PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Mr. Mask
2015-10-29, 09:13 PM
Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XIX

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons, armour and tactics. The concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better, thus it's here rather than in Friendly Banter.

A few rules for this thread:


This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so politics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis (These are arbitrary dates but any dates would be, and these are felt to be reasonable).

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.


With that done, have at and enjoy yourselves!
Thread I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?24294-Got-A-Weapon-or-Armor-Question)
Thread III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?21318-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-III)
Thread IV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18302-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IV)
Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80863-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-V)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124683-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VI)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?168432-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VII)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192911-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VIII)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217159-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IX)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238042-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-X)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255453-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XI)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?282471-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XII)
Thread XIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308462-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XIII)
Thread XIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327994-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-XIV)
Thread XV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347806-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XV)
Thread XVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371623-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVI)
Thread XVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392804-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVII)
Thread XVIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421723-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVIII)

Mr. Mask
2015-10-29, 09:33 PM
Thanks for correcting my misconception. It's an interesting discussion nonetheless. I always knew polearms had tactical advantage, but it's hard to estimate exactly how much without some discussion like this. Heck, even WITH discussions like this. People have been arguing about just how good polearms are against swords since the dawn of time. Though general opinion is polearms have the advantage.


A short impact weapon might be better against full mail plus helm, but it's notable how rarely infantry used short impact weapons in 15th-16th-century Western Europe. Instead they used a variety of swords. Cavalry definitely carried short impact weapons, but again according to Quijada de Reayo's mid-16th-century text the hammer was only used after losing/breaking the estoc and then the arming sword. His progression was lance/estoc/sword/hammer/dagger. Well, by the 15th and 16th century, you're talking about some of the most serious armour in history. Anything less than a two-handed weapon, polearm or crossbow wasn't generally going to cut it. Swords are very versatile, so they make great backup weapons. Plus, not everyone was well armoured from head to toe, so they were still effective in those situations. So, I'd say that's more a case that your anti armour capabilities were focused in your main weapon, and so weren't necessary for your sidearm.

Tobtor
2015-10-30, 09:33 AM
By the Carolingian period (8th-11th Centuries, roughly) iron had gotten cheaper, and therefore swords too, though they were still quite expensive. Wealthier and more important people had swords, and warriors were often equipped with them, they were definitely not unusual, but still pretty valuable. Maybe like a sniper rifle today or a light machine gun.


Much more expensive than a sniper rifle.... (without knowing the exact average price of a sniper rifle)

From archaeology and history combined it is clear that in the period 8-11th century swords were not common. This goes both for Scandinavia, Germany and England which is the areas I know about (due to language mainly, I am really not proficient in french or polish etc). Though it seem to go for normandy as well. Warriors were not "often equipped" with them, a very small minority of weapon graves have swords, and the sagas etc is clear about swords being rare (elite) weapons. Even when looking at slightly later law texts (12-13th century) swords are not "often" used. Even within the warrior class the sword is a mark of honour at this time (unless short saxes are counted, but most are more like knives than swords both in technique and size, they might be comparable to sniper rifles).

Its hard to compare to modern weapons, since so much more people today are living comfortable lives, were saving up money does not hurt your food consumption the next year etc. But as mentioned earlier a sword is priced perhaps as much as 8+ cows as much as a normal peasant would own. So its more like your entire fortune, than half a years salary (if you were a peasant).

I wont contend with G about the late medieval stuff, since he knows more about that. But I think comparing to what an average peasant or similar owns are relevant, at at least by the High Middle Ages (12th-13th Centuries) real swords in most parts were an elite weapon, mainly used by the knight class and above. Swords is perhaps not as much as a village, but definitely more than what a commoner (understood as 75% of the lower earning population) could earn in a year.

We could go back to those law records from Norway and England stipulating what a soldier needed (they were from the 12th-13th century), swords were not among the basic weapons.

Galloglaich
2015-10-30, 11:25 AM
Speaking of swords vs. other weapons, this little 10 seconds or so scene from that new HEMA documentary is a really interesting clip showing just a brief hint of how a Montante (big two-handed sword) was used to defend a VIP from a crowd of hostile enemies. This kind of stuff is in most of the fencing manuals from Spain and Portugal from the 15th-17th Centuries, I think this one might be from Giodinho. I would love to see something like that in a movie

https://youtu.be/mmTi-NGQNh8?t=433



Much more expensive than a sniper rifle.... (without knowing the exact average price of a sniper rifle)

From archaeology and history combined it is clear that in the period 8-11th century swords were not common. This goes both for Scandinavia, Germany and England which is the areas I know about (due to language mainly, I am really not proficient in french or polish etc). Though it seem to go for normandy as well. Warriors were not "often equipped" with them, a very small minority of weapon graves have swords, and the sagas etc is clear about swords being rare (elite) weapons. Even when looking at slightly later law texts (12-13th century) swords are not "often" used. Even within the warrior class the sword is a mark of honour at this time (unless short saxes are counted, but most are more like knives than swords both in technique and size, they might be comparable to sniper rifles).

Its hard to compare to modern weapons, since so much more people today are living comfortable lives, were saving up money does not hurt your food consumption the next year etc. But as mentioned earlier a sword is priced perhaps as much as 8+ cows as much as a normal peasant would own. So its more like your entire fortune, than half a years salary (if you were a peasant).

I wont contend with G about the late medieval stuff, since he knows more about that. But I think comparing to what an average peasant or similar owns are relevant, at at least by the High Middle Ages (12th-13th Centuries) real swords in most parts were an elite weapon, mainly used by the knight class and above. Swords is perhaps not as much as a village, but definitely more than what a commoner (understood as 75% of the lower earning population) could earn in a year.

We could go back to those law records from Norway and England stipulating what a soldier needed (they were from the 12th-13th century), swords were not among the basic weapons.

Swords were starting to be produced in northern Germany (for example in the region around what is now Sollingen, still a knife making center) as early as the 8th Century, and were a major export item by the 9th. We have all debated this before but by the 10th Century both swords and metal armor show up routinely.

yes it's true that Leidang etc. didn't stipulate swords that early for the lowest ranking guys, though metal (mail) armor does show up and I know that you are better informed about the archeology than I am but am I wrong to say that by the 12th Century you do see a pretty large numbers of swords (or their remnants) starting to show up? Swords and metal armor are mentioned frequently in the Konungs skuggsjá and not just as arms for kings. For example this is how they describe arms for a cavalryman:

https://archive.org/stream/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft_djvu.txt

From the "Kings Mirror", Norway circa 1250:

The rider himself should be equipped in this wise:
he should wear good soft breeches made of soft and
thoroughly blackened linen cloth, which should reach
up to the belt; outside these, good mail hose* which
should come up high enough to be girded on with a
double strap; over these he must have good trousers
made of linen cloth of the sort that I have already
described ; finally, over these he should have good knee-
pieces made of thick iron and rivets hard as steel. f Above
and next to the body he should wear a soft gambison,
which need not come lower than to the middle of the
thigh. Over this he must have a strong breastplate {
made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to
the trousers belt ; outside this, a well-made hauberk and
over the hauberk a firm gambison made in the manner
which I have already described but without sleeves. He
must have a dirk and two swords, one girded on and
another hanging from the pommel of the saddle. On his
head he must have a dependable helmet made of good
steel and provided with a visor. || He must also have a
strong, thick shield fastened to a durable shoulder belt
and, in addition, a good sharp spear with a firm shaft
and pointed with fine steel. Now it seems needless to
speak further about the equipment of men who fight
on horseback; there are, however, other weapons which
a mounted warrior may use, if he wishes; among these
are the " horn bow " * and the weaker crossbow, which
a man can easily draw even when on horseback, and
certain other weapons, too, if he should want them.

