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

[Mr. Mask]

Is there any military method to clear smoke from smoke grenades and such? I figure there isn't, but I was curious if anyone had been experimenting with methods (sounds less crazy than the tornado cannon).

[Galloglaich]

The absolute range of the projectile isn't important - the ability to aim it at that range is, and such weapons were not able to be well aimed. As for penetration, it's pretty trivial to get a firearm to penetrate steel armor of the thickness a person can wear. Penetration isn't important either.

Your suspicions are incorrect. They were probably inaccurate at anything beyond fairly short ranges - and they didn't need to be since they fired at masses of troops.



You don't actually know that they were difficult to aim. The volley gun in the video I posted is one of the first really close replicas they have actually started to systematically test. The widespread use of these weapons in the late medieval and early modern period belies your assumptions. But the truth is nobody really knows yet precisely how accurate they were.

If you really know so much about volley guns and their equivalent (ribaldequin etc.) then why don't you summarize their actual use in the field?



Who cares? Even the best plate armor was no more than a fairly thin sheet. This is why it rapidly disappeared. Penetrating steel armor is not really that hard with firearms. The same thing happened to tanks - it was much easier to make a round that would penetrate more RHA than it was to put more steel on a tank. Tank designers had the option of turning to materials like ceramics, composite armor, and depleted uranium instead but even then warheads eventually win the battle.

You are revealing your ignorance. Plate body armor remained in use for centuries, right alongside firearms. Enormous efforts were made in scaling up and improving firearms precisely so that they could penetrate body armor at beyond point-blank range. The earlier muskets were in fact designed precisely to be armor-piercing weapons and were large, very heavy and extremely powerful even by todays standards for this reason. It was only when personal body armor had begun to disappear from the battlefield (and decline in quality) that muskets began to decrease in size to the point that they could be used without an aiming stake.




I'm not interested in your personal suspicions, and no amount of fast to load will make them the equivalent of a Maxim gun, much less a modern machine gun. These weapons were extremely primitive attempts to make firearms do more damage without making them heavier to transport, and that's it.

Nobody claimed they were the direct equivalent of a maxim gun, that is your assertion, in fact all you are putting out here are your personal opinions.



If these medieval weapons were the equivalent of modern weapons you think they are, modern weapons wouldn't have been bothered with. These weapons were dispensed with in favor of cannon early on. They were basically terrible weapons, and have no modern equivalent because they're an evolutionary dead end.

As Carl already pointed out, you are incorrect.

G

[fusilier]

Oh really.

The various multi-barrel designs of WW1 and WW2 for AAA use are simply automatic feed volley guns and they only went away because revolver cannon and gatling guns can do nearly as well in an even more compact configuration.

Which designs are you referring to? I'm only aware of mitrailleuses -- some of which were used as late as WW1, but on very rare occasions as they were terribly outdated.

EDIT -- a Nordenfelt machine gun may be considered a kind of volley gun (if you ignore the single barrel variants), but they too were obsolete by WW1.

[Galloglaich]

Which designs are you referring to? I'm only aware of mitrailleuses -- some of which were used as late as WW1, but on very rare occasions as they were terribly outdated.

I think he means weapons like these

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E8MiqoxlWEE/UCq5ebOa3CI/AAAAAAAAHus/dZ9YleJqVOk/s1600/5757293091_e2d67994e0_b.jpg

and the type used on a lot of anti-aircraft cannon

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/28_mm_AA_gun.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/76/5a/29/765a290b79d78881a5af99d54f96ff2e.jpg

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg_pic.jpg

[Carl]

I'm talking about the bottom 3 where you could see anything from 4 to 8 guns mounted in one to two banks fed automatically. They're basically an evolution of the volley gun concept of using a lot of barrels of a modest calibre to get a higher rate of fire than a single gun.

[fusilier]

I think he means weapons like these


The first is a rotary cannon, those he excepted from the definition. Volley guns work as follows: all barrels are loaded, all barrels are fired, and then all are reloaded. A rotary machine gun, like the Hotchkiss one shown above, might have more than one barrel loaded at a time, but never all, and the primary benefit of multiple barrels is cooling, although volume of fire can also be increased (compare Gatling machine gun to the Agar machine gun).

The other guns might be considered volley guns, I think they could, but they don't show direct lineage or development from previous volley gun designs (unlike mitrailleuses and Nordenfelt guns). What they do share is an application of the same basic idea: grouping together multiple copies of the same weapon to make a single weapon.

The Spanish navy currently uses an AA gun that is more akin to traditional volley guns, capable of firing all barrels at once, the Meroka system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meroka_CIWS

Interest in volley guns never seemed to have died, until the development of automatic weapons. As several, but not all, early machine gun designs derive from volley guns, they did have an evolutionary impact on machine gun design, even if they volley guns were not popular themselves.

[fusilier]

I'm talking about the bottom 3 where you could see anything from 4 to 8 guns mounted in one to two banks fed automatically. They're basically an evolution of the volley gun concept of using a lot of barrels of a modest calibre to get a higher rate of fire than a single gun.

I didn't see this post until after I posted. I agree -- they are the application of the same concept.

[Galloglaich]

The other guns might be considered volley guns, I think they could, but they don't show direct lineage or development from previous volley gun designs (unlike mitrailleuses and Nordenfelt guns). What they do share is an application of the same basic idea: grouping together multiple copies of the same weapon to make a single weapon.

The Spanish navy currently uses an AA gun that is more akin to traditional volley guns, capable of firing all barrels at once, the Meroka system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meroka_CIWS

This is basically what I'm saying. It's an earlier (and cruder) incarnation of the same idea, but it's not nearly as crude as we had originally been told. Just like with all the earlier firearms, which according to the cliché did little more than make a loud noise. We know that was not the case.



Interest in volley guns never seemed to have died, until the development of automatic weapons. As several, but not all, early machine gun designs derive from volley guns, they did have an evolutionary impact on machine gun design, even if they volley guns were not popular themselves.

I agree except I think volley guns were much more popular than people have assumed. I don't have time to look it up but in one of the battles between Bruges and Ghent in the late 14th Century they deployed hundreds of volley guns. They seem to have been quite widespread in the Eastern side of Central Europe where they seem to have had a role against cavalry. When I have time I hope to do a lot more research on the subject, but I think it's one of those things where the cliché or trope has been wrong.

From what I have seen I think they were probably quite widespread at least into the mid 16th Century. Their man drawback was probably expense and the relatively high skill needed to use them (like with many early firearms and cannon, before things got well standardized).

G

[Roxxy]

Let's say I, for whatever reason, have a three barrel 16 inch naval gun turret in space, and I don't have artificial gravity. What has changed about the process necessary to operate the gun now that I have zero gravity and extreme temperatures?

[Carl]

Why limit yourself to piddly 16" :p.

More seriously a LOT has changed. First the gun barrels are gonna need a major redesign, letting them sit at the low temperatures possible in space isn't conductive to good solid working firing, and cooling them off afterwards is no easy feat either. Otherwise oddly both a lot and nothing. Many elements of the system that relied on gravity to hold something in place or reset something are going to need alternatives and redesign work, (electromagnets seem the obvious thing if your shells can handle it, and they should be able to). But once those problems are out of the way, not very much.

[Mike_G]

Let's say I, for whatever reason, have a three barrel 16 inch naval gun turret in space, and I don't have artificial gravity. What has changed about the process necessary to operate the gun now that I have zero gravity and extreme temperatures?

The temperature isn't an issue. Cooling may become an issue, since heat dissipates very very slowly in a vacuum. That would matter a lot for a machinegun, not so much for a naval gun.

Recoil is your biggest concern. Firing that weapon is going to move the weapon.

[Carl]

The temperature isn't an issue.

The kind of steels commonly used in large calibre cannon can and do become notoriously brittle in the extreme lows of earth temperatures. Which are balmy compared to the near absolute zero a weapon not in prolonged sunlight would see in space.

[Mike_G]

The kind of steels commonly used in large calibre cannon can and do become notoriously brittle in the extreme lows of earth temperatures. Which are balmy compared to the near absolute zero a weapon not in prolonged sunlight would see in space.

It's surrounded by vacuum, which is the best insulation in the world. Just the heat from any machinery to load and service the weapon will take forever to dissipate. This isn't the kind of gun that six guys in spacesuits can load like a Civil War cannon. there will be plenty of mechanized moving parts generating heat.

The biggest issue will be cooling the thing if you plan on any sustained firing.

[Carl]

Again though, first shot none of that's a factor. The gun when you first go to loading cycle start-up for the first slavo will be as cold as the ambient heat input from stellar objects, (virtually always sunlight as a practical matter), allows it, which could put it within a few degrees of absolute zero. Of course the difference between a heating and cooling system is much more a matter of entry vs exit temperature of the working fluid so anything capable of coling it for a sustained firing scenario would also be able to pre-heat it, (and your right, as i allready pointed out cooling it would almost certainly be required to do that).

[Storm Bringer]

Again though, first shot none of that's a factor. The gun when you first go to loading cycle start-up for the first slavo will be as cold as the ambient heat input from stellar objects, (virtually always sunlight as a practical matter), allows it, which could put it within a few degrees of absolute zero. Of course the difference between a heating and cooling system is much more a matter of entry vs exit temperature of the working fluid so anything capable of coling it for a sustained firing scenario would also be able to pre-heat it, (and your right, as i allready pointed out cooling it would almost certainly be required to do that).

bear in mind, if the ship mounting this turret is in LEO (or equivalent), then so long as its not in the shadow of the planet, its being exposed to the equivalent of the midday sun at equator.

the ISS has a sun-to-shade thermal range of something like 250-300 degrees kelvin. (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/), So a thermal control system is pretty much essential for a craft anyway.

as for medication for space use:

the turret would be entirely automated, compared to historical large caliber turrets. A Iowa triple gun turret had a crew of about 80-90 men. with modern tech, you would have No one in the turret, just a maintenance space for the techs to service the system. with the gunnery officer controlling all the turrets remotely. .

the turret (and the magazines, for that matter) would likely be kept in vacuum, or you would face air looses every time you open the breech.

A temperature control sleeve would need to either be built in to the barrel or (if this a conversation of a existing gun) as a sleeve around the barrel.

[Carl]

Well to be fair if your building something like this i can't see you using it just in LEO. but thats kinda besides the point. Then again if we're being totally fair i can't see why you'd build something like this period so w/e.

[Storm Bringer]

well, my point was that if this hypothetical gun armed ship anywhere in the inner system (for example, the habitable zone of a star, where the planet you are either going form to or to is most likely to be), then you are going to experience significant radiative heating in your ship, so your ship will need some method of controlling this. the Apollo craft just span slowly along their long axis, like meat on a rotisserie, to ensure equal thermal expansion. the ISS does not spin like this, so I assume it has some form of radiator system.

[Broken Crown]

Let's say I, for whatever reason, have a three barrel 16 inch naval gun turret in space, and I don't have artificial gravity. What has changed about the process necessary to operate the gun now that I have zero gravity and extreme temperatures?

As you say, avoiding extreme temperatures is going to be the most important issue. Keeping everything at a consistent temperature was already one of the major concerns regarding big naval guns in the Dreadnought Era, a hundred years ago, to minimize errors in fire control due to thermal expansion and the rate of combustion of propellant. The much wider range of temperatures in space, combined with the insulating effects of vacuum, will make these problems much worse. Putting a sunshade over your guns and turret is probably the simplest and lightest way to eliminate solar heating effects, but those aren't the only heating/cooling problems you'll have to deal with.

(It would require a lot of additional mechanical complexity to seal everything, but keeping the turret pressurized might actually be worthwhile as a way of regulating the temperature. Venting gas after firing would help in cooling the guns down; it would use up the gas, but you've only got a limited ammunition supply anyway.)

Rate of fire could be slightly higher in zero gravity: It would be easier to move the shells and propellant charges, and you could probably load the guns at any angle of elevation with only minor design changes. You would need to redesign the shell hoists to slow the shells down as you got them near the breach, in addition to lifting them from the magazines. Rate of fire could be constrained by the time it took to cool the guns between shots, rather than the time needed to reload (though I haven't run any numbers for this, so I'm just guessing).

A minor point: Turrets were traditionally kept in place by their weight. In a zero-gravity environment, they would tend to fall out of the ship unless they were somehow restrained.

Rotating and elevating the guns will cause the ship to rotate in the opposite direction. Gyro-stabilization could compensate for that, or you could just account for it in your navigation and fire control calculations. As mentioned, firing the guns will also move your ship.

As a final note, if you want to put a battleship in space (http://www.ourstarblazers.com/vault-images/_header-images/header-yamato-movie.jpg), you really should use the 460 mm Type 94 naval gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_cm/45_Type_94_naval_gun), rather than a 16-inch.

[Carl]

Rate of fire could be slightly higher in zero gravity: It would be easier to move the shells and propellant charges, and you could probably load the guns at any angle of elevation with only minor design changes. You would need to redesign the shell hoists to slow the shells down as you got them near the breach, in addition to lifting them from the magazines. Rate of fire could be constrained by the time it took to cool the guns between shots, rather than the time needed to reload (though I haven't run any numbers for this, so I'm just guessing).

Thing is redesigning the hoists to handle the momentum factors is in many cases fairly simple or very nearly so, redesigning them to handle a wider range of loading angles however is a complete ballache for various reasons. Old school BB's could have done it, but it would have added a lot of machine complexity and required a taller turret.

Also good catch on the heating effect on accuracy, (there's also the effect on the gun breach actually, the thing won't work if the range is out by too many degrees), totally missed that. I plead just about to go to bed/just having woken up as an excuse.

Also going from 16 to 18 inch guns won't make a huge difference, shell velocity is a bigger limit than the destructive power of the gun, in that respect having the 16" fire something like 8" sub calibre shells would go a long way to making them more effective. They'd still be garbage next to a half decent missile design, but they wouldn't be total lol levels of bad.

[Brother Oni]

Also going from 16 to 18 inch guns won't make a huge difference, shell velocity is a bigger limit than the destructive power of the gun, in that respect having the 16" fire something like 8" sub calibre shells would go a long way to making them more effective.

As the old joke goes, the difference between 'ooh' and 'aah!' is about 2 inches. :smalltongue:

All other things being equal, going up to 18" from 16" is ~27% increase in barrel calibre area, so an extra 27% area for propellant to push against, would suggest more force behind it.

Comparing the AP shell sizes and muzzle velocity of the Yamato's and Iowa class' guns, the Yamato clocks in at 1,460kg at 780 m/s compared to 1,225kg at 762m/s. Ignoring the HE content and comparing solely the KE, we have 444.1 MJ compared to 355.6 MJ, a difference of about 25%, which is a not insignificant difference.

That said, if you were firing kinetic penetrators in space, using railguns/coilguns to fire a 1kg projectile at significant values of c, would be more effective (a 1kg slug travelling at 0.1% c has a KE of 44.9 GJ), thus the only reason to use naval guns in space, barring technological limitations, would be to deliver HE or other shell variants. Naval HE shells don't appear to have much of a bursting charge though (61.7kg for the Yamato's Common Type 0 HE, 69.7kg for HC Mk 13), however the Iowa had a nuclear Mk23 shell with a 15-20 kiloton warhead (62.8 - 83.7 TJ if I've done my maths right), although aside from stealth firing, nuclear missiles would be more advantageous if we're heading into that territory.

[Galloglaich]

On the one hand, range would be unlimited and the initial velocity would never decrease. That makes 16 inch guns pretty damn scary. On the other hand, using up all that propellant and oxygen etc. on a spaceship seems really wasteful. How much oxygen would that use anway?

Gaussgun seems more efficient for obvious reasons. I'm not sure you need the mass of that projectile either. Is a small / ultra fast projectile just as dangerous in space as a large / fast one?

A 16 inch shell with onboard computer and some kind of xenon thrusters (or some kind of EM drive (http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-space-engine-nasa-test.html) if that sort of thing really works) that could change it's own heading in flight so to speak would be pretty scary too.

I wonder how much more velocity you might get shooting a firearm or cannon in a vacuum?

Whether or not using up gas etc. would really matter I guess would depend on what kind of spaceship, with what kind of propulsion (within the outer limits of known science or well beyond). If you had spaceships like in the Alien / Aliens universe, which took months or years to travel between star systems, I would think you would want to conserve as much as possible, whereas if you could travel between systems in minutes or hours like in Star Wars or Star Trek, you probably wouldn't care.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

Isn't most of the (rather substantial) energy used in say (just as a "random" example) the guns of the WW II Japanese superbattleship Yamato, needed simply to propel the projectile to a further range? The big contest between gun-firing ships being about range (and effective range, not always the same thing)

In space, the main thing I would think would be velocity, since the one who gets projectiles to their enemy first would win, unless you have some kind of energy shielding of a type I don't think they have any idea how to make today (or do they?)

Another thing might be 'spread', or how much would a target have to move to get out of harms way once they detect projectiles headed at them? Maybe a sort of 'space shotgun' makes more sense. Or a space volley gun ;)

http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/jpg/vandenburgh_front_back.jpg

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/07/26/1226435/765073-metal-storm.jpg

Could say a solar-panel powered laser point defense work pretty efficiently in space? Well enough to burn up high -mass metal projectiles in flight? I think we already have laser point defense that can burn up (relatively thin-skinned) missiles within an atmosphere. More powerful (superconducting?) ones seem at least plausible in the not too distant future.

G

[Mr. Mask]

Out of curiosity, have there been any studies as to the positive effects of music on soldiers (that is, music for your own troops)? Particularly during stress or combat?

I know that's we used to bring pipe organs and bands to battle across various cultures and times, but I was curious if there had been studies into whether this had a positive effect on troops if the drummers and trumpeters are playing while they're being shelled by their own artillery.

[Galloglaich]

Out of curiosity, have there been any studies as to the positive effects of music on soldiers (that is, music for your own troops)? Particularly during stress or combat?

I know that's we used to bring pipe organs and bands to battle across various cultures and times, but I was curious if there had been studies into whether this had a positive effect on troops if the drummers and trumpeters are playing while they're being shelled by their own artillery.

It was a huge thing and believed at the time to be a significant tactical advantage to use music on the battlefield in medieval times. If you read the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Chronicle_of_Henry) (of which there is a good translation available right now on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Livonia-Records-Western-Civilization/dp/0231128894)) there are frequent mentions of the effect of songs and music on battlefield morale, it was depicted as one of the principal advantages of the Crusaders over the pagans. They even trained their pagan allies to use it. In one battle described in the book, a small group of German crusaders (less than 50) supported by a few hundred of their recently (and nominally) converted indigenous Liv allies, supposedly routed a larger force of Lithuanians largely because they had trained the normally timid Liv's to chant "Kill! Crush! Seize!" in their own language as they marched forward. In other battles the Crusaders also made use of musical instruments.

I wonder if they used this at all in wars with Native Americans during the European settlement of the Americas? I don't remember any mention in Bernal Diaz. The tribes in North America used war-drums...

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

The Ottomans also made very good use of the Mehter, their precursor to the John Philip Sousa type military music of the 19th Century, with it's emphasis on brass bands. Apparently the mehter was rather terrifying on the battlefield, though it doesn't convey that same dread when you listen to it now ;)

I think Taiko drumming in Japan once had some kind of battlefield connotation.

The Cossacks of the Ukraine also had their own battlefield musicians and drummers.

As did the Zulu in Africa during the Zulu wars.

G

[Mr. Mask]

Well, music was judged to be even more effective in the past than I expected. what surprises me considering that, is that I've never heard of a modern test or experiment as to the effects during combat. You'd think someone would've tried getting the recruits to conduct an exercise while a marching band was playing, or have a set of noise-cancelling headphones that also play music (you want to have the music interruptible).

[Storm Bringer]

Well, music was judged to be even more effective in the past than I expected. what surprises me considering that, is that I've never heard of a modern test or experiment as to the effects during combat. You'd think someone would've tried getting the recruits to conduct an exercise while a marching band was playing, or have a set of noise-cancelling headphones that also play music (you want to have the music interruptible).

its affect is known to modern commanders. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqtehtSB0LI)

[Brother Oni]

On the one hand, range would be unlimited and the initial velocity would never decrease. That makes 16 inch guns pretty damn scary. On the other hand, using up all that propellant and oxygen etc. on a spaceship seems really wasteful. How much oxygen would that use anway?

Technically none, as the oxygen used in gunpowder explosions is entirely self contained within the structure of the gunpowder itself:

4 KNO3 + C7H4O + 2 S —> 2 K2S + 4 CO2 + 3 CO + 2 H2O + 2 N2
For those who's chemistry is a bit rusty, from left to right: Potassium nitrate plus charcoal plus sulphur burns to make dipotassium sulphide, carbon monoxide, water and nitrogen.

In reality, combustion products are a lot messier: 55.6% are solid waste (potassium carbonate, potassium sulphate, potassium sulphide, sulphur, potassium nitrate, potassium thiocyanate, carbon, ammonium carbonate) while 43.0% are gaseous products (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, methane) and the remaining amount is water. Atmospheric oxygen would also aid the combustion, although as shown, it's not strictly necessary.

Reading up on the Iowa's firing process though (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OmOQs0ziSU)), they shove 110lb bags of propellant behind the shell which wouldn't work in a vaccum so an electrically detonated system (like the Metalstorm system you posted a picture of) would be required. On the plus side, having the entire magazine open to vacuum would significantly reduce fire risk from loose powder.


Gaussgun seems more efficient for obvious reasons. I'm not sure you need the mass of that projectile either. Is a small / ultra fast projectile just as dangerous in space as a large / fast one?

Using the kinetic energy metric, the faster the projectile, the more dangerous it is (KE = 0.5 * Mass * Velocity2), thus using a larger mass increases the energy linearly while using a faster projectile increases the energy by the square. Bear in mind that you'd probably still need a decently sized projectile just so that it doesn't disintegrate or shear itself apart when it's accelerated to those speeds.


I wonder how much more velocity you might get shooting a firearm or cannon in a vacuum?
None, although as you've mentioned earlier, there's less resistance from gravity and the lack of atmosphere, so it'd keep going until it ruins someone's day (whether that's in a few minutes or a few hundred years is dependent on the accuracy of your firing solution).


Could say a solar-panel powered laser point defense work pretty efficiently in space? Well enough to burn up high -mass metal projectiles in flight? I think we already have laser point defense that can burn up (relatively thin-skinned) missiles within an atmosphere. More powerful (superconducting?) ones seem at least plausible in the not too distant future.

That's an interesting point. While ablating through a missile's skin to the gubbins inside would disable it, ablating through a couple inches of an APC shell wouldn't do much to it (assuming all the guidance thrusters it has are safely in the back) and it'd still hit you almost as hard.


Out of curiosity, have there been any studies as to the positive effects of music on soldiers (that is, music for your own troops)? Particularly during stress or combat?

I know that's we used to bring pipe organs and bands to battle across various cultures and times, but I was curious if there had been studies into whether this had a positive effect on troops if the drummers and trumpeters are playing while they're being shelled by their own artillery.

Further to Galloglaich's post, musicians were primarily used as a signalling method, rather than for morale, although hearing a friendly/hostile tune would have an effect on morale. For example, Sharpe has a good description (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NVA_NHIluE) of what it's like to face a French column marching towards you (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWeoeN6ygto)).

In more modern combat, there are reports of various soldiers playing bagpipes during the D-Day landings (Bill Millin on Sword Beach, the Black Watch on Juno Beach and the (in)famous Jack Churchill on whatever beach the unfortunate Germans were opposing him on) and I've heard in recent conflicts, US AFV/MBT crews sometimes have a 'war song' playlist to pump them up while they're getting into position.

Outside of combat, music most definitely improves morale - take a look at all the concerts put on by USO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Service_Organizations) and other agencies for their troops throughout the years. I know British Forces have their own radio station (BFBS (http://www.bfbs.com/radio/)) and it's odd, getting a mix of popular chart music, military news local to their deployment area and military themed PSAs like 'close the helicopter doors properly'.

My favourite anecdote regarding this topic is Bing Crosby's 'White Christmas' back in World War 2. For many American servicemen in the UK, it was their first Christmas away from home so it simply hit a chord with many of them. Before a concert, a sergeant asked him whether he was planning to sing the song, to which Bing replied he was, at which point the sergeant said he was going to listen to the concert in the kitchens.
Surprised, Bing asked whether the sergeant hated the song, to which the reply was "I like the song just fine, I just don't think it would be good for my men's morale to see their sergeant crying".

[Galloglaich]

Technically none, as the oxygen used in gunpowder explosions is entirely self contained within the structure of the gunpowder itself:

4 KNO3 + C7H4O + 2 S —> 2 K2S + 4 CO2 + 3 CO + 2 H2O + 2 N2
For those who's chemistry is a bit rusty, from left to right: Potassium nitrate plus charcoal plus sulphur burns to make dipotassium sulphide, carbon monoxide, water and nitrogen.

In reality, combustion products are a lot messier: 55.6% are solid waste (potassium carbonate, potassium sulphate, potassium sulphide, sulphur, potassium nitrate, potassium thiocyanate, carbon, ammonium carbonate) while 43.0% are gaseous products (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, methane) and the remaining amount is water. Atmospheric oxygen would also aid the combustion, although as shown, it's not strictly necessary.

Ah, that's right, it's also what allows guns to work underwater isn't it?



Using the kinetic energy metric, the faster the projectile, the more dangerous it is (KE = 0.5 * Mass * Velocity2), thus using a larger mass increases the energy linearly while using a faster projectile increases the energy by the square. Bear in mind that you'd probably still need a decently sized projectile just so that it doesn't disintegrate or shear itself apart when it's accelerated to those speeds.

Interesting, that is what I thought. So assuming you can accelerate slightly more gradually / less disruptively with a gauss type weapon or a rocket, it seems like 1,000,000 "smart pebbles" might be more dangerous than one big shell. It would be hard to build something strong enough to protect you from that, maybe embed a spaceship inside an asteroid for protection. :)



None, although as you've mentioned earlier, there's less resistance from gravity and the lack of atmosphere, so it'd keep going until it ruins someone's day (whether that's in a few minutes of a few hundred years is dependent on the accuracy of your firing solution).

And / or the maneuverability of your projectile.



That's an interesting point. While ablating through a missile's skin ... it'd still hit you almost as hard.

My assumption was that in the near future they could develop a laser that in space could get hot enough to simply vaporize the metal (though I guess then you'd still have metal vapor headed toward you going pretty fast)


Further to Galloglaich's post, musicians were primarily used as a signalling method, rather than for morale, although hearing a friendly/hostile tune would have an effect on morale. For example, Sharpe has a good description (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NVA_NHIluE) of what it's like to face a French column marching towards you (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWeoeN6ygto)).

Good point and quite interesting, though I'm not sure that music and musicians were always or even mostly for signaling. Drumming was used to a large extent for signaling, as were things like bugles for the cavalry (like in the Old West). But certainly the mehter was more for morale. As were I think the bagpipers and flautists you routinely see in period depictions of Landsknechts, other mercenaries and soldiers in the middle ages, and the Scots of course. You see little groups of musicians like that on the battlefields in the Swiss illustrated chronicles.

I think the instruments like the Celtic carnyx were not just for signaling. The Romans used battlefield musicians too I believe though I don't know the details.

http://digitalmedievalist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads//2012/12/carnyx-gallic-horn-Tintignac.jpg

I think a lot of time music was (and still sometimes is, at least in training) used to coordinate marching, but also to raise the morale of friendly troops and intimidate / deflate the morale of your enemies.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer_-_The_Bagpiper_-_WGA7317.jpg/396px-Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer_-_The_Bagpiper_-_WGA7317.jpg


In more modern combat, there are reports of various soldiers playing bagpipes during the D-Day

Yes particularly helpful I would think during a high risk, high-stress event like an invasion landing.

Good post, Brother Oni

G

[Galloglaich]

I seem to remember some kind of science fiction context, where spaceships defended themselves from both beams and projectiles by having swarms of rocks (more smart pebbles?) orbiting around them, which could be directed to intercept threats.

I think such a defense might be at least remotely plausible based on what we know of science today.

G

[Brother Oni]

Ah, that's right, it's also what allows guns to work underwater isn't it?

Indeed, although with the additional proviso that your cartridge (and for repeated shots, the gun mechanism) has to be water tight/proof respectively, since water has a detrimental effect on gunpowder and mechanisms that a vacuum doesn't.



Interesting, that is what I thought. So assuming you can accelerate slightly more gradually / less disruptively with a gauss type weapon or a rocket, it seems like 1,000,000 "smart pebbles" might be more dangerous than one big shell. It would be hard to build something strong enough to protect you from that, maybe embed a spaceship inside an asteroid for protection. :)

And / or the maneuverability of your projectile.


A million smart pebbles would indeed be harder to stop, with the added advantage of the enemy not initially knowing it was an attack or just an unfortunate encounter with space debris.

Sufficiently improved projectile manoeuvrability and guidance leads to a terrifying thought. Fire a shot away from the enemy so that the energy emission is blocked by your own ship, have the projectile slingshot itself around the nearest largest orbital body to disguise its signature and to build up extra speed, then smack the enemy extra hard and extra sneakily at the cost of increased time to target.



I think the instruments like the Celtic carnyx were not just for signaling. The Romans used battlefield musicians too I believe though I don't know the details.

Kiero might know since he's our local Antiquity/Roman times expert.


Good post, Brother Oni

Thank you, although I still have a long way to catch up with you. :smallbiggrin:

[Brother Oni]

Found this amusing little anecdote. The Iowa class BBs originally had a complement of ~2,700 men; by the 80s after they were re-comissioned, this number dropped to 1,500 due to technology upgrades. Some idle speculation by former crew members reckon that they could steal the ship with as few as 10-15 people and several hours of work, assuming they had tug assistance to get the ship out of the shipyard. :smallbiggrin:

[Carl]

Lol Oni.


None, although as you've mentioned earlier, there's less resistance from gravity and the lack of atmosphere, so it'd keep going until it ruins someone's day (whether that's in a few minutes or a few hundred years is dependent on the accuracy of your firing solution).

Actually not true.

The velocity of a shell is dependent on the acceleration vs drag in the barrel.

Drag is produced by friction with the barrel walls, and by the medium in front of the shell, (air on earth in atmosphere), being forced out the barrel ahead of the shell. Acceleration is dependent on the hot gas behind acting on the base of the shell with the exact force being related to the base area of the shell and the pressure difference between the hot gas behind and the medium in front.

As a result in vacuum there's less drag and more acceleration. The difference will certainly be minor but non-zero.



Also velocity is a huge thing for range. a ship with a beam of 50m that can produce 1 meter per second per second, (0.1g a tiny number), of acceleration along that vector will render an 800m/s gun unable to score hits at ranges in excess of 8 kilometers. And as a practical matter to truly compensate for target changes in course any shell propulsion system has to match the acceleration capability of the target, which means your really firing a missile from a gun now.

[Gnoman]

with the added advantage of the enemy not initially knowing it was an attack or just an unfortunate encounter with space debris.


This is why "smart pebbles" would never be a viable weapon - any ship vulnerable to them would be too vulnerable to random debris, micrometeorites, etc. Finding a solution to these - be it some form of gravity manipulation, ionization-repulsion, constantly-replaced baffles, or something else - is a prerequisite for doing anything in space that makes warships a sensible thing to have.

[The Great Wyrm]

Technically none, as the oxygen used in gunpowder explosions is entirely self contained within the structure of the gunpowder itself:

4 KNO3 + C7H4O + 2 S —> 2 K2S + 4 CO2 + 3 CO + 2 H2O + 2 N2
For those who's chemistry is a bit rusty, from left to right: Potassium nitrate plus charcoal plus sulphur burns to make dipotassium sulphide, carbon monoxide, water and nitrogen.

In reality, combustion products are a lot messier: 55.6% are solid waste (potassium carbonate, potassium sulphate, potassium sulphide, sulphur, potassium nitrate, potassium thiocyanate, carbon, ammonium carbonate) while 43.0% are gaseous products (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, methane) and the remaining amount is water. Atmospheric oxygen would also aid the combustion, although as shown, it's not strictly necessary.


