaced by mounted gunners.

G

[Brother Oni]

The Byzantine army was also very well drilled during that period.

As were the Saxon huscarls which made up the elite core of their armies (it was the lesser trained militias who broke formation at Hastings that resulted in the loss of the shield wall leading to their defeat and subsequent conquering by the Normans).

[Mr. Mask]

I started a thread discussing how to justify technological (and social, and whatever) anachronism. I thought I'd mention as some people here might be interested in discussing it, and because I wanted to extend the question to here.

What's a good way to justify a really mixed bag of technologies? Some of this seemed to occur in Europe as is, but what's a good way to amplify it?

[Brother Oni]

What's a good way to justify a really mixed bag of technologies? Some of this seemed to occur in Europe as is, but what's a good way to amplify it?

The default setting I've seen is a post apocalyptic world, society is starting to re-build and are finding ruins of previous civilisations and caches of previously lost technology.

Another would be a first contact situation with a highly advanced civilisation, alien or otherwise:

The more aggressive scenario would have the the more advanced civilisation attempting to conquer the less advanced one (your other thread mentioned the Conquistadors in South America) with the defending society fighting back by stealing/reverse engineering technology (the X-Com games are a good example of this).

A more peaceful scenario would be post first contact with the aforementioned civilisation, but during the integration/uplifting process or the process is having problems with a conservative culture being stubborn or slow to change. Surprisingly the anime Gintama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_Tama) is a good example of this with aliens discovering Earth during the Tokugawa era, so since civilian weapon ownership was banned, you have Edo samurai with the daisho (as it was a status symbol) walking along dirt streets with traditional shops advertise with electric neon signs while alien VTOL spacecraft fly overhead.

[snowblizz]

I have another rowing question. Does anyone know how East Asian ships were rowed? I see few mentions of them in any of the books or resources I have, and the few visuals I've seen either neglect propulsion entirely (because they're old paintings and they apparently didn't care about that sort of thing) or show an improbable-seeming setup with near-vertical oars. As strange as this seems by its own, another source I have claims the Korean turtle ship's oars were rowed by eight men apiece, which would be difficult considering how upright the oars were. So how would an atakebune or panokseon be rowed? Does anyone know anything about this?

I've read two Osprey books on the matter. The improbable seeming setup is indeed exactly what they did. The yaloh type oar set-up, which is very different to the western style. Much more vetical and operating on a screw principle. Think of a very elongated S type shape. So while "western" rowing has the oar draw a horisontal cylder in the air and water the yaloh way is more a vertical cylinder in motion. AFAICT. I'm probably not explaining it well.
That's how they can relatively easily add a large number of men to oars without ridiculusly long oars requiring wide spaces. Also they were standing up rowing (at least sometimes). Eg two guys on either side of the oar gives you 4 guys pulling/pushing taking the space of 2 sitting rowers. They also had paddle wheeled craft propelled by hand, well, foot as it were, very early on.

I can't find any links unfortunately, Internet insist I'm looking for Yale rowing or Yahoo... *grmble*

[VoxRationis]

I've read two Osprey books on the matter. The improbable seeming setup is indeed exactly what they did. The yaloh type oar set-up, which is very different to the western style. Much more vetical and operating on a screw principle. Think of a very elongated S type shape. So while "western" rowing has the oar draw a horisontal cylder in the air and water the yaloh way is more a vertical cylinder in motion. AFAICT. I'm probably not explaining it well.
That's how they can relatively easily add a large number of men to oars without ridiculusly long oars requiring wide spaces. Also they were standing up rowing (at least sometimes). Eg two guys on either side of the oar gives you 4 guys pulling/pushing taking the space of 2 sitting rowers. They also had paddle wheeled craft propelled by hand, well, foot as it were, very early on.

I can't find any links unfortunately, Internet insist I'm looking for Yale rowing or Yahoo... *grmble*

An elongated S shape?

[snowblizz]

An elongated S shape?

Ummm, yeah... how to explain... a normal oar is straight for the entirety of its length. The yaloh is not. It bends... twice... HA! Looks like simoid function basically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function

Blade at one end and rowed from the other. There's a bit to it about how it is attached and so on but I can really only refer to the two books. Osprey New Vanguard, Ships of the Far East parts 1 and 2.

[VoxRationis]

Looking at a picture of it, it doesn't look very efficient.

[SowZ]

Looking at a picture of it, it doesn't look very efficient.

It certainly has the advantage in saving space, though.

[Mr. Mask]

Had an amusing idea for fiction. The world suddenly becomes a poorly balanced video game. Armies have to adapt their weapons, constantly, as the inane devs accidentally or purposefully make swords ten times better, for "game balance" reasons.

Any thoughts on how military and criminals would adapt to this? I guess start up a lot of facilities dedicated to testing different kinds of weapons, constantly, and documenting and physics changes which have occurred.

[Dienekes]

Pikes, or long spears at least, had been used for a long time before the introduction of swiss pike squares/columns. While I don't think they were universal, there were places/periods where they were common.

The tactic was to form the infantry in deep lines with large shields (pavises) and the pikemen providing defense for all the infantry.

Minor quibble. Pavises were, as far as I'm aware, not a spear infantry shield. They were too big and unwieldy for melee combat. They were instead used as moveable pieces of cover for archers.