Even if a sword costs close to your annual income or even more than it, so does a car today and most people in the US buy one anyway, one way or another.

Certainly by the 13th Century a sword was already mandated as a militia requirement in records from towns in Flanders, the Rhineland, and Italy among other places, including for ordinary craftsmen, so they obviously were not that expensive.

i picked a sniper rifle as an analogy because in a modern army it might be one out of 100 or more guys who would have one depending on the army (I know that some squads now have designated riflemen etc. in places like Afghanistan, but I mean a real trained sniper) and I think the ratio, if not necessarily the price, is probably somewhere in that ballpark for that 8th-11th Century period.


By the 12th -13th Century I think swords were ubiquitous. In some places the peasantry were so poor that they could barely afford clothes, but that was by no means universal. Certainly in the towns many commoners owned swords.



And as i said by the 1400's it was already possible to get arrested or fined for not owning a sword in many towns and the districts surrounding them. And half a mark was not out of range of most peasants even, let alone artisans. The wealthiest class of peasants in Poland in the 15th Century could have as much as 30 gulden / zloty per year above their rent obligations. Still makes a sword expensive in the sense that it wouldn't be a casual purchase (and peasants typically had many other pressing needs running a farm etc.) but a sword was also important for living and prestige, like say a musket in the old frontier days in the US. Though many would use various sword-like knives instead, seax in the older period, later hauswehr, baurnwehr, rugger, dussack, messer etc.

A few generations of this thread back someone posted two excellent spreadsheet tables showing wages, costs and prices for many things in about a dozen cities around Europe across a period of roughly 1300's through the 1600's, and I believe the sword was listed in that (roughly 1/2 mark) range, though I'd have to double check.

Tobtor
2015-10-30, 02:44 PM
Swords were starting to be produced in northern Germany (for example in the region around what is now Sollingen, still a knife making center) as early as the 8th Century, and were a major export item by the 9th. We have all debated this before but by the 10th Century both swords and metal armor show up routinely.

Rutinely, yes. In chieftains graves or in the graves of the proto-knight class.


yes it's true that Leidang etc. didn't stipulate swords that early for the lowest ranking guys

"the lowest ranking guys, being all the oarsmenn in the ships. Only the steerman was required to have sword and mail. Whether others had it is a more difficult to argue. But the law texts are from the 12th-13th century, so in your "second" period, where weapons got even cheaper, and still 1/40 (roughly) was required to have a sword.

"but am I wrong to say that by the 12th Century you do see a pretty large numbers of swords (or their remnants) starting to show up?"

Yes, sword do show up in rather "large" numbers by that time. We see a change in military structure towards a more "knight"-oriented cavalry class, whcih were required to have a sword. This was promoted by free peasant from leidgang if they instead formed ties to a "knight" in a levy structure (mostly in the 13th century), this is advanced in the 14th century, when you see a very classic "knight"-class.


swords and metal armor are mentioned frequently in the Konungs skuggsjá and not just as arms for kings. For example this is how they describe arms for a cavalryman

The poem is 13th century, doesnt really prove anything about the 8-10th century. But it is supported by the achaeology. From the 10th century Scandinavia we see "horsemans" graves with full weapon kits (sword, spear, and sometimes an axe). These are a minority among weapon graves and also contain other fine furnishes, such as gold. It belongs to the proto knight class. Swords for the kings "men" are definitely a thing. This is true in Saxony, in the Frankish areas and England. The elite, the kings chieftains and "retainers" had sowrds. From the sagas it is clear that even in the "housecarl" group, some didn't have swords until some time in their career (when profit had been gained by plundering).


Even if a sword costs close to your annual income or even more than it, so does a car today and most people in the US buy one anyway, one way or another.

Today we have a well functioning bank system, and most have a loan on their car, and the car is a "tool" to go to your work place. Beside 8 cows is way beyond the average annual income. By the 8-10thcentury a sword could perhaps be compared in value to a house today.


Certainly by the 13th Century a sword was already mandated as a militia requirement in records from towns in Flanders, the Rhineland, and Italy among other places, including for ordinary craftsmen, so they obviously were not that expensive.

I agree that from the 13th onwards, in richer areas (we do agree that Flanders and Italy are among the wealthy parts right?) swords could perhaps be compared to a (good) car in prize. Or perhaps your sniper riffle. Everyone in middle class today could afford a sniper if it was required of you for citizenship etc.


And as i said by the 1400's it was already possible to get arrested or fined for not owning a sword in many towns and the districts surrounding them. And half a mark was not out of range of most peasants even, let alone artisans.

As I said toward the end of the period and regarding towns I bow to your knowledge. And i agree that likely all members of a guild in the towns (master artisans and most journeymen) could comfortably afford a sword (perhaps not the apprentices etc, which would also make up part of the "commoner class")


Though many would use various sword-like knives instead, seax in the older period, later hauswehr, baurnwehr, rugger, dussack, messer etc.

I agree. Cheaper "swords" such as messers etc would be common/standard from around "middle class" in the late period (14-15th century).


A few generations of this thread back someone posted two excellent spreadsheet tables showing wages, costs and prices for many things in about a dozen cities around Europe across a period of roughly 1300's through the 1600's, and I believe the sword was listed in that (roughly 1/2 mark) range, though I'd have to double check.

Hmm cant remember that, but I would be interested.

Galloglaich
2015-10-30, 02:57 PM
The "kings mirror" reference was for that same 13th Century period.

I agree on most of that though I would skew the prices you are talking about to a bit earlier. 8-11th Century is a wide range of time, and I think some of the Carolingian muster rules (whatever they wee called, capitularies?) did stipulate a sword within that period. I also seem to remember Knut the Greats armies had a lot of men armed with swords though I don't remember the source.

Outside of Scandinavia and the British Isles though much of Europe was a lot wealthier by say, the 11th Century. Even in England at that point they had something like 5600 watermills in the Norman domesday book IIRC in the 11th Century.