Except modern guns don't use black powder. Modern powder is mostly nitrocellulose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder#Chemical_formulations

[Brother Oni]

Also velocity is a huge thing for range. a ship with a beam of 50m that can produce 1 meter per second per second, (0.1g a tiny number), of acceleration along that vector will render an 800m/s gun unable to score hits at ranges in excess of 8 kilometers. And as a practical matter to truly compensate for target changes in course any shell propulsion system has to match the acceleration capability of the target, which means your really firing a missile from a gun now.

Well the length of a Iowa's Mk7 gun is 20.3m, the muzzle velocity is 762 m/s, therefore the acceleration should be 14.3km/s2. How does this affect your equation?


Except modern guns don't use black powder. Modern powder is mostly nitrocellulose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder#Chemical_formulations

Reading up some more on modern gunpowder, nitrocellulose is a repeating unit: (C6H7O2(ONO2)3]n

The problem with that is that single base powders of nitrocellulose alone requires oxygen:

2 C6H7N3O11 + 9/2 O2⟶12 CO2+3 N2+7 H2O

This problem can be solved with double base powders of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin:

2 C3H5N3O9⟶6 CO2 + 3 N2+5 H2O + 12 O2

Some stoichiometry indicates that under ideal conditions, 38 molecules of nitroglycerin will generate sufficient O2 to react with 48 nitrocellulose molecules, so it's possible to still get it working in a vacuum.

However the powder used in the Iowa were triple base powders (the inclusion of nitroguanidine to the above, although it's more for reducing corrosion and barrel damage without sacrificing explosive capability), which is unaffected by the modification as far as I can tell (my googlefu is failing me for finding a reaction for nitroguanidine) and there's a variety of modern propellants for military large calibre weapons, one of which is nitroguanidine and RDX (this one requires atmospheric oxygen though).

There's always the possibility of injecting LOX into the breech, but that takes away from more useful functions it has, like life support.

[Carl]

Well the length of a Iowa's Mk7 gun is 20.3m, the muzzle velocity is 762 m/s, therefore the acceleration should be 14.3km/s2. How does this affect your equation?

It doesn't. Muzzle velocity is the only relevant factor of the firing ship as far as effective range goes. Technically 762 vs 800 at the muzzle would slightly reduce maximum effective range, (effective range is directly proportional to the change in muzzle velocity), but it's a small enough value to be ignorable for such a general discussion.

[Beleriphon]

It doesn't. Muzzle velocity is the only relevant factor of the firing ship as far as effective range goes. Technically 762 vs 800 at the muzzle would slightly reduce maximum effective range, (effective range is directly proportional to the change in muzzle velocity), but it's a small enough value to be ignorable for such a general discussion.

On that note what would the effective range of the US Navy's prototype railgun? It fires a projectile with a muzzle energy of 32MJ and only weighs 3.2 kg.

[Carl]

32km. Note this is all in space obviously.

You'd actually get a lot better range by using the 16" to fire an old school cannister shell. As long as you get good even distribution it would increase the distance the target has to move. Multiple guns can further increase that. Have 12 guns each distributing 108 pellets per shell spread at 40m spacings would give a kill box 1440m wide, so to avoid that the target has to move much further. At 800m/s that would make the effective range 43km. Overall though you really want guided missiles. Simple as that.

Another way is super rapid fire to achieve an end effect similar to a single projectile splitting. It all comes down to which is faster and more thermally efficient.

[Brother Oni]

Another way is super rapid fire to achieve an end effect similar to a single projectile splitting. It all comes down to which is faster and more thermally efficient.

I presume you're calculating the effective range based on whether the target can alter its course after the projectile has been fired?

[Mr Beer]

On the music topic, I read a book in the last year or so by an American soldier who fought extensively in Fallujah, basically a lot of house-to-house fighting. He said both sides used music to boost morale, I can't remember what the Iraqis had but the Americans played a lot of gangster rap, hard rock and particularly the track Let The Bodies Hit The Floor by Drowning Pool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8-sMJZTYf0

[Carl]

I presume you're calculating the effective range based on whether the target can alter its course after the projectile has been fired?

Yes. If you know how far the target has to move and the maximum possible acceleration of the target you can determine the time it takes, and time times velocity gives you effective range.

Formulae in full is:

Mv*Sqrt(S/0.5*A)

Where mv is muzzle velocity

S is the distance the target has to move

A is the target's acceleration.

All units in meters or meters per second or meters per second squared as appropriate.

[snowblizz]

Found this amusing little anecdote. The Iowa class BBs originally had a complement of ~2,700 men; by the 80s after they were re-comissioned, this number dropped to 1,500 due to technology upgrades. Some idle speculation by former crew members reckon that they could steal the ship with as few as 10-15 people and several hours of work, assuming they had tug assistance to get the ship out of the shipyard. :smallbiggrin:

Sure you're not confusing it with a certain Steven Segal movie?:smallbiggrin: (Love "Under Siege")


Indeed, although with the additional proviso that your cartridge (and for repeated shots, the gun mechanism) has to be water tight/proof respectively, since water has a detrimental effect on gunpowder and mechanisms that a vacuum doesn't.
Mythbusters shot guns quite successfully under water. The trick was to actually let the water in everywhere first. Having air in the gun wouldn't be good for firing under water, or so they said.
The problem was that the force ejecting the spent casing wasn't sufficient to expel it from the gun due to water resistance.


On military music. During the Battle of Lutzen when parts of the Swedish army was breaking apart and rumours of the dead king was shaking morale and cohesion the reserve commanders that couldn't rally fleeing units had the priests start singing protestant hymns that no catholic would sign. This worked as inspiration and gave a rally point for shattered units telling them they were close to friendlies.

I seem to recall seeing interviews with US tank crew who'd play music in combat too. Sort of like Apocalypse Now!

[Kiero]

Just on music, I've seen plenty of anecdotes from virtually every era about the power of music to steady morale or push men on through trials. A soldier is not an automaton who will perform their duties until they drop from exhaustion or wounds. More men will run from a fight without even being hurt than will be taken out of the fight by injury or death, so the psychology of a unit is vital.

Add to that some music could be unnerving to the enemy at the same time that it's inspiring your men (Highlanders and bagpipes, for example).

[Mr. Mask]

Music: A lot of really excellent examples have come out of this question. Based off some of the replies, it seems the music is still used by modern soldiers during combat, at times. Makes me wonder why it seems to be rarely portrayed or addressed.

SnowBliz: Oh, finally, a case of modern crews playing music in combat! For some reason, this is pretty rare to find--I guess no one really considers it worth talking about.

Beer: So they played music while clearing houses? That's really interesting if so. If stealth has already gone, I guess you might as well play music. It's interesting that the enemy played music. If you're defending a building, it does cover other little sounds you might make.



Space Debris as Shield: I actually discussed this idea in the past. The general consensus at the time was that the shrapnel that'd result from the debris striking the offending missile would still be pretty bad, so you might be better to focus on evading entirely. I think there were also points about swarms of high velocity debris being easy enough to spot and uncommon enough that it mightn't be the best idea for an attack.


Newtonian Physics: Come to think of it, is there any scifi story about a warhead hitting one of the planets in the solar system from some distant alien war, proving the existence of aliens? If not, there should be--that seems a really cool background detail (I have always thought of that in the context of alien planets far off getting it, but there is a possibility of Earth being hit).

[fusilier]

Further to Galloglaich's post, musicians were primarily used as a signalling method, rather than for morale, although hearing a friendly/hostile tune would have an effect on morale. For example, Sharpe has a good description (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NVA_NHIluE) of what it's like to face a French column marching towards you (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWeoeN6ygto)).

This is an important consideration -- you couldn't simply play music at any time because it could interfere with the signaling. Field musics probably spent most of their time signaling, as opposed to playing music, both on and off the battlefield. Camp life was regulated by field music signals, and if they wanted to practice they had to move somewhere distant. Musicians were considered important -- prior to the American Civil War the army had determined that it took three years to make a good infantryman, but it took six years for a good musician. It is likely that many volunteer regiments during that conflict only had drummers, as finding good fifers was more difficult.

On the other hand, battles of that time tended to have phases, and the musics could find opportunities where they could play music instead of signaling: while advancing, when the regiment had settled into a firefight, etc. With the demise of the fife and drum, and the general adoption of trumpets/bugles the ability to play music probably diminished. Also as the forces became more spread out, the field musics couldn't be concentrated to play music in bands, as they needed to be more separated to properly relay signals. This probably also affected the use of regimental bands in combat (separate from the field musics, their purpose was just to play music -- not all regiments had one).

The history of military fife and drum music (which has been traced back to the 14th century at least) is different from simply singing songs and playing inspiring music in combat. I don't know how often that was done, I'm sure it has a long history. As late as WW1, Emilio Lussu describes an Austro-Hungarian assault where they marched shoulder-to-shoulder singing songs. The issue is that as militaries began to use musical instruments for signaling, you couldn't simply play songs at any time -- in fact if you need to shout a command, you need to stop the music playing too.

[MrZJunior]

I would expect the use of music to drop off after the introduction of gunpowder. Wouldn't the battlefield be too loud for the music to be effective?

[fusilier]

I would expect the use of music to drop off after the introduction of gunpowder. Wouldn't the battlefield be too loud for the music to be effective?

EDIT -- referring specifically to military music -- EDIT

Actually it seems to have increased. With the introduction of breechloaders it seems to have forced a shift to things like bugles (traditionally infantry used fifes and drums), as those were louder and perhaps more piercing. They probably made it easier to communicate over greater distances on the battlefield, which would be important as the infantry formations loosened up. I think the use of rapid fire artillery and high-explosives had more of an impact, although bugles/trumpets were still being used as late as WW1. (Part of the issue might be that other forms of communication, like radio, hadn't developed or were in their infancy).

[Brother Oni]

On the music topic, I read a book in the last year or so by an American soldier who fought extensively in Fallujah, basically a lot of house-to-house fighting. He said both sides used music to boost morale, I can't remember what the Iraqis had but the Americans played a lot of gangster rap, hard rock and particularly the track Let The Bodies Hit The Floor by Drowning Pool.

Presumably the Iraqis played the sort of hard Arabic music you see on their propaganda videos (you can find some on Liveleak, although I would advise discretion in your searches).

I do remember that music is used a lot for psychological effect against suspects detained for interrogation and along with the typical hard aggressive music you'd expect (Metallica, Drowning Pool as mentioned above), it also includes the sort of ear-wormy chart hits that stick in your mind (eg. Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen) and that all of the above are cycled regularly so that it doesn't become monotonous enough for the suspects to tune out.

I believe China has massive loudspeakers constantly broadcasting propaganda across the sea to Taiwan. :smalltongue:


Yes. If you know how far the target has to move and the maximum possible acceleration of the target you can determine the time it takes, and time times velocity gives you effective range.

Formulae in full is:

Mv*Sqrt(S/0.5*A)


Presumably if the projectile has limited manoeuvrability, you could substitute their acceleration and time to target in for S to create a really complicated opposed calculation between them?


Sure you're not confusing it with a certain Steven Segal movie?:smallbiggrin: (Love "Under Siege")
The thought had crossed my mind, but military personnel get a fair bit of idle time due to the "hurry up and wait" attitude by their officers, so they tend to make plans and throw out idle speculation, so I figured it was probably true.
I've heard of infantry shooting the breeze with plans for 'what to do in a zombie apocalypse', with what supplies to take, where to hole up, how to fortify in, etc, based on their current deployment.



Mythbusters shot guns quite successfully under water. The trick was to actually let the water in everywhere first. Having air in the gun wouldn't be good for firing under water, or so they said.
The problem was that the force ejecting the spent casing wasn't sufficient to expel it from the gun due to water resistance.


The problem with Mythbusters is that they tend to skip the details of the experiment, both for brevity and to stop idiots from trying it at home. For example, the cartridges they fired were most likely bought from a respectable manufacturer, rather than some recycled hand loaded rounds by some guy in his garage.

There are some dedicated weapons for firing underwater (eg the HK P11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_P11) and the APS underwater rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS_underwater_rifle)) intended for frogmen and regular firearms like the Glock can be modified to do so (http://www.glockforum.com/Shooting-a-Glock-Underwater.html), but as you've noted, most automatics typically only fire once underwater as they'll fail to cycle (revolvers won't have this problem).


Music: A lot of really excellent examples have come out of this question. Based off some of the replies, it seems the music is still used by modern soldiers during combat, at times. Makes me wonder why it seems to be rarely portrayed or addressed.


It's most likely rarely portrayed due to licensing issues in film and TV. I believe the book Generation Kill (not sure about the TV series) mentions music in the most recent conflict.

[Kiero]

I would expect the use of music to drop off after the introduction of gunpowder. Wouldn't the battlefield be too loud for the music to be effective?

Nope, if anything having noisy occurrences like artillery make it even more important to have something to steady men and not let them be overawed by the sound of the guns alone. Music was still a vital part of warfare right through the 19th century and even into WW1. It's only in the modern era, where many operations are carried out by stealth at night that it's dropped away. Or else moved to the entirely personal realm of an individual soldier bringing their own tunes.

As to signalling, that was an ancillary use of music for forward or detached parts of an army (cavalry, scouts, etc), the main body was often where the general already was. They used staff officers, runners and messengers to keep in touch with unit commanders, not sound.

[snowblizz]

SnowBliz: Oh, finally, a case of modern crews playing music in combat! For some reason, this is pretty rare to find--I guess no one really considers it worth talking about.


I only vaguely recall it so can't vouch for it. But IIRC the context was it described young soldier treating the war like a videogame and some exited 18-19s somethings explaining how they play rock music while blasting over the dunes in their tank blasting ppl left and right. It coudl have been something of a documentary nature too.

[GraaEminense]

...and I've heard in recent conflicts, US AFV/MBT crews sometimes have a 'war song' playlist to pump them up while they're getting into position.
To add to the anecdotal evidence, I know the Norwegian forces in Afghanistan used "patrol playlists" when hitting the road. Metallica seems to have been a favourite based on what I´ve read from those who´ve been there.

What I don´t know is to what degree this is official doctrine (probably not) or otherwise encouraged by commanders (quite likely), but at the very least it´s accepted practice.

[Carl]

Presumably if the projectile has limited manoeuvrability, you could substitute their acceleration and time to target in for S to create a really complicated opposed calculation between them?

Sort of. To break the formulae i gave you down:

Sqrt(S/0.5*A) = T

Where T is time to evade.

That formulae is derived from the formulae:

S=0.5*T^2*A

Which in turn is derived from:

S= (UT)+(0.5*T^2*A)

Where U = Existing Velocity.


I've ignored U above in the formulae i gave you as i'm assuming the two ships aren't moving towards or away, but instead maintaining the range. If they're moving towards or away the initial formula becomes:


(U+Mv)*Sqrt(S/0.5*A)

U will be positive if they're moving towards each other and negative if moving away. Determining the exact value if they're moving on courses that don;t share a bse vector in 3D is really bloody hard, i'm not 100% sure i know how to do it. I could do it in 2D, it's just basic trigonometry, but 3D involves a bit more complication and i never explicitly studied it. I think it's just a 3rd dimension extension of the existing sums but i'd really need a textbook and someone familiar with the subject to lead me through a few examples.


To get back to how you factor in the shell manouvering. For a a shell that can only make course corrections but cannot increase or decrease velocity the sum becomes:

(U+Mv)*Sqrt((S1+(0.5*T1^2*A2))/0.5*A1)

Where:

T1 is the burn time of the shells course correction engine

A2 is the course correction Engines Maximum acceleration

A1 is the target's acceleration

S1 is the targets required movement distance, (basically it's cross section along the evasion vector + the proximity danger radius of the shell)

[fusilier]

As to signalling, that was an ancillary use of music for forward or detached parts of an army (cavalry, scouts, etc), the main body was often where the general already was. They used staff officers, runners and messengers to keep in touch with unit commanders, not sound.

There's an anecdote from the Civil War of someone watching a regiment drilling. The unit went through a long series of "evolutions" (formation changes), and the observer never heard a single command issued -- the commander was simply telling the principal musician what he wanted and the field musics played the appropriate command! It seems that this was considered the ideal situation, as it probably increased coordination (voice commands often had to be echoed, whereas a music signal could be heard by the entire regiment).

[Galloglaich]

Speaking of music in war, this is from the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia:

“When morning broke they came down from the mountain and saw the fort and the pagan army, and the valley was between them. Immediately they beat joyfully upon their drum and enlivened the spirits of their men with their musical instruments and their song. They called down God’s mercy upon them and swiftly hurried toward the pagans. After crossing a little stream they halted for a moment to collect themselves in a group. When the pagans saw them, they were terrified by the unmistakable prospect. They ran, got their shields; some of them rushed to the horses, others leaped over the barricade, and they all assembled in one group. They troubled the air with their shouts and came out in a great multitude to meet the Christians, throwing a shower of spears upon them. The Christians caught the spears wit h their shields, and when the pagans had run out of spears, the Christians drew their swords, marched closer, and commenced the fight.

The wounded fell and the pagans fought manfully. The knights saw the strength of the pagans and suddenly charged through the center of the enemy. Many of them fell to the ground, the others turned to flight, and the Christians pursued those who fled. They caught them and killed them on the road and in the fields. The Livonians from the fort when out with the balistarii [Crossbowmen] and met the fleeing pagans . They scattered them, up to the German lines. They pursued the Esthonians so that few of them escaped and the Germans even killed some of the Livonians as if they were Esthojnians. Some of them, it is true, fled by another road which goes around the fort,, toward the Aa. These came to another section of their army and escaped. More of them, however, were pursued by the knights as they descended the mountain, and were killed. Everhard, a Brother of the Militia, was killed there and certain of our knights were wounded. The other section of the Esthonian army, meanwhile, saw the destruction of their men and gathered on the mountain which lies between the fort and the Aa. They prepared to defend themselves. The Livonians and the Christian infantry, however, ran toward the loot. They seized the horses, of whom there were many thousands there, and neglected the war against the remaining pagans.

The knights and ballistarii, however, fought with the men who were located on the mountain and killed many of them. The Esthonians, therefore, sought peace and promised that they would receive the sacrament of baptism. The knights, believing their promise, made their words known to the bishops so they might come to receive the Esthonians. The Esthonians, however, fled by night in their pirate ships and wished to go down to the sea, but the ballistarii on both sides of the Aa hindered their descent. Other pilgrims came with Bernard of Lippe to the Aa from Riga. They made a bridge over the river, built wooden structures on the bridge, caught the pirate ships as they came by with arrows and lances, and completely cut off the pagans escape route. In the still quiet of the night, therefore, the Esthonians secretly disembarked from their pirate vessels, leaving all their things behind, and fled. Some of them perished in the forests and others yet died of hunger on the road; only a few of them escaped to their own land to announce the news at home.”

[Brother Oni]

(U+Mv)*Sqrt((S1+(0.5*T1^2*A2))/0.5*A1)

Where:

T1 is the burn time of the shells course correction engine

A2 is the course correction Engines Maximum acceleration

A1 is the target's acceleration

S1 is the targets required movement distance, (basically it's cross section along the evasion vector + the proximity danger radius of the shell)

And this is why we have firing solutions. :smalltongue:

Excellent, thanks Carl.

[Carl]

Your welcome. Note that if dealing with a missile, (as in a projectile that can change it's velocity), it gets a bit more complicated. Actually a lot, i know the basic factors and formulas you have to use but without using an excel regressive spreadsheet function i'm not sure how to solve it. it's a formulae transposition problem and i mostly suck at those tbh, (my biggest weakness TBH), it's only the simpler variants like above i'm upto.

[Mr. Mask]

When shooting at a man-sized target running at 8MPH laterally from your position, what is harder?: If he was half the size, or if he was moving twice as fast?

[Gnoman]

When shooting at a man-sized target running at 8MPH laterally from your position, what is harder?: If he was half the size, or if he was moving twice as fast?

Twice as fast. A human is already a fairly large target, and even a half-size man is still much larger than a clay pigeon or many small-game animals (both of which are routinely shot by average marksmen). The faster the speed, the shorter your engagement window, which means you have less time to adjust for any misses and can get fewer shots off in total, not to mention that even 8 MPH is an extremely fast target at any plausible engagement range. (Ducks and other game birds fly faster, but a flying target is easier to shoot for a variety of reasons - on the ground there's cover, and the target is unlikely to be travelling in a perfectly straight line simply because the terrain isn't flat.)

[Kiero]

There's an anecdote from the Civil War of someone watching a regiment drilling. The unit went through a long series of "evolutions" (formation changes), and the observer never heard a single command issued -- the commander was simply telling the principal musician what he wanted and the field musics played the appropriate command! It seems that this was considered the ideal situation, as it probably increased coordination (voice commands often had to be echoed, whereas a music signal could be heard by the entire regiment).

I could certainly imagine that as a parade-ground ideal. But when there's real artillery going off, volleys of small arms fire, men and horses screaming - is anyone going to be able to hear the regimental musicians clearly enough to react to the commands being played?


When shooting at a man-sized target running at 8MPH laterally from your position, what is harder?: If he was half the size, or if he was moving twice as fast?

I'm assuming that guy is laden down with gear, or running some distance, because 8MPH is not a particularly fast run. Especially not if he's pumped with adrenaline from knowing he's crossing a firing lane.

[Brother Oni]

When shooting at a man-sized target running at 8MPH laterally from your position, what is harder?: If he was half the size, or if he was moving twice as fast?

I'm going to agree with Gnoman with that twice as fast is the harder target to hit, except when half the size (presumably by being twice as far away or in a hunched over loping run) takes you into sub-MOA aiming or other weapon adjustments that are difficult to achieve.

If you need to adjust your aim by half a degree, but the best you can adjust your aim by is 1 or 2 degree graduations then without multiple shots (not to mention the issue of reaiming to such a fine degree after each shot), it's going to be hard to hit the target.

That said, weapon stabilisation and adjustment capability on modern weapons and vehicles are amazing (Leopard 2 beer carrying (http://gfycat.com/NastyFairIndianpangolin)), so in modern conflicts, twice as fast is more difficult.

[8BitNinja]

I'm going to agree with Gnoman with that twice as fast is the harder target to hit, except when half the size (presumably by being twice as far away or in a hunched over loping run) takes you into sub-MOA aiming or other weapon adjustments that are difficult to achieve.

If you need to adjust your aim by half a degree, but the best you can adjust your aim by is 1 or 2 degree graduations then without multiple shots (not to mention the issue of reaiming to such a fine degree after each shot), it's going to be hard to hit the target.

That said, weapon stabilisation and adjustment capability on modern weapons and vehicles are amazing (Leopard 2 beer carrying (http://gfycat.com/NastyFairIndianpangolin)), so in modern conflicts, twice as fast is more difficult.

From my experience with hunting, accuracy is all about being stable

When you are shooting with a rifle, you are supposed to aim down sights, take a deep breath, exhale half, hold it, and gently squeeze the trigger, never pull it

Also, never shoot offhand if you can crouch or go prone

When a target is moving, you can't do this as easy

[Berenger]

I'll soon be in a zombie survival game set somewhere on the english-french-indian border region of North America during the 1750s. What types of firearms would be used by a) soldiers, b) militia, c) hunters / woodsmen and d) native americans and what would be reasonable reload times for each (in stressful combat situations, if those are different from those on a shooting range)? At what range could a skilled shooter hit a head-sized target somewhat consistently?

[Kiero]

I'll soon be in a zombie survival game set somewhere on the english-french-indian border region of North America during the 1750s. What types of firearms would be used by a) soldiers, b) militia, c) hunters / woodsmen and d) native americans and what would be reasonable reload times for each (in stressful combat situations, if those are different from those on a shooting range)? At what range could a skilled shooter hit a head-sized target somewhat consistently?

A handful of skilled hunters would have muzzle-loading rifles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle). Slow to load (doing well if you can fire 2 shots a minute), but properly loaded, accurate up to distances of 500-800 yards. The notion that every American was a backwoods ninja and crack shot with a rifle was a Revolutionary-era myth. Rifles and men who could actually shoot them well were rare.

Most people would be using muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket). Faster to load (3-4 shots a minute is possible if you're well-drilled - 2 shots a minute for less well-trained formations), but only accurate at about 50 yards; past 100 yards and you're unlikely to hit anything you're aiming at. Most regular militiamen had muskets, regular soldiers had muskets and fought in close formations.

There are also pistols; duelling pistols which might be carried in pairs, bigger horse pistols for cavalry; though in both instances pistols are expensive and rare. If you need a firearm, you carry a longarm.

More to the point, though, what matters in this era is not your firearm, but what you carry to protect yourself when you've fired off your shot and don't have a convenient, uninterrupted, 20-30 seconds to reload. Everyone carried a knife. That might seem a bold statement, but if they didn't have a big utility blade, they'd have a belt or clasp knife. Woodsmen often also mimicked the natives and carried a hatchet, tomahawk or other axe.

A rich townsman might have a sword - they were considered an essential part of a gentleman's attire. Though we're talking smallswords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_sword) or court swords by the 1750s, not medieval arming swords. A military officer might carry a sabre or other heavier blade.

If you carry a longarm routinely, you have the "clubbed" option of hitting things with the butt (since they're basically a big chunk of wood with a metal pipe attatched), or attaching a bayonet to it. Otherwise we're looking at tools that can be weaponised.

But skilled shooters hitting heads? Mostly irrelevant, I'm afraid. Sure they might do that once in a fight (or perhaps another couple of times if they have loaded pistols in their belt), right at the start, but then they're reliant on running or their melee skills.

[DavidSh]

Breechloaders? in the 1750s? I am surprised. I thought the standard military musket of the time was a muzzle-loader.

[Kiero]

Breechloaders? in the 1750s? I am surprised. I thought the standard military musket of the time was a muzzle-loader.

D'oh, I meant muzzle-loader...

Breechloaders didn't come into common usage til the 1840s.

[Gnoman]

I'll soon be in a zombie survival game set somewhere on the english-french-indian border region of North America during the 1750s. What types of firearms would be used by a) soldiers, b) militia, c) hunters / woodsmen and d) native americans and what would be reasonable reload times for each (in stressful combat situations, if those are different from those on a shooting range)? At what range could a skilled shooter hit a head-sized target somewhat consistently?

All common weapons of the period were muzzle-loaders.

By far the most common weapon among soldiers and civilians alike was the musket, a smoothbore weapon of between .68-.75 caliber that fired a soft lead ball. A typical example is the British Land Pattern Musket, commonly called the "Brown Bess". This was accurate in single combat out to about fifty yards and could be fired three to four times a minute.

Among civilians, the Blunderbuss was occasionally found, and it saw limited use with the military. This was an early shotgun most familiar as the weapon carried by Pilgrims in Thanksgiving specials, and can be recognized by the distinctive flared barrel, made to make it easier to pour in shot. In pistol form, this was called a dragon, and lead to the cavalry troops that carried them being called Dragoons. This weapon loaded fairly slowly because you had to handle loose shot instead of the one or two balls a musket could fire, and was short ranged against people.

The third type of firearm is the muzzleloading rifle. The variant used in North America was primarily made for hunting men rather than game, and averaged around .45 caliber. With the use of a greased patch, this weapon lagged behind the musket in rate of fire a little bit, but was accurate out to 300 or 400 yards. This was a rather common weapon by 1750, with it being the preferred weapon of often-solo backwoodsmen shooting for the stewpot and constantly fearing Indian attacks, but was rare in military use due to the skill required and the higher expense of the weapon, and most town civilians simply owned military-style muskets.

Pistols were fairly common, with about one for every two muskets in most towns and cities. Some of them were rifled, but this was very rare.

Most of these weapons would be flintlocks, but there would also have been a lot of old matchlocks around since those couldn't be converted. In those cases accuracy, reliability, and fire rate are all lower.

For any weapon except the rifle, you don't aim for a head or a heart - you just try to hit the other guy.

[Brother Oni]

I'll soon be in a zombie survival game set somewhere on the english-french-indian border region of North America during the 1750s. What types of firearms would be used by a) soldiers, b) militia, c) hunters / woodsmen and d) native americans and what would be reasonable reload times for each (in stressful combat situations, if those are different from those on a shooting range)? At what range could a skilled shooter hit a head-sized target somewhat consistently?

There are far more knowledgeable people than me regarding this time period and location, but my two pence:

Since soldiers about that time would be British, the weapon of choice would be the 'Brown Bess' Land Pattern musket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess) and many of the militia would also have carried it.

I can't find a reference as to what weapon the regular civilians would have had, but weapon ownership was very high, with between 50-90% of all people with wealth having firearms (link (http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr)).

Native Americans would have traded for muskets, the most common of which I can find reference to are the Northwest Trade gun (http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2012/7/5/gun-control-in-the-1750s/) and the Indian Trade Musket (http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/tipologia-prodotti.asp/l_en/idt_43/rifles-indian-trade-musket.html).

The Brown Bess was bigger and heavier than the traded weapons, typically firing an undersized .69 ball (weapon calibre was .75) while the trade weapons were about .56 - .58 calibre. Bear in mind that these are very large rounds compared to modern day firearms - .69 calibre is ~18mm, so despite the poorer powder quality, the weapon would still inflict significant damage. I've read an account of a soldier losing a hand at the wrist to a musket shot during the Napoleonic Wars, so unless you have evil magic zombies, having their limbs shattered would be almost as effective at stopping an oncoming horde of zombies.
This is not including the cannon that settlements and forts had, which was frighteningly effective against people:


http://i.imgur.com/jp5hfx9.jpg

Note the exit wound out of the back plate.


The rate of fire expected for experienced troops under battlefield conditions would have been about 3 rounds a minute (it's why they used an undersized ball to help it down the barrel). The British focused especially on their firing drill, typically managing 4, while poorer trained or garrison units could typically only manage 2.

With regards to accuracy, this test (http://www.rifleshootermag.com/rifles/featured_rifles_bess_092407/) used a 0.715 ball and reported an 8" grouping at 25yds, a 20" grouping at 50yds with 100% hit rate and it's not until 100yds that they had a 11.5" grouping with a 60% hit rate. Note that they also estimate a 25% increase in accuracy by using a properly fitted ball, either a 0.735 ball rammed down with a rod and mallet or using a patch (cloth or paper wrapped around the ball) to eliminate the windage (gap between the ball and the barrel).

Edit: Gah, ninja'ed.

[Kiero]

Though you wouldn't be firing roundshot (which is what put the hole in that cuirass) at zombies. You'd be using grape; musket balls, nails, stones, scrap metal, whatever; tied up in a canvas bag and blasted apart; turns the cannon into a giant blunderbuss.

[Mr. Mask]

On the subject, I recall a unit during the American Revolution who required their men to hit a nose-sized target at 50 yards.

Something to consider between British soldiers and American hunters, is often the British recruits didn't get to practice that often as it was considered too expensive, while the hunters practised every day of their lives so they could eat. This resulted in the Americans and Southerners receiving good report in aim in both the revolutionary and civil wars.


This got me thinking. Were there many units throughout the history of early firearms who made use of sharpshooters and re-loaders? That is, the best shots in the unit do all the shooting, while the rest pass them loaded rifles. Considering the effectiveness of a skilled shooter with a properly loaded rifle, this would've seen worth the while. If charged or attacked from close range, the re-loaders and everyone could fire at will, and draw swords. I recall a couple of systems for filing back musketeers who had fired so a new line could fire, but that's the closest that comes to mind.

[rrgg]

In addition to a regular musket ball packing quite a bit of kick, smooth-bore muskets and pistols could also be loaded with buckshot and used as shotguns instead. It times of war it was also pretty common to load a musket with two or more shots at once, with buck and ball, or with intentionally mutilated bullets designed to cause greater injury (examples from the American revolution include bullets with a nail driven through them and bullets that were cut partway through with a cross pattern so that they split apart when hitting a target.