Spearman would use various round shields, hite shields, or maybe, depending on if the spear could be effectively used in 1 hand, something as big as a scutum. Pikeman or sarissa users often didn't have shields at all, or smaller shields strapped to their arms that allowed them to hold the spear with both hands when that was necessary.

[Mr. Mask]

Not sure if it's accurate, but I've seen pavise used for large man carried shields frequently, particularly for crossbowmen who would have someone hold up the shield or just lean it against their own back, as they reload.

[Spiryt]

Minor quibble. Pavises were, as far as I'm aware, not a spear infantry shield. They were too big and unwieldy for melee combat. They were instead used as moveable pieces of cover for archers.

Spearman would use various round shields, hite shields, or maybe, depending on if the spear could be effectively used in 1 hand, something as big as a scutum. Pikeman or sarissa users often didn't have shields at all, or smaller shields strapped to their arms that allowed them to hold the spear with both hands when that was necessary.

Pavises absolutely were infantry shield.

We have infantry records about pavises being used with all kinds of weapons.

We also have preserved pavises that aren't in any way too big or too heavy for 'normal' use. Some weren't heavier than scutum.

Many were, but such big shield is still perfectly usable.

[MrZJunior]

So what distinguishes a pavis from another type of shield? I always thought thst the distinctive feature of a pavis was being too large to be used as an effective personal shield.

[Mr. Mask]

Probably, simply that a lot of terms have a lot of meaning when referring to historical equipment. The distinctive feature of a pavise is that it is generally large as far as shields go. Maybe it's just a large shield, or maybe you have someone whose job is to hold up that shield, or maybe it takes several men to set it up for a siege as it's like a portable wall, or maybe you wheel it out like a siege-tool.

[Dienekes]

Pavises absolutely were infantry shield.

We have infantry records about pavises being used with all kinds of weapons.

We also have preserved pavises that aren't in any way too big or too heavy for 'normal' use. Some weren't heavier than scutum.

Many were, but such big shield is still perfectly usable.

Huh, I stand corrected. Thanks, Spiryt.

[Spiryt]

So what distinguishes a pavis from another type of shield? I always thought thst the distinctive feature of a pavis was being too large to be used as an effective personal shield.

From all I know, it was simply name for large shields of all kinds, or even shields in general.

Definition would be probably not shield large enough to be usable only as fortification, but rather large enough to be used as such - large dimensions, solid hold allowing two handed use as well etc.

[Kiero]

Spearman would use various round shields, hite shields, or maybe, depending on if the spear could be effectively used in 1 hand, something as big as a scutum. Pikeman or sarissa users often didn't have shields at all, or smaller shields strapped to their arms that allowed them to hold the spear with both hands when that was necessary.

Macedonian-style phalangites always had a shield strapped to arm/shoulder, though if the state was poor, it might only be the richer men in the front ranks who had them. The sarissa could only be used two-handed.

What allowed a dory to be used one-handed with a shield was the counterweight, the sauroter. It could also be a backup head if the shaft was broken.

[Spamotron]

I remember a book on arms any armor that I read many years ago that had a Pikeman behind a stationary Pavise that was planted into the ground with spikes very similar to a crossbowman's only bigger. Its been so long I don't remember the title of the book.

[Animastryfe]

Does anyone know anything about Chinese armour from the 14-17th centuries? I vaguely remember an anecdote gifted maille from Europe being highly prized in China during that time as an example of how European armour was "better" during that period.

Speaking of armour, when was the time when the standard infantry in a professional army was the best armoured before the invention of modern body armour? This could by in any location. My impression of the issue in Europe was that the ability and knowledge to make armour was much better in, for example, the 15th century than in the 11th century, but that a combination of issues, including more powerful firearms and the cost and weight of equipping soldiers with armour that can reliably withstand said firearms, made non-helmet body armour relatively obsolete until the last century. Thus, if the function of armour quality with respect to time is smooth, then there should be a time where infantry body armour was at its peak. By "best", I mean that the person equipped with the better armour should win against the person with the inferior armour when firearms are not involved.

[VoxRationis]

Does anyone know anything about Chinese armour from the 14-17th centuries? I vaguely remember an anecdote gifted maille from Europe being highly prized in China during that time as an example of how European armour was "better" during that period.

Speaking of armour, when was the time when the standard infantry in a professional army was the best armoured before the invention of modern body armour? This could by in any location. My impression of the issue in Europe was that the ability and knowledge to make armour was much better in, for example, the 15th century than in the 11th century, but that a combination of issues, including more powerful firearms and the cost and weight of equipping soldiers with armour that can reliably withstand said firearms, made non-helmet body armour relatively obsolete until the last century. Thus, if the function of armour quality with respect to time is smooth, then there should be a time where infantry body armour was at its peak. By "best", I mean that the person equipped with the better armour should win against the person with the inferior armour when firearms are not involved.

I'd guess about the 15th century, when munition plate was readily available for rank-and-file infantry but gunpowder weapons weren't quite powerful enough to penetrate armor readily.

[SowZ]

Very large shields were also a ceremonial dueling weapon for judicial combat which leveled the playing field between trained and untrained combatants.