Of course we are speaking in generalizations and for Europe in any period, that is a mistake. Today in 2015 buying a nice sword (say a top-end Albion) is well within the budget of the average German even for a hobby, whereas I would think but the average person in Portugal, Buglaria, or Albania probably wouldn't even consider it. Things varied even more in the medieval period.

There were various forms of proto-banking of course as early as the 11th Century and something like a mortgage also existed in the form of annuities, the "Morning Gift" given to a bride in Central Europe in that period was basically a type of reverse mortgage on some property typically.

I have those spreadsheets somewhere can you attach a file to a post in this forum?

G

Galloglaich
2015-10-30, 04:26 PM
For a peasant though "banking" in this earlier period is more like signing an agreement to the local abbot or the cutlers guild in the nearby town or market-village give half his honey and butter and two of his calves for the next year in exchange for the sword (or the wedding party for his daughter or the lumber for his new barn)

G

PersonMan
2015-10-30, 06:42 PM
Two questions about entirely different things:

1. In a modern setting, how would one go about creating a defensible position out of a pretty much random spot on a glacier? The idea is that there's something inside the glacial ice that's incredibly valuable - to the extent that it's worth building a base around. What sort of things would you do to make something capable of repulsing or at least slowing the attacks of another modernized force?

2. Again, in a modern setting: What sort of technique would work best for someone wielding a sword* as far as self-defense is concerned? Mainly thinking in terms of ways to deal with firearms, multiple opponents, etc. in a setting where no one is armored and all parties are likely close together.

*Currently indeterminate type. Something more like a two-hander than a rapier.

Gnoman
2015-10-30, 07:01 PM
Two questions about entirely different things:

1. In a modern setting, how would one go about creating a defensible position out of a pretty much random spot on a glacier? The idea is that there's something inside the glacial ice that's incredibly valuable - to the extent that it's worth building a base around. What sort of things would you do to make something capable of repulsing or at least slowing the attacks of another modernized force?


Defending a wide-open, mostly flat area with massive sightlines against modern weapons? That is a very tall order, since air support will spot you very easily (particularly since you'll stand out massively on thermal), and have no cover from aerial attack. All an enemy would have to do is get within 25 miles of you and start lobbing cluster shells at you, or send in the air force to drop cluster bombs or incendiaries (particularly effective on ice, since the heat will melt the ice and trap your troops) en masse. While both can be defended against to some extent, you really aren't going to have a chance.



2. Again, in a modern setting: What sort of technique would work best for someone wielding a sword* as far as self-defense is concerned?

If you're talking in a military sense, your only option is to try to get shot in a non-lethal place. Sword beats gun at very close range, but your chances of getting to that range (unless you're busting down a closet door or something) are almost nonexistent. In a civilian setting, a sword is more useful as most people don't have a gun out and ready at all times.

PersonMan
2015-10-30, 07:08 PM
Defending a wide-open, mostly flat area with massive sightlines against modern weapons? That is a very tall order, since air support will spot you very easily (particularly since you'll stand out massively on thermal), and have no cover from aerial attack. All an enemy would have to do is get within 25 miles of you and start lobbing cluster shells at you, or send in the air force to drop cluster bombs or incendiaries (particularly effective on ice, since the heat will melt the ice and trap your troops) en masse. While both can be defended against to some extent, you really aren't going to have a chance.

If you can ensure that you have enough air power to keep yourself from being destroyed from the air, and have some sort of defense against long-range bombardment, will you be in a better position or will there just be some other method of wiping you out?


If you're talking in a military sense, your only option is to try to get shot in a non-lethal place. Sword beats gun at very close range, but your chances of getting to that range (unless you're busting down a closet door or something) are almost nonexistent. In a civilian setting, a sword is more useful as most people don't have a gun out and ready at all times.

Ah, my bad - I meant in a latter sense. An individual in a dangerous neighborhood, for example, with your typical 'attack important character so said character can display their combat prowess' thugs showing up.

No brains
2015-10-30, 11:39 PM
To help break in the new thread, I have a vague, not-exactly fighting-related, but relevant question. I've heard of a bunch of different names given to eras in history, but I'm not 100% sure when or sometimes even what those eras are. Can I get a quick primer on some common names for time periods? I know not everyone in the world calls the same bits of time the same thing, so names for eras from diverse locations would be especially helpful.

I just want to be able to get my "bronze age", "Ming Dynasty", "Early Modern Era", and "before agriculture" straight.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-31, 12:00 AM
I find this page helpful, when I forget which period goes where: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods


Person, Gnoman: I'm thinking that in a place with glaciers, will air-forces be able to operate if the weather gets bad? You could try and dig trenches in the ice, but incendiaries would make that a questionable proposition.

Swords: It depends on the scenario. If there's heavy gun control but swords are issued, that's helpful if the thugs haven't acquired illegal firearms. If the character's sword is visible, that's a problem when being mugged, as the attackers should operate on that basis. If the sword is hidden, then thugs intending to knife you might be in for a nasty shock.

Carl
2015-10-31, 12:16 AM
If you can ensure that you have enough air power to keep yourself from being destroyed from the air, and have some sort of defense against long-range bombardment, will you be in a better position or will there just be some other method of wiping you out?


If you've got a big enough airforce to be immune to air attack and you've got such open terrain around the base you don't need much more than a good dose of infantry and some emplaced crew served weapons, (i.e. enough to hold off a sudden unexpected commando raid or the like), because your air force can flatten any serious army scale attack before it ever gets anywhere near the base.

The closest you could get to making the base rely on it's own fortifications is to combined elements of what israel has been doing in the west bank to deal with artillery and air dropped ordnance, and use modern long range missile defences vs the aircraft themselves. Basically the same system carrier battle groups have been using for decades to make even other battlegroups irellevent. But the system work so well on sea because getting enough launch platforms in range to overwhelm the defences is pretty much impossible if the carriers stay out of range of land based attacks. Air attacks might still have an issue as few nations will have enough aircraft to overwhelm and likely none can afford the losses involved. But at the same time ground based self propelled artillery can much more easily overwhelm you. You can get round that by emplacing artillery pieces of such size that they outrange anything lesser than themselves whilst being too massive to be self propelled, but to get a usable base wide RoF, (given how RoF tends to drop with increasing calibre), your going to need a lot of pieces which will be a killer in terms of setup. The time to get the base setup will probably even for an emergency crash program be over a year and it will be expensive to the point it would have to be protecting something akin to a manhattan project to be worth it.

This isn't the medieval period where building a war machine that can knock down a wall is hard. Defensive positions by their nature just don't work very well because it's very hard to stop modern weapon system, very cheap to build them in overwhelming quantities, and not getting hit is the only way to survive.

Florian
2015-10-31, 12:47 AM
In addition, the supply line, field evac and morale will be an issue. Wide open on a glacier, this will get to be a siege situation.