On the subject of loading the weapon, 2-3 aimed shots per minute would be pretty common for a drilled shooter. At short ranges it might be possible to increase that number quite a bit by "tap" loading with an undersized bullet. In other words you let the the ball roll down the barrel on its own and then "tap" the gun on the ground to settle the powder rather than using wadding and the ramrod to make sure that the bullet is set really snug.

[Brother Oni]

Though you wouldn't be firing roundshot (which is what put the hole in that cuirass) at zombies. You'd be using grape; musket balls, nails, stones, scrap metal, whatever; tied up in a canvas bag and blasted apart; turns the cannon into a giant blunderbuss.

I could see them using roundshot at range, bouncing it off the ground to mow down concentrations of zombies. It's only when they start getting close that they'd switch to grape, as unless you're decapitating them or shattering limbs to incapacitate them, the zombies aren't stopping unlike the squishier humans who would suffer from comparatively minor things like massive internal organ damage, concussion and blood loss.



Something to consider between British soldiers and American hunters, is often the British recruits didn't get to practice that often as it was considered too expensive, while the hunters practised every day of their lives so they could eat. This resulted in the Americans and Southerners receiving good report in aim in both the revolutionary and civil wars.

Do you have a source for this? While the British were a little rundown after the Seven Years War, I've heard that they were generally renown for their weapons drill compared to other European nations, only beaten by the Prussians. I fully agree that the American light infantry, drawn from the hunter and woodsmen, were better shots with their rifles than British line infantry, but a skirmisher line has issues standing against a large body of men marching up to 50 yards to fire a volley down their throats before charging them with bayonets.

It's worthy of note that after the first year, the British trained more light infantry to screen off the American sharp shooters, while the Continental Army trained more line infantry (or rather, they finally got their training system up and running) to resist the British smashing through their lines.

[Kiero]

On the subject, I recall a unit during the American Revolution who required their men to hit a nose-sized target at 50 yards.

Something to consider between British soldiers and American hunters, is often the British recruits didn't get to practice that often as it was considered too expensive, while the hunters practised every day of their lives so they could eat. This resulted in the Americans and Southerners receiving good report in aim in both the revolutionary and civil wars.

Not sure the bit about British infantry not training due to cost was true. In this era they were one of the few armies who routinely practised with live ammunition. Though not for target shooting, but platoon fire.

American backwoodsmen might have been good shots, but your average townsman pulled into his local militia was often no better with a firearm than any other urban civilian who rarely had cause to shoot anything. The idea of all these large numbers of American snipers running around the Revolutionary War was largely myth.

Why do you think the British made such heavy use of native scouts in the earlier French and Indian War? And did again in large numbers in the Revolutionary War? There were large numbers of Loyalists (about a quarter of the population), even enough to form Ranger units. But still nowhere near enough to avoid reliance on native scouts.


This got me thinking. Were there many units throughout the history of early firearms who made use of sharpshooters and re-loaders? That is, the best shots in the unit do all the shooting, while the rest pass them loaded rifles. Considering the effectiveness of a skilled shooter with a properly loaded rifle, this would've seen worth the while. If charged or attacked from close range, the re-loaders and everyone could fire at will, and draw swords. I recall a couple of systems for filing back musketeers who had fired so a new line could fire, but that's the closest that comes to mind.

Not really very practical if those same riflemen are expected to be scouts and skirmishers. Even if you paired up a loader and a shooter, who's going to cover the shooter when he's moving?

[Mr. Mask]

What I recall on the subject is that the British were considered well-practised, in that they practised shooting at all, some soldiers in other armies only getting to fire a few shots before being marched off to battle (I've even heard reports of soldiers who didn't get to fire before battle). I also recall something about the British having trouble because they didn't get to fight at their preferred range against the Americans.

[Galloglaich]

On the subject, I recall a unit during the American Revolution who required their men to hit a nose-sized target at 50 yards.

Something to consider between British soldiers and American hunters, is often the British recruits didn't get to practice that often as it was considered too expensive, while the hunters practised every day of their lives so they could eat. This resulted in the Americans and Southerners receiving good report in aim in both the revolutionary and civil wars.


This got me thinking. Were there many units throughout the history of early firearms who made use of sharpshooters and re-loaders? That is, the best shots in the unit do all the shooting, while the rest pass them loaded rifles. Considering the effectiveness of a skilled shooter with a properly loaded rifle, this would've seen worth the while. If charged or attacked from close range, the re-loaders and everyone could fire at will, and draw swords. I recall a couple of systems for filing back musketeers who had fired so a new line could fire, but that's the closest that comes to mind.

The did that a lot with crossbows. Probably guns too.

In the medieval period there always seemed to be some guys who could shoot very accurately with smoothbore weapons. Most of course could not at least in theory, but a fair number could.

They used to have shooting contests routinely in the towns and they would send out targets with the invitation, the invitation itself was a target and was also sized to whatever they considered a foot (or whatever their basic unit of measure was, an ell or whatever) and it would state how many of that unit of measure determined the distance, so that the person considering paying the fee and entering the contest could better decide whether to go for it.

Some of these have survived and while I don't remember the exact figures, it seems that, people who won those contests were probably pretty good shots. Better than the typical modern estimates for a hand-culverin or an early harquebus.

Later in the 16th Century in accounts of the siege of Malta, the chronicler mentioned that both the Spanish and the Ottomans had some gunners who could shoot long distances, sharpshooters, but that most regular soldiers weren't that accurate.

G

[Mr. Mask]

Makes sense. Thanks G.

Know of any cases of musketeers bringing sandbags with them to battle? Either full ones or to be filled wherever they decided to set up. I think there were still a few cases of pavises with early guns, but I can't remember if sandbags were ever a thing with mobile formations (personally, I'd like to kneel behind a couple of sandbags).

[rrgg]

On the subject of a 16 inch naval cannon in space. While it's technically true the projectile would have unlimited range (ie it would continue orbiting around the earth forever), if the target is at a higher or lower orbit than the cannon then the projectile will need a certain amount of speed to actually reach it. For example, hitting the moon from Low-earth orbit would require around 3,000 m/s of change in velocity. This, and the fact that a station at LEO is already orbiting at around 10,000 m/s means that cannon shell fired at 1000 m/s probably wouldn't be too impressive except at really close ranges against targets that already have close-to matching orbits.

In either case, it would probably make more sense to use self-propelled projectiles for space fights since you wouldn't have to burn fuel correcting your orbit after every shot and you could potentially use much more efficient fuels than gunpowder. Or if they're available, use high powered laser weapons so they can't be dodged or intercepted.

[Kiero]

What I recall on the subject is that the British were considered well-practised, in that they practised shooting at all, some soldiers in other armies only getting to fire a few shots before being marched off to battle (I've even heard reports of soldiers who didn't get to fire before battle). I also recall something about the British having trouble because they didn't get to fight at their preferred range against the Americans.

Napoleon was a great believer in infantry "learning on campaign" - which is to say he didn't think much of the value of training his infantry to do anything besides march in column and do as they were told.

The British, however, drilled with live ammo extensively.

They had trouble with the Americans because they were a regular army drilled to fight another formed body, against an irregular militia staying behind cover for the most part and melting away when charged. The Americans never stood up to a bayonet charge and lost almost every stand-up fight they tried to engage the British with. The Continental Army were never the match of the British line infantry, they didn't start winning until they had French regulars to fight alongside them.

[rrgg]

Makes sense. Thanks G.

Know of any cases of musketeers bringing sandbags with them to battle? Either full ones or to be filled wherever they decided to set up. I think there were still a few cases of pavises with early guns, but I can't remember if sandbags were ever a thing with mobile formations (personally, I'd like to kneel behind a couple of sandbags).

Gabions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabion) were sometimes used, which were a little like sandbags. They were generally large, cylindrical wicker baskets which could be filled with earth in order to create makeshift fortifications.

[Mike_G]

The Americans never stood up to a bayonet charge and lost almost every stand-up fight they tried to engage the British with. The Continental Army were never the match of the British line infantry, they didn't start winning until they had French regulars to fight alongside them.

Lies.

Concord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord), Bennington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bennington), Saratoga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Saratoga), Trenton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trenton), Princeton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Princeton), King's Mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain) , Cowpens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cowpens), Yorktown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown).

Not only did the Americans win all these major battles, they more or less eliminated the British force in more than half of them. Only at Yorktown did they have significant numbers of French troops.

They also fought to a draw at Monmouth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monmouth) and Guilford Couthouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House) as well as forced a Pyrrhic victory at Bunker Hill, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill) crippling the British army and retreating intact, thus forcing the Brits to abandon Boston the following spring.


In no battle did the Americans surrender an army. Burgoyne and Cornwallis both did.

[Mr. Mask]

Rrgg: Oh, gabions. I remember seeing them in some illustrations. As you say, they're perfect for makeshift forts the same way as sandbags, so I expect pike blocks carried a few which they'd fill up for that purpose.

Still, it makes me wonder if anyone used them offensively. Where you have a few guys lugging full gabions or sandbags and quickly tossing them into a makeshift-shield as you come into range. I think the logistical problems of them being heavy, and the potential of coming under fire while your guys are placing them rather than filing into combat order would be considered too worrisome.

[fusilier]

I could certainly imagine that as a parade-ground ideal. But when there's real artillery going off, volleys of small arms fire, men and horses screaming - is anyone going to be able to hear the regimental musicians clearly enough to react to the commands being played?

Yes. Personally experienced it at reenactments, but it is well attested in reports from the time.

[fusilier]

Rrgg: Oh, gabions. I remember seeing them in some illustrations. As you say, they're perfect for makeshift forts the same way as sandbags, so I expect pike blocks carried a few which they'd fill up for that purpose.

Still, it makes me wonder if anyone used them offensively. Where you have a few guys lugging full gabions or sandbags and quickly tossing them into a makeshift-shield as you come into range. I think the logistical problems of them being heavy, and the potential of coming under fire while your guys are placing them rather than filing into combat order would be considered too worrisome.

Gabions are moved empty and filled up on the spot, either by shoveling earth, or with sandbags.

Traditionally they were used while constructing a sap* under fire.(EDIT-- that's not their only use though --EDIT) I've also read of both gabions and sandbags being used during beach landings to quickly build up a position. (All from a 19th century engineer manual). One of the things about combat engineers is that they are expected to do stuff like that under fire.

*A sap is a trench that approaches the enemy's work.

[Storm Bringer]

This got me thinking. Were there many units throughout the history of early firearms who made use of sharpshooters and re-loaders? That is, the best shots in the unit do all the shooting, while the rest pass them loaded rifles. Considering the effectiveness of a skilled shooter with a properly loaded rifle, this would've seen worth the while. If charged or attacked from close range, the re-loaders and everyone could fire at will, and draw swords. I recall a couple of systems for filing back musketeers who had fired so a new line could fire, but that's the closest that comes to mind.

to my knowledge, it was never official practice, but their a multiple anecdotes of this happening, normally in a defensive situation ( when firing thought loopholes, over over a high wall etc) where the loaders had cover to shelter behind and the troops were not in formed units. Theirs a depiction of this in the 2004 Alamo flim (with Wild Bill being supplied by three others.....and dropping a Mexican with almost every shot)

in three rank lines, the rear rank could rarely shoot properly, and often did not. I know both the British and French Napoleonic drill books said that the third rank could pass their loaded muskets foreward and reload the empty ones of the second line, but Ive not heard of anyone actually doing this under fire (the rear tank being very... unwilling to give up their weapons)

[Carl]

@RRGG: Yes and then again no. You can reach a given orbit with far less velocity than is required to maintain the orbit. Technically, (very technically, but the physics hangs together) a standard groundside artillery shell is just following a sub orbital trajectory and yet can reach altitudes equivalent to an orbit of a few 10's of KM, it just can't say there.

That said again, at any range where this would actually matter it isn't going to mean anything unless the shell can alter trajectory anyway.


Also lasers really aren't as great as people assume. Powerful, at closer ranges and in specific scenario's. Yes. But beyond a certain range no practical sized mirrion can focus the beam tightly enough to make the power requirements reasonable.

[fusilier]

to my knowledge, it was never official practice, but their a multiple anecdotes of this happening, normally in a defensive situation ( when firing thought loopholes, over over a high wall etc) where the loaders had cover to shelter behind and the troops were not in formed units. Theirs a depiction of this in the 2004 Alamo flim (with Wild Bill being supplied by three others.....and dropping a Mexican with almost every shot)

in three rank lines, the rear rank could rarely shoot properly, and often did not. I know both the British and French Napoleonic drill books said that the third rank could pass their loaded muskets foreward and reload the empty ones of the second line, but Ive not heard of anyone actually doing this under fire (the rear tank being very... unwilling to give up their weapons)

In the manuals that I've read, they traded weapons with the center rank. It was for independent firing (fire by files), where the front rank would have to be standing to reload. (Note: the center rank can fire over the shoulders of the front rank, but the rear rank can only fire when the front rank is kneeling). I don't see why they wouldn't do it, they've got a solid mass of men covering them, and they can't fire their weapons without injuring their comrades. Admittedly I haven't read of any examples of them doing it -- but I also haven't heard anything saying they explicitly ignored their training in combat. (On the other hand, they often formed in two ranks instead of three, so it becomes moot).

EDIT -- Also the center rank man might not take "I'm not passing you my musket" as an acceptable answer. ;-)

[Mr. Mask]

Carl: How do particle-beams compare?

[Storm Bringer]

In the manuals that I've read, they traded weapons with the center rank. It was for independent firing (fire by files), where the front rank would have to be standing to reload. (Note: the center rank can fire over the shoulders of the front rank, but the rear rank can only fire when the front rank is kneeling). I don't see why they wouldn't do it, they've got a solid mass of men covering them, and they can't fire their weapons without injuring their comrades. Admittedly I haven't read of any examples of them doing it -- but I also haven't heard anything saying they explicitly ignored their training in combat. (On the other hand, they often formed in two ranks instead of three, so it becomes moot).

EDIT -- Also the center rank man might not take "I'm not passing you my musket" as an acceptable answer. ;-)

yes, but the key thing to remember in any disagreement is the rear rank has a loaded mustket and the center rank does not:smallbiggrin:

on a more serious note, your right, in that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but every reference I have seen to his practice was skeptical in the extreme that this actually happened in the field.

with the two/three ranks thing. every major nation in the Napoleonic wars had drill manuals that said they fought in three ranks. The brits did as well, but their commanders just mugged the manual off on this aspect and fought in three ranks, to the point that it was a sign of a real anal-disciplinarian that they made their men fight in three ranks. four rank formations were sometimes used when the threat of cavalry was very high (as it was quicker to form square form four ranks)

[fusilier]

yes, but the key thing to remember in any disagreement is the rear rank has a loaded mustket and the center rank does not:smallbiggrin:

on a more serious note, your right, in that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but every reference I have seen to his practice was skeptical in the extreme that this actually happened in the field.

with the two/three ranks thing. every major nation in the Napoleonic wars had drill manuals that said they fought in three ranks. The brits did as well, but their commanders just mugged the manual off on this aspect and fought in three ranks, to the point that it was a sign of a real anal-disciplinarian that they made their men fight in three ranks. four rank formations were sometimes used when the threat of cavalry was very high (as it was quicker to form square form four ranks)

:-)

I view it as training and a sense of teamwork. More useful to hand a musket to your comrade who can fire it, and reload a musket, than to simply hold onto it and do nothing.* Also a lot of firing was by volley, and in that case all three ranks can (and are supposed to) fire. While firing by file was a common technique to space out the firing to give continuous fire -- firing volleys by company/platoon could allow the regiment/battalion to keep up continuous fire.

Another factor to consider, especially when dealing with cavalry, there was often a trick to reserving fire from a rank, so that when the cavalry closed there would be some loaded soldiers. It is fascinating to consider all the different firing patterns that muzzle-loading guns entailed, that I'm guessing don't really exist any more.

Concerning two/three ranks, I get the sense that American officers did the same thing during the Mexican-American War: primarily fighting in two ranks. Although there are some paintings by eye witnesses that would indicate that three ranks were used at least occasionally. If I recall correctly the 1835 manual, while focused on three-ranks, doesn't forbid the use of two ranks.


*The conditions under which independent firing (and fire-by-files is just the way of initiating independent firing) were supposed to be used were basically when the regiment was exchanging fire with the enemy at range -- that range might be 40 or 50 yards, but the theory is that you are neither expecting to charge or being charged. So the reluctance to exchange a loaded musket for an empty one may not have been that great in those conditions. Also, it may have relieved stress to be doing *something*. If your line is being charged, however, I can understand that a soldier might want to hold on to his loaded musket (although in that situation you should be firing volleys).

[Closet_Skeleton]

Carl: How do particle-beams compare?

I'm not Carl but:

Particle-beam is basically just a nonsense Sci Fi term. There are plenty of reasonable physically plausible weapons it could describe, but on its own it doesn't really specify anything. If you count photons as particles than a laser is a particle beam.

But the basic problem with a particle beam is that its just a ton of really low-mass bullets. Unless they're ionised particles but you didn't say 'ion/plasma weaponry' so I have no idea if that's what you meant.

Plasma weaponry might work, but you can't say anything about them because they'll need some weird mechanism nobody has got to work.

A mere heavy particle beam on the other hand is a laser without the speed and a bullet without the stopping power.


Napoleon was a great believer in infantry "learning on campaign" - which is to say he didn't think much of the value of training his infantry to do anything besides march in column and do as they were told.

The British, however, drilled with live ammo extensively.

That's BS.

The Napoleonic French army was far better trained than the British one. Just ask Wellington (though he was just as often complaining about how his soldiers were too low class as that they were inferiorly trained).

Napoleon believed in actually having his army at a general level of fitness. He trained his men to swim and march rather than just be able to shoot. The Revolutionary French armies were so dangerous because they were not only far larger than previous armies but were also superior in quality.

The British just drilled and drilled because they couldn't match the French for manoeuvrability and being able to shoot as accurately as possible was the only hope they had.

[Storm Bringer]

well, as you point out, any sustained firefight tendeded to become a independent/fire at will situation (for the obvious reason that soldiers just didn't see any reason to wait once they were loaded, so just fired and reloaded as fast as they could)

theirs a comment form a British officer about platoon firing to the effect of "looks impressive on the parade ground, but really bad idea to attempt in the face of the enemy".


Concerning two/three ranks, I get the sense that American officers did the same thing during the Mexican-American War: primarily fighting in two ranks. Although there are some paintings by eye witnesses that would indicate that three ranks were used at least occasionally. If I recall correctly the 1835 manual, while focused on three-ranks, doesn't forbid the use of two ranks.


another enlightening comment form a British officer, this time in Burma. during a planning session, someone commented that the British drill manual had been translated into Burmese several years ago, and that this might give the them an insight into the British tactics. One officer, a peninsular veteran, replied "don't worry, we cant make any sense of that book, and we wrote the damm thing, what chance have they got?"

[Kiero]

Note what I said - that the Continental army were never the match of British line infantry.


Lies.

Concord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord),

I think it's rather charitable to call either of these engagements "battles". Where did the Americans sieze the ground upon which the battle was fought or take the British camp?


Bennington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bennington),

Outnumbered the "British" (actually Hessians here) almost 3:1, and took advantage of their order not to fire on Loyalists by pretending to be Loyalists. Then while they were busy looting the camp afterwards, ran away when reinforcements arrived. Not a terribly impressive victory.


Saratoga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Saratoga),

Burgoyne was an incompetent, but you can have that one. But notice once again that the Americans handily outnumbered the British by a large margin (especially by the end of the siege). Gates and Arnold hardly covered themselves in glory.


Trenton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trenton),

So a surprise attack on men (Hessians again, not British infantry) in winter quarters is a "battle" now? Did the Americans hold the ground they took after the battle?

If that's a "battle", I give you Paoli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Paoli)which was similarly a surprise attack - only the British were outnumbered by the Americans they routed.


Princeton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Princeton),

Once again the Americans significantly outnumbered the British, and in the first clash the Americans ran away, the whole thing only being salvaged by Washington himself rallying them. But, you can have that one too.


King's Mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain) ,

Militia on militia. Where were the British line infantry?

This isn't as dismissive as it might sound; there are plenty of examples going both ways of militia-on-militia skirmishes in the Southern campaign, but none of those clashes involved British line infantry. Some of them recorded as "battles" are absolutely tiny, or are simply ambushes or "sieges" on farmsteads or government buildings.


Cowpens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cowpens),

Definitely a battle, definitely an American victory. Tarleton's Legion didn't have any British infantry in it, though. They were Loyalist militia infantry with some British and Loyalist cavalry.

The British won the stand-up fights in the Carolinas campaign - they'd have been annihilated if they'd lost. They also lost far more men to disease than they did American action.


Yorktown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown).

Not only did the Americans win all these major battles, they more or less eliminated the British force in more than half of them. Only at Yorktown did they have significant numbers of French troops.

That's a siege, not a battle. Malaria did most of the work there, too. And let's face it, given the lack of support back home (or rather the divided loyalties since many people supported the rebels) it was a foregone conclusion by then.


They also fought to a draw at Monmouth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monmouth) and Guilford Couthouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House) as well as forced a Pyrrhic victory at Bunker Hill, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill) crippling the British army and retreating intact, thus forcing the Brits to abandon Boston the following spring.

Brandywine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brandywine)- straight fight in almost equal numbers (though the British did have more artillery)
Germantown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Germantown)- numerically-superior American force defeated in a straight fight.
White Marsh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_White_Marsh) - Howe held back (a recurrent theme) leading to a draw
Quebec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Quebec_%281775%29)- though the British had numbers there.
Trois-Rivières (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trois-Rivi%C3%A8res) - numerically-superior American force defeated in a straight fight.
Hobkirk's Hill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hobkirk's_Hill) - despite outnumbering the British, Americans were driven off.
Eutaw Springs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Eutaw_Springs) - straight fight in equal numbers - Americans defeated.

And let us not forget the wonder that was the Penobscot Expedition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penobscot_Expedition). Or the invasion of Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281775%29) more broadly.


In no battle did the Americans surrender an army. Burgoyne and Cornwallis both did.

You don't need to surrender when your men can flee, melt into the local Patriot population and re-form at a later date to fight again.

The Revolutionary War is always painted in the propaganda (both of the time and modern) as this titanic struggle between the underdog and a mighty empire. When it was really a civil war with a side of insurgency against a half-hearted attempt by Britain to recover the colonies on the cheap when they were more interested in retaining India.

[Mr. Mask]

I'm working out statistics to control how likely a character is to get shot, for a computer simulator. Here are some notes on my thoughts.


Aim: Ability to shoot under combat conditions, affects your accuracy. The weapon, character's skill, field conditions, and how much time you take to aim affect Aim. Aim will also affect things like how long you aim your shots.


Recoil: It takes time, effort and skill to bring the barrel back on point after each kick of recoil. For single-shot, recoil essentially just requires you to reacquire your sight-picture. For burst-fire, each shot increases the penalty to your accuracy, up to the maximum penalty after the third shot. Most people will not be able to hit anything after the third shot, and no one will be particularly accurate.

Recoil is reduced by Aim (or skill, you might say) and physical Strength.


Aimed shots: From a reflexive snap-shot, to a hastily measured shot, to taking a proper stance and controlling your breathing before shooting. The amount of time it takes to aim is slightly randomized, based off your Aim skill and the difficulty of the shot. Sometimes, you'll get an excellent bead on them at once, or you'll take a while to miss your mark.


Concealment: Full concealment makes it extremely hard to hit a target, you'll just be blind firing. You might be able to get a bead on their position, reducing their "concealment score", from them doing stuff like shooting at you, making noise, firing off mortars, whatever. I might do a straight % chance of how likely you are to make your attack roll on an enemy. From 0.01% if you're not even quite sure an enemy exists in the premises, to 90% when visibility is just kind of poor. If the enemy stays quiet and slinks away into the darkness, and you fail to keep track of them, their Concealment score will recover back to a minimum (0.02%, when you know an enemy is somewhere around here).

Currently not certain how to deal with partial concealment, like a head peeking around a bush, or half of someone's body obscured by a fence. One way of looking at it, if you aim for a person's lower body through a fence, I'd say you have about a 50% chance of hitting it. Of course, the confusing part is if you aim at their centre of mass, at the top of the fence. That's something like a 50% chance of a bullet going through the fence, or going over it, with the shots going through the fence having a 50% chance of being an attack roll on the target or not, then the actual attack roll to see if you hit? Pretty confusing. Even if the computer can handle it, it'll be hard to explain the chances to the participants (I guess you could give them a % figure).


Cover: Like concealment, but presumably effective at slowing/stopping your weapons. Ranges from slight cover, to complete cover. If an enemy bunkers down behind complete cover, the only way to hit them is to penetrate the cover (unless you can say, throw a grenade over it). If the enemy shoots back at you, then it is no longer complete cover--they need to expose themselves at least a little (assuming no corner-shock guns).

Lesser cover makes you less likely to be hit. Shooting through cover is treated the same as concealment, plus your bullets are stopped or slowed.


Movement: Movement is divided into lateral and non-lateral. Fully lateral movement gives the largest dodge bonus. Medial movement would give little dodge bonus I'd expect, as only the uneven nature of the terrain making you bob a bit makes you hard to hit. The faster you move, the larger your dodge bonus (multiplied by lateral movement modifier). However at the same time, enemies get a bonus for aimed shots against you. This makes it so that if you take time to aim at a moving target, you can get a bead on them and shoot them pretty reliably (though it's still harder than shooting a stationary target). This makes cover much more effective than moving quickly. You can, however, make a quick dive for nearby cover with relative safety (as snap-shots have a hard time hitting you). [Note to self, make sure aim bonus no longer applies if the target stopped moving.]

Terrain modifies your movement speed and your dodge bonus. Ironically, rougher terrain increases your dodge modifier, but it decreases your speed--which will reduce your dodge bonus (presumably, moving over more uneven terrain will still give a slight dodging bonus).

Combat skill might give you a dodge bonus, as you're good at moving erratically and trying to move as laterally from your enemies as you can.

One thing I wonder about, is how to calculate running through cover. Like if there are rows of metal posts between you and your target, and they run past the posts, how do you calculate the cover with the movement?


Precision: Currently, thinking it's used to target weak-points in armour. So a sniper rifle mightn't be more accurate than a shotgun at close range, but it is better for a called shot between the eyes.

Rather than straight criticals like in DnD, your opponents have critical thresholds based off their armour and weak-points. Large weak points are easy to hit, particularly at close range. You might hit them at random, particularly with volume of fire from SMGs and shotgun pellets. Precision weapons like sniper rifles gain their Precision bonus when targeting these weak-points.



Those are my current thoughts on how to calculate aiming and shooting people in a simplified computer simulation. Please let me know if I seem to have missed anything or are veering off course.

[Mike_G]

Note what I said - that the Continental army were never the match of British line infantry.



Outnumbered the "British" (actually Hessians here) almost 3:1, and took advantage of their order not to fire on Loyalists by pretending to be Loyalists. Then while they were busy looting the camp afterwards, ran away when reinforcements arrived. Not a terribly impressive victory.


Wiping a thousand man unit off the map for the loss of less than a hundred men is a victory.




Burgoyne was an incompetent, but you can have that one. But notice once again that the Americans handily outnumbered the British by a large margin (especially by the end of the siege). Gates and Arnold hardly covered themselves in glory.


Burgoyne had to surrender an invading army. Not a company. Not a regiment. An army. Of professional redcoats. After a stand-up fight.

This is a loss for you side, mate. I don't know how much better you expect an amateur force to do.




So a surprise attack on men (Hessians again, not British infantry) in winter quarters is a "battle" now? Did the Americans hold the ground they took after the battle?


It wasn't an attempt to take ground. It eliminated another thousadn man force of European regulars.

Wiped off the map, not driven off to fight another day. All done. Have George call up his cousins and ask for some more German troops.




Once again the Americans significantly outnumbered the British, and in the first clash the Americans ran away, the whole thing only being salvaged by Washington himself rallying them. But, you can have that one too.



Gee thanks.

Since Americans won a battle without French regulars, which your initial point was they couldn't, I applaud your magnanimity is giving me this one.





Definitely a battle, definitely an American victory. Tarleton's Legion didn't have any British infantry in it, though. They were Loyalist militia infantry with some British and Loyalist cavalry.



The 7th Royal Fusiliers and the 71st Highlanders were British regiments. Both were there, both were effectively wiped out.

In a stand up fight, against American forces, without any French regulars.



You don't need to surrender when your men can flee, melt into the local Patriot population and re-form at a later date to fight again.

The Revolutionary War is always painted in the propaganda (both of the time and modern) as this titanic struggle between the underdog and a mighty empire. When it was really a civil war with a side of insurgency against a half-hearted attempt by Britain to recover the colonies on the cheap when they were more interested in retaining India.

I'm not disputing that the British, being a professional army, won more battles than they lost. But your statement that the American forces "never stood up to a British bayonet charge until they had French regulars fighting beside them" is absolutely false.

American forces were generally less effective in stand up battles. But they won a few, and fought a few to either a draw, or made victory so expensive for the British that tactical defeats set up strategic victories. Like Guilford or Bunker Hill.

As far as surprise attacks, the fact that Washington was smart enough to fight when he had the advantage and run when he didn't makes him a rather better general than Burgoyne, or Howe or Cornwallis

If you only count battles with regular line infantry, and only count victories as the battles where the winner held the field, then yes, Britain won the war, and we still sing God Save the Queen.

By that logic, South Vietnam is still a US backed puppet government.

[Brother Oni]

Recoil: It takes time, effort and skill to bring the barrel back on point after each kick of recoil. For single-shot, recoil essentially just requires you to reacquire your sight-picture. For burst-fire, each shot increases the penalty to your accuracy, up to the maximum penalty after the third shot. Most people will not be able to hit anything after the third shot, and no one will be particularly accurate.

Recoil is reduced by Aim (or skill, you might say) and physical Strength.


Are you treating each shot in a burst as a separate attack? Most modern weapons fire so quickly that it's very difficult to split the three rounds onto anything but a single target and a number of weapons are designed for burst firing, with various inbuilt recoil compensation systems that delay the recoil until the third rounds has left the barrel. Shadowrun handles this by having burst fire as a single attack option that deals increased damage but with the same approximate accuracy as single shot.

I'd also include some weapon modifications and external add-ons that reduce recoil.



Precision: Currently, thinking it's used to target weak-points in armour. So a sniper rifle mightn't be more accurate than a shotgun at close range, but it is better for a called shot between the eyes.


Personally I'd call this Accuracy rather than Precision, since they're slightly different things (Accuracy is hitting the bullseye, Precision is achieving a tight grouping).

Are you including a sustained fire bonus to Aiming? While it's most noticeable with automatic weapons where you can 'walk' your fire onto the target, even with SA or SS weapons, you can make aiming adjustments based on watching the fall of your previous rounds.

[Galloglaich]

The only battle that ever mattered between the Americans and the British, elite British line infantry utterly savaged by a rabble of pirates, drunks, militia and a few American regulars.

The only war New Orleans ever fought, total victory for New Orleans. Muricuh.

http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/65/124565-004-E830F26A.jpg

Also the best song ever recorded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL7XS_8qgXM

lyrics, 100% accurate account of the battle in every detail needless to say. And really everything you ever needed to know about the relative merits of English vs American (and New Orleans riff raff) troops.

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississippi
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans


We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico


We looked down the river and we seed the British come
And there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum
They stepped so high and they made their bugles ring
We stood behind our cotton bales and didn't say a thing


We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico


Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets till we looked 'em in the eyes
We held our fire till we seed their faces well
Then we opened up our squirrel guns and gave 'em
Well, we


Fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico


Yeah they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico


We fired our cannon till the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round
We filled his head with cannonballs 'n' powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind


We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico


Yeah they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico


Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four

[Galloglaich]

The alligator proved to be a super-weapon that the British couldn't cope with, let alone comprehend with their puny minds.

Some of them are still stuck down there in those briars where the rabbits can't go, afraid to emerge.

100% fact.

G

[Galloglaich]

Too soon?

G

[Storm Bringer]

Too soon?

G

meh. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington)
point to my failings, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)
and I will point to yours. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kasserine_Pass)

edit:

I know, I know. Pot,kettle, black.... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore),

[Galloglaich]

Well, for ever Pearl Harbor or Kasserine Pass, you have a Singapore, a Gazala, a Market Garden, a Khyber pass, a Sepoy Rebellion or what have you


As far as I'm concerned, burn Washington again, you'd be doing me a favor.




We both know what would happen if you tried to bother New Orleans again...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/39/eb/2a/39eb2a54b7fbd929e898b21e3fcf1f82.jpg

[Storm Bringer]

pah.

you have a Singapore,
a Gazala,
a Market Garden,
a Khyber pass,
a Sepoy Rebellion or what have you


straight up, honest to god shameful defeat (which I mentioned in my last post)

run of the mill defeat ( you get those every so often when you've been globetrotting for 400 years)

a battle that secured two of its three main objectives? as defeats go, its no worse than the Bulge

a bloody stupid commander is left in a untenable position by poor decisions from higher up, and decides to trust the word of a weak government* whose promises of safe passage are not worth the air used to say them.

and a unsuccessful rebellion that was caused by political mismanagement and put down by the army.


your attempt to delve into our seedy history comes up short.

For me, the ultimate low point was going to war with china over our right to sell drugs to Chinese. For a second time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War)




We both know what would happen if you tried to bother New Orleans again...



we have bled more, for less. (http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/03/56/90/13_big.jpg)


but enough posturing.

Can I just end on the note that for every Singapore, their is Agincourt. for every New Orleans, their is a Plains of Abraham. for every Fall Rot, their is a Kursk. for every Tushima, their is a Midway

every great victory was also a great defeat.

* weak in the sense that it had limited to no control over the tribal elders away form Kabul.

[Galloglaich]

every great victory was also a great defeat.



yes it's true. Probably the only ones worth really cheering about are the defensive ones against hostile invaders.

G

[fusilier]

well, as you point out, any sustained firefight tendeded to become a independent/fire at will situation (for the obvious reason that soldiers just didn't see any reason to wait once they were loaded, so just fired and reloaded as fast as they could)

In the case of fire-by-files that's actually what the manuals specify -- the first shot is fired in series, then they are expected to load and fire at will.


another enlightening comment form a British officer, this time in Burma. during a planning session, someone commented that the British drill manual had been translated into Burmese several years ago, and that this might give the them an insight into the British tactics. One officer, a peninsular veteran, replied "don't worry, we cant make any sense of that book, and we wrote the damm thing, what chance have they got?"

Yeah, that's a good one -- there's a long history of poorly written manuals, and that certainly carried over into the American tradition. During the ACW many officers and soldiers had to modify them considerably to get something workable. :-)

Scott's Abstract of Infantry Tactics (typically dated 1830, but I believe was first printed in 1824), contains one of the most bizarre and complicated ways of going from one-rank to two-ranks that I've ever read. It must look terribly impressive if you can figure out how to do it! ;-)

[Mike_G]

pah.



Can I just end on the note that for every Singapore, their is Agincourt. for every New Orleans, their is a Plains of Abraham. for every Fall Rot, their is a Kursk. for every Tushima, their is a Midway

every great victory was also a great defeat.


I wasn't trying to start a trans-Atlantic Johnson-measuring contest.

But I will not sit idly by and say nothing when somebody says that the Americans never withstood a British charge, until the French came along to help.

Because that's just not even a little bit true.

It is true that the British won more of the set piece battles than they lost, but that should be expected of a professional army trained to fight that kind of battle.

But, in a number of stand up battles, the American forces did reasonably well. They won a few--without any foreign help; they bloodied a number of British armies and retreated to fight another day; and they forced the surrender of a number of large units of European regulars.

If anything, the worst American defeats were at the hands of irregular forces supporting the British, whether that was Native American Indians or Loyalist militia.

So, yes, the myth of the Americans as eagle-eyed sharpshooters fighting a scrappy underdog war against the silly regulars in their bright red coats is at best an exaggeration and at worst a lie, but so is the take that the steadfast British regulars routinely swept the American rabble off the field.

[BayardSPSR]

I want to add that my reading suggests that the behavior of soldiers and officers in 18th-century and Napoleonic wars (in particular) was frustratingly inconsistent, at least from the perspective of someone trying to figure out how to mathematically model it. Every generalization I've seen about the supposed characteristics of units or nations has enough truth to explain how it came about, but not enough to be remotely useful for predictive purposes.

Not to say that all training systems or unit histories are equal - it's just that it's hard to measure, and the results don't speak for themselves. For instance, a dramatic shortage of ammunition for training purposes doesn't seem to have dramatically impacted the performance of Russian infantry at Borodino, despite it being absurd to assume that a force with little to no marksmanship training would be as effective as the same force with more marksmanship training, or that such a force would be just as effective if their firearms were replaced with musket-shaped clubs.

I guess I'm saying war is complicated and the more I read about it the less I understand it - aside from the fact that victory is a poor measure of effectiveness. I get that part.

[Carl]

I wasn't trying to start a trans-Atlantic Johnson-measuring contest.

Except that is exactly what you were engaging in. MB what you've admitted in your own posts you are flat out wrong about the quality of american forces of the era by not refuting several points made about numbers and types, (i.e. non-line infantry), your failing to show that actually the american forces were on par with the british forces. To do that and win the argument you've actually got to show a string of victories where circumstances and numbers placed the american's forces at equality with the british forces and they won. That doesn't mean storm bringer has conclusively proven his argument either. But you've certainly failed at the attempt to refute his assertion by picking blatantly biased examples that didn't require an equal or superior soldier to actually win it.

I doubt given the nature of war your going to be able to find suitable examples mind. To adapt a phrase. Line soldiers talk tactics, officers talk strategy, Generals talk logistics. It's clear from the number of defeats delivered to the british by superior sized american forces that the american forces had advantages in logistics and/or strategy in each case that made any tactical limitations of their forces that army or may not have existed irellevent.


I guess I'm saying war is complicated and the more I read about it the less I understand it - aside from the fact that victory is a poor measure of effectiveness. I get that part.

Or this :p.


I'm not Carl but:

Particle-beam is basically just a nonsense Sci Fi term. There are plenty of reasonable physically plausible weapons it could describe, but on its own it doesn't really specify anything. If you count photons as particles than a laser is a particle beam.

But the basic problem with a particle beam is that its just a ton of really low-mass bullets. Unless they're ionised particles but you didn't say 'ion/plasma weaponry' so I have no idea if that's what you meant.

Plasma weaponry might work, but you can't say anything about them because they'll need some weird mechanism nobody has got to work.

A mere heavy particle beam on the other hand is a laser without the speed and a bullet without the stopping power.


Ughhh. Nothing personal but this is full of fail. A particle traveling at the significant fraction of C seen in the various weapon types that can and are grouped under the general heading of a particle beam behaves nothing like a bullet on impact. As a practical matter particle beams in simple terms are really destructive for their energy input relative to lasers, (lasers have really big issues with inefficient beam generation followed by many target materials being poor energy absorbers), as they're both efficient and the target basically has to absorb all the energy if it wants to survive which can be tricky to do without overheat issues. Whilst it focuses on natural radiation hazards to colonies i recommend reading the radiation section of this (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap12.html). It doesn't cover the effects on electronics or structural components. But modern electronics are even more vulnerable to the stuff than humans are, and stopping the stuff means ultimately converting most of the beam energy to heat which means the armour material will get really, really hot. Oddly if you were to hit something very lightly armoured you'd kill the humans and fry the electronics but most of the energy would pass harmlessly through meaning structural damage would be quite confined.

Note that the fancy magnetic shielding described in the article above would only work until weapon particle energies were raised high enough. Eventually lots of material is the only defence.

the real issue is that their even more range limited than lasers though. Non-neutral particle beams are deflected by natural magnetic fields, (and they're everywhere in space), resulting in not entirely predictable particle stream deviation. Neutral beams are really hard to create and still disperse over distance worse than lasers, (yes laser suffer dispersion and the maximum you can use focusing to overcome it is determined by the size of the final mirror an the wavelength of the laser EM energy)

[BayardSPSR]

I doubt given the nature of war your going to be able to find suitable examples mind. To adapt a phrase. Line soldiers talk tactics, officers talk strategy, Generals talk logistics. It's clear from the number of defeats delivered to the british by superior sized american forces that the american forces had advantages in logistics and/or strategy in each case that made any tactical limitations of their forces that army or may not have existed irrelevant.

That, and the British forces lacked an achievable strategic objective that make the rebels stop fighting, which speaks to failures at the level of political leadership, and isn't remotely unique in the history of warfare. I'm sure certain... very very recent examples may come to mind, not that I'm inviting a discussion of them.

[Mike_G]

Except that is exactly what you were engaging in. MB what you've admitted in your own posts you are flat out wrong about the quality of american forces of the era by not refuting several points made about numbers and types, (i.e. non-line infantry), your failing to show that actually the american forces were on par with the british forces. To do that and win the argument you've actually got to show a string of victories where circumstances and numbers placed the american's forces at equality with the british forces and they won. That doesn't mean storm bringer has conclusively proven his argument either. But you've certainly failed at the attempt to refute his assertion by picking blatantly biased examples that didn't require an equal or superior soldier to actually win it.



Wow.

Not sure who or what MB is, and I was never arguing with Stormbringer.

Kiero said that the Americans "never stood up to a British bayonet charge until they had French regulars fighting beside them."

That is simply wrong, and I provided many, many, many examples where American forces did in fact stand up to British regulars.

I am not now, nor was I ever trying to conclusively prove that a bunch of civilian militia were equal to a large professional army.

Not sure what thread you've been reading.

My point was specific, limited and beyond proven.

[Carl]

B was a key miss hit and i had to look back at who you were quoting after hitting reply to thread via the scroll down interface, got it wrong sorry.


Kiero said that the Americans "never stood up to a British bayonet charge until they had French regulars fighting beside them."

That is simply wrong, and I provided many, many, many examples where American forces did in fact stand up to British regulars.

I am not now, nor was I ever trying to conclusively prove that a bunch of civilian militia were equal to a large professional army.

Not sure what thread you've been reading.

My point was specific, limited and beyond proven.

Yes but he was saying that, (or at least that was my reading of it), to point out the qualitative difference between the american and british forces in a stand up fight. Your from my perspective attacking the details of the argument rather than the point of the argument, (which was that the british forces were superior man for man).

[Mike_G]

B was a key miss hit and i had to look back at who you were quoting after hitting reply to thread via the scroll down interface, got it wrong sorry.



Yes but he was saying that, (or at least that was my reading of it), to point out the qualitative difference between the american and british forces in a stand up fight. Your from my perspective attacking the details of the argument rather than the point of the argument, (which was that the british forces were superior man for man).

Because the details were wrong.

You don't get to say things that are false and not get challenged.

If I said the Japanese never defeated American forces in the Pacific, you would be right to call BS and cite the Philippines and Wake, and you'd be right. I don't get to say those don't count because the Japanese outnumbered the US forces, or those weren't real battles or whatever. And if I reeled off a list of a dozen times the US defeated the Japanese, it wouldn't change the fact that my firsts statement was a lie.

American forces did, on numerous occasions, win major, stand up battles against British regulars. This is a fact.

That doesn't prove, nor was I ever trying to prove that Americans were better soldiers man for man.

I was refuting one point, made by Kiero, which was absolutely, demonstrably false.

Then G and Stormbringer got into a contest of who could name the most defeats of the other's country, but my point is specific and just freaking true.

[Telok]

If you're old enough (and most of us here are) you have pointed a partical accelerator at your face and turned it on. You know, the old cathode ray tube TVs and monitors.

[Carl]

@Mike_G: TBH it didn't come off like you were only going after that one point though. Misunderstanding i guess sorry.

@Telon: Thats like saying someone who's been fired at by one of these as a kid has been shot with a gun:

http://www.moretoyguns.com/toygun/27231-dt.jpg

It's accurate for a given definition of the word gun but bears zero similarity to an actual weapon or it's effects.

[Telok]

What, an electron gun that emits a stream of particles isn't a particle beam device?
It certainly is the difference between, say, an air-soft or paint ball and the above mentioned 16 inch shells. But it is also the same principal and technology in a CRT and a 'particle beam weapon'.

[Carl]

Oh i'm not arguing that they don't use the same tech or qualify as particle beams, (though from what i know there are some rather massive differences between the two), hence my analogy. Just that it's not a remotely viable weapon or even remotely close to a viable weapon, or even really within any kind of sight of a viable weapon. So i'm not actually sure why you brought it up? Care to elaborate?

[Carl]

If you want an idea of the difficulty of stopping high energy particle beams check the bottom part of this (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/december-2007/protecting-the-lhc-from-itself) article. Now sure by the standards of an actual weapon the energy density of the beam is just little obscene. That was a deliberate ridiculously huge understatement. But the total energy over a more reasonable firing time, (a few seconds plus), is much more reasonable.

Now the results might not sound very impressive, but remember, that's 7 meter's of graphene they needed, (actually they chose graphene so they could make it that long to maximize the amount of volume the energy is dumped into), and the whole contraption is buried under ridiculous amounts of concrete and dirt as far away from the manner parts of the facility as possible because it generate stupidly huge amounts of hard radiation when it dumps which is not absorbed by the dump. So you couldn't just cover your ship in 7 meter's of graphene and be safe. Not that 7 meter's of graphene is an especially small or light covering for even an iowa sized space going vessel.

[Mr. Mask]

Carl: Hmm, interesting. So particle beams can have significant effects on electronics, similar to EMP effects, with large amounts of harmful radiation? Or is that only when scaled up to something like the LHC? I recall an idea to use mercury for a particle beam weapon, as it would poison people as well as burning them.



Are you treating each shot in a burst as a separate attack? Most modern weapons fire so quickly that it's very difficult to split the three rounds onto anything but a single target and a number of weapons are designed for burst firing, with various inbuilt recoil compensation systems that delay the recoil until the third rounds has left the barrel. Shadowrun handles this by having burst fire as a single attack option that deals increased damage but with the same approximate accuracy as single shot.

I'd also include some weapon modifications and external add-ons that reduce recoil. This is a good point. I could have each attack be a certain number of rounds based off the weapon's RoF. So, for most weapons, three shots per attack. The penalties still apply per shot, so that if you barely scratch a guy with your first shot, your second and third will miss. Hmmm... maybe we need to go deeper. I could have it semi-randomized with the second and third shots, that they take the original roll of your three-burst attack, then modify it by so much from -X to +X (+ the recoil penalty). So, this could also simulate your second shot hitting them in the head. Of course, then I wonder if rolling for each shot doesn't work about as well as that, for less complication. When you consider the target is probably moving as the shots come their way, the randomness of whether your second shot misses and you happen to be sweeping your rifle so the third hits or misses.

Notably, you can have lines that indicate that in the game. Where the shooter comments, "he moved" when two out of three shots missed.

It's a good point about recoil compensators and the like. I'm planning to include weapon tampering so you can effect their stats quite a bit.



Personally I'd call this Accuracy rather than Precision, since they're slightly different things (Accuracy is hitting the bullseye, Precision is achieving a tight grouping).

Are you including a sustained fire bonus to Aiming? While it's most noticeable with automatic weapons where you can 'walk' your fire onto the target, even with SA or SS weapons, you can make aiming adjustments based on watching the fall of your previous rounds. Hmm, well, here's the way I look at it. If you have a laser that's difficult to aim, it has perfect precision (within the limitations of the user's hands shaking), but little accuracy (because you don't know how the dumb sights work on the thing). A shotgun at close range has great accuracy (it's hard to miss) but basically no precision. Part of the designation is also that, at mid to close ranges, a sniper rifle is no more accurate than a battle rifle or perhaps even a good assault rifle, but for getting a head-shot with certainty you'd be best with the sniper rifle. I was thinking a precision stat would be the best way to simulate this, but I am not certain in that.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject, as I want to improve this system.

Interestingly, I was originally going to have a sustained fire bonus, but someone advised against it saying that repeated shots were only helpful if you weren't sure of your target relative to your sights (like distance, etc.). I was unsure of this, as I thought both sights and shooting were pretty helpful for working out your next shot. If you're in favour of a sustained fire mechanic as well, I think it's wise I add it back in. This would have an interesting effect on recoil for automatic fire, where it'd help to partially subvert the penalty.

This leads me to wonder if some people would get more out of sustained fire bonuses than others. Whether a bigger maximum bonus, or reaching maximum bonus sooner. Mightn't be worth simulating, even if so.

[Carl]

Whoever came up with the mercury poisoning idea was either misinformed about something or completely dumber than rocks, (and thats an insult to rocks), the amount of matter in any particle beam using practical energy levels per particle is tiny. The LHC beams that ahve that massive amounts of energy per beam only contain 1/10,000th of one billionth of one gram of matter. I don;t think there's a toxin in the world that deadly.

As far as a practical weapon goes it's not just individual particle energies that matter, it's the type of particles and the type of target and how many particles there actually are. But realistically yes you want extreme particle energies, weather the LHC represents a low high, or mid point on that scale is a little harder for me to quantify. As a practical matter slower particle's, (relatively speaking, we're still talking to within a percent or two of the speed of light at the lowest), have advantages, as do more dense ion's, but particle energy is a factor of particle mass and particle velocity so if you used Iron Ion's in the place of proton's the same velocity would produce much higher particle energies. As a practical matter the higher the mass per particle the better. Assuming they're practical to create and stable enough Uranium or Plutonium ions would be amongst the best. It makes each particle interaction that much more destructive you see.

Basically particle energy isn't everything and that makes judging the ideal particle energy dependent on too many factors to give a simple answer without deeper knowledge than i possess.

[Storm Bringer]

In the case of fire-by-files that's actually what the manuals specify -- the first shot is fired in series, then they are expected to load and fire at will.

the two drill booksI know anything about are David Dundas's 1788 work with the 18 maneuvers which formed the basis of British tactics, and the French 1791 Reglement. neither of them seems to imply what you've said, though the accounts of battles indicate that is what happened. maybe later manuals just accepted the inevitable and embraced it?



Yeah, that's a good one -- there's a long history of poorly written manuals, and that certainly carried over into the American tradition. During the ACW many officers and soldiers had to modify them considerably to get something workable. :-)

Scott's Abstract of Infantry Tactics (typically dated 1830, but I believe was first printed in 1824), contains one of the most bizarre and complicated ways of going from one-rank to two-ranks that I've ever read. It must look terribly impressive if you can figure out how to do it! ;-)

the chief complaint with both the drill manuals i mention above was the rather abstract nature. Dundas condensed all the evolutions into his "18 maneuvers", which he intended as a display piece, that let a unit show a reviewing officer it could preform the maneuvers. However, he never stated why one would use a given maneuver. The 1791 relegment had the same problem. the evolutions were described in detail, but no guidance was given as to why one would preform them. their was a description of how to form column form line, or into line form column, but not why or when you would do so.

that sort of thing was passed along "laterally" by more experience officers to new ones, but that only worked when their was experience officers to pass it on. A lot of Wellingtons complaints about the poor drill of his army related to newly arrived reinforcements, who knew how to conduct the 18 maneuvers, but didn't know who to use skirmish troops, when to be in line or column, how soon to form square, how to man a picket line, or any of the hundred little things the drill manual didn't cover. Because their training was so deficient, the new troops suffered greatly disproportionate losses until they gathered the experience the hard way. Wellington was loathe to let any of his veteran units leave, as he felt 300 experienced troops were worth 1000 raw recruits.




Then G and Stormbringer got into a contest of who could name the most defeats of the other's country, but my point is specific and just freaking true.


since I started with naming the most shameful defeat of the British army (ever), i would hardly characterize it as a Richard measuring contest. I saw it as squaddie banter, to be honest. their was no malice .


That doesn't mean storm bringer has conclusively proven his argument either.

what argument? G goes off on a "go Murica" tangent, specifically a "go new Orleans" tanget, so i point to a few well know American failures. He returns the favour. the whole thing was, in my eyes, fairly light hearted ( i mean, quoting folk song lyrics? really?). My only comeback is the talk of Alexander, and of Hercules. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIPgJMn8clI)

[fusilier]

the two drill booksI know anything about are David Dundas's 1788 work with the 18 maneuvers which formed the basis of British tactics, and the French 1791 Reglement. neither of them seems to imply what you've said, though the accounts of battles indicate that is what happened. maybe later manuals just accepted the inevitable and embraced it?

I just took a quick glance at Dundas's book, and it is somewhat abstract and seems to be lacking some of the basics of drill, such as a manual of arms? While my in depth familiarity with drill manuals begins with Scott's 1824, it is clearly derived from earlier works. However, a brief look at Steuben's manual, used during the American Revolution, doesn't appear to have any reference to fire by file (or independent firing, although admittedly it was a brief look) -- so perhaps the tactic was a development of the Napoleonic Wars?*

On the other hand, it was you who mentioned that the rear rank might be expected to pass their muskets to the center rank -- and the only time I've seen that referenced in a manual is during fire by file/fire at will. (Scott's 1835 manual, based on a French manual of 1831).

In my search for more information about firing by file I discovered a couple of articles to the practice during the American Civil War. The opinion of officers during the war was that allowing the men to fire at will was usually bad practice -- it was difficult to bring under control once started, and could leave the regiment in a poor place if a volley was needed. Instead the preference seems to have been to fire by volley, which was considered more disciplined firing, even if lowering the rate of fire. There was one officer who complained that inexperience soldiers would also just devolve into fire at will (as you pointed out), and that's why he preferred troops that had been properly trained.

*References from the late 16th century to 17th century do mention a "fire by file" technique, but it is a different technique than what is specified in the 19th century manuals.

[Storm Bringer]

like I said, Dundas' drill book was just that, a book of drill, and a system for maneuvering a formed body of men. it glossed over light infantry tactics in about 3 pages, and made no mention of how to load and fire a mustet, just methods of controlling the fire of a unit.

I know the passage of muskets was in the 1791 Reglement and I think it was kept in the 1830 update (which was very similar, I am told). a quick google turns up that this book was translated into English at least twice, most notably in 1812 by "Colonel Alexander Smyth" as " Regulations for the Field Exercise, Manoeuvers, and Conduct of Infantry of the United States; Drawn and Adapted to the Organization of the Militia and the Regular Troops".

my understanding was that fire by platoon was the preferred type for extended firefights, with a "platoon" in this context being a company or half-company. Volleys were also used, though, often to repel cavalry or if you planned to charge. the accounts of officers imply that fire control could only be kept for a few rounds before the unit slid into "fire at will", so if you intended to charge, you needed to keep a very tight reign on the troops.

on the assault, it was often considered fatal let the men stop and return fire. Contemporary accounts of the battle of New Orleans that G was hawking on about consider the key mistake made by the brits was to stop and trade fire with the defenders, which robbed the assault of all momentum. Once the troops started firing, they just stayed where they were, firing and loading, hoping for what this man calls the musket jackpot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFaVf3vVz6A) right in the middle of the glacis and were pounded by troops in cover. In several sieges in the Peninsular, the storm troops were sent in with unloaded muskets, to make sure they didn't stop to shoot.


I have not seen anything on post Napoleonic drill. At what point did they stop teaching troops to form square? I've never heard of it happening in the ACW, but i'd guess it was still in the 1830 era books.

[fusilier]

like I said, Dundas' drill book was just that, a book of drill, and a system for maneuvering a formed body of men. it glossed over light infantry tactics in about 3 pages, and made no mention of how to load and fire a mustet, just methods of controlling the fire of a unit.

I know the passage of muskets was in the 1791 Reglement and I think it was kept in the 1830 update (which was very similar, I am told). a quick google turns up that this book was translated into English at least twice, most notably in 1812 by "Colonel Alexander Smyth" as " Regulations for the Field Exercise, Manoeuvers, and Conduct of Infantry of the United States; Drawn and Adapted to the Organization of the Militia and the Regular Troops".

my understanding was that fire by platoon was the preferred type for extended firefights, with a "platoon" in this context being a company or half-company. Volleys were also used, though, often to repel cavalry or if you planned to charge. the accounts of officers imply that fire control could only be kept for a few rounds before the unit slid into "fire at will", so if you intended to charge, you needed to keep a very tight reign on the troops.

on the assault, it was often considered fatal let the men stop and return fire. Contemporary accounts of the battle of New Orleans that G was hawking on about consider the key mistake made by the brits was to stop and trade fire with the defenders, which robbed the assault of all momentum. Once the troops started firing, they just stayed where they were, firing and loading, hoping for what this man calls the musket jackpot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFaVf3vVz6A) right in the middle of the glacis and were pounded by troops in cover. In several sieges in the Peninsular, the storm troops were sent in with unloaded muskets, to make sure they didn't stop to shoot.


I have not seen anything on post Napoleonic drill. At what point did they stop teaching troops to form square? I've never heard of it happening in the ACW, but i'd guess it was still in the 1830 era books.

It's late here, so I'll try to be quick with my response (I'm enjoying this conversation though - I'm learning a lot) --

1. Smyth's Manual from 1812, includes fire by file, and (in the school of the battalion) it mentions the trading of muskets between rear rank and center rank. If that manual is based on the 1791 French manual, then the process most likely was passed to American soldiers with the introduction of Smyth's manual. Interestingly, Steuben's manual of the 1770s and Scott's manual of the 1820s were written for two ranks, whereas Smyth's manual(1812) and Scott's manual of the 1830s were written for three ranks. It's possible that Scott's manual from the 1820s was intended for militia, however.

2. Firing by company/platoon was very common technique to stagger the fire of the battalion or regiment, and dates to the late 17th century. The pattern is quite interesting, by the 19th century it can be described as starting on the outside, and moving inwards, but it was actually more complicated than that. Other techniques included firing by "wing" (i.e. half the battalion/regiment).

3. The accounts from the American Civil War stated that only inexperienced or poorly trained troops would slide into firing at will after a few volleys. That's not to say that the reports you refer to are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily universal. Likewise there are reports from the ACW that the regiments that fired more slowly tended to do more damage -- perhaps indicating that careful loading, and a greater degree of calmness, was a significant factor. Although, that conflict was dominated by rifle-muskets, and not smoothbores firing buck-and-ball.

4. The charge elan was performed with empty muskets, apparently to encourage the soldiers not to stop and shoot. That was a common problem, and many charges petered out for that very reason. Not sure how often it was used, but it was used during the American Civil War on occasion.

5. Squares were still practiced during the American Civil War -- I'm not aware of them being used often, and I don't know of any instances were squares were actually charged by cavalry during the war. Nevertheless see the photo of a Union regiment on the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square

[Storm Bringer]

It's late here, so I'll try to be quick with my response (I'm enjoying this conversation though - I'm learning a lot) --

1. Smyth's Manual from 1812, includes fire by file, and (in the school of the battalion) it mentions the trading of muskets between rear rank and center rank. If that manual is based on the 1791 French manual, then the process most likely was passed to American soldiers with the introduction of Smyth's manual. Interestingly, Steuben's manual of the 1770s and Scott's manual of the 1820s were written for two ranks, whereas Smyth's manual(1812) and Scott's manual of the 1830s were written for three ranks. It's possible that Scott's manual from the 1820s was intended for militia, however.

Smyth's 1812 manual, is, apparently, not so much based, on but a word for word copy of the 1791 book, right down to using the same pictures I believe it was created in the run up to the war of 1812, so he may have decided thatit was better to stick to a battle proven drill system than to play about with it.



2. Firing by company/platoon was very common technique to stagger the fire of the battalion or regiment, and dates to the late 17th century. The pattern is quite interesting, by the 19th century it can be described as starting on the outside, and moving inwards, but it was actually more complicated than that. Other techniques included firing by "wing" (i.e. half the battalion/regiment).

3. The accounts from the American Civil War stated that only inexperienced or poorly trained troops would slide into firing at will after a few volleys. That's not to say that the reports you refer to are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily universal. Likewise there are reports from the ACW that the regiments that fired more slowly tended to do more damage -- perhaps indicating that careful loading, and a greater degree of calmness, was a significant factor. Although, that conflict was dominated by rifle-muskets, and not smoothbores firing buck-and-ball.

I know their was a feeling that the side that fired last was the one that tended to win, as that meant it had the discipline to hold its fire until it was in effective range.



4. The charge elan was performed with empty muskets, apparently to encourage the soldiers not to stop and shoot. That was a common problem, and many charges petered out for that very reason. Not sure how often it was used, but it was used during the American Civil War on occasion.

5. Squares were still practiced during the American Civil War -- I'm not aware of them being used often, and I don't know of any instances were squares were actually charged by cavalry during the war. Nevertheless see the photo of a Union regiment on the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square

interesting. looking at that union square, it looks like its only two ranks deep, compared with the Napoleonic practice of forming squares in four ranks. deepest I know of was the division squares Napoleon used in Egypt, which were 7 or 8 ranks deep (and big enough to hold a a full regiment of cavalry in formation, several batteries of cannon, and and an assortment of lwagons for supply.)

[Beleriphon]

interesting. looking at that union square, it looks like its only two ranks deep, compared with the Napoleonic practice of forming squares in four ranks. deepest I know of was the division squares Napoleon used in Egypt, which were 7 or 8 ranks deep (and big enough to hold a a full regiment of cavalry in formation, several batteries of cannon, and and an assortment of lwagons for supply.)

What I thought was interesting was the 1918 infantry square with the machine guns, and the fact that the two rank on each side of the street faced the opposite side to cover for attacks from windows.

[Kiero]

Wow.

Not sure who or what MB is, and I was never arguing with Stormbringer.

Kiero said that the Americans "never stood up to a British bayonet charge until they had French regulars fighting beside them."

That is simply wrong, and I provided many, many, many examples where American forces did in fact stand up to British regulars.

I am not now, nor was I ever trying to conclusively prove that a bunch of civilian militia were equal to a large professional army.

Not sure what thread you've been reading.

My point was specific, limited and beyond proven.

No, you provided an awful lot of examples where they found a way to avoid a straight fight. Even in some of those examples there were parts of the battles where Americans ran from a charge. And you didn't address any of my counter-examples.

The Americans had all the strategic and political advantages and were basically an insurgency fighting an opponent who didn't have a clue how to deal with that sort of war. That's why they won, but we weren't talking about strategy or politics.

[Mike_G]

No, you provided an awful lot of examples where they found a way to avoid a straight fight. Even in some of those examples there were parts of the battles where Americans ran from a charge. And you didn't address any of my counter-examples.

The Americans had all the strategic and political advantages and were basically an insurgency fighting an opponent who didn't have a clue how to deal with that sort of war. That's why they won, but we weren't talking about strategy or politics.

Oh FFS.

Saratoga was a straight up fight. American units did individually retreat, but so did British units, and American troops captured British guns in infantry assault.

Without Frenchmen.

Cowpens was a classic set piece battle: refusal of the center, and a double envelopment. Hanibal did that, so I think it's classical enough for you. And Tarleton's forces included two regiments of British line infantry in addition to his Loyalist American Legion.

At Bunker Hill, a true militia force, without any regulars, stopped two assaults by British line, including attacks by the light and Genadier companies of all the regiments, and retreated in good order when ammo ran low, and after a third of engaged British troops were casualties

While I'm sure you can find ways to exempt these battles from being battles, your statesment that Americans never withstood a British charge is just a delusion that depends on increasingly narrowed definitions of "American," "British" and "Charge."

And now, I am going to emulate Washington and slip away, since this fight is not worth the cost.

[Berenger]

Thanks for all answers. ;)




In several sieges in the Peninsular, the storm troops were sent in with unloaded muskets, to make sure they didn't stop to shoot.
I'm sure I've read somewhere (Wikipedia?) that at least one officer took this a step farther und collected the flints from the muskets, but I can't find it now.