Carl
2015-10-31, 01:01 AM
this will get to be a siege situation.

I think thats what he actually wants, but in the modern world that's very hard to do.

Telok
2015-10-31, 01:11 AM
1. In a modern setting, how would one go about creating a defensible position out of a pretty much random spot on a glacier? The idea is that there's something inside the glacial ice that's incredibly valuable - to the extent that it's worth building a base around. What sort of things would you do to make something capable of repulsing or at least slowing the attacks of another modernized force?

Around here we wouldn't bother defending the point on the glacier. Having troops operatin gon a glacier is asking for the glacier to eat as many of your men as the enemy can kill. See, glaciers have one massive issue when it comes to constructing things on them or transversing them. They move, it's slow but steady. This means that the glacier is not solid. Over time crevasses will open and close, sections will collapse into hollow spots, etc. etc. Waht's even worse is the parts of the glacier don't move at the same speed, the sides move more slowly than the center and the top moves differently from the bottom.

What you'll probably see is a couple of temporary structures above where your interesting thing is and your access path exists this week. These will be for the researchers, engineers, and a few guards. You'll see any permanent installations on or in the sides of the mountains that border the glacier. It will also depend on if your glacier is straight or crooked, coastal or inland, and how deep in the mountain range it is. Those factors also affect the places available to station troops.

For the best bet of figuring out what you want try to find a picture of a glacier similar to the area you have in mind and link us to that.

PersonMan
2015-10-31, 05:17 AM
Person, Gnoman: I'm thinking that in a place with glaciers, will air-forces be able to operate if the weather gets bad? You could try and dig trenches in the ice, but incendiaries would make that a questionable proposition.

I was thinking of using intense snowstorms / blizzard conditions to lessen the issues coming from air power, but I don't know if any mundane storms like that would have an impact on ground-based artillery.


Swords: It depends on the scenario. If there's heavy gun control but swords are issued, that's helpful if the thugs haven't acquired illegal firearms. If the character's sword is visible, that's a problem when being mugged, as the attackers should operate on that basis. If the sword is hidden, then thugs intending to knife you might be in for a nasty shock.

I had a situation in mind where the sword would either be disguised as something else (or just wrapped up to be unrecognizable as such) or have the attackers not expect it to be useful - if one's only experience with an actual sword is depictions of incredibly slow sweeping strikes, one might think 'pah there's no way they can do anything with that before I get 'em' and be surprised.

As for firearms, I was thinking the encounter would be fairly close, with the thugs expecting to just need to flash their weapons rather than having one or more stay at a distance to open fire.


I think thats what he actually wants, but in the modern world that's very hard to do.

Not exactly - the idea is that the defenses hold long enough for things to get desperate but not just be obliterated in a hail of missiles and shells from over the horizon.


Around here we wouldn't bother defending the point on the glacier. Having troops operatin gon a glacier is asking for the glacier to eat as many of your men as the enemy can kill. See, glaciers have one massive issue when it comes to constructing things on them or transversing them. They move, it's slow but steady. This means that the glacier is not solid. Over time crevasses will open and close, sections will collapse into hollow spots, etc. etc. Waht's even worse is the parts of the glacier don't move at the same speed, the sides move more slowly than the center and the top moves differently from the bottom.

What you'll probably see is a couple of temporary structures above where your interesting thing is and your access path exists this week. These will be for the researchers, engineers, and a few guards. You'll see any permanent installations on or in the sides of the mountains that border the glacier. It will also depend on if your glacier is straight or crooked, coastal or inland, and how deep in the mountain range it is. Those factors also affect the places available to station troops.

For the best bet of figuring out what you want try to find a picture of a glacier similar to the area you have in mind and link us to that.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/326193main_sup1seaicemax_full.jpg

Somewhere far north - no coast or glacier edge for at least a few hundred miles.

Would there still be said issues with building permanent structures if what you're looking at is this kind of massive area of ice, or will this still be an important factor?

One of the factors involved will be the disconnect between the official reasoning behind the base (in theory it's there as part of a network of small supply bases to keep watch / defend supply lines for another front) and the amount of resources being poured into it, as well as the issues that come from...well, building a base of any kind in the middle of ice sheets this large. I was thinking that the other faction would be aware enough to want [special thing], and go after it, which could potentially also solve* some of the issues regarding 'just bomb it until it's a morass of craters, melting ice and dead guys'.

*While obviously causing in-world issues, I'd imagine. After all, soldiers would start wondering why they need to go in and capture a nigh-meaningless base in the middle of the arctic ice, won't they?

Carl
2015-10-31, 05:59 AM
Again storms won't cut it. Any storm nasty enough to cut off airpower would also pretty much make ground transit to and from the base supremely difficult. It would effectively be cut off, and storms that bad are both rare and non-permanent. heir not a reliable defence.

Even if for some reason you could cold stop air and artillery, if the enemy's armoured vehicles make it into range in notable numbers they too can demolish the base in minutes. Hell, even infantry using man portable mortars and shoulder fired missiles could do it in less than a day.


The only way to defend a base, (assuming an attacker with greater raw combat power), against modern weaponry without invoking energy shields or super armour material is to ensure the enemy never makes it into firing range, which either requires large amounts of super heavy artillery, heavy duty air power, or a sufficiently well equipped, trained, and commanded mobile army to fight the enemy conventionally short of the base.

That's not to say a defensive position can't be useful and even a force multiplier, but the degree of multiplier it provides is very dependent on a lot of factors and generally nowhere near as great as it was in past era's. City fighting is one of the last few genuine true examples of a supremely advantageous defensive position. And thats very much down to a combination of factors that boils down to their being so much stuff there that it's impossible to effectively level the whole thing sufficiently to remove all possible cover and/or kill all possible inhabitants short of employing nuclear weaponry.

Florian
2015-10-31, 06:29 AM
@PersonaMan:

Please do give some more detail on the factions involved and the apparent and immediate worth of the goal.
To clarify this request: I'd wager a guess that most people involved in this kind of conversation hail from a first world country and act on first world knowledge and sensibilities. Those tend to not hold true for second or third world countries even if totalitarian states are not involved.

Mr. Mask
2015-10-31, 06:57 AM
Person: Potentially, you could make the glacier war on an ice planet where aircraft barely work (high gravity, thin atmosphere, common storms). Of course, with space travel, aircraft also get a lot more effective, to the extent where you might expect some kind of rocket-based aeroplane which could operate in ghastly weather. Plus orbital warfare. Of course, it might be possible to have a glacier war with plenty of aircraft. If they need to secure the mining zones, you have to put infantry there at some point. Aircraft can't hold ground.

With your sword-guy, if he notices he's being ambushed, he'll either head to open areas where they'll be scared to attack, or tight areas where they're forced to get close to him. Often, muggers are forced to get pretty close, to control their mark and extract money from them. You could have the muggers get a little anxious because he's going to exit the optimal zone and hurry after him, he then meeting them around a corner where it's tight.

Carl
2015-10-31, 07:25 AM
Well if you invoke scfi simple energy shielding can completely alter the way things play out quite a bit, but that's fairly firmly outside "modern".

snowblizz
2015-10-31, 10:05 AM
Somewhere far north - no coast or glacier edge for at least a few hundred miles.

Would there still be said issues with building permanent structures if what you're looking at is this kind of massive area of ice, or will this still be an important factor?
Yes there will be. There's no evenly solid icesheet in existence. And it will always be moving somewhere. Even during the Iceage when what 1/4 1/3? of the world was covered in up to something like 2kms of "solid" ice it kept moving and had numerous variances in it's composition.

There's no such thing as a permanent building built on ice. There's only a building that at some point isn't going to be where you are. If you are lucky it will be decades or hundreds of years though.

Tobtor
2015-10-31, 10:08 AM
I also seem to remember Knut the Greats armies had a lot of men armed with swords though I don't remember the source.

Not as standard weapons, but sure during times of conquest, the amount swords would likely go up (influx of silver and weapons from defeated enemies).



Outside of Scandinavia and the British Isles though much of Europe was a lot wealthier by say, the 11th Century. Even in England at that point they had something like 5600 watermills in the Norman domesday book IIRC in the 11th Century.

I do not think "much of Europe" was that much more wealthy. At least by gold/silver found, Scandinavia is above most of Germany/Eastern Europe. France was a mess at the time. Southern Europe was likely wealthier, yes, and thus have more swords.


Of course we are speaking in generalizations and for Europe in any period, that is a mistake.

I totally agree.


Today in 2015 buying a nice sword (say a top-end Albion) is well within the budget of the average German even for a hobby, whereas I would think but the average person in Portugal, Buglaria, or Albania probably wouldn't even consider it.

I think you underestimate Portugal (don't know too much about Bulgaria or Albania), if averagely waged people really wanted they could buy good swords today. Disposable income is far greater today than in the medieval period.



Things varied even more in the medieval period.

Yes and no. I think there were more country-town difference and larger class differences. I do don't know about average peasant profit (amount of money not directly going to food/housing).


There were various forms of proto-banking of course as early as the 11th Century and something like a mortgage also existed in the form of annuities, the "Morning Gift" given to a bride in Central Europe in that period was basically a type of reverse mortgage on some property typically.


Yes I have also looked at local farming accounts from the medieval period Denmark (though I believe they were 14th century). It was a "self-owner" peasant borrowing money for calfs to levy-peasants for a profit returned when the cattle was sold in the fall (in Hamburg). I don't doubt the existence of banking, just the attainability for something like a sword. Any banker (either local magnate or city based merchant), would insist that a loan was directed at something "useful", which swords for lower class people wasn't.


To help break in the new thread, I have a vague, not-exactly fighting-related, but relevant question. I've heard of a bunch of different names given to eras in history, but I'm not 100% sure when or sometimes even what those eras are. Can I get a quick primer on some common names for time periods? I know not everyone in the world calls the same bits of time the same thing, so names for eras from diverse locations would be especially helpful.

I just want to be able to get my "bronze age", "Ming Dynasty", "Early Modern Era", and "before agriculture" straight.

This is an impossible question. No one agrees on anything, and the dates vary between scholars and regions. "neolithic" is something like 9.000BC in the near east, but something like 4.000BC in Britain/Northern Europe. Some count the "medieval" period to go until roughly 1450, others (especially in northern Europe) use some dates in the early 16th century (the reformation). The Renaissance was "invendted in mid 14th century Italy, so that's another possibility. In Greece the "bronze age" starts roughly 3.000BC and ends 1.100BC, while in Scandinavia the bronze age is dated 1.800-500BC. Thus when the bronze age ends in Scandinavia the Iron age is 600 years old in Greece.

This is one of the issues with "bronze is better than iron, and iron increased due to availability/price", since from 1100-500BC vast amounts of bronze travelled to Scandinavia from the Carpathians even though the wealthier Greece was closer at hand (Bronze swords are numerous in the period 1200-500BC in DK, so is bronze shavers, ornaments, axes etc).

Telok
2015-10-31, 04:45 PM
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/326193main_sup1seaicemax_full.jpg
Somewhere far north - no coast or glacier edge for at least a few hundred miles.

Ok, that's not a glacier. That's an ice field. Look to the Antartic stations for information, try to dig up some Cold War stuff. The big question now is if the station is on ice that's on top of bedrock, or on an ice sheet over water.

What you're looking at there is a cue ball world scenario with high winds and low temperatures. Decide how high the winds are and how low the temperatures are by figuring out how far north/south it is. Or you can decide the latitude by how nasty you want the weather to be.

At that point you're just doing google searches for weather data and what Cold War stations looked like at the latitude you want. Add more huts and men with guns but short of high altitude air power you're pretty much looking at a complete infantry ops with supplies by air drop and snow cat, weather permitting.

Vitruviansquid
2015-10-31, 06:57 PM
To help break in the new thread, I have a vague, not-exactly fighting-related, but relevant question. I've heard of a bunch of different names given to eras in history, but I'm not 100% sure when or sometimes even what those eras are. Can I get a quick primer on some common names for time periods? I know not everyone in the world calls the same bits of time the same thing, so names for eras from diverse locations would be especially helpful.

I just want to be able to get my "bronze age", "Ming Dynasty", "Early Modern Era", and "before agriculture" straight.

"Dynasty" at least, refers specifically to the years when a particular family was reigning over an empire or kingdom. The time of the "Ming Dynasty" therefore should not be in dispute by historians unless there was a lot of shenanigans with claims on the throne that historians can't decide who was in charge of the empire at some time.

fusilier
2015-10-31, 06:59 PM
During WW1 Italians and Austrians in Alps made shelters by burrowing into the glaciers. I don't know much else about them, but I've seen some photos.

Florian
2015-10-31, 07:08 PM
During WW1 Italians and Austrians in Alps made shelters by burrowing into the glaciers. I don't know much else about them, but I've seen some photos.

Somehting they don't do now, because of slight changes in technology over some 100 years?

fusilier
2015-10-31, 07:25 PM
Somehting they don't do now, because of slight changes in technology over some 100 years?

Here's a video about one of the Italian "cities" built into a glacier. It's in Italian, but starting at about 1:30 they have a lot of photos of the interior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJO2rWBfz4

I don't seem to have much luck finding information in English about the practice, except this review of a fictional book --
https://cmacauley.wordpress.com/category/military-history/

Brother Oni
2015-11-01, 04:19 AM
Again storms won't cut it. Any storm nasty enough to cut off airpower would also pretty much make ground transit to and from the base supremely difficult.