[fusilier]

Smyth's 1812 manual, is, apparently, not so much based, on but a word for word copy of the 1791 book, right down to using the same pictures I believe it was created in the run up to the war of 1812, so he may have decided thatit was better to stick to a battle proven drill system than to play about with it.

I meant to mention that in Smyth's manual fire by file becomes fire at will (after the first shot they load and fire as fast as they can) -- although it's rather badly worded, and almost implied.


I know their was a feeling that the side that fired last was the one that tended to win, as that meant it had the discipline to hold its fire until it was in effective range.

There was also a feeling that the best volley was the first, so getting as close as possible before volleying was a big deal. There was a standoff during the War of Austrian Succession(?) on a rare occasion when French grenadiers were facing English grenadiers, and both had the tradition of not firing first. Each side was inviting the other to fire first. Really strange.


interesting. looking at that union square, it looks like its only two ranks deep, compared with the Napoleonic practice of forming squares in four ranks. deepest I know of was the division squares Napoleon used in Egypt, which were 7 or 8 ranks deep (and big enough to hold a a full regiment of cavalry in formation, several batteries of cannon, and and an assortment of lwagons for supply.)

I agree, it looks like two ranks. Two ranks were the standard during the American Civil War, and I'm not aware of four ranks being practiced often, so I'm not surprised that their square is only two ranks deep.

[Gnoman]

There was also a feeling that the best volley was the first, so getting as close as possible before volleying was a big deal. There was a standoff during the War of Austrian Succession(?) on a rare occasion when French grenadiers were facing English grenadiers, and both had the tradition of not firing first. Each side was inviting the other to fire first. Really strange.


This was because the first volley would -in theory, how well it worked in practice depended on the army- be fired from a clean musket and packed perfectly.

As lead balls are fired with black powder, they deposit lead and powder residue on the inside of the barrel. This reduces accuracy considerably, makes the weapon harder to load (another reason for the relative unpopularity of the rifle, as without a greased patch they fouled much more quickly; this was also the primary reason why musket balls were generally much smaller than the nominal musket bore as the weapon would soon become unusable with full-sized balls), and lessens the firing force.

Further, a weapon loaded in battle would invariably be charged with the wrong amount of powder (a little more would be OK, but a little less would be a problem), poorly packed, and primed with (as in, loading the compartment the flint strikes) shooting powder instead of the fine-grained priming powder they were supposed to use. This happened out of haste - powder horns spilled, the ramrod not driven home hard enough, and nobody bothering to switch powder mid-load - and had the effect of making both the force of the shot and the firing delay (all pre-percussion-cap firing methods had a several second delay between pulling the trigger and the gun going off because of the necessity of going through the priming powder first) wildly unpredictable.

[fusilier]

This was because the first volley would -in theory, how well it worked in practice depended on the army- be fired from a clean musket and packed perfectly.

As lead balls are fired with black powder, they deposit lead and powder residue on the inside of the barrel. This reduces accuracy considerably, makes the weapon harder to load (another reason for the relative unpopularity of the rifle, as without a greased patch they fouled much more quickly; this was also the primary reason why musket balls were generally much smaller than the nominal musket bore as the weapon would soon become unusable with full-sized balls), and lessens the firing force.

Actually, and somewhat ironically, it's the other way around -- at least on the firing range. As the fouling builds up the windage is going to decrease, creating a tighter fit which improves both accuracy and firing force.* So the major issue on the battlefield is probably the careful loading.

With rifle-muskets the people who shoot them often will say: throw away the first shot! You need some fouling to build up before the gun shoots well -- it needs to "warm up" as they say. Again we are talking about on the firing range.

It is possible to have too much fouling though, and with a minie-gun this definitely becomes a problem, as the tolerances are very tight, it will soon require more force to load the ball, which might cause it to deform and that will cause a loss of accuracy. Special rounds that were supposed to "scrape" the bore clean were occasionally issued, but their effectiveness is doubtful.

So it looks like *some* fouling is actually good, but too much is bad.

*Fouling does close off the vent hole, which will lead to more misfires.

[Gnoman]

Actually, and somewhat ironically, it's the other way around -- at least on the firing range. As the fouling builds up the windage is going to decrease, creating a tighter fit which improves both accuracy and firing force.* So the major issue on the battlefield is probably the careful loading.

With rifle-muskets the people who shoot them often will say: throw away the first shot! You need some fouling to build up before the gun shoots well -- it needs to "warm up" as they say. Again we are talking about on the firing range.

It is possible to have too much fouling though, and with a minie-gun this definitely becomes a problem, as the tolerances are very tight, it will soon require more force to load the ball, which might cause it to deform and that will cause a loss of accuracy. Special rounds that were supposed to "scrape" the bore clean were occasionally issued, but their effectiveness is doubtful.

So it looks like *some* fouling is actually good, but too much is bad.

*Fouling does close off the vent hole, which will lead to more misfires.
Do you have any sources contemporary with usage of the weapon to back this up? The sort of powder used in that era appears to no longer be available, and it is entirely possible that that would make a real difference.

[fusilier]

Do you have any sources contemporary with usage of the weapon to back this up? The sort of powder used in that era appears to no longer be available, and it is entirely possible that that would make a real difference.

The powder used in the 19th century was generally pretty good (there were exceptions), and is not substantially different than what's used now in terms of composition. The major difference being that it wasn't until the late 19th century that they started to coat the grains with carbon dust, which further helps prevent them from absorbing moisture. That's actually what makes it black, and the term "black powder" doesn't appear until the introduction of smokeless powders. Apparently gunpowder is naturally a gray or brownish color.

As for fouling -- I'm trying to track down some references at the moment. A lot of this has been built up over the years and I can't place the sources off the top of my head.

However, I will point out a few things to consider. The windage on smoothbore muskets of the 18th and 19th century was apparently pretty high. If we look at the manuals from the Civil War, they specified a .65 ball in a .69 caliber musket! (Whereas the .58 caliber rifle-musket had .575 minie ball). Part of this must have been for poor tolerances, but another part was probably to counteract the fouling. Meaning it would take longer before the fouling became an issue on the speed of loading.

Lets take a moment to consider the effects of the blackpowder residue. It's going to coat the inside of the barrel, and therefore decrease the windage -- decreasing the windage will, in theory, make the gun more accurate, and also increase the power behind each shot (less gas escapes around the ball). Until the fouling becomes so heavy that it starts to interfere with loading and possibly deforms the ball.

However, there's something else we should consider -- the residue changes the gun's behavior, as the fouling builds up the gun will shoot *differently*. A situation that isn't helped by potentially inconsistent bullet size too. A lot of shooters will tell you that consistent shooting is important.

So whether or not fouling makes the gun shoot better or worse (or first one, then the other), might be moot because the main issue might be that fouling makes the musket a somewhat inconsistent weapon.

[fusilier]

Do you have any sources contemporary with usage of the weapon to back this up? The sort of powder used in that era appears to no longer be available, and it is entirely possible that that would make a real difference.

Small Arms 1856, is a collection of reports about the development of the 1855 weapons for the United States Army. It covers a wide range of tests, with different kinds of minie-balls, barrels, translations of foreign tests, etc. The tests of muzzle velocity with the ballistics pendulum are insightful:

The tests involved firing the different guns with different ammunition and powder loads. In order to more closely simulate combat conditions, they didn't wipe the bores between shots in a series. Typically they fired around 10 shots from each barrel. In every case, the first shot showed markedly lower velocity than the average, sometimes the second one did too. After that the muzzle velocity increased and became relatively consistent. In the remarks this is believed to be primarily due to the barrel temperature . . . although in one test they allowed the barrel to cool, and while the muzzle velocity dropped it was still significantly higher than the first shot.

Interestingly, in the case of the smoothbore musket, they didn't even bother to start recording it's muzzle velocity until after they had fired seven shots from it (at which point the velocity was pretty consistent for the five shots they recorded).

However, regardless of whether fouling is an issue, or the barrels need to be warm (or both) -- it's pretty clear that on the firing range the first shot(s) is not as good as the later ones. However, the practical reports suggest the opposite, that the first volley is the best. Perhaps it's careful loading? Or perhaps the process of loading under fire is more stressful (than marching under fire?), and the stress levels are simply higher after loading in combat?

[Gnoman]

The powder used in the 19th century was generally pretty good (there were exceptions), and is not substantially different than what's used now in terms of composition. The major difference being that it wasn't until the late 19th century that they started to coat the grains with carbon dust, which further helps prevent them from absorbing moisture. That's actually what makes it black, and the term "black powder" doesn't appear until the introduction of smokeless powders. Apparently gunpowder is naturally a gray or brownish color.


It isn't a difference in raw quality that I'm suspecting, but rather that I'm (somewhat) aware that a gunpowder "arms race" was taking place in the 18th century, resulting in a massive number of slightly different formulations, grain sizes, and additives. Most of these no longer exist as black powder is no longer a major military weapon or civilian explosive, having been replaced by much safer and more effective compounds.



However, regardless of whether fouling is an issue, or the barrels need to be warm (or both) -- it's pretty clear that on the firing range the first shot(s) is not as good as the later ones. However, the practical reports suggest the opposite, that the first volley is the best. Perhaps it's careful loading? Or perhaps the process of loading under fire is more stressful (than marching under fire?), and the stress levels are simply higher after loading in combat?

I'm finding hard sources incredibly difficult to find, but is it possible that the first shot was fired with a full-size ball instead of the smaller one? That would result in a massive improvement in overall performance for that shot and make a clean barrel vital.

[fusilier]

It isn't a difference in raw quality that I'm suspecting, but rather that I'm (somewhat) aware that a gunpowder "arms race" was taking place in the 18th century, resulting in a massive number of slightly different formulations, grain sizes, and additives. Most of these no longer exist as black powder is no longer a major military weapon or civilian explosive, having been replaced by much safer and more effective compounds.

I did take a look at Major Mordecai's experiments at the Washington Arsenal in 1844 -- in which he was experimenting with a large number of powders, and also taking apart old musket cartridges to compare these new powders to the standard.

You are correct that there were tons of different powders -- military, explosive, sporting, etc. However, the current formulation for black powder, which is available, appears to be very close if not identical to the military style powder (the composition of which exists in old ordnance manuals). This style was considered close to the "ideal" chemically speaking.

However, in recent years it has become difficult to find true black powder on the shelves of sporting goods stores, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Instead, they often have black powder substitutes, which are different. Nevertheless, black powder can usually be obtained by special order, and most reenactment organizations forbid the use of the substitutes (they are bad for a variety of reasons) -- so most reenactors usually have true black powder. The size of the grains is a little different, with musket powder falling in between modern FF and F powder (more properly, it overlaps them).


I'm finding hard sources incredibly difficult to find, but is it possible that the first shot was fired with a full-size ball instead of the smaller one? That would result in a massive improvement in overall performance for that shot and make a clean barrel vital.

This may have been true back in the 16th and 17th centuries (and I've seen some evidence online that something similar was done), but by the time the troops were being issued mass produced paper cartridges, that wouldn't have been possible.

However, Mordecai's testing revealed something else -- he took a musket and fired 51 shots from it without cleaning it, using different powders and different loads. For the final 10 shots, however, he reverted to the standard musket powder (taken from old cartridges), but reported that the recoil was excessive. This he explained as probably due to the barrel being fouled. The takeaway here, is that the fouling of the barrel increases the recoil -- which can affect aim.

Nevertheless, it still doesn't provide a technical reason for why the first volley should be considered better than the second or third. I am still forced to look for other reasons, such as less care in loading while in combat, and perhaps general excitement among the soldiers increased after the first volley.

--------------------
As a side note it looks like it was Major Mordecai's experiments that led to the adoption of the .65 caliber ball in the .69 caliber musket (with a slight reduction in the powder charge). Prior to that it seems like the ball had been a little smaller, at around .64 caliber.

[Telok]

Oh i'm not arguing that they don't use the same tech or qualify as particle beams, (though from what i know there are some rather massive differences between the two), hence my analogy. Just that it's not a remotely viable weapon or even remotely close to a viable weapon, or even really within any kind of sight of a viable weapon. So i'm not actually sure why you brought it up? Care to elaborate?

The 18th/19th century tactics have distracted me and I'm no longer quire sure. I think it was the "particle beam is a nonsense sci-fi term" bit. We have particle beams, weaponizing them is fiction for now but perhaps possible someday. I mean it's only taken us 50+ years to manage to start effectively weaponizing lasers and the impediments to weaponizing those are quite simple.

[Carl]

The 18th/19th century tactics have distracted me and I'm no longer quire sure. I think it was the "particle beam is a nonsense sci-fi term" bit. We have particle beams, weaponizing them is fiction for now but perhaps possible someday. I mean it's only taken us 50+ years to manage to start effectively weaponizing lasers and the impediments to weaponizing those are quite simple.

I think your confusing someone else with me there :). What i said is that they're not anymore, (and arguably less), viable than lasers, which barring a total re-write of the laws of physics or a tech that can achieve that, (and such a technology would be game changing on levels i can't even begin to talk about because it would involve messing with one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe, something i'm simply not well read up on enough to even begin to talk about, it would however make cheap and simple, (think modern family car cheap and simple), FTL look like a child's toy by comparison in terms of end effect on society), ain't going away. It was someone else who called the term particle beam weapon nonsense.

[BootStrapTommy]

Inquiry: what is a realistic height for Stone fortifications? How tall were some of the tallest in history?

[Carl]

Inquiry: what is a realistic height for Stone fortifications? How tall were some of the tallest in history?

I don't know about historically. But structurally there's no real limit, have the labour and suitable places to quarry stone and you can build as tall as the space your going to put them on allows. And the Great Wall of China shows what's possible in terms of total material that can be mined for a fortifications. It's just built long instead of tall, (though taller requires every wider bases ;)).

[BootStrapTommy]

Highest I've found is 85ft sections. in Hajime Castle.

[Brother Oni]

Highest I've found is 85ft sections. in Hajime Castle.

You mean Himeji Castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_Castle).

The tallest I've found is 118 ft of Mehrangarh Fort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrangarh_Fort) in India.

The largest city walls I know of are Xian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Xi'an) and Nanjing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Wall_of_Nanjing) in China.

[Broken Crown]

Inquiry: what is a realistic height for Stone fortifications? How tall were some of the tallest in history?

The donjon tower of the castle of Coucy was 180 ft. tall, with a 90 ft. base diameter and walls 30 feet thick at the base. I think this was the tallest stone fortification in Europe until it got blown up in 1917.

[Mr. Mask]

On the earlier subject, I'm trying to work out a damage formula for firearms. Note this is intended for computer simulation.


Armour Penetration: Not worrying about this at the moment, as I'm just trying to figure out how damage from firearms should be calculated to begin with.


Basic thoughts: The kind of damage you're likely to see inflicted and how you might calculate depends on a couple of factors.

Blind fire: If blind fire somehow hits a person, they could be hit just about anywhere with similar likelihood. This makes both being grazed and being fatally injured more likely.

Snap-Shot: Shooting at moving, suddenly appearing targets suddenly, there's little guarantee as to where you'll hit, making this similar to blind-fire is calculation--albeit it more likely to hit the target.

Aimed fire: Aimed shots, and particularly well-aimed shots, can be assumed to congregate on centre of mass. This means a perfect shot is likely to hit critical organs and arteries. However, even the perfect shot will have pretty random damage, as to whether the bullet goes through the heart, then bounces off the ribs and goes through something else, and opens major arteries. Another interesting point, is that these shots are unlikely to hit the head, unless the head happens to be centre of mass from your perspective. This means the perfect aimed shots normally have less damage potential than stray shots or snap-shots, but are still better because that higher damage potential is unlikely to occur.

Called Shots: To the head, heart, lung, liver, foot, whatever you like. These shots are more difficult to make, and so take more time to get the bead, with more risk of missing. But if you do hit, your damage potential would be absurd. Instant kill on a good shot to the head.

For now, I'm considering the options Called Shot and Aimed Shot to be separate, as an aimed shot is what you'll normally do in battle, while being picky about hitting the head is more specific. You can of course combine the two, through your Mozambiques and so-forth.



Randomness of Bullets:
As mentioned, even with an excellent shot, bullets are pretty random as to what they hit and how much damage they do. So, the question is, what randomization model is best? If we say a human has 100 HP (-100 is death), and a .357 magnum can do anything from 1 to 200 points of damage, a straight roll would mean an average of 100 damage, with a 50% chance of dropping anyone with a single shot, only a 0.5% chance of instant death, and a scratch being just as likely as a fatal wound when you should be shooting them centre of mass. Evidently, that doesn't add up plausibly.

Based off the situations I highlighted above, I figure damage formulas would be heavily effected by the situation you hit them in, and how well you hit them. If you have a great aim bonus and roll a perfect attack, then you hit that bullseye in the centre--and if that bullseye is someone's head, they should not be looking at 1 point of damage. This makes me think that the target and situation should have its own damage modifier that modifies the to-hit roll.



[Damage Range] [Damage Modifier] [Accuracy 100 x Damage Modifier x Weapon modifier of 1]
Stray 1~200 ??? ???
Snap Shot 1~200 0.1 10
Aimed Shot 1~180??? 0.1 10
Called Shot(Heart) 1~150??? 1.5 150
Called Shot(Head) 1~200 2 200

Accuracy: Score ranges from 1 to 100. 100 being a perfect hit in the centre of your target.
Damage Range: The minimum and maximum possible damage for such an attack.
Damage Modifier: How much your accuracy roll is modified.
Weapon modifier: Has been left as 1 to keep things simple.

This should make the difference clear. If you shoot someone perfectly behind the ear, they take all the damage associated with that on a perfect roll. With body shots or stray shots however.... There are people who have been pierced with lances, yet were still perfectly able, and people who have been shot without being impaired. If you hit someone centre of mass, there is something like a 99% chance it'll seriously hurt them, but the only guaranteed damage you get is largely from hydrostatic shock of the bullet (which through non-vital areas, isn't too bad from a pistol). Really, there isn't any need for an accuracy-modified damage bonus with aimed and snap shots, and mostly it serves as an example of this.


The question is how to calculate the random nature of combat and wounding, for non-called shots. Hitting them centre of mass should make serious injury tons more likely, but even that doesn't guarantee there won't be a freak accident and they're unscathed. Or, a little scratch to the leg might sever an artery and kill you, against all odds.

My main thoughts are mechanics inspired by exploding dice. Damage is on being added so long as you keep rolling X on a d10, up to the maximum possible damage. The exact nature of the injury would affect this. If it's centre of mass, you might roll more d10s, or X might be a lower number. If it's a scratch, X would be 10, and only 1d10 would be rolled, but if you roll 10 twice, then you could add on quite a bit of damage. Probably the amount that is added is based off the weapon's damage modifier multiplied by a random factor.


The problem is, without knowing exactly how likely a freak injury is to happen, I can't accurately get this exploding d10 thing to work right. And I don't know if anyone knows something so specific without textbooks of math. So, either I just prototype it and adjust a hundred times till it feels right, or I work out some basic metric to base it on, or I go back to the drawing board.

Short version: There are people who have been shot, and who have been impaled by lances, and they weren't really bothered by it at all. Others have been scratched by a bullet which happened to cut their artery, and died. If you shoot someone perfectly centre of mass, there is something like a 99% chance they'll be seriously hurt, but nothing is definite. So the question is, how do I calculate the randomness of injury realistically?

[fusilier]

The donjon tower of the castle of Coucy was 180 ft. tall, with a 90 ft. base diameter and walls 30 feet thick at the base. I think this was the tallest stone fortification in Europe until it got blown up in 1917.

If we count medieval towers, which are a kind of fortification, the taller of the two towers of Bologna is 97.2 meters (~320 feet).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Towers,_Bologna

There's also the "Lanterna", lighthouse of Genoa, which counting the rock it's on is 117 meters (383 feet).

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

However, perhaps the more important question is how tall curtain walls could be?

[Gnoman]

On the earlier subject, I'm trying to work out a damage formula for firearms. Note this is intended for computer simulation.


Armour Penetration: Not worrying about this at the moment, as I'm just trying to figure out how damage from firearms should be calculated to begin with.


Basic thoughts: The kind of damage you're likely to see inflicted and how you might calculate depends on a couple of factors.

Blind fire: If blind fire somehow hits a person, they could be hit just about anywhere with similar likelihood. This makes both being grazed and being fatally injured more likely.

Snap-Shot: Shooting at moving, suddenly appearing targets suddenly, there's little guarantee as to where you'll hit, making this similar to blind-fire is calculation--albeit it more likely to hit the target.

Aimed fire: Aimed shots, and particularly well-aimed shots, can be assumed to congregate on centre of mass. This means a perfect shot is likely to hit critical organs and arteries. However, even the perfect shot will have pretty random damage, as to whether the bullet goes through the heart, then bounces off the ribs and goes through something else, and opens major arteries. Another interesting point, is that these shots are unlikely to hit the head, unless the head happens to be centre of mass from your perspective. This means the perfect aimed shots normally have less damage potential than stray shots or snap-shots, but are still better because that higher damage potential is unlikely to occur.

Called Shots: To the head, heart, lung, liver, foot, whatever you like. These shots are more difficult to make, and so take more time to get the bead, with more risk of missing. But if you do hit, your damage potential would be absurd. Instant kill on a good shot to the head.

For now, I'm considering the options Called Shot and Aimed Shot to be separate, as an aimed shot is what you'll normally do in battle, while being picky about hitting the head is more specific. You can of course combine the two, through your Mozambiques and so-forth.



Randomness of Bullets:
As mentioned, even with an excellent shot, bullets are pretty random as to what they hit and how much damage they do. So, the question is, what randomization model is best? If we say a human has 100 HP (-100 is death), and a .357 magnum can do anything from 1 to 200 points of damage, a straight roll would mean an average of 100 damage, with a 50% chance of dropping anyone with a single shot, only a 0.5% chance of instant death, and a scratch being just as likely as a fatal wound when you should be shooting them centre of mass. Evidently, that doesn't add up plausibly.

Based off the situations I highlighted above, I figure damage formulas would be heavily effected by the situation you hit them in, and how well you hit them. If you have a great aim bonus and roll a perfect attack, then you hit that bullseye in the centre--and if that bullseye is someone's head, they should not be looking at 1 point of damage. This makes me think that the target and situation should have its own damage modifier that modifies the to-hit roll.



[Damage Range] [Damage Modifier] [Accuracy 100 x Damage Modifier x Weapon modifier of 1]
Stray 1~200 ??? ???
Snap Shot 1~200 0.1 10
Aimed Shot 1~180??? 0.1 10
Called Shot(Heart) 1~150??? 1.5 150
Called Shot(Head) 1~200 2 200

Accuracy: Score ranges from 1 to 100. 100 being a perfect hit in the centre of your target.
Damage Range: The minimum and maximum possible damage for such an attack.
Damage Modifier: How much your accuracy roll is modified.
Weapon modifier: Has been left as 1 to keep things simple.

This should make the difference clear. If you shoot someone perfectly behind the ear, they take all the damage associated with that on a perfect roll. With body shots or stray shots however.... There are people who have been pierced with lances, yet were still perfectly able, and people who have been shot without being impaired. If you hit someone centre of mass, there is something like a 99% chance it'll seriously hurt them, but the only guaranteed damage you get is largely from hydrostatic shock of the bullet (which through non-vital areas, isn't too bad from a pistol). Really, there isn't any need for an accuracy-modified damage bonus with aimed and snap shots, and mostly it serves as an example of this.


The question is how to calculate the random nature of combat and wounding, for non-called shots. Hitting them centre of mass should make serious injury tons more likely, but even that doesn't guarantee there won't be a freak accident and they're unscathed. Or, a little scratch to the leg might sever an artery and kill you, against all odds.

My main thoughts are mechanics inspired by exploding dice. Damage is on being added so long as you keep rolling X on a d10, up to the maximum possible damage. The exact nature of the injury would affect this. If it's centre of mass, you might roll more d10s, or X might be a lower number. If it's a scratch, X would be 10, and only 1d10 would be rolled, but if you roll 10 twice, then you could add on quite a bit of damage. Probably the amount that is added is based off the weapon's damage modifier multiplied by a random factor.


The problem is, without knowing exactly how likely a freak injury is to happen, I can't accurately get this exploding d10 thing to work right. And I don't know if anyone knows something so specific without textbooks of math. So, either I just prototype it and adjust a hundred times till it feels right, or I work out some basic metric to base it on, or I go back to the drawing board.

Short version: There are people who have been shot, and who have been impaled by lances, and they weren't really bothered by it at all. Others have been scratched by a bullet which happened to cut their artery, and died. If you shoot someone perfectly centre of mass, there is something like a 99% chance they'll be seriously hurt, but nothing is definite. So the question is, how do I calculate the randomness of injury realistically?

There's very little "randomness" with bullet injuries other than shot placement - a bullet in the heart or head will almost always kill (unless your bullet strikes the skull at a shallow enough angle to be deflected, or the power is reduced by range/ammunition quality significantly, or the other person just happens to have a harder skull), a shot to the shoulder, kidney, or gut will almost always cripple and threaten death, and a hit to a non-vital area will be survivable. There are exceptions, but these are extremely rare. The best way to make your system realistic is to model hit zones on the body to represent critical areas.

[Mr. Mask]

That's the essence of it, though scratching an organ is still a thing. If the edges of hydrostatic shock only vaguely disturb a lung, it could inflict as little as 1 point of damage. I guess it's a matter of randomly picking none, one, or more than one organ or region the bullet will pass through, and then having a random amount of damage from 1 to the shot being laid in the centre each organ, the maximum damage being whatever the gun can inflict to a square shot on said organs.

The results might look a bit like this (Note, don't take the numbers to heart, or lung or liver; they're entirely slap-dash):


[Accuracy Roll][Heart][Lung][Liver]
1~10 0% 0% 0%
11~25 8% 8% 8%
26~50 16% 16% 16%
51~90 24% 24% 24%
91~100 33% 33% 33%

You'd then be looking at something like this based off which region you hit.

Heart: 1~150 x Weapon Modifier
None: 1~10 x Weapon Modifier

Plus a tiny chance of ricocheting off a rib and making another stab, or a rib slowing a bullet, etc..

With bit of thought and added research into how much damage each organ is worth, I could get a usably accurate formula by pretty simple means. Thanks Gnoman, that really helped clear my head and simplify things.


Anyone know of a system that models injury this way?

[Gnoman]

You could probably add extra effects based on organ as well. Most people that survive headshots suffer serious memory or cognitive problems, for example.

[Mr. Mask]

Indeed, that'd be excellent. I vaguely remember a few systems that model that sort of thing pretty well. Make it so that running with a shattered leg makes less sense than snake mittens, and some injuries heal easier than others. If I could remember the names of those systems, I could use them to help my research.

One thing I forgot to mention, is you can have a separate roll for arteries. So you might also open up arteries separate from the organs on your way in and out (so that'd be the scratch that happens to cut an artery in the leg).


This of course brings up the interesting question, of how you have bullets effect monsters with greatly dissimilar anatomy.

[Broken Crown]

If we count medieval towers, which are a kind of fortification, the taller of the two towers of Bologna is 97.2 meters (~320 feet).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Towers,_Bologna

There's also the "Lanterna", lighthouse of Genoa, which counting the rock it's on is 117 meters (383 feet).

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

I don't think you can count the height of the rock serving as the foundation as part of the height of the building. If you build a 10 meter tower on top of a 5000 meter mountain, it's not a 5010 meter tower.

I forgot about the Towers of Bologna. I also didn't know they were anything like that tall.


However, perhaps the more important question is how tall curtain walls could be?

In theory? Really tall. The maximum possible height for a solid, vertical-sided block of matter is the compressive strength of the material divided by the specific weight (the density times the force of gravity). Granite has a compressive strength of 200 MPa or so, and a density of about 2.7 g/cm3, for a specific weight of about 26500 N/m3, so a vertical-sided granite wall would have a maximum height of about 7500 m before its base was crushed under its own weight. (You could make it taller by having the sides slope inwards, which is how mountains work, but it would be easier to climb.) Naturally, such a wall would have to be really thick, too, to keep it from blowing over or buckling.

[Carl]

(You could make it taller by having the sides slope inwards, which is how mountains work, but it would be easier to climb.)

Or you could just make the rear side slope and arrange the bricks in a pattern that throws the weight backwards.

[fusilier]

I don't think you can count the height of the rock serving as the foundation as part of the height of the building. If you build a 10 meter tower on top of a 5000 meter mountain, it's not a 5010 meter tower.

Yeah, that was just the first height I saw and I was writing a quick response: it's 249 feet otherwise, and 383 feet above the water -- which is important because it's technically a lighthouse. Still an impressive looking tower, originally built in the middle ages.

[fusilier]

Inquiry: what is a realistic height for Stone fortifications? How tall were some of the tallest in history?

Still trying to figure out historical height of castle/fortress walls. It could be complicated by the moats, especially in some the late 15th century, early 16th century forts like Salses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_de_Salses

This style of fort was developed for artillery, but before the low trace italienne style fort; they had relative tall, but very thick walls, and often very deep dry moats. So the height of the wall above the ground level, and the height above the moat could be considerably different.

[BootStrapTommy]

In theory? Really tall. The maximum possible height for a solid, vertical-sided block of matter is the compressive strength of the material divided by the specific weight (the density times the force of gravity). Granite has a compressive strength of 200 MPa or so, and a density of about 2.7 g/cm3, for a specific weight of about 26500 N/m3, so a vertical-sided granite wall would have a maximum height of about 7500 m before its base was crushed under its own weight. (You could make it taller by having the sides slope inwards, which is how mountains work, but it would be easier to climb.) Naturally, such a wall would have to be really thick, too, to keep it from blowing over or buckling. I'll keep in mind that seven and a half kilometers is a perfectly reasonable granite wall size...

Particularly, I was just hoping to find out what were some impressive, but realistic, heights for castle and city walls. I want the players to think "that's huge" but to at least retain some verisimilitude.

[Carl]

I'll keep in mind that seven and a half kilometers is a perfectly reasonable granite wall size...

Particularly, I was just hoping to find out what were some impressive, but realistic, heights for castle and city walls. I want the players to think "that's huge" but to at least retain some verisimilitude.

But it is a verisimilitude compatible wall size. If for example you've got something the size of ancient china. I'm not sure exactly how much stone is in the wall, but it's enough to build stupidly high fortifications around a fair size city. For reference the wall sections are over 6000km long in total.

Pseudo Edit: One estimate i found here (http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question138311.html) put the mass at 60 million tons. Impossible to say if it's accurate but it doesn't sound implausible.

Actual EDIT: Found details on the bricks here (http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=364907). Using its size and the size of the wall i worked out a mass of 150 million tons. Not all the wall is brick, some of it is granite which is denser and some is a combination of brick and dirt, which is probably lighter.

[Mr Beer]

I'll keep in mind that seven and a half kilometers is a perfectly reasonable granite wall size...

Particularly, I was just hoping to find out what were some impressive, but realistic, heights for castle and city walls. I want the players to think "that's huge" but to at least retain some verisimilitude.

OK but it's useful to know the upper limit, given you know, we could have built taller walls but didn't. You can look at the Pyramids to get some idea of how much stone a primitive society could move, now you have volumes and maximum height, you can figure out the highest walls a primitive but organised society could build if they really wanted to.

EDIT

Probably should have read Carl's post, Great Wall is a better yardstick for maximum volumes I think.

[Brother Oni]

I'll keep in mind that seven and a half kilometers is a perfectly reasonable granite wall size...

Particularly, I was just hoping to find out what were some impressive, but realistic, heights for castle and city walls. I want the players to think "that's huge" but to at least retain some verisimilitude.