I was under the impression that if the visibility was low enough (less than 75m), it could also ground aircraft as it wouldn't be safe for them to take off and land. That doesn't require a storm, just simple fog and/or low level cloud.

Florian
2015-11-01, 05:02 AM
I was under the impression that if the visibility was low enough (less than 75m), it could also ground aircraft as it wouldn't be safe for them to take off and land. That doesn't require a storm, just simple fog and/or low level cloud.

Like mentioned before, the crux is that we don't know the factions involved and the worth of the target.

That's pretty much important because we tend to think and talk about the armies we know and that have high visibility in our societies and these tend to be "modern" armies with "modern" sensibilities on how to conduct war.
Among other things, that means absurdely high equipment prices, the unability to conduct a total war or the unwillingness to conduct a war of attrition or engage in a meatgrinder situation.

So, for example, that situation practically cries out for indiscrikinate high altitude carped bombing, something that modern armies not really engage in. (to my knowledge)

Mr. Mask
2015-11-01, 05:02 AM
Wasn't there a case of British planes not being able to fly when it rained, in the fight for the Falklands? I always wondered why that was.

Carl
2015-11-01, 05:06 AM
I was under the impression that if the visibility was low enough (less than 75m), it could also ground aircraft as it wouldn't be safe for them to take off and land. That doesn't require a storm, just simple fog and/or low level cloud.

Lots of factors in play here. If it's a well established landing zone takeoff and landing can be done entirely on instruments. There's also the question of what the weather around the base has to do in regards weather around the airfield. With modern aircraft, and especially in flight refueling given the map he gave us it would be perfectly plausible to have the airfields well clear of the icepack. The real problem for modern arctic/antarctic bases in terms of aircraft are the excessive crosswinds and soft snow buildup on the landing zone. Both can be downright fatal. he latter problem is technically solvable, but would take more investment in time resources, and maintenance than is really worth it IRL. But for a military campaign on an ice sheet where you have to situate the bases there would certainly justify it.

A similar thing applies to modern AFV. Most of them couldn't currently operate on icepack, that's not because of any limitation of the AFV's in question, (generally speaking of course), but because no one's bothered to develop suitable conversion kits because again there's no good reason to go to the expense. Again an actual military campaign on icepack changes that rather heavily.

Carl
2015-11-01, 05:13 AM
So, for example, that situation practically cries out for indiscriminate high altitude carpet bombing, something that modern armies not really engage in. (to my knowledge)

Oh against a purely military target if that's the best way to do it they absolutely would. But generally that's overkill, and high altitude bombing in general is just unless you can completely suppress enemy air defences, and even then there's little point to dropping bombs outside a specific target area, you can blanket that area as thoroughly as needed, but generally dropping bombs randomly over huge area isn't very efficient as 80% of the targets are left unengaged as a result.

The reason a lot of older practises died out isn't some sensibilities thing. It's because their horrifically inefficient. A lot of the rest is just various side effects of how doctrine has evolved in response to experienced combat conditions.

Florian
2015-11-01, 05:31 AM
@Carl:

My bad, I didn't make my intention clear as I wanted to focus more on the "indiscriminate" thing. The difference between disable an enemies fighting ability, pounding him into submission or breaking morale as opposed by aiming for outright annihilation.

Clistenes
2015-11-01, 05:40 AM
Wasn't there a case of British planes not being able to fly when it rained, in the fight for the Falklands? I always wondered why that was.

The planes used during WWI and some still used during WWII used a lot of wood and cloth in their construction, and could absorb water and become heavy, I think.

Carl
2015-11-01, 10:34 AM
@Clistenes: the falklands was a nearly 5 decades after WW2. I can't say i've heard the story myself though.

@Florian: Again if that's the most efficient way a modern military absolutely WILL do exactly that. But again that kind of total destruction of an enemy force generally takes more time, material investment, and unless you have the total advantage over your enemy, lives than pounding them until you've got them unable to retreat or effectively fight back, at which point a military unit if asked to will generally surender.

Militaries, within the limitations imposed by politicians, (mainly through treaties that ban certain things), will always use the most efficient method of getting the job done, whatever that may be.

Galloglaich
2015-11-01, 12:27 PM
Here's a video about one of the Italian "cities" built into a glacier. It's in Italian, but starting at about 1:30 they have a lot of photos of the interior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJO2rWBfz4

That is fascinating thanks for posting!

G

Brother Oni
2015-11-01, 01:28 PM
Wasn't there a case of British planes not being able to fly when it rained, in the fight for the Falklands? I always wondered why that was.

You're going to have to be more specific in what you mean as it's very vague.

There were a number of issues in daisy chaining the refueling aircraft to enable the Vulcan bombers to fly the 8,000 miles to Falklands and back (Operation Black Buck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck)) and a plan to infiltrate SAS operatives to destroy Exocet missile sites went a bit pearshaped as the helicopter couldn't take off in bad weather.

Some digging indicates that conditions at sea can get quite bad (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTsKjZ6IAQc)) and I'm not surprised if a mission gets scrubbed if it's worse than that.

Clistenes
2015-11-01, 02:47 PM
@Clistenes: the falklands was a nearly 5 decades after WW2. I can't say i've heard the story myself though.

Sorry, I thought you were speaking of the Battle of the Falklands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands), in 1914.

But I guess there weren't planes down there during WWI. There weren't plane carriers then, and it wouldn't make much sense to keep planes in the Falklands, so far from Europe.

Maquise
2015-11-01, 09:31 PM
I've been watching videos about the Bolognese fighting system, in particular the pairing of Side Sword and Rotella. It seems, at least to me, quite a battlefield setup, given that in a duel a buckler would strike me as the better choice. So I was wondering, what sort of troops exactly would use a side sword and rotella, and what would their kit be? Their primary weapon, body armor, etc.

Galloglaich
2015-11-01, 10:20 PM
I've been watching videos about the Bolognese fighting system, in particular the pairing of Side Sword and Rotella. It seems, at least to me, quite a battlefield setup, given that in a duel a buckler would strike me as the better choice. So I was wondering, what sort of troops exactly would use a side sword and rotella, and what would their kit be? Their primary weapon, body armor, etc.

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

fusilier
2015-11-02, 01:45 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros

About that article, most of it is good, except for the sentence about how rodeleros developed. Some Italian commanders were employing sword/shield light infantry in the 1400s, but it was a response to the use of field fortifications. Also, the Spanish had already developed a similar kind of infantry, and the timing of the Aragonese occupation of Naples suggests that the troop type may have been imported from Spain. Later humanist writers, like Macchiavelli, may have envisioned employing large numbers of such soldiers as a revival of the Roman legionaries, but that doesn't appear to have been their origins.

Knaight
2015-11-02, 02:03 AM
"Dynasty" at least, refers specifically to the years when a particular family was reigning over an empire or kingdom. The time of the "Ming Dynasty" therefore should not be in dispute by historians unless there was a lot of shenanigans with claims on the throne that historians can't decide who was in charge of the empire at some time.