I'll repeat my post, since it appears to have been lost on the previous page:

Walls of Xian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Xi%27an). 14 km long, enclosing an city of 14 km2. The curtain wall is 12 m high and between 12–14 m at the top and 15–18 m at the base. This is all surrounded by 18m wide by 6m deep moat.
Total footprint is about 36 km2.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Xi'an_-_City_wall_-_013.jpg

http://s13.postimg.org/qepg4m59j/Northeast_gate.jpg


The biggest are the city walls of Nanjing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Wall_of_Nanjing), although I'm having problems finding as detailed information on those: 14 m base width walls, 14-21 m high and is 180 li (between 81 km to 103 km, depending the exact period during the Ming). The bricks were 40-50 by 20 by 10-12 cm big and each brick was stamped with the name of the producer for quality control. Using unverified bricks was a major offence, with penalties ranging up to execution.

According to the wikipedia page, the original wall took 21 years to complete and used 200,000 laborers to move 7 million m3 of earth.

http://www.china-mike.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Nanjing__mingwall-300x263.jpg

https://coplansinchina.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/najing-wall-with-cars.jpg

[Knaight]

In theory? Really tall. The maximum possible height for a solid, vertical-sided block of matter is the compressive strength of the material divided by the specific weight (the density times the force of gravity). Granite has a compressive strength of 200 MPa or so, and a density of about 2.7 g/cm3, for a specific weight of about 26500 N/m3, so a vertical-sided granite wall would have a maximum height of about 7500 m before its base was crushed under its own weight. (You could make it taller by having the sides slope inwards, which is how mountains work, but it would be easier to climb.) Naturally, such a wall would have to be really thick, too, to keep it from blowing over or buckling.

The compressive strength varies a bit. The exact chemical composition of real granite won't all be the same, there's inevitably different amounts of trace elements in it that affect the strength, so on and so forth. On that massive hypothetical wall, something is breaking. Then, once something breaks, we get into crack propagation territory, with all the problems that can cause. On top of that, there's the question of what changing temperature gradients would do across such a large area.

I'd be inclined to look at historical cases of really big walls, and the examples from China are pretty good sources - China had a number of very large architectural projects. There's also always the walls of Constantinople, seen here:
http://www.oocities.com/egfrothos/Land_Walls.jpg

[Carl]

The compressive strength varies a bit. The exact chemical composition of real granite won't all be the same, there's inevitably different amounts of trace elements in it that affect the strength, so on and so forth. On that massive hypothetical wall, something is breaking. Then, once something breaks, we get into crack propagation territory, with all the problems that can cause. On top of that, there's the question of what changing temperature gradients would do across such a large area.


Lets be fair if they're to stand upto an actual siege they need a fair margin of error as well. But like i said you can build them so they throw back against a wider at the rear base and expansion is also dealable with, although beyond a certain point the core will likely never heat up.

It would be one hell of an engineering challenge, but it's doble. Not that i think you need to go that extreme, even my white wizard setting doesn't go that insane despite the raw amount of very high end magic floating around.

[Broken Crown]

The compressive strength varies a bit. The exact chemical composition of real granite won't all be the same, there's inevitably different amounts of trace elements in it that affect the strength, so on and so forth. On that massive hypothetical wall, something is breaking. Then, once something breaks, we get into crack propagation territory, with all the problems that can cause. On top of that, there's the question of what changing temperature gradients would do across such a large area.

Oh, no doubt. I also didn't take into account the fact that the weight of a wall that size (or a mountain range) would cause the tectonic plate it's built on to sag and sink into the ground, and many other factors. But these are all external to the question "how tall could a stone wall be?" and will vary from case to case, depending on factors which were not given. Hence the "in theory" and the simplified best-case scenario.

Y'all act like you're so clever. Nitpicky ain't the same as smart.

[MrZJunior]

I'll keep in mind that seven and a half kilometers is a perfectly reasonable granite wall size...

Particularly, I was just hoping to find out what were some impressive, but realistic, heights for castle and city walls. I want the players to think "that's huge" but to at least retain some verisimilitude.

The Washington Monument is the tallest stone structure in the world at the moment at 555 feet.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Dcskyln1.jpg

Remember, the bigger your fortifications get the long it is goign to take to build them.

[Galloglaich]

Still trying to figure out historical height of castle/fortress walls. It could be complicated by the moats, especially in some the late 15th century, early 16th century forts like Salses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_de_Salses

This style of fort was developed for artillery, but before the low trace italienne style fort; they had relative tall, but very thick walls, and often very deep dry moats. So the height of the wall above the ground level, and the height above the moat could be considerably different.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Vincennes_-_Chateau_02.jpg/640px-Vincennes_-_Chateau_02.jpg

The tower of the Chateau de Vincennes is 52 meters tall.

Towers in medieval towns were often really high. Frequently the town hall had a tower incorporated into it. The town hall tower in Gdansk is 83 meters tall (272 feet), the Bruges belfry tower is also coincidentally 83 meters. Both date back to the 14th Century (though a little bit of height was added over the next 150 years or so). Though the top ends of these towers were a bit more delicate than a typical castle, they were used and intended as fortifications both for internal disputes and citadels of last resort.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Bruge_Belfry.jpg/256px-Bruge_Belfry.jpg

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

You also have a lot of smaller but stronger more heavily fortified towers incorporated into town defenses like this one, dating from the same era. Medieval towns would have dozens of towers like this both along the walls and as internal strongpoints within the city.

http://images.travelpod.com/tripwow/photos/ta-07b0-f15a-332f/prison-tower-and-highland-gate-gdansk-poland+1152_13725354488-tpfil02aw-6272.jpg

Those Bolognese towers were part of a sort of craze going on in Bologna in the 13th Century, with intense rivalries between aristocratic families (who were later expelled by the townfolk) at one point there were dozens of towers like that. Apparently it looked something like this at the time, though most of those towers were later destroyed.

http://www.tastebologna.net/uploads/2/1/6/4/21643804/1551893_orig.jpg?551


Cathedrals were made even taller, the Strasbourg Cathedral (completed in 1439) is 142 meters (466 feet) tall. The citizens of the town apparently used the Cathedral to monitor enemy troop movements during wars around the city, for example in the 1440's against French Armagnac mercenaries. Apparently on a clear day you can see 20 miles from the top.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Karlstejn_od_jz_3.jpg/640px-Karlstejn_od_jz_3.jpg

Quite often the citadel of a castle or town also relied on local landscape (in many cases, a steep hill) for additional height. For example the formidable Sternberk castle in Czech Republic is 378 meters up on a hill, making it harder to get at (and giving it an ever longer view). Karlštejn Castle also in the Czech republic (built 14th Century) sits on a similar hill with a 60 meter tower above that. This is pretty typical of a major castle from that era. I don't know how high the Brimstone fortress is in Saint Kitts (I think 17th or 18th Century) but it's extremely high up on a hill.



In a nutshell, late medieval and Early Modern architecture and engineering of stone buildings was so good that they could build a castle or tower of almost any height, the main limitation was the difficulty of climbing endless stairs (and the chore having to hoist equipment, supplies, cannons etc. up to the top of the towers)

G

[Fuzzy McCoy]

I'm going to echo Brother Oni's comments, the city walls of Xi'an are massive. I remember the first thing I thought when going through the city walls was "Good gods, these walls are huge!"*. If you wanted to make the walls more impressive, you could add another 3-4 meters, but it's not necessary.

*My point of comparison was Carcassonne

[Galloglaich]

I'll repeat my post, since it appears to have been lost on the previous page:

Walls of Xian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Xi%27an). 14 km long, enclosing an city of 14 km2. The curtain wall is 12 m high and between 12–14 m at the top and 15–18 m at the base. This is all surrounded by 18m wide by 6m deep moat.
Total footprint is about 36 km2.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Xi'an_-_City_wall_-_013.jpg

http://s13.postimg.org/qepg4m59j/Northeast_gate.jpg


The biggest are the city walls of Nanjing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Wall_of_Nanjing), although I'm having problems finding as detailed information on those: 14 m base width walls, 14-21 m high and is 180 li (between 81 km to 103 km, depending the exact period during the Ming). The bricks were 40-50 by 20 by 10-12 cm big and each brick was stamped with the name of the producer for quality control. Using unverified bricks was a major offence, with penalties ranging up to execution.

According to the wikipedia page, the original wall took 21 years to complete and used 200,000 laborers to move 7 million m3 of earth.

http://www.china-mike.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Nanjing__mingwall-300x263.jpg

https://coplansinchina.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/najing-wall-with-cars.jpg

Further West cities were also always heavily fortified up until the 18th Century or so. Many of the older town walls have been destroyed but you do still have some interesting examples. There are still remnants of the old town walls of Istanbul / Constantinople, which were apparently 56 km long in their outer line of defenses

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

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

http://dailyistanbultours24.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/istanbul_city_wall.jpg

and the town walls of Nuremberg are partly preserved,

http://www.rtwman.co.uk/mini_reports/2009/Photos/Destinations/Apr2009_Nuremberg/Apr2009_NUE_23.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Nuremberg_city_wall_north_part_east_maxtor_inner_f _w.jpg

Talinn, in Estonia, once a Crusader outpost, also still has some of it's walls

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/TallinnCityWalls.jpg/640px-TallinnCityWalls.jpg

Dubrovnik in Croatia still has much of it's formidable city-walls

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

http://www.ipst2015.com/media/dubrovnik_walls.jpg


Oh and Krakow. In reference to my earlier post on the town halls etc., the 13th Century tower from the town wall is 70 meters high (229 feet)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Krak%C3%B3w_-_Town_Hall_Tower_01a.jpg/316px-Krak%C3%B3w_-_Town_Hall_Tower_01a.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Hall_Tower,_Krak%C3%B3w

Some of the old town walls are still there too. They may look kind of simple but they were sufficient to defeat an entire Tumen of the Mongol Horde in the 13th Century, and stopped the Turks and Mongols in several later raids and forays.

http://www.krakow-info.com/images/Mury.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Brama_florianska.jpg/334px-Brama_florianska.jpg

This is the (33 meter high) Saint Florians gate, built by the Furriers Guild in the 14th Century. It was one of the old town gates of the city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Florian%27s_Gate

This is the old Barbican.

View from inside

https://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/6035306/Krakow-Barbican-57605.jpg

And out

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Barbakan_Krakow_z_ulicy_Basztowej.jpg


You still have the old fairy tale esque 13th Century fortifications of some towns like Carcassone still intact in France

http://www.creme-de-languedoc.com/_images/tourism/carcassonne/2.jpg

and citadels like Mont St. Michel

http://www.brittanytourism.com/var/crtbre/storage/images/media/images/decouvrir/emblematiques/baie-du-mont-saint-michel/baie-du-mt-st-michel/575658-1-fre-FR/baie-du-mt-st-michel_large_rwd.jpg

G

[Carl]

Quite often the citadel of a castle or town also relied on local landscape (in many cases, a steep hill) for additional height.

Indeed. It's been a long time, but i was told that when pontefract castle was sieged in the english civil war the height from where the attacking mortars were setup in a deep valley to the wall tops was over a mile and thus sufficient to stop the mortars lobbing shells over the walls. I've allways had my doubts, 9i was young enough it could have been a tall tale to impress me :p), about the claim but attempts to research it over the years have failed to turn up any real info.

[Galloglaich]

Indeed. It's been a long time, but i was told that when pontefract castle was sieged in the english civil war the height from where the attacking mortars were setup in a deep valley to the wall tops was over a mile and thus sufficient to stop the mortars lobbing shells over the walls. I've allways had my doubts, 9i was young enough it could have been a tall tale to impress me :p), about the claim but attempts to research it over the years have failed to turn up any real info.

Yeah I think Edinburgh castle in Scotland is also on a real tall hill. Prague castle in prague is on a pretty big hill too.


With regard to curtain walls, I think you actually had bigger / taller walls in some of the earlier castles (which you can still see in some surviving 13th Century examples like at Carcassone or Beziers) as during that time, the main threat was from ladders and towers. Whereas later 15th and 16th Century walls, when the actual architecture was more sophisticated tended to be lower, thicker and eventually, protected by glacis or levies covered in grass so as to be more and more effective against cannon.

The ultimate expression of which are of course the various surviving star forts or trace itallienne designs, including both castles and entire cities

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a8/84/ff/a884ffe8fc8f08c0a7e564212f9de83a.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Fortbourtange.jpg

https://worldalchemist.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/610.jpg


Those kind of forts of course overlapped with the more traditional (but thicker and squatter) walled castles and towns, the latter relied a little more on large numbers of guns to defend themselves.

G

[Telok]

U.S. military readyness question about the late 80s here.
I have a supers game set in 1989 in a fictional city on the Mississippi about 90 miles north of Memphis. There is a medium-small National Guard base with a small airport about 20 miles away. Would such a base have some sort of fighter plane or attack helicopter that commonly carried air to air missiles? If so what would the readyness status and launch time be?
There is a hero involved in a jetpack air chase with a villain, he's using a walkie talkie with about a one mile range on it to "call for air support". Assuming that one of the other heroes with a real radio relays the request, and gets the base to respond, and the radio operator and officer on duty act immedately, roughly how long wpuld it take to get something armed into the air and at least into the right area?
The hero is involved in a 200 kph jetpack chase at around 100 meters altitude. The heroe's jetpack is faster overall but much less maneuverable and it only has 5 minutes of fuel. The hero will overtake the villain after about 30 seconds but the villain will drop down to treetop/power line height (gotta love that forcefield) and cut to his 100 kph combat speed. The hero essentially can't compete at that point and will either crash or stay above in a spotting position.
If whatever aircraft is sent arrives before the hero runs out of fuel will it be able to engage the villain in any meaningful way?

[Carl]

@Telok: there was a man who rather infamously converted a bulldozer into an armour "thingy", (sorry not sure what you'd call it), and the police had to call on the local national gaurd to send a helicopter. He managed to take himself out before it got there, but i'm pretty sure their response time was waaaay longer than 5 minutes. SOmething makes me think it would have been 20 but i'd have to look up the incident again to be sure.

EDIT: On the other hand if they could get far enough up the chain for someone to authorize it on their own authority, (and who was willing), and an airbase within about 300 miles, (jets of the era are pretty similar or the same as today and could pull mach 2 if they had to, which is a mile every 2.5 seconds, allowing some, (guess on my pat i admit), for takeoff and accelerating to that speed they could get there in 5 minutes) had a jet on standby on the runway they could get there just inside the time limit, but i've no idea if such hot standby's where even normal in that era or who you'd have to get ahold of and convince.

[Gnoman]

U.S. military readyness question about the late 80s here.
I have a supers game set in 1989 in a fictional city on the Mississippi about 90 miles north of Memphis. There is a medium-small National Guard base with a small airport about 20 miles away. Would such a base have some sort of fighter plane or attack helicopter that commonly carried air to air missiles? If so what would the readyness status and launch time be?
There is a hero involved in a jetpack air chase with a villain, he's using a walkie talkie with about a one mile range on it to "call for air support". Assuming that one of the other heroes with a real radio relays the request, and gets the base to respond, and the radio operator and officer on duty act immedately, roughly how long wpuld it take to get something armed into the air and at least into the right area?
The hero is involved in a 200 kph jetpack chase at around 100 meters altitude. The heroe's jetpack is faster overall but much less maneuverable and it only has 5 minutes of fuel. The hero will overtake the villain after about 30 seconds but the villain will drop down to treetop/power line height (gotta love that forcefield) and cut to his 100 kph combat speed. The hero essentially can't compete at that point and will either crash or stay above in a spotting position.
If whatever aircraft is sent arrives before the hero runs out of fuel will it be able to engage the villain in any meaningful way?

The only Air National Guard unit anywhere in that area that operated fighters at that time was the 170th Fighter Squadron in Peoria, Illinois, which was transitioning from the F4 Phantom to the F-16 Falcon in 1989. That entire region seems to mostly have had transport and tanker squadrons.

If you decide such a squadron is in the area, there would be three possible levels of readiness that would make support possible.

Armed but not alert - roughly one hour before they could respond.
Armed strip alert - 5 - 30 minutes before response depending on your altitude and position
Armed and Airborne - 0+ minutes (depending on where the plane is)

If the plane isn't armed, you don't have a prayer.


Any of these states could be explained in your setting.

[Octopusapult]

I have a question for the elders of the thread.

I have a homebrew with a race of simian like humanoids. One of their starting traits is called Thick Fur and grants them a bonus to their defense. This was based on the idea of Fur Armor in other games.

I don't know how viable fur armor is in the first place, or if having thicker natural fur could even rival it, but is the idea too farfetched?

[Telok]

The only Air National Guard unit anywhere in that area that operated fighters at that time was the 170th Fighter Squadron in Peoria, Illinois, which was transitioning from the F4 Phantom to the F-16 Falcon in 1989. That entire region seems to mostly have had transport and tanker squadrons.

If you decide such a squadron is in the area, there would be three possible levels of readiness that would make support possible.

Armed but not alert - roughly one hour before they could respond.

That's about what I thought it might be. But it is nice to have better estimates and information. Thank you.

Considering it's a supers setting they may have a lightly armed helicopter or three but not much more an nothing ready to go at any moment, that's what the PCs are for. This setting is a bit on the tamer side of supers stuff so dozens of alien races using Earth as a stopping point or galactic terror threats aren't a thing. The occasional mutant fire-breathing horse is possible, but definitely abnormal.

[snowblizz]

I have a question for the elders of the thread.

I have a homebrew with a race of simian like humanoids. One of their starting traits is called Thick Fur and grants them a bonus to their defense. This was based on the idea of Fur Armor in other games.

I don't know how viable fur armor is in the first place, or if having thicker natural fur could even rival it, but is the idea too farfetched?

I highly doubt the fur part of "fur armour" is in any shape or form actually helping. More likely we are talking about leather armour with hair still attached. Not sure how possible it is to make functional armour and retain the fur, garments of that type do exist though. Many highly functional armours made of skin has existed throughout history, however.
In other words, fur isn't armour, thick skin can be.

[MrZJunior]

That's about what I thought it might be. But it is nice to have better estimates and information. Thank you.

Considering it's a supers setting they may have a lightly armed helicopter or three but not much more an nothing ready to go at any moment, that's what the PCs are for. This setting is a bit on the tamer side of supers stuff so dozens of alien races using Earth as a stopping point or galactic terror threats aren't a thing. The occasional mutant fire-breathing horse is possible, but definitely abnormal.

Could you hand wave them having some jets on the runway if there was a big enough threat? If the villain being pursued was known to have flight technology it would make a certain degree of sense to have interceptors ready and waiting for him.

[Telok]

Could you hand wave them having some jets on the runway if there was a big enough threat? If the villain being pursued was known to have flight technology it would make a certain degree of sense to have interceptors ready and waiting for him.
Well there would be two problems with that.
First, the PCs tend to do absolutely no research or investigation. They have access to every (1989) online government database, can get warrants for just about anything in under an hour, have a support staff that can do stuff from record checking to stakeouts, and (so far) have the support of all the local non-government organizations. In the 36 hours between learning of the villain's main "base" (a mansion owned under a fake ID) they did absolutely nothing. They didn't even have the place watched, tap the phones, or check the local real estate listings on it.
Second, they had not met this particular villain yet, just the hired guns and his minions. Plus he dosen't normally fly, it's just his get away plan. Along with some bombs at a local sports stadium and hijacking the local TV broadcasts to announce that they'll go off. There are actually six sets of bombs around the city but the villain activates the most dangerous ones at that time.

The idea behind it was for the heroes to run off and stop hundreds or thousands of deaths while the villain escaped. But one guy didn't play along so now there won't be enough heroes to defuse all the bombs at the stadium.

Say, does anyone know what the emergency evacuation plan for a 75,000 person stadium looks like and how long it would take to start an ~50,000 person evacuation?

[Silus]

So quick question in light of seeing the RWBY game trailer: How viable are shotgun gauntlets like those that Yang uses (or the Ballistic Fist from Fallout: New Vegas)? I'd imagine that the recoil would be a rather large issue but I'm not entirely sure how large.

[Carl]

AFAIR the NV one had some sort of counterweight that moved as it fired so that should compensate. The bigger issue is "why would you punch someone with it instead of just shooting them with it".

[Octopusapult]

AFAIR the NV one had some sort of counterweight that moved as it fired so that should compensate. The bigger issue is "why would you punch someone with it instead of just shooting them with it".

They used those in Inglorious Bastards because they were so compact that they were easy to sneak into the theater, but still obviously much deadlier than a normal punch. I imagine they were limited to being triggered on impact rather than manually triggered due to their size and their size was probably a result of limited resources on the part of who created them.

Probably knowing this, the men who wielded them must have been aware that the thing could very well just explode their fist off the first time they used it if something went wrong.

[MrZJunior]

Well there would be two problems with that.
First, the PCs tend to do absolutely no research or investigation. They have access to every (1989) online government database, can get warrants for just about anything in under an hour, have a support staff that can do stuff from record checking to stakeouts, and (so far) have the support of all the local non-government organizations. In the 36 hours between learning of the villain's main "base" (a mansion owned under a fake ID) they did absolutely nothing. They didn't even have the place watched, tap the phones, or check the local real estate listings on it.
Second, they had not met this particular villain yet, just the hired guns and his minions. Plus he dosen't normally fly, it's just his get away plan. Along with some bombs at a local sports stadium and hijacking the local TV broadcasts to announce that they'll go off. There are actually six sets of bombs around the city but the villain activates the most dangerous ones at that time.

The idea behind it was for the heroes to run off and stop hundreds or thousands of deaths while the villain escaped. But one guy didn't play along so now there won't be enough heroes to defuse all the bombs at the stadium.

Say, does anyone know what the emergency evacuation plan for a 75,000 person stadium looks like and how long it would take to start an ~50,000 person evacuation?

Forget handwaving, they deserve everything, give it to them with both barrels and then kick them when they're down.

They should be at least fired from their government jobs for this if not locked up for criminal negligence.

[Brother Oni]

Say, does anyone know what the emergency evacuation plan for a 75,000 person stadium looks like and how long it would take to start an ~50,000 person evacuation?

Evacuation plans may be restricted information (terrorists for example), so they may be hard to find.

This link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100410160121.htm) indicates that it would take less than an hour, dependent on the stadium design.

This FoI request (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/all_seater_stadium_safety) indicates between 2-8 minutes in an emergency for a UK football stadium, although it doesn't state the stadium size. I would say that it depends on the design though.

[MrZJunior]

Evacuation plans may be restricted information (terrorists for example), so they may be hard to find.

This link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100410160121.htm) indicates that it would take less than an hour, dependent on the stadium design.

This FoI request (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/all_seater_stadium_safety) indicates between 2-8 minutes in an emergency for a UK football stadium, although it doesn't state the stadium size. I would say that it depends on the design though.

It also depends a lot on the people being evacuated. It is very easy for an evacuation to turn into a stampede where people get stuck in choke points and crushed.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I don't know how viable fur armor is in the first place, or if having thicker natural fur could even rival it, but is the idea too farfetched?

Wool textile armour is very viable and technically made of fur, but that's nothing like leather or hair on a living animal.

If you want literally 'a race with natural fur armour' then you need them to have some kind of exotic proteins or oils in their hair. So a fantasy race with protective fur isn't unreasonable, but just having fur on its own shouldn't matter against properly sharpened swords and would have no real effect on piercing and bludgeoning weapons. Hair is basically just modified scales from a biological perspective and scales as natural armour is kind expected in RPGs.

Though I'm sure if you tried to attack a woolly mammoth with a knife, the fur would get in the way. I just doubt it would be that relevant compared with the mammoth's other physical traits if you went up against a mammoth with something I'd actually recommend you have if you aren't going to just turn and run at the sight of a aggressive mammoth.

Of course, fur is protective in purpose, just against the elements rather than deliberate attackers.

[Brother Oni]

It also depends a lot on the people being evacuated. It is very easy for an evacuation to turn into a stampede where people get stuck in choke points and crushed.

Indeed, which is why after things like the Hillsborough disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster), stadia design and policies were changed significantly. The first link in my previous post mentions some software which can model this and various other factors like first responders actions.

Unfortunately, this is only for large scale venues - smaller ones aren't covered by the same regulations and are deathtraps when fire and panic sets in. There's even youtube and liveleak footage of what happened at The Station nightclub fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire) which killed 100 people and injured a further 230, although due to its graphic nature, I don't think I can link to it on this board.

[Mr. Mask]

Is there any way to silence armour such as a suit of plate? Say, putting silk cloth in the joints on such, to stop the harsh clanking?


Telok: I suggest getting the PCs to write out a report of what transpired. They can try to cover themselves, or try to put all the blame on the party member who left, or dig themselves into a hole. It could be interesting, and make the repercussions more tense.

[Carl]

I'd argue the problem here is partly DM'ing. Unless they're part of some ultra extreme measures group, (or working for them rather), a government agency would insist on a chain of evidence and reports on everything leading upto things even before stuff went down, (short a spontaneous ultra fast moving crisis).

Also bear in mind that how the authorities will react to a bomb going off comes very much down to whether the PC's knew chasing the villain would result in them not having enough people to defuse the bombs or if he had reasonable reason to believe he could stop them if he caught the villain. They can only act on what you tell them after all.

[Hjolnai]

I know that cavalry from the 16th century onward started using pistols as their primary weapon. Did any armies try equipping line infantry with pistols? It seems like they'd be quicker to load than muskets, and a higher rate of fire might make up for the loss of accuracy. Of course, then you'd need some other weapon to deal with bayonet charges.

Also, was there any significant military use of revolvers in the 19th century?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Indeed, which is why after things like the Hillsborough disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster), stadia design and policies were changed significantly. The first link in my previous post mentions some software which can model this and various other factors like first responders actions.

There was the Bradford City fire as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_City_stadium_fire), which would also have had an effect on stadium design - however, the time period we're talking about hasn't really had chance to take note of those incidents, possibly beyond having a few extra game stewards around. It'd be very unlikely for a new stadium to have been built to account for such things.

Other things to consider are the nature of the event and the time of day - if it's, say, a college football game at lunchtime, the crowd might be a bit boisterous but mostly sober. A professional football game in late afternoon or evening might have a lot of people who've been drinking for most of the day already, and if it's a big rivalry game, the atmosphere might be on the hostile side.

[snowblizz]

I know that cavalry from the 16th century onward started using pistols as their primary weapon. Did any armies try equipping line infantry with pistols? It seems like they'd be quicker to load than muskets, and a higher rate of fire might make up for the loss of accuracy. Of course, then you'd need some other weapon to deal with bayonet charges.
It would be insane. You'd have much less power and range than the enemy, they'd just stand outside effective pistol range (which could even be point blank sometimes) and shoot you to bits.


Also, was there any significant military use of revolvers in the 19th century?
Yes. It was used by cavalry as a sidearm, and sometimes primary arm, eg in the ACW for some not-so-regular cavalry.
Also of course as a general sidearm for officers and others.

[Tobtor]

Wool textile armour is very viable and technically made of fur, but that's nothing like leather or hair on a living animal.

If you want literally 'a race with natural fur armour' then you need them to have some kind of exotic proteins or oils in their hair. So a fantasy race with protective fur isn't unreasonable, but just having fur on its own shouldn't matter against properly sharpened swords and would have no real effect on piercing and bludgeoning weapons. Hair is basically just modified scales from a biological perspective and scales as natural armour is kind expected in RPGs.

Though I'm sure if you tried to attack a woolly mammoth with a knife, the fur would get in the way. I just doubt it would be that relevant compared with the mammoth's other physical traits if you went up against a mammoth with something I'd actually recommend you have if you aren't going to just turn and run at the sight of a aggressive mammoth.

Of course, fur is protective in purpose, just against the elements rather than deliberate attackers.

I agree with most of it: one point though "no real effect on piercing and bludgeoningweapons". I think it will have some effect on the latter. Lets say reindeer or wild boar fur is pretty good at distributing force (and possibly de-accelerate the weapon slightly), which is your main concern in defending against clubs etc. I agree that on piercing it will have very limited effect, if any at all beside the thickness (the knife versus mammoth example).

[Closet_Skeleton]

Is there any way to silence armour such as a suit of plate? Say, putting silk cloth in the joints on such, to stop the harsh clanking?

No.

There are significant differences in the noises armour can make. Plate isn't the noisiest armour, but full plate has joints which are going to be noisy. Quiet-ish plate isn't that hard as long as your moving slowly and carefully, but you'd rather not be wearing plate at all.

You could make some quite significant plate armour that had no joint protection, it would have obvious downsides but still be very good.


I know that cavalry from the 16th century onward started using pistols as their primary weapon. Did any armies try equipping line infantry with pistols? It seems like they'd be quicker to load than muskets, and a higher rate of fire might make up for the loss of accuracy. Of course, then you'd need some other weapon to deal with bayonet charges.

Cavalry never used pistols as their primary weapon. There were battles where a cavalryman might only ever get to use use pistol, but that's because he didn't have an opportunity to use his sword. Pistol cavalry would charge into melee the moment they had the opportunity, the pistol gave them something to do in un-optimum circumstances. The pistol did sometimes replace the lance which you might call a primary weapon, but in both cases you'd get more use out of the sword even if it was theoretically secondary.

The caracole (a dressage technique used for firing pistols in large formations) went out of fashion in the 17th century, it wasn't a 16th century and onwards thing, it was a 16th century thing, possibly only a 1540-80 thing and therefore not even a whole century. Horsemanship techniques changed a lot between 1500-1800. Ranged cavalry started using longer carbines and dragoons, most front line cavalry went back to swords and lances right up to 1914.

The caracole was used with wheel-locks, but the time flintlock pistols came in pistols were out of fashion as anything but a back up weapon.

I don't see why a pistol would be quicker to load than a musket if you're on foot and able to stand up properly. Its just the same thing but shorter. Cavalrymen can retreat out of and into of pistol range a lot easier than infantry.


Yes. It was used by cavalry as a sidearm, and sometimes primary arm, eg in the ACW for some not-so-regular cavalry.
Also of course as a general sidearm for officers and others.

With how cheapskate the US army was at the beginning of the Civil War, I wouldn't be surprised if lots of soldiers brought their pistols from home and used them on occasions due to being more modern than the rifles the army had given them.


I agree with most of it: one point though "no real effect on piercing and bludgeoningweapons". I think it will have some effect on the latter.

I thought of that myself, but don't think the cushioning effect really matters. Bludgeoning weapons are designed to have a lot of their force disappointed by armour and still be effective. The bludgeoning weapons it would save you against are the ones that are designed to be nonlethal against armoured opponents anyway.

I'd agree that its better than skin, but not necessarily better than clothing and not as good as proper padding, which tends to be the worst available in game effect by itself in RPGs.

[MrZJunior]

Telok: I suggest getting the PCs to write out a report of what transpired. They can try to cover themselves, or try to put all the blame on the party member who left, or dig themselves into a hole. It could be interesting, and make the repercussions more tense.

Yes! Make them fill out paperwork!

[Mike_G]

I know that cavalry from the 16th century onward started using pistols as their primary weapon. Did any armies try equipping line infantry with pistols? It seems like they'd be quicker to load than muskets, and a higher rate of fire might make up for the loss of accuracy. Of course, then you'd need some other weapon to deal with bayonet charges.


As others have said, no.

Muzzle loading pistols aren't any faster to load than muskets. You may gain some ability to fire several shots by carrying several loaded pistols, but beyond that, you won't have a faster rate of fire.

Pistol range is very, very, very short. Almost melee range. Muskets were deadly within 50 yards, and effective in a volley out to about 100. Arming your infantry with pistols would almost be bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The big advantage of pistols for cavalry is that they are much easier to use on horseback than long arms. You can shoot them one handed and still hold the reins, and it's easier to load a shorter weapon in the saddle. I can't see loading a full sized musket while mounted. There is also the ability to carry several pistols, fire and draw another one, fire that, etc.

When fighting dismounted, cavalry with firearms tended to use carbines (basically shorter rifles/muskets.) Less range than a full length weapon, but still much better than a pistol, and short enough that you could theoretically use it while mounted.



Also, was there any significant military use of revolvers in the 19th century?

Yes for cavalry, mostly.

Once again, it's easy to use a pistol on horseback, and most military rifles of the time were single shot, muzzle loaders for the first half of the century, increasingly breechloaders from the 1860s onward. But being able to shoot five or six rounds before needing to reload, or even
work the lever on an early repeating rifle, is a big advantage at close range, and on horseback.

Dismounted cavalry still preferred carbines as a primary weapon.

[fusilier]

Muzzle loading pistols aren't any faster to load than muskets. You may gain some ability to fire several shots by carrying several loaded pistols, but beyond that, you won't have a faster rate of fire.

In a theoretical sense you are right, in that you have to perform the same number of actions, but in practice the shortness/handiness of a muzzle-loading pistol can make it easier and faster to load. However, given the short range at which you're probably using one, it's typically not worth trying to reload a pistol. Traditionally two pistols (a brace) were carried on horseback, some times three.

[fusilier]

Yes. It was used by cavalry as a sidearm, and sometimes primary arm, eg in the ACW for some not-so-regular cavalry.
Also of course as a general sidearm for officers and others.

In addition to this, outside of the cavalry, enlisted men were often not allowed to carry pistols* -- although privately purchased ones might be allowed by the commander.

However, in the late 1850s I know of an entire company of infantry, stationed at Fort Stanton NM, being issued with old Dragoon revolvers before being sent out on campaign. Furthermore those old revolvers were listed as being in a serviceable but poor condition in the 1860s. So it looks like exceptions were made.

*Sergeants and above were usually allowed a revolver.

[Mike_G]

In addition to this, outside of the cavalry, enlisted men were often not allowed to carry pistols* -- although privately purchased ones might be allowed by the commander.

However, in the late 1850s I know of an entire company of infantry, stationed at Fort Stanton NM, being issued with old Dragoon revolvers before being sent out on campaign. Furthermore those old revolvers were listed as being in a serviceable but poor condition in the 1860s. So it looks like exceptions were made.


If they were stationed in NM, they were likely fighting Indians. And if they were primarily armed with muzzle loading rifles, having a revolver would be helpful if they were ambushed at close quarters, or if the Indians decided to rush them after the volley before they could reload their muskets.

[fusilier]

If they were stationed in NM, they were likely fighting Indians. And if they were primarily armed with muzzle loading rifles, having a revolver would be helpful if they were ambushed at close quarters, or if the Indians decided to rush they after the volley before they could reload their muskets.

Yeah, I thought that was implicit. Mescalero Apaches were the primary nation in that area, although they could have been fighting Comanches too.

[Mike_G]

Yeah, I thought that was implicit. Mescalero Apaches were the primary nation in that area, although they could have been fighting Comanches too.

Makes sense.

I was agreeing with you, and maybe elaborating a bit.

I can imagine having a loaded sixgun was reassuring after you fired your one shot and the option was trying to fumble through the reloading drill before an angry Apache could run up and knife you.

[Telok]

Evacuation plans may be restricted information (terrorists for example), so they may be hard to find.

This link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100410160121.htm) indicates that...

Thanks, those are very very useful.


Other things to consider are the nature of the event and the time of day - if it's, say, a college football game at lunchtime, the crowd might be a bit boisterous but mostly sober. A professional football game in late afternoon or evening might have a lot of people who've been drinking for most of the day already, and if it's a big rivalry game, the atmosphere might be on the hostile side.

Pro football, about 6:30 PM (pretty late in the game), 50,000 people, on cable or the secondary/tertiary broadcast networks. So... 50 to 100 dead and 500 to 1000 injured I think.


Also bear in mind that how the authorities will react to a bomb going off comes very much down to whether the PC's knew chasing the villain would result in them not having enough people to defuse the bombs or if he had reasonable reason to believe he could stop them if he caught the villain. They can only act on what you tell them after all.

Oh, bad news here. Part of the escape plan involved the computer automatically hijacking a TV satellite and broadcasting the events in the room, including the whole threat, how many heroes and bombs there were, and the fact that there's a five minute timer. So it's kind of public that there's four heroes, four bombs, five minutes, and that the heroes can reach the stadium in time if they use the other jet packs laying around. The jet packs have a shade less than five minutes of fuel and the stadium is a bit over three minutes away at top speed.

Naturally the villain went in the opposite direction from the stadium. The National Guard base is actually about another two minutes by jet pack past the stadium from the mansion.

The bombs themselves are disguised as air conditioning/filtering units. When activated they pop up a flashing red light on top and start the countdown. There is no way to turn them off but defusing them is really simple, there are no countermeasures against it except a power cord connecting them in a circle and a voltage monitor on that power cord. Unfortunately anything beyond cutting a wire or just smashing the control panel requires cutting through the exterior steel casing. When the timer hits zero they pop open the ventilation grille and drop what is essentially a homemade cluster bomb of tear gas. Since the fake vents are above corners of the field it's less likely for the casing of the bomb to hit anyone but the tear gas canisters will get a good spread of the stands at each end of the stadium.

[Brother Oni]

The bombs themselves are disguised as air conditioning/filtering units. When activated they pop up a flashing red light on top and start the countdown. There is no way to turn them off but defusing them is really simple, there are no countermeasures against it except a power cord connecting them in a circle and a voltage monitor on that power cord. Unfortunately anything beyond cutting a wire or just smashing the control panel requires cutting through the exterior steel casing. When the timer hits zero they pop open the ventilation grille and drop what is essentially a homemade cluster bomb of tear gas. Since the fake vents are above corners of the field it's less likely for the casing of the bomb to hit anyone but the tear gas canisters will get a good spread of the stands at each end of the stadium.

Is the payload of a bomb these tear gas cannisters and not something more lethal? If the players knew that, then I can see a justification for chasing the villain over disarming the bombs.

[Telok]

Is the payload of a bomb these tear gas cannisters and not something more lethal? If the players knew that, then I can see a justification for chasing the villain over disarming the bombs.
Absolutely not. As far as the players and characters know it could be anything from a mind control gas to a nerve gas to a necrotic zombie creating gas.

Heck, I didn't even think about what the gas was untill some of them decided to let the bombs go off.

Edit: I think that they may be assuming that villain == liar. Because that's generally the way taking prisoners in D&D works for them, any creature taken prisoner by them figures out that their D&D characters are emotionless psychopaths or lol-random murder hobos and immedately tries anything to escape them. It seems like the transition to trying to be actual heroes is a little rough right now.

[Carl]

Wait so they:

A) know the bombs are there

B) don't know what they contain.

C) know that they need all of the team to disarm them all.

D) Know there's no possible backup or NPC help in disarming them

E) have no reason to believe they won't be able to disarm them

F) No reason to believe catching the villain will prevent them going off

G) No reason to believe that letting him get away will let him do something much worse later, (this one's fairly weak mind)

Because if so. WTF players...

[Mr. Mask]

Carl: My feelings exactly.


Random citizens will probably try to shoot the players on sight thenceforth, if they aren't sent to the gas chambers themselves after court martial (which can't really be justified). Or more specifically, the player who left would be, and his companions would be in some trouble just for being related to him. Of course, you could totally sweep that aside for the players' sake, and give some punishment suitable to the groups' dynamic (allow the player or players to escape and try to fight the villain while running from the law, or something).

If they're super enough, and understand the mechanism, maybe they could try jamming shut the device so the cluster bombs can't escape?



Question: How often in battle are soldiers known to actually aim for vital or specific spots on the enemy? Whether it be head, heart, lungs or liver, or even something like the legs or arms for whatever reason? Aside from snipers engaging an unaware enemy, I can't think of many examples of soldiers intentionally hitting vital spots or picking specific targets. It seems like centre of mass is good enough for 99% of cases.

[Carl]

@Mask: Center of mass is what they're trained to aim and and they're for the most partly firmly discouraged from doing any of the fancy targeting you described.

[Gnoman]

In combat, most often you're going to be shooting at the bush that just shot at you, or a vague shape moving between trees, or somebody so close you risk them strangling you if you miss. Fancy shooting is a very bad idea unless you're a sniper, in which case it might be a good idea to deal with body armor or suicide vests.

[Telok]

Carl: My feelings exactly.
Yes.


Random citizens will probably try to shoot the players on sight thenceforth, if they aren't sent to the gas chambers themselves after court martial
The two characters that this will come down on most are both obvious mutants (well one just looks like that in his hero form, but close enough for the man on the street) so an significant upswing in prejudice is likely. A spike in anti-mutant activity and violence is not off the table.


If they're super enough, and understand the mechanism, maybe they could try jamming shut the device so the cluster bombs can't escape? Yes. At least I hope so. There are also the options of opening up the control box and crosswiring the clocks into infinite loops, crosswiring the voltage meters to a different level so they don't trigger when a bomb is disabled, or using a power srmor suit to keep the voltage on the power lines stable while the bombs are disarmed ones at a time.

There are multiple avenues of success here because the villain doesn't really want to be a world famous mass murderer. Power and money, yes. Being traget #1 on everybody's hit list (including some other villains), no. That's also the reason for using tear gas. These are bombs to distract the heroes or extort them into letting him escape. But since they've thrown crates of explosives at unarmed criminals who were trying to escape in cars he (and I) have realized that these 'heroes' don't have much self control or any sense of porportion.

I offered to run the game with them as vigilantes. They chose to be government agents. They may end up being vigilantes anyways.

[Mike_G]

In combat, most often you're going to be shooting at the bush that just shot at you, or a vague shape moving between trees, or somebody so close you risk them strangling you if you miss. Fancy shooting is a very bad idea unless you're a sniper, in which case it might be a good idea to deal with body armor or suicide vests.

This is very true, and not emphasized enough for non military people. Most of the time, you are shooting at muzzle flashes in the dark, at shadows, at the window or brush where you think fire is coming from. If you see an enemy, he's probably sprinting from cover to cover, so you have a short time to take a shot at a moving target.

In those situations, you won't really have the ability to aim at the guy's head or gun hand or whatever.

Generally, for combat, any hit on the enemy is fine for me. If I shoot him in the leg, chances are he stops shooting at me and concentrates on screaming in pain and trying not to to bleed to death. I'm ok with that. I don't really care if he survives, so long as he stops being a threat. So we were taught to aim at center mass. If I aim at the head and miss by a foot in any direction except low, I hit nothing. If I aim at the guy's belt buckle and miss by a foot, I still probably hit him someplace.

Snipers, in theory should not be known to the enemy until they fire, so they should have time to plan their shots on unsuspecting enemy. In that case, it may be worth going for a head shot.

That said, modern militaries are providing scopes far more widely than ever before, so it's much easier to put rounds on target.

[fusilier]

This is very true, and not emphasized enough for non military people. Most of the time, you are shooting at muzzle flashes in the dark, at shadows, at the window or brush where you think fire is coming from. If you see an enemy, he's probably sprinting from cover to cover, so you have a short time to take a shot at a moving target.

In those situations, you won't really have the ability to aim at the guy's head or gun hand or whatever.

Generally, for combat, any hit on the enemy is fine for me. If I shoot him in the leg, chances are he stops shooting at me and concentrates on screaming in pain and trying not to to bleed to death. I'm ok with that. I don't really care if he survives, so long as he stops being a threat. So we were taught to aim at center mass. If I aim at the head and miss by a foot in any direction except low, I hit nothing. If I aim at the guy's belt buckle and miss by a foot, I still probably hit him someplace.

Isn't there some sort of saying -- like killing an enemy soldier removes one soldier from the battle, but wounding one removes 5, because his comrades have to take care of him? (I honestly don't remember the numbers)


That said, modern militaries are providing scopes far more widely than ever before, so it's much easier to put rounds on target.

A retired Lt. Col. once told me that the general use of scopes hasn't actually improved accuracy (hasn't made it worse either). I would have to ask him again, but it may have made it a bit easier to acquire a target.

[Mike_G]

Isn't there some sort of saying -- like killing an enemy soldier removes one soldier from the battle, but wounding one removes 5, because his comrades have to take care of him? (I honestly don't remember the numbers)


I have heard the same thing, and it's sorta true. Men will try to help their buddies, and that means they stop shooting at you. Most armies discourage that, but it's human nature. And even though the official position is you keep fighting and let the medics deal with the wounded, they never punish soldiers for helping wounded, and give out medals for saving wounded men all the time.

But even if the enemy don't immediately stop fighting to help their wounded comrade, a wounded man still is more of a burden on the enemy force. A dead man or a wounded man are both probably out of the fight, with a few exceptions. A dead man, however, is no longer consuming resources. Wounded men still need to be fed, they need transportation to a hospital, they tie up medical staff, they use medicine and blood and bandages and all things that an army has to pay for and divert people to do. And if the wounded soldier is in a regular national military, he will be collecting a check and then maybe a pension after discharge, and continued costs for rehab, prosthetics, medication, and so on, maybe for decades. One of the biggest costs of teh war in Iraq is in caring for wounded veterans. And we still aren't doing enough.

Now, not every army is the same, and an insurgent force may not have a big, expensive medical support system, cutting the wounded loose to fend for themselves, but those forces probably loose the guy's friends and neighbors who will bear the burden of taking care of the wounded fighter.





A retired Lt. Col. once told me that the general use of scopes hasn't actually improved accuracy (hasn't made it worse either). I would have to ask him again, but it may have made it a bit easier to acquire a target.

I'm very surprised to hear that. It's certainly easier to hit when using a scope. Sure, the battlefield is never ideal shooting conditions, so scope or no, if you are shooting at shadows and muzzle flashes, it may not matter. But I'd heard that in Falluja there were a very high percentage of head shots.

I can't see how there isn't at least some improvement in accuracy.

[Carl]

But I'd heard that in Falluja there were a very high percentage of head shots.

Wasn't That a strongly urban fighting environment though. I imagine people shooting from windows and rooftops commonly don't expose much but the head. So that may say more about the available targets than anything else.

[JustSomeGuy]

I would suggest that magnified sights, while helping to actually see better what your weapon is pointing at, don't help at all with actually shooting (ie applying the marksmanship principles or equivalent).

Regarding aimed shots, you both increase the odds of hitting your target if you aim at the centre, and also if there are any questions about the legality of your shooting, the only acceptable answer i know is "i shot as i was trained to, at the centre of mass". However, included in the various military shooting competitions i have attended are 'moving target matches' under various names - but always involve the same target silhouette at the same 2 speeds across the same exposures, and the particular figure has a prominent bulge at the leading knee, so the shape is like a lower case 'b' or 'd' (depending on direction of travel), and we were always taught to aim at the knee level because the target is widest there (and with the lateral movement, the widest section has the largest safety margins so to speak).

Lastly, and somewhat late to the party, i reckon listening to music during battle is a pretty bad idea; imagine missing the fire control orders or quick battle orders because you were rocking out to lynard skynard or something! I'd say it's similar to why pro fighters have ring walk music but not someone lined up with a walkman to pop on their head between rounds.
If we were to get a little more technical, i'd say some music can help with pre event arousal at a time where hearing your fireteam/section/multiple isn't critical (assuming you aren't going through some last minute drills or planning, in which case i'd imagine your imminent chewing out would correct this pretty quick) and then leaving your nervous and adrenal systems to keep you twitchy when you are 'on the ground' for real but could really do with being able to hear what is going on around you.

Kind of like the helicopter deployment in 'predator' where it's all little richard, kit checks and tomfoolery until they pass a critical deployment line and it switches to strictly business (at least, as professional as you can be when you're strutting about combat zones in an mtv tshirt and an extradimensional space full of ammunition, comedy oversize knives and chewing tobacco but no space for sleeves of any size).

[Mr. Mask]

Anyone know if you can get statistics on how often soldiers hit at what ranges under what conditions?

[Talakeal]

Does anyone have a picture of an actual "dart" used for combat?

Supposedly they were a real type of weapon, but the only pictures I can find are of modern game darts or those used in WWI.

[Knaight]

Does anyone have a picture of an actual "dart" used for combat?

Supposedly they were a real type of weapon, but the only pictures I can find are of modern game darts or those used in WWI.

In the context of actual weapons, think of something more like a short javelin (although if you're talking about an atlatl dart, it's more like a very long arrow).

[fusilier]

In the context of actual weapons, think of something more like a short javelin (although if you're talking about an atlatl dart, it's more like a very long arrow).

The weapons we refer to as darts historically, vary quite a bit, don't they?

I think there was a hand thrown weapon, that kind of looked like a fat arrow, some had lead weights (a plumbata?). I recently got to use an atlatl, those darts are really long and flexible.

[Broken Crown]

Does anyone have a picture of an actual "dart" used for combat?

According to Wikipedia, "A good example of a plumbata." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumbata#/media/File:Plumbata.JPG)

Also, lawn darts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts#/media/File:Lawndarts.jpg). We used to play with these as children. I think they're illegal now.

[Blackhawk748]

Im planning a Mech game and i need to find out what a "Light Cannon" is, roughly.

A .50 call can do 1 "Kill" of damage with a long burst (so 5-10 shots). Now 1 "Kill" of armor is about what a M113 APC has. So what would do that amount of damage in one shot?

[Eldan]

Does anyone have a picture of an actual "dart" used for combat?

Supposedly they were a real type of weapon, but the only pictures I can find are of modern game darts or those used in WWI.

There's the Irish Kern (light infantry). It looks quite a bit like a javelin, really:


http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=40939&d=1124923519
http://ferriterfamily.com/images/content/pic_irish05.jpg
http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8f/92/74/8f9274d4af162aef61be74e763aeaec5.jpg

[Gnoman]

Im planning a Mech game and i need to find out what a "Light Cannon" is, roughly.

A .50 call can do 1 "Kill" of damage with a long burst (so 5-10 shots). Now 1 "Kill" of armor is about what a M113 APC has. So what would do that amount of damage in one shot?
In RW terms, a .50 BMG is classified as a "heavy machine gun", in the same class as Soviet/Russian 14.5mm machine guns. Anything heavier than that is classified as a cannon (for single-shot) or autocannon (for automatic-loading and usually fully-automatic firing). In the modern world, autocannon range from 20-40mm, and single-shot cannon below 75mm are all but extinct.

[Blackhawk748]

In RW terms, a .50 BMG is classified as a "heavy machine gun", in the same class as Soviet/Russian 14.5mm machine guns. Anything heavier than that is classified as a cannon (for single-shot) or autocannon (for automatic-loading and usually fully-automatic firing). In the modern world, autocannon range from 20-40mm, and single-shot cannon below 75mm are all but extinct.

Thanks, so a Light Cannon would have to be 75mm or bigger and Autocannons are between 20-40mm

[Thiel]

Im planning a Mech game and i need to find out what a "Light Cannon" is, roughly.

A .50 call can do 1 "Kill" of damage with a long burst (so 5-10 shots). Now 1 "Kill" of armor is about what a M113 APC has. So what would do that amount of damage in one shot?

.50 BMG is sufficient to kill an M113 if it hasn't been uparmoured.

[Carl]

That's not really what he's asking thiel. He's trying to define a minimum damage value for the smallest single shot weapon in the game, then define every other weapon in terms of multiples of that.

@Blackhawk748: What your trying to do is basically pointless. Leaving aside the issue of how armour piercing weaponry works relative to non-armour piercing weaponry the punch of a 75mm is so much greater than even a 30mm cannon that for all intents and purposes the two cannot be compared directly in effect. To give you an idea from some quick searches. a 30mm cannon round has a kill radius of about 3m under optimal conditions. a 75mm ww2 vintage sherman shell, (only thing i could find data on and even that's very second hand), is 30m under normal conditions. certainly more under optimal ones. And the blast effect of the 75mm is such that only hardened structures will not be demolished. The RoF of a 30mm cannon does somewhat make up the difference, but for pure area damage as a sole consideration it's not even in the same league as a 75mm gun. The other things it can do, and can do well still make such weapons useful for other reasons. But in pure destructive effect to single point targets or in area destruction they're not even in the same ballpark.

Then again if your trying for any degree of realism and you've got mechs even an abrams would qualify as a recon vehicle at best. The main advantage of a typical mech style locomotion system is all terrain capabilities and an ability to scale to much higher carry weights with a reasonable ground pressure than tracks, (they suffer a myriad of problems that ultimately increase drivetrain weight exponentially with mass carried whilst simultaneously reducing maximum speed). But at smaller sizes the mass cost is completely prohibitive. Whilst i can't authoritatively say where the light end of the viable mech spectrum would be, i'd say a least a couple of hundred tons. And even then you need a very compact and powerful power source.

[Mr. Mask]

Carl:
The main advantage of a typical mech style locomotion system is all terrain capabilities and an ability to scale to much higher carry weights with a reasonable ground pressure than tracks, (they suffer a myriad of problems that ultimately increase drivetrain weight exponentially with mass carried whilst simultaneously reducing maximum speed). But at smaller sizes the mass cost is completely prohibitive. Whilst i can't authoritatively say where the light end of the viable mech spectrum would be, i'd say a least a couple of hundred tons. And even then you need a very compact and powerful power source.

This is pretty interesting to me. Could you pleas elaborate further?

I didn't think a mech set up would allow for better carry weight at a lesser ground pressure. I've heard arguments that a mech would do worse in hazardous terrain compared to treads.

[Thiel]

That's not really what he's asking thiel. He's trying to define a minimum damage value for the smallest single shot weapon in the game, then define every other weapon in terms of multiples of that.
Well, ignore me then :smallsmile:


Then again if your trying for any degree of realism and you've got mechs even an abrams would qualify as a recon vehicle at best. The main advantage of a typical mech style locomotion system is all terrain capabilities and an ability to scale to much higher carry weights with a reasonable ground pressure than tracks, (they suffer a myriad of problems that ultimately increase drivetrain weight exponentially with mass carried whilst simultaneously reducing maximum speed). But at smaller sizes the mass cost is completely prohibitive. Whilst i can't authoritatively say where the light end of the viable mech spectrum would be, i'd say a least a couple of hundred tons. And even then you need a very compact and powerful power source.
What are you basing that prediction on? The only way for a walker to get better surface area than tracks that I can see is to do something akin to Big Muskie. Hardly a speedy way to move about.
I get how tracks gets slower and slower as size goes up no matter how much power you throw at it, but the
same is true for legs. In fact I suspect it's worse.

[Carl]

What are you basing that prediction on? The only way for a walker to get better surface area than tracks that I can see is to do something akin to Big Muskie. Hardly a speedy way to move about.
I get how tracks gets slower and slower as size goes up no matter how much power you throw at it, but the
same is true for legs

Stresses on legs for a given support weight and speed increase more slowly than they do for tracks. Tracks will get slower. Legs won't, subject to sufficient power supply, (this is the real bug bear btw, power is a huge deal, you basically do need either high density portable fission, or all up fushion to do it).

Bassically the problem with tracks even if we ignore the stresses of turning on the spot and just deal with the lesser example of car like turning is that in addition to locomotive stresses, (i.e. forces acting through the track to accelerate/decelerate the track or keep it's speed constant against the overall frictional forces on the vehicle), the inner and outer edges of each individual track are actually covering differing distances, thus the inner edge of the track is actually trying to move backwards faster than the ground underneath it, whilst the outer edge is trying to move slower than the ground under it/ This creates a force across the track that not only saps forces from the propulsion in a turn, but also places great strains on the tracks, and the rest of the drivetrain. Basically bigger means wider tracks, (or longer but they have their own issues with similar end effects on system design), which means additional stress beyond that required of the greater weight. Plus you need more physical traction aid's, (spikes e.t.c.), relative to your total weight to transfer that extra cross track stress to the ground without causing it to break up which has further power loss effects requiring even more drivetrain reinforcement to transfer even more power. And all the extra drivetrain reinforcement and powering up will result in even more losses to friction and other effects within the drive train.

Basically with tracks the degree of stresses and thus mass of the system for a given movement speed in anything but a straight line increase at a rate greater than the size of the vehicle they're fitted to.


Legs however, subject to a certain minimum level of articulation, (which does not have to match the full range of motion or even layout of a human leg, just achieve the bare minimums in ranges of motion, though i'll talk in those terms to make it easy to understand), never have to have the "foot" move relative the the ground it's resting on while it's down. The "leg attached to it may of course be moving in 2 dimensions at once as may the vehicle to which it is attached, but the foot can be completely stationary relative. This means the extra stress from a greater size placed on the leg during the power stroke, (that is whilst force is being transmitted through it to move the vehicle forward), is proportional to the increase in weight all other things being equal. As such assuming an equal number of "legs". Equally for a given speed at no point does the leg have to move any faster during the power stroke, save in a turn, but at any reasonable combat speed unless the increase in wheelbase width is enormous, the difference should be very modest at worst, it the modest difference combined with some of the principles involved that make the track problem grow so severe, conversely the leg problem grows in a much less exponential fashion, (also as a general rule a walker can have a better contact area for it's wheelbase depending on chosen stride length to foot length ratio's resulting in a smaller wheelbase overall, and thus better ratios across the width, at a 50% ratio a 1Kt quadruped with an assumed minimum of 2 feet in contact with the ground at all times with a foot width each 40% of wheelbase width with a 3 to 1 length to width ratio, (i'e 3 times longer than wide, about the same as an abrams), would have a wheel base 12.9 meter's across, copying some parts of the animal kingdom with a 3 in contact at all times setup would give just 10.5 meters, a scaled up abrams would be over 15 meters).

That's not to say legs don't grow a little faster than the mass of the system they're propelling, even they aren't immune to square cube law, but their additional factors are much less severe in their effects. Ultimately both do hit a wall, that's inevitable, but legged locomotion scales more slowly and so eventually catches up and then surpasses tracks. Quite what weight that occurs at is hard to say though, i honestly can't and i doubt anyone's ever tried to do the math on such a system at such scales with the required degree of locomotion, the power requirements for anything less than the sort of systems i described at the start are so insane as to render the concept ignorable. Also most of my thinking has been in the vein of quadrupedal as opposed to bipedal, i suspect bipedal would have serious issues.

[Blackhawk748]

Bipedal does have issues, Number 1 being balance.

Battle Tech does a decent representation of a reasonable bipedal mech, mostly because of the way the mech moves. Battle Tech meks cant straif, they have to move forward or backward, so they behave much like a tank. This makes creating the legs significantly easier, as they are just hinges.

Generally i agree in that mechs will most likely be quadrupedal, as we have several decent ideas for how to do that. One i saw on Cracked was powered entirely by hydraulics. The reason it was scrapped is that each leg needed to be controlled individually and it caused a lot of stress on the user. Then again that was like 40 years ago.

[Carl]

Battle Tech does a decent representation of a reasonable bipedal mech, mostly because of the way the mech moves. Battle Tech meks cant straif, they have to move forward or backward, so they behave much like a tank. This makes creating the legs significantly easier, as they are just hinges.

Not really, (though your right on balance being an issue, meant to bring that up ans point out quadruped or more is the way to go), whilst some supplementary materials add the ability most depictions have no twist and no sideways yaw are possible. That means they'd run into all the issues i described for tracks above, only worse. You have to have the range of motion to do a sidestep and to pivot on one foot without the actual foot twisting in the process if you want to turn a corner effectively. For quadrupedal however a knee joint is not strictly required depending on layout, (oddly enough one of the most efficient layouts has the entire hip moving backwards and forwards so that the hip joint and ankle joint are only out of line, (as in you can draw a perfectly vertical line that passes through both), during turns.

[Thiel]

I can see what you're getting at, but I suspect legs are going to slow down as well. At masses we're dealing with each leg is going to be a multi-ton assembly that needs to be placed with a fair degree of accuracy and in a quadruped it needs enough strength to support at least half the vehicle's mass. In order to do that at speed you need a mind blowing amount of power. In order to handle that power the legs need to be very strong with leads to more weight. I suspect the we're going to hit the point of diminishing returns before tracks do.

[PersonMan]

Isn't 'incredibly small and/or efficient source of insane amounts of power' a given in pretty much all mech-settings, though? Especially if you can make it explode when the mech goes down.

[Carl]

I can see what you're getting at, but I suspect legs are going to slow down as well. At masses we're dealing with each leg is going to be a multi-ton assembly that needs to be placed with a fair degree of accuracy and in a quadruped it needs enough strength to support at least half the vehicle's mass. In order to do that at speed you need a mind blowing amount of power. In order to handle that power the legs need to be very strong with leads to more weight. I suspect the we're going to hit the point of diminishing returns before tracks do.

The problem with this idea is that the stresses your talking about all increase solely with the mass of the vehicle. Which means the mass you need in the leg and the strength of the leg all increase in line with the increase in overall mass of the vehicle.

Tracks increase more rapidly than the mass of the vehicle because some track stresses also increase as the footprint of the vehicle does.

[Mr. Mask]

Had an idea for light mechs, basically large powered armour, that use the terrain as cover and shoot around corners.

So, lets say an enemy tank is sitting on a reverse slope, aiming at the crest of a hill. Moving a tank over the hill would expose to be shot before your tank could fire back. A mech can crouch or stand near the crest of the hill, then peek its arm over the crest, to fire anti-tank rockets. Best part is, if you're spotted and shot, your mech will only lose an arm. For other situations, just the fact you can run up to a building and shoot around the corner while barely exposing yourself. You can kneel behind cover or stand to shoot over tall cover, and hopefully even lie down to take advantage of low cover. Tanks can take advantage of cover, if it's just the right height, or they have some time to prepare it to be the right height.

Of course, this requires a reasonable supply of large cover to be useful, like a city or hilly environments. Of course, those are also the places legs are most useful.

[Spiryt]

I think it would be rather hard for man sized thing, or even much larger one to just 'peek an arm over the crest'.... Especially in a way to allow shooting some rockets.

Hills are rather large objects, and usually their peaks aren't steep enough to form something resembling wall - you're on the peak not behind it.


As far as building goes, I guess that they would help a lot with being unseen.


Best part is, if you're spotted and shot, your mech will only lose an arm

If we're talking about being shot by said tank, I don't think there's a way for the rest of the device to survive being hit in the arm....

[Carl]

To be fair what your describing is very similar to command and conquer: Tiberium Sun's GDI wolverines. Something that straddles the line between mech and power armour. That's actually the scale i expect to see mechs used at if they ever appear IRL precisely because there are some serious positives to their use and they work at a scale small enough to integrate into existing hardware usage. Any mech above that scale is going to have to be so huge to be worth it that it's literally a land going warship of some kind and we don;t really have any concept of how we could use something like that. Which isn't to say we couldn't develop one and that it might not very well have all kinds of positives, just that there's no doctrinal factor that would create an impetuous to push the concept right now.

Thats said the problems with what your describing where clearly laid out by Spiryt. Their rue advantage is that they could be smaller than a true AFV whilst being well enough rumoured that even a power armoured trooper would have issues with you. In effect they let you combine the firepower and speed and armour of something like a humvee variant with the mobility and ease of use factors seen in potential power armour.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The problem with this idea is that the stresses your talking about all increase solely with the mass of the vehicle. Which means the mass you need in the leg and the strength of the leg all increase in line with the increase in overall mass of the vehicle.

Tracks increase more rapidly than the mass of the vehicle because some track stresses also increase as the footprint of the vehicle does.

But aren't those problems with tracks only problems for vehicles using two contiguous front to back tracks? What if a vehicle had four or more separate tracks, maybe mounted kind of like skates so they can be steered separately, like in large wheeled vehicles? Sure, there'd be more moving parts, vulnerable spots and things that can go wrong then in today's tracks, which is why it isn't done. But legs have a lot of those things as well. On top of that the main reason for using tracks in the first place is that they distribute the weight of the vehicle over a large amount of ground. To do that with feet in a vehicle that's so big and heavy that it would run into the problem you propose for tracks, those would be some big flat feet. And just big and flat doesn't even cut it, they need to be able to form themselves to the shape of the terrain at least a little bit, like tracks do. To be fair this is not as big an obstacle as it might seem when looking at a tank. The largest dinosaurs had about the weight of a tank, and they walked just fine on large elephant-like feet. But when you go significantly heavier than that, in the kind of muddy shot to bits terrain typical for at least some parts of battlefields. I doubt legs work much better than cleverly designed tracks at that scale.

This seems to be more of an engineering challenge that we could solve today, be it in an imperfect manner, than an insurmountable obstacle for large tracked vehicles.