That sort of complexity is routine. The whole idea of largely stable monarchies passing down titles in a controlled fashion with the powers attached is a new one, in practice there was routinely all sorts of instability, messy handovers, longer transitional periods, etc.

Take the Ming dynasty. The general anglophone system typically identifies it as from 1368-1644, but then there's the Southern Ming, from 1644-1662. The term might be used to refer to both of them, or the 1644 cutoff point will be used, depending on whether you consider the loss of the capital to be the end of the dynasty or the Ming loyalists in the south a continuation. This is also a comparatively simple transition, trying to pin down the end of the Han dynasty exactly is a much bigger mess, and then there's all of the fun transitional periods where there wasn't any one distinct dynasty and China was divided up into lots of pieces. Then there's the matter of just how much has to be consolidated before a distinct dynasty is counted, as opposed to being in a period of competing warlords.

Note that this is in China, which to some extent had a cultural identity comparatively early, along with early complex bureaucracies that handled enough stuff to smooth over transitions between emperors some (as they continued to handle things in the interim). If anything, trying to track this sort of thing for European dynasties is messier.

That's not to say that you can't get dates, particularly if you're willing to settle for increments of 10 years. It's just that they never end up being as cut and dried as they seem like they ought to be.,

Roxxy
2015-11-02, 02:50 AM
I have an Eberronish setting (namely, one where magic is used as technology). Weapons technology is largely Renaissance, but military tactics aren't. Magical artillery ammunition makes cannon too effective at shredding dense formations to make them desireable. Infantry fight in loose formations more similar to late 20th century soldiers than pike and shot tactics, and volley fire tactics are seldom used (you can't really get an effective musket volley when putting your troops in a line gets a whole bunch of them peppered with caustic shrapnel from an airbursting cannonball). In this environment, I get the feeling that the halberd is a superb melee weapon, but I want to be sure. It seems that, with space to move around because you don't have so,ebody immediately next to you, you can really capitalise on the dreach of the weapon. Yet it also remains quite usable at short range. You can hack chunks out of a lightly armored opponent with the axe, yet can use the pick counterweighting the axe to punch through plate armor. You can kill cavalry with it, though cavalry in this setting look much more American Civil War or American West than Gothic knight. To my undertrained eye, the weapon looks extremely useful when you don't have any tight formations and soldiers have a lot of space to maneuver, but I wonder how it looks to more knowledgeable people.

Carl
2015-11-02, 03:34 AM
A lot depends on the nature of these cannons. Without understanding the operational cycle, and thus probable RoF, Accuracy, Range, e.t.c. it's very hard to say if such troops would be even practical. The kind of artillery your talking about could result in a situation where battles devolve into artillery + specialised anti-artillery units duel it out until enough damage has been done to one side to let the other's blocks move in and clean up everything else.

Whilst those here more familiar with the switchover time should feel free to correct me it's my understanding it was the introduction of man portable weaponry with a long effective range that brought an end to blocks. Not anything else, because they ensured no matter what happened there was no way to create a situation in which a massed infantry formation was viable. Even today being able to theoretically concentrate hundreds of men into a small area, (assuming good lines of fire for all involved), is a hugely powerful offensive option, it's just not practical from a defence PoV.

fusilier
2015-11-02, 02:26 PM
I have an Eberronish setting (namely, one where magic is used as technology). Weapons technology is largely Renaissance, but military tactics aren't. Magical artillery ammunition makes cannon too effective at shredding dense formations to make them desireable. Infantry fight in loose formations more similar to late 20th century soldiers than pike and shot tactics, and volley fire tactics are seldom used (you can't really get an effective musket volley when putting your troops in a line gets a whole bunch of them peppered with caustic shrapnel from an airbursting cannonball). In this environment, I get the feeling that the halberd is a superb melee weapon, but I want to be sure. It seems that, with space to move around because you don't have so,ebody immediately next to you, you can really capitalise on the dreach of the weapon. Yet it also remains quite usable at short range. You can hack chunks out of a lightly armored opponent with the axe, yet can use the pick counterweighting the axe to punch through plate armor. You can kill cavalry with it, though cavalry in this setting look much more American Civil War or American West than Gothic knight. To my undertrained eye, the weapon looks extremely useful when you don't have any tight formations and soldiers have a lot of space to maneuver, but I wonder how it looks to more knowledgeable people.

It's kind of a strange construction, as shrapnel existed well before the abandonment of dense formations. However, given what you described, it sounds like artillery is the primary driver of battlefield tactics. Meaning that a battle is going to planned around the artillery, and its employment. So attacking enemy artillery and defending your own artillery is what tactics are going to revolve around.

Concerning the halberd question, I would suggest you take some time to study Maurizio Arfaioli's thesis (which has been linked to in previous incarnations of this thread). The main points, if you don't want to try to get through it (it can be quite dense), is that skirmishers armed with arquebuses were protected by halberdiers on their flanks. The tactic being to clump together when threatened by cavalry, so that the halberdiers could surround and defend them. Although in some cases the skirmishers were nimble enough to simply avoid formed cavalry, while maintaining close range fire. Later, the Dutch considered pikes to be perfectly acceptable weapons to defend skirmishers with, and saw the Spanish employment of halberds as kind of outdated.

Gnoman
2015-11-02, 04:52 PM
I have an Eberronish setting (namely, one where magic is used as technology). Weapons technology is largely Renaissance, but military tactics aren't. Magical artillery ammunition makes cannon too effective at shredding dense formations to make them desireable. Infantry fight in loose formations more similar to late 20th century soldiers than pike and shot tactics, and volley fire tactics are seldom used (you can't really get an effective musket volley when putting your troops in a line gets a whole bunch of them peppered with caustic shrapnel from an airbursting cannonball). In this environment, I get the feeling that the halberd is a superb melee weapon, but I want to be sure. It seems that, with space to move around because you don't have so,ebody immediately next to you, you can really capitalise on the dreach of the weapon. Yet it also remains quite usable at short range. You can hack chunks out of a lightly armored opponent with the axe, yet can use the pick counterweighting the axe to punch through plate armor. You can kill cavalry with it, though cavalry in this setting look much more American Civil War or American West than Gothic knight. To my undertrained eye, the weapon looks extremely useful when you don't have any tight formations and soldiers have a lot of space to maneuver, but I wonder how it looks to more knowledgeable people.

So you have American Civil War cavalry, WWII-grade artillery (until the invention of the radar-fuzed "variable-time" airburst shell in 1940 (which wasn't extensively used until '44, as it was restricted to AA use in Britain itself until then, out of fear of what the Germans could do with this new super-weapon if they captured a dud) artillery shells simply couldn't burst reliably enough to halt massed attacks on their own, and it wasn't until the famous recoil-compensated French 75s of WWI that any given gun could fire fast enough to put enough rounds on target to do enough - the weapon that ended the mass charge was the Maxim machine gun), and you expect you average infantryman to be using a blade on a stick as a primary weapon? Not likely.