As for the smaller mechs: the problem here is the ratio of surface to insides. Covering a relatively small object shaped roughly like a human (or even a much more compact walker like ED-209) in armor takes a lot of armor. Ignoring the people inside for a moment I'm going to hypothetically build a human shaped robot and a small car-like object with the same surface area as a human. The amount of space I have on the inside of that one will be significantly larger. I can use that space to give that vehicle a bigger engine and bigger guns than the humanoid robot. Because this vehicle has a bigger everything as well as a simpler construction it can even carry more weight, which means I can increase its armor thickness, all while it's still outperforming the humanoid robot in power to weight ratio. On top of that this vehicle has a much lower profile in the terrain, it's less likely to be spotted and harder to shoot, and I can angle its armor against attacks.

As you scale up this problem becomes less. A giant humanoid walker still has way less inside compared to the amount of outside than a giant tank, but thanks to the square-cube law both of them compare favorably to any small vehicle. And both of them are pretty easy to spot and shoot anyway. But for a light and agile mech this is a real problem. Even is they can lay down behind cover, they're really slow, practically pinned down, as long as they can't stand up, and a large humanoid shape laying on the ground makes a great target for anything coming from above, even a mortar shell.

Power armor and mechs are still cool of course, just not very practical unless you assume a large technological advancement that can only be used by mechs and not by other military vehicles.

[Carl]

What if a vehicle had four or more separate tracks, maybe mounted kind of like skates so they can be steered separately, like in large wheeled vehicles?

Yes and no, the length of the track isn't the issue, it's the increase in width for a given length to ground pressure ratio. I can't easily do a diagram though i can try if you like. Basically unless the track is capable of curving side to side so that it matches the motion over the ground exactly the stress a track is subject to when putting a fixed amount of locomotive force into the ground increases as the width of the rack increases, and unless you want a very long thin vehicle, (with poor turning radius as a result), you can't avoid increasing width as you raise mass.

And no feet with proper articulation in certain planes of movement don't have the same issues. The foot never even gets any twisting forces applied. The twisting forces on the track are a result of how tracks work, and feet work differently.


Now your idea could be used to give a very long thin vehicle a better turning radii and to avoid other stress issues, (there's more than the one extra stress source i described for tracks, but typically one is dominant during any one particular kind of maneuver so picking one as an example is sufficient), However it has the issues that it adds a lot of extra weight to the system to do it which more than counteracts the savings in weight from avoiding the stresses.

And that's what makes tracks inviable at greater masses by comparison. As you go up in mass carried the overall mass of locomotive system, in drivetrain mostly goes up more rapidly than the mass carried eventually resulting in the thing being all drivetrain. Feet increase at a lower rate however as they only suffer from the normal square cube law issues which leads to feet eventually having a lower drivetrain mass fraction which is what makes them viable.


As for your other points. Well that why above a certain size they only work if they're truly massive. The draw of power armour and the small end of the mech scale that bridges between power armour and AFV's is that you've got something smaller and more intuitive to use than an AFV but much better protected and able to carry much more firepower than a human soldier without.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

and unless you want a very long thin vehicle, (with poor turning radius as a result), you can't avoid increasing width as you raise mass.

But why is it about the width of the vehicle? That part should be solvable with letting each track have its own speed, and maybe some separate steering for each track, right? It's only a problem if individual tracks get wider. So why not use individual smaller tracks right next to each other? If you build a giant tank on top of the undercarriages of a dozen normal sized tanks, than none of those tracks experience the problem you're describing, do they? (It just looks ridiculous, but that part can be solved.) In fact, using a whole bunch of smaller tracks under a huge vehicle you can get most of the surface area of the underside of your vehicle to be covered in track. It'd be a bit like a snail, its weight spread out over the maximum surface. That's much harder to do with feet.


As for your other points. Well that why above a certain size they only work if they're truly massive. The draw of power armour and the small end of the mech scale that bridges between power armour and AFV's is that you've got something smaller and more intuitive to use than an AFV but much better protected and able to carry much more firepower than a human soldier without.

But being more intuitive to use (if you can even get them to work that way, while not being able to find an intuitive way to drive a vehicle or better yet operate a drone) is pretty much the only thing you're getting out of it. Yes, the 3-ton tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_3-Ton_M1918) was a terrible idea, but mostly because the exhaust fumes had nowhere to go (and how it compares to larger vehicles, which isn't the point here). You can build something like that at any technology level and it will be faster, more dangerous, better protected and even at least as good at hiding and taking cover under most circumstances then any human shaped alternative of a similar size you can come up with. And honestly if we're talking future tech than something like that shouldn't be very hard or unintuitive to control. It'd probably be a lot like playing a game. I hear World of Tanks has some players that got pretty good at that stuff. It may even be harder to learn to control a sort of human shaped body which is still very clearly not your own. You'd have to recallibrate a lot of movements you haven't been consciously thinking about in years. I just don't really see how this would become a big enough advantage to offset all those other parts where the human body is not shaped like the perfect fighting vehicle.

[Mr. Mask]

Of all the arguments I expected against the idea, I had not expected Spiryt's.

Spiryt: ...Most hills I've seen wouldn't even be steep enough for that to be possible, unless its a twenty metre mech shooting over hills on the horizon. If it was a small mound of a hill, then no tank would rest on the reverse slope of it, as they'd be incredibly easy to flank (and their turret may be at too much of an upward angle to counter). I wasn't talking about standing at the base of a hill and shooting over it like a tremendous man shooting over a tremendous sandbag, but standing near the crest of the hill and shooting over the crest of it (like a large person standing near the crest of a hill and shooting over it).

I don't understand the complaint that tank shells will destroy the mech body if it touches the mech arm. What was it you were thinking of that would cause this?



Expert: You'd probably want to design it so it can walk with bent legs. There was also the idea of treads on the mech, as part of or in addition to its legs, so it can move while lying down or kneeling, hopefully.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Of all the arguments I expected against the idea, I had not expected Spiryt's.

Spiryt: ...Most hills I've seen wouldn't even be steep enough for that to be possible, unless its a twenty metre mech shooting over hills on the horizon. If it was a small mound of a hill, then no tank would rest on the reverse slope of it, as they'd be incredibly easy to flank (and their turret may be at too much of an upward angle to counter). I wasn't talking about standing at the base of a hill and shooting over it like a tremendous man shooting over a tremendous sandbag, but standing near the crest of the hill and shooting over the crest of it (like a large person standing near the crest of a hill and shooting over it).
Tanks do that. That's why they're designed the way they are designed, relatively low with the gun on top. And yes, people do that even more, mostly by laying down next to a bend in the terrain. It's a bit harder to do while standing, or rather, it requires more specific circumstances. Not all positions can be defended in this manner, and even less can be attacked this way. But it's a great tactic where available. It's even better if you can drive from cover to cover at full speed without raising up even one inch of course.


I don't understand the complaint that tank shells will destroy the mech body if it touches the mech arm. What was it you were thinking of that would cause this?
Blast waves, mostly, especially in high explosive rounds. Sometimes shrapnel, from the round or from the arm itself. Or even a cook off, if the ammunition in the arm weapon is set off by the explosion. It's not a certainty, especially if you found the kind of perfect spot where there is like a real block of rock between the arm and the rest of the mech, but it could happen. Granted, it's less likely than a round to the turret of a tank destroying the rest of it. A less compact body shape does appear to have some advantages.


Expert: You'd probably want to design it so it can walk with bent legs. There was also the idea of treads on the mech, as part of or in addition to its legs, so it can move while lying down or kneeling, hopefully.
At that point, why still bother with legs at all? There's got to be some sort of smart suspension system we could even build today for either tracks or wheels (which work very well for semi-light vehicles) that will get you most or all of the functionality you're hoping to get out of legs with much less added moving and breakable parts.

As a campaign idea, go for it, it's going to be fun. As a realistic option any time soon, I'm not sold on it yet.

[snowblizz]

Thanks, so a Light Cannon would have to be 75mm or bigger and Autocannons are between 20-40mm

I'd say in most lay terms "cannon" is used for anything about 20mm and up. It's not like we talk about anti-aircraft auto-cannons normally. A ww2 aircraft would be described as being armed with 2 20mm cannon and two .303 cal machineguns (I think a variant of the Spitfire I was reading/hearing about recently), or something

Somewhere along a line of where you stop using solid bullets and instead use shells are where you move from big rifle/machine gun to cannon.

[Mr. Mask]

Expert: You might kill the pilot or disable the mech by shooting the mech arm, but I don't consider it to be a give in. I figure there'd be ways of designing the arm, and posturing it to make such unlikely.

The point of a mech is posture, and walking through obstacles like very rough terrain or tank-traps. Posture so you can take adequate advantage of cover, and more easily shoot around corners without exposing yourself. Adding treads would just be so it can more quickly and easily move when lying or kneeling, and perhaps so as to increase its travel speed when not fighting.

I'd like to develop the idea to be fiction-worthy before I make any campaigns with it. Having a plausible mech is interesting.


Expert, Carl: Any thoughts on the possible macro development and usage of carbon nanotube (or other varieties of) micro-actuators? They're one of the major arguments for mechs, that you can't apply them so easily to treads, and they seem to be pretty efficient energy-wise on the micro level. Whether that scales up is the big question.

[Carl]

I'll try and throw a diagram together for you expert but your completely misunderstanding the source of the issue on the first point.

As for the second. Multiple points.

1. no system of driving will compete with moving something around exactly the same way you move yourself around on foot for intuitiveness.

2. A lot of the reason WoT players are so good is that the game gives you all kinds of aids that just aren't available IRL to aid situational awareness and puts you on pre-made maps you can learn to drive around virtually blindfolded. You see the consequences of taking all but the last one away a lot in war thunder ground forces simulator mode with people driving past each other at ranges of less than a hundred meters in full view of one another and never seeing each other. All because sip,ly driving around, even on pre-made maps takes effort and concentration. Where's a person on foot can freely look around and navigate whilst watching where they're going quite readily because they don't have to think about their movements so much.

3. Your still working at too big a scale. An AFV that can replicate the capabilities of power armour is flat up impossible without being bigger and heavier. The half mech scale as an extension of power armour is theoretically within the range of a 1 man tankette. But we come back to point 2. ahst why 1 man tankettes remained an oddball interwar project. No one's yet found a method of building one that allows them to be fought effectively. 1 man just gets overloaded by the workload. Conversely human soldiers on foot have been running aorund fighting and moving a they do so without such issues for a very long time. The advantage of matching locomotion to what where familiar with is huge in terms of reducing soldier workload.



I don't understand the complaint that tank shells will destroy the mech body if it touches the mech arm. What was it you were thinking of that would cause this?

because anything smaller enough to do what your describing is so small that it's not going to be structurally strong enough to survive the hit, hitting the arm with a 120mm HEAT or HESH round isn't going to just mangle the arm, it's going to violently rip it off fatally twisting the structure of the rest of the machine in the process. Build it tough enough for that to happen and it's too big to do what your describing.



Expert, Carl: Any thoughts on the possible macro development and usage of carbon nanotube (or other varieties of) micro-actuators? They're one of the major arguments for mechs, that you can't apply them so easily to treads, and they seem to be pretty efficient energy-wise on the micro level. Whether that scales up is the big question.

I guarantee you linear and rotary electromagnetic actuators will be better. And yes to be clear an electric motor, (or more properly for this purpose a stepper motor), is the same thing as a rotary electromagnetic actuator.

[PersonMan]

Question: In a modern or semi-modern (maybe 1940-ish tech level) setting, how much use would a highly-portable mini-fortification be? The idea is that it's something like a pillbox that you can take apart and transport on a truck or similar vehicle you'd have to transport/assist infantry.

I was thinking it could be used to create pressure on enemy forces by setting up small fortified positions ahead of your main force, or advancing troops and using them to prepare a defensive position before the enemy can respond.

[Carl]

Some but not massive amounts. The problem is modern main tank guns can flatten anything like that with little effort, and depending on the missile in question some IFV and man portable carried ATGM's could do it too. Artillery would also have few issues. Air power would utterly flatten it also.

What made fortifications work for a long time was a severe lack of sufficiently hard hitting weapons that were also precise enough, long ranged enough, and portable enough to allow them to easily be brought to bear on such targets.

[Carl]

@Expert: Diagram time.

http://i.imgur.com/IEewVtL.png

Hopefully rather obviously in the image above the black bar represents a hypothetical bit of track. The 3 curves represent aspects of the turning circle from the point of view of the track.

The centermost line represents the actual distance the tracks has to move from the PoV of an odometer on the axle, which is always equal to the actual distance covered by the centerline of the track.

The inner and outer lines represent the distance the inner and outer edges of the track have to cover, with the bits in between being at various values above or below the centerline of the track, the amount varying with the distances from the centerline.

if you did basic maths at any time in your life you'll know that means the outer edge has to cover more distance than the centerline and the inner edge has to cover less. But the track is one piece across it's width, different parts of it cannot move at different speeds. So in effect the outer edge is being dragged across the ground whilst the inner edge is trying to break traction and spin. As a practical matter usually the track won't at either inner or outer edges actually start to spin. But the fact that the tracks speed of travel relative to the speed at which the ground is moving under it is different WILL generate forces on the track that in simple terms are trying, (in the example above, it's different depending on which way your turning), to twist the entire track counter clockwise.

No amount of using shorter lengths makes any of this change. Either way the inner and outer edges aren't moving at the correct speed. The only way to fix it so to speak is to make the tank longer but thinner so the tracks can be thinner. But that gets you issues of it's own. You idea of splitting the tracks up into articulated sub sections can solve those, but you end up with so many sub sections and so much excess weight as a result that it's no lighter, (and probably heavier), than the unsegmented broad track design.

[Brother Oni]

Some but not massive amounts. The problem is modern main tank guns can flatten anything like that with little effort, and depending on the missile in question some IFV and man portable carried ATGM's could do it too. Artillery would also have few issues. Air power would utterly flatten it also.

1940s era tech would find a bit more troublesome however.

That said, during the Battle of Aachen, the Americans used a 155mm howitzer as a direct fire weapon to crack open German pillboxes, so it's barely going to notice a portable mini-fortification.

Similarly during the battle of Aachen, the old medieval buildings really stood up to the shell fire of WW2 tanks - there's an account of an old German castle gate that took multiple 90mm shells from Shermans with barely a dent and even that 155mm took a couple of attempts.



if you did basic maths at any time in your life you'll know that means the outer edge has to cover more distance than the centerline and the inner edge has to cover less. But the track is one piece across it's width, different parts of it cannot move at different speeds. So in effect the outer edge is being dragged across the ground whilst the inner edge is trying to break traction and spin. As a practical matter usually the track won't at either inner or outer edges actually start to spin. But the fact that the tracks speed of travel relative to the speed at which the ground is moving under it is different WILL generate forces on the track that in simple terms are trying, (in the example above, it's different depending on which way your turning), to twist the entire track counter clockwise.

No amount of using shorter lengths makes any of this change. Either way the inner and outer edges aren't moving at the correct speed. The only way to fix it so to speak is to make the tank longer but thinner so the tracks can be thinner. But that gets you issues of it's own. You idea of splitting the tracks up into articulated sub sections can solve those, but you end up with so many sub sections and so much excess weight as a result that it's no lighter, (and probably heavier), than the unsegmented broad track design.

Ah, so that's what you were trying to explain. Would it help if I said that tanks get around this problem by breaking up a long turn into multiple short ones, much like following the outside of a 50p coin?

http://www.royalmint.com/~/media/Images/Discover/Coin%20Designs/50_pence_2013_Ironside.jpg

[Lvl 2 Expert]

@Expert: Diagram time.

http://i.imgur.com/IEewVtL.png

No amount of using shorter lengths makes any of this change. Either way the inner and outer edges aren't moving at the correct speed. The only way to fix it so to speak is to make the tank longer but thinner so the tracks can be thinner. But that gets you issues of it's own. You idea of splitting the tracks up into articulated sub sections can solve those, but you end up with so many sub sections and so much excess weight as a result that it's no lighter, (and probably heavier), than the unsegmented broad track design.

Or you make the tracks thinner, but use more of them. We're not limited to only a single row of tracks on the outside of the vehicle. That was what my example of the large tank mounted on the undercarriages of a dozen smaller tanks was about. If you have two thins tracks, right next to each other or some distance apart, they have the same carrying capacity as a single track twice as wide, but they can move independently, doing away with this problem.

Of course that solution is heavier and more vulnerable than a single broad track, but if a single broad track doesn't work you need to do something. It's probably still way lighter and less vulnerable than legs, because those are kind of heavy and vulnerable too.

[Carl]

@Oni:

Yes and no. he point is any turn induces this. By increasing the turning radius you can and do reduce the effect as it increases as the difference in percentage terms between the inner and outer edges does, and that increases with an ever tighter turning circles. But ever widening your turning circle quickly runs into practical limits.



Or you make the tracks thinner, but use more of them. We're not limited to only a single row of tracks on the outside of the vehicle. That was what my example of the large tank mounted on the undercarriages of a dozen smaller tanks was about. If you have two thins tracks, right next to each other or some distance apart, they have the same carrying capacity as a single track twice as wide, but they can move independently, doing away with this problem.

Of course that solution is heavier and more vulnerable than a single broad track, but if a single broad track doesn't work you need to do something. It's probably still way lighter and less vulnerable than legs, because those are kind of heavy and vulnerable too.

It wasn't clear what you where saying. And no that's not viable. You get a situation where if the tank throws a track, or a track breaks the only way to repair or re-thread it is with a full workshop strip and rebuild job. he germans had a similar issues with their WW2 tanks because of how their suspension was setup. It was for the tech levels a truly awesome system in terms of the ride it gave, but it was such a maintenance nightmares and produced so many issues when a track is thrown that it's never been copied.

Also as noted the cross track force is just one of them, the front and rearmost parts of the tracks are also running on different turning circles for reasons, (amongst the other factors). You can break the tracks up length wise too, but that has severe mass penalties and the maintenance issues are even worse.

Simply put there's no magic bullet, you want to build a heavier tracked vehicle and the drivetrain weight will grow at a greater rate than square cube law dictates.

You're right that legs are heavier, (though probably not to the degree your assuming if i'm reading your comments right), than tracks at normal scales. But they don;t suffer the growth issues so eventually the size of your AFV will reach a point where legs work out better. But as i allready noted thats going to be such a vast weight that it's far beyond any AFV ever actually built and at best only in line with the heaviest seriously considered, (the german WW2 Maus). and it could well be higher. Thats why i suggested several hundred tons to a kiloton at the mid range of the weight classes where i think legs would work out better. By that point as various super large industrial machines show your allready reaching the limits of tracks.


Also as a side point legs properly design laugh at tracks of the same carrying capacity when it comes to battle damage survivability,they're mostly big hunks of structural materials. And the hip can theoretically be partly or wholly contained internally, it's only the actuation at the ankle that's potentially vulnerable, and since it's a single point of failure it's easier to protect practically speaking.

[Fortinbras]

Hi all,

I'm in the process of writing an undergraduate thesis on the evolution of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, and I'm thinking of looking at the Norwegian leidang as a possible point of comparison.

a) How do people think they rate as roughly comparable systems?
b) Can anyone recommend any English-language sources that discuss the leidang?

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people talk about Viking armies as if they were composed entirely of professional soldiers, and use that to argue that English armies must have also been professionals else they would have been unable to defend themselves. My sense is that Vikings raids were not generally carried out by professionals, but rather by farmers who raided in the off season. That's at least my sense from the mentions of warriors doing farm labor in Grettir's Saga, Gisli's Saga, and Egil's Saga. What do you guys think?

I'm also considering looking at the 1181 Assize of Arms that Henry II passed in England, which Wikipedia refers to as as return to the traditional English militia system. Does anyone know of better sources than Wikipedia that talk about this document?

Thanks!

[Broken Crown]

Question: In a modern or semi-modern (maybe 1940-ish tech level) setting, how much use would a highly-portable mini-fortification be? The idea is that it's something like a pillbox that you can take apart and transport on a truck or similar vehicle you'd have to transport/assist infantry.

I was thinking it could be used to create pressure on enemy forces by setting up small fortified positions ahead of your main force, or advancing troops and using them to prepare a defensive position before the enemy can respond.

Couldn't you achieve the same thing by simply digging a tank in after moving it into position?

[lsfreak]

Toying with redoing an armor system and a few questions have come up. Firstly, mail versus plated mail (mail with metal plates embedded in them, not plate armor). Presumably plated mail is cheaper and faster to make (as mail versus a breastplate, but not as extreme), but does it offer better protection, or is it a tradeoff? I'm assuming it's kind of like lamellar where, as far as I know, lamellar isn't as protective but easier to make (though I don't know how either compare to chain in terms of weight/endurance/flexibility). Secondly, with non-metal laminars, lamellars, or scale armors, is there any evidence of widespread use by "developed" regions? I know in general "leather armor" is considered a fantasy invention, but I've run into scattered pictures of hardened leather or rawhide scale or brigandines from Japan, but haven't found whether they're rare exceptions, very old pieces, or only for certain parts of what would otherwise be metal, or if they were actually used in some numbers, or if they were but limited entirely to Japan due to their limited iron supply. And brigandines, I presume they (when made of metal) - being similar to lamellar/scale - were inferior to mail on their own, though much cheaper to produce? And come to think of it, does the comparison of mail versus lamellar/scale/brigandine/laminar weigh mostly on that you can easily make a knee-length, long-sleeved hauberk? That is, is mail still superior when it leaves arms and legs as exposed as the other makes of armor?

[Brother Oni]

@Oni:

Yes and no. he point is any turn induces this. By increasing the turning radius you can and do reduce the effect as it increases as the difference in percentage terms between the inner and outer edges does, and that increases with an ever tighter turning circles. But ever widening your turning circle quickly runs into practical limits.


Sorry, I didn't explain it well enough. Tanks don't take a turn in an constant arc, both due to the reasons you've noted and that it wears down the braking system unevenly, thus they prefer to travel in straight lines punctuated by sharp, almost stationary turns. The sharpest turn they could do is a static one, rotating on the spot, which is capped by the length of the vehicle (and the firmness of the ground underneath them).

I agree that the effect you've noted would still happen, which is why areas in constant use by heavy tracked vehicles have lots of hard standing (concrete for example).

[Tobtor]

I'm in the process of writing an undergraduate thesis on the evolution of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, and I'm thinking of looking at the Norwegian leidang as a possible point of comparison.

Interesting subject.


a) How do people think they rate as roughly comparable systems?

I think this is a very large and difficult discussion. Especially since we mainly know leding/leidgangr from medieval law texts (mainly from the 12th and 13th century). It seem clear that a similar system was employed in the late viking age, and historians date the concept or organisation to 950'ies or later in both Norway and Denmark (at least as large, national systems). Allegedly introduced by Håkon the Good in Norway (about 955) and either Gorm the Old or Harald Blutooth in Denmark (Harold 958-987).

I know of two dissertation published in Danish:
Lund, Niels: Lid, leding og landværn. Hær og samfund i Danmark i ældre middelalder.(With English Summary). Roskilde 1996.
Malmros, Rikke: Vikingernes syn på militær og samfund. Belyst genmem skjaldenes fyrstedigtning. (With English Summaries) Aarhus 2010.

They have a very different view of what the leding was. Niels Lund talks from a historical perspective and from the law text, while Rikke Malmros include Viking Age poetry as well. Especially the offensive use and the tax- question is discussed by these and other researchers and no agreement have been reached (I have also looked a bit at articles from other scholars, but mainly in Danish and Norweigean). For the way it worked see
https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Norwegian_Skipreide


b) Can anyone recommend any English-language sources that discuss the leidang?

I can see that Niels Lund also have a couple of articles in English, but I haven't read them. He is on the side of "not an important aspect" of Viking military organisation (for conquest). I, and Rikke and others, disagree. But he have some good points
Lund, N. "If the Vikings knew a Leding – What was it like?", in B. Ambrosiani and H. Clarke (eds.), Developments around the Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age (Birka Studies 3; Stockholm, 1994), pp. 98–105.



One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people talk about Viking armies as if they were composed entirely of professional soldiers, and use that to argue that English armies must have also been professionals else they would have been unable to defend themselves. My sense is that Vikings raids were not generally carried out by professionals, but rather by farmers who raided in the off season. That's at least my sense from the mentions of warriors doing farm labor in Grettir's Saga, Gisli's Saga, and Egil's Saga. What do you guys think?

The Viking armies didn't consist of "professional" soldiers. The idea of professional soldiers is at this time odd. The "viking" armies where very different from each other, but we can divide the people who fought into several groups:

1: The hird. The retinue of Kings and Earls. These lived in his hall and was fed by him, and these can be considered "professional".

2: Warrior elite. Whether Thegns, Hersir or any other name. "Proto" Knights, and well trained/well armed. BUT the majority was spending a lot of time farming and managing their possessions in addition to their warrior status. They were professional in the sense that they were well trained, but their income came from other sources, and it wasn't a standing army. In the leding-system it is likely from this group the "steersmen" was chosen, ig commander of a ship. Some of the Icelandic sagas have this group as their main characters.

3: Free farmers. The bulk of the leding was farmers (from the Bondi-class, beside a few taxes leding was the only feudal obligation and it seem that the leding army could refuse to go along with the King, that is he needed their consensus). This class was very influential in the viking age, and these elected the Kings on Things etc. Thus, the king needed to be popular, and one way of doing this was successful wars bringing in wealth. Thus even though they were farmers, war was a good supplementary income. something like 1/7 (household) was chosen to send a man for the leding. These would make up large proportion of the large scale late Viking Age armies. The bondi (owner of the farm) could send a son in stead, see also below, or even a farm hand etc, but if he send a thrall (slave) the king could release the thrall and make him a free man, at least according to medieval law-texts (and that way secure his loyalty: "if you follow orders and do well, I will give you your freedom" is a good tactic for securing loyalty).

4: Volunteers. From either the elite class or bondi class. This is the ones you see in the Icelandic sagas. While they might or might not have made the bulk of the army of the late period, the majority of Viking raids were done by such men and would make up the majority of the men in Siege of Paris in 845 and in 885, and the great armies invading England in the 8-9th century. It wasn't however as much farmers raiding "off season", but a part of the education in Scandinavia. Let me explain:

Every young man needed to gather wealth and "make a name for himself" before taking over his parent estate. The Icelandic sagas is full of this stuff, but it seem also to be common in the rest of Scandinavia. This could be done in multiple ways: rich sons would be given a ship or a part of a ship, poorer men would find a position of a ship as oarsman/fighter, and some would get local products for sale. Out in the world the young man had some options: trading, joining a hird as either soldier or scald, raiding together with other young men, or joining up with a larger band/army and sack Paris/London/wherever. In the sagas the young men are typically away for 3-5years. Some would of course like the lifestyle and hang around. For instance as a hird-man or more long term Viking (pirate), but the successful would often return home. Younger sons could either hope to get married well (if they had plenty of loot) or buy a farm, or settle abroad (Normandy, England, Iceland; Ireland, Russia etc), while the older sons would take over their parents farms and either increase the value of it or use the loot for political influence (gifts for allies, marrying well etc).

Imagine a society were some young men join a raid on England, comes back 3-5 years later with huge fortunes, buy a farm, marry the the most attractive girl (and chieftains daughter), parading around with his nice golden jewellery? What do think the other young men will do? Stay and watch the farm? Or join when the King next year call for a new raid? Not surprising Sveinn Forkbeard and Canute had an easy time gathering more and more men for their invasion.
Imagine if modern day soldiers could buy a Ferrari, a large house and were treated a celebrities if they won a battle and returned sucessful soldiers? What would that do for morale (and recruitment)? And what would be every young mans dream? What would he train every free moment?
The difference between the invading "Vikings" and local saxons was one of morale and warrior culture. Most saxons had becaome placent farmers, and the fyrdmens success in life was not depending on victory of every battle. They would prefer there not to be a battle at all. The Scandinavian saw the battle as a way to success, the fyrdmen as something to avoid. Couple that with a warrior society in Scandinavia, where dying in battle is honourable and get you a seat in Valhala, and you have a highly motivated army, who have trained for and dreamt of battle their entire life, pitted against people from Wessex ordered by their king to defend Mercia.



I'm also considering looking at the 1181 Assize of Arms that Henry II passed in England, which Wikipedia refers to as as return to the traditional English militia system. Does anyone know of better sources than Wikipedia that talk about this document?


Perhaps wikipedia list sources for their information? That would be a good place to start.

[MrZJunior]

I visited Himeji Castle earlier today and my visit brought up several questions I am hoping you can answer.

1. What was the main keep, the Tenshu, used for? It didn't seem like it would be a particularly pleasant residence, and I'm not sure how effective a redoubt it would make.

2. What's up with the places for troops to hide and ambush people high up in the keep? Did they expect to face an infantry assault that high up the tower?

3. Why make the keep out of wood rather than stone like the Europeans did?

4. Where did they store gunpowder? Were any Japanese castles lost to powder explosions?

5. Did most castle towns have city walls like Himeji? I had thought that the Japanese didn't go in for walled cities.

[Beleriphon]

I visited Himeji Castle earlier today and my visit brought up several questions I am hoping you can answer.

1. What was the main keep, the Tenshu, used for? It didn't seem like it would be a particularly pleasant residence, and I'm not sure how effective a redoubt it would make.

Definitely a residence. Keep in mind that the grounds of many castles would be truly massive and would generall offer more than enough living space.


2. What's up with the places for troops to hide and ambush people high up in the keep? Did they expect to face an infantry assault that high up the tower?

Yep, they sure did expect to have enemy troops get that far. Japanese armies when these castles were built didn't use cannons, or even siege weapons.


3. Why make the keep out of wood rather than stone like the Europeans did?

Earthquakes.


4. Where did they store gunpowder? Were any Japanese castles lost to powder explosions?

None that I'm aware of, and likely in an outbuilding.


5. Did most castle towns have city walls like Himeji? I had thought that the Japanese didn't go in for walled cities.

Note that I'm aware of specifically. Although I do know that a number of Japanese cities sprung up around their titular castle (Osaka for example).

[Brother Oni]

I visited Himeji Castle earlier today and my visit brought up several questions I am hoping you can answer.
1. What was the main keep, the Tenshu, used for? It didn't seem like it would be a particularly pleasant residence, and I'm not sure how effective a redoubt it would make.

2. What's up with the places for troops to hide and ambush people high up in the keep? Did they expect to face an infantry assault that high up the tower?

3. Why make the keep out of wood rather than stone like the Europeans did?

4. Where did they store gunpowder? Were any Japanese castles lost to powder explosions?

5. Did most castle towns have city walls like Himeji? I had thought that the Japanese didn't go in for walled cities.

To add a little bit to Beleriphon's post:

The main keep would most definitely have been used as living space. If you visited earlier today, then you probably won't have experienced a Japanese summer, which is hot, humid and extremely uncomfortable and the Japanese would prefer to be cold than be hot.
The kotatsu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu), a combination heater/table furniture that's very popular, has its origins in a method from the 14th Century to capture heat from a charcoal burner for comfort and heating, thus you can have the room itself fairly cold, but the inhabitants are still comfortable. The last time I used one, I found it too warm, but I'm from England anyway where cold, wet and miserable is par for the course. :smalltongue:

Medieval siegecraft was very different in Japan in comparison to the West and the castle designs reflects it, with Japanese castles built like mazes and anti-infantry defences in places where you long expect a western castle to have fallen.

I'm not aware of any castles lost to a powder explosion, but the powder magazine was ignited during the Siege of Inabayama Castle, which contributed to the confusion that led to the castle's fall.

[MrZJunior]

To me the keep just seems dark and impractical, even with modern lighting much less old school lanterns.

If you're assaulting a Japanese castle and you've driven the garrison back to the keep, why assault it? The thing's made out of wood and many castles were lost to fire even without outside intervention.

Would they have had less gunpowder on hand than a comparable European fortress?