Infantry would have adapted heavily to this sort of tactical environment, and the likeliest kit for such a soldier would be gun, bayonet (unless you decide that they never figured out that you can shove a knife in your gun barrel to get a spear), maybe a hand grenade or two, and a shovel that they use do dig a foxhole whenever they stop moving for more than three seconds. In other words, exactly what a WWI dogface would carry, modified for the lesser technology (although you would have to find an explanation for why the tech used to make these super cannon didn't also give infantrymen assault rifles, or at least the equivalent of a 1903 Springfield.) You might add a brace of pistols or a sword to serve as sidearms, but those are optional.

The halberd in particular would be a fairly poor choice in this scenario - it's a superb can-opener, but you've already stated that horsemen are more similar to the unarmored troops of later years, and heavy armor against the sort of firepower your superarty is putting out is nothing more than an "I'm an idiot, please shoot me" sign, as it would provide almost no protection but would tire you out, overheat you, and make digging in more difficult. It has good reach, but a bayonet gives you that without you needing an extremely cumbersome weapon that keeps you from digging in due to bulk. It hacks men to bits, but all you really need to do to take down an oppenent is give them a bad wound, and a pistol ball, sword slash, or bayonet thrust will do that just fine.

Carl
2015-11-02, 05:12 PM
@Gnoman: That's kind of why i asked for so many details. There absolutely is room for cannon that can coldstop massed formations without going to the extremes your talking about.

Clistenes
2015-11-02, 05:15 PM
I've been watching videos about the Bolognese fighting system, in particular the pairing of Side Sword and Rotella. It seems, at least to me, quite a battlefield setup, given that in a duel a buckler would strike me as the better choice. So I was wondering, what sort of troops exactly would use a side sword and rotella, and what would their kit be? Their primary weapon, body armor, etc.

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

I want to add that rodeleros weren't so much eliminated as folded into the pikemen and arquebussiers. Every soldier carried a side sword, and they were supposed to keep a steel rodela/rotella hanging on their backs. A soldier was expected to be able to drop his pike or arquebuss and fight as a swordman if necessary. That said, soldiers often left their shields back with the baggage if they thought they weren't going to use them or they were going to be a hindrance.

Gnoman
2015-11-02, 06:39 PM
@Gnoman: That's kind of why i asked for so many details. There absolutely is room for cannon that can coldstop massed formations without going to the extremes your talking about.

Cannon with that ability were considered a superweapon and a game-changer in 1944. German soldiers mutinied before facing that a second time. No type of cannon with less capability CAN coldstop massed formations, or else the mass charge wouldn't have remained a major part of warfare until 1915.

rs2excelsior
2015-11-02, 07:58 PM
Cannon with that ability were considered a superweapon and a game-changer in 1944. German soldiers mutinied before facing that a second time. No type of cannon with less capability CAN coldstop massed formations, or else the mass charge wouldn't have remained a major part of warfare until 1915.

Not to say artillery was unimportant to the defense in WWI (it most definitely was critical), but it wasn't so much the artillery that did away with massed charges against defended positions. That mainly dealt with infantry firepower in the form of the bolt-action rifle (with much greater range, accuracy, and RoF than earlier infantry weapons) and especially the machine gun, along with strong, extensive fortifications on an unprecedented scale. Unless you had preregistered defensive barrages laid, and the friendly artillery (and defending infantry) was very on the ball, it was mostly up to the infantry to stop an enemy attack; artillery just wasn't responsive enough in most cases. Communication tech had yet to catch up to the destructiveness of the weapons. Again, artillery most definitely was critical, even in the defense, but it was Maxim more than Krupp that made sure the British attacks on the first days of the Somme were unsuccessful.

Roxxy
2015-11-02, 08:34 PM
I clearly need to go back to the drawing board and adjust military capabilities to get the effects I want. We'll have to revisit this discussion at a later date.

Gnoman
2015-11-02, 08:59 PM
Not to say artillery was unimportant to the defense in WWI (it most definitely was critical), but it wasn't so much the artillery that did away with massed charges against defended positions. That mainly dealt with infantry firepower in the form of the bolt-action rifle (with much greater range, accuracy, and RoF than earlier infantry weapons) and especially the machine gun, along with strong, extensive fortifications on an unprecedented scale. Unless you had preregistered defensive barrages laid, and the friendly artillery (and defending infantry) was very on the ball, it was mostly up to the infantry to stop an enemy attack; artillery just wasn't responsive enough in most cases. Communication tech had yet to catch up to the destructiveness of the weapons. Again, artillery most definitely was critical, even in the defense, but it was Maxim more than Krupp that made sure the British attacks on the first days of the Somme were unsuccessful.

You seem to have misunderstood me, because you just said the exact same thing I've been saying.

fusilier
2015-11-02, 09:07 PM
Not to say artillery was unimportant to the defense in WWI (it most definitely was critical), but it wasn't so much the artillery that did away with massed charges against defended positions. That mainly dealt with infantry firepower in the form of the bolt-action rifle (with much greater range, accuracy, and RoF than earlier infantry weapons) and especially the machine gun, along with strong, extensive fortifications on an unprecedented scale.

Just to expand upon this, if we look at the history of battlefield tactics, they were close order until the introduction of breechloading rifles. Of course skirmishing had been a component, and sometimes a very major one, in battles for hundreds of years, but close order formations were still standard. With the development of breechloading rifles, you see a gradual loosening of formations, with more emphasis on skirmishing.

At this point we probably need to be specific about what we mean when we say "mass" formations. Close order, shoulder-to-shoulder, was rarely used in WW1 -- it may still been a part of drill manuals, but it seems to have been very rarely used on the battlefield (I do know of at least a few instances). However, if the formations weren't "close order" they often employed wave tactics -- so that even if the density of soldiers per meter were greater than in Napoleon's day they weren't actually packed in such a dense formation and were still a lot more spread out.

Other people might use different definitions, and I'm not claiming this is the only one possible. Keep in mind that they "massed" resources, infantry and artillery, in attempt to breakthrough the enemy lines, and the term "mass assault" could refer to simply the higher than average density. Technically speaking, infiltration tactics involved massed assaults too they just focused them on weak areas.

Storm Bringer
2015-11-03, 02:20 AM
I clearly need to go back to the drawing board and adjust military capabilities to get the effects I want. We'll have to revisit this discussion at a later date.

may I suggest that you give us an idea what sort of effects you are looking for, and we can then steer you in the right direction. its quicker than you trying to guess what the right solution is and us repeatedly pointing out problems with it.

what is it you see want to see in your battles? is it a pseudo modern battlefield but with matchlock muskets? or is it situation where a melee is still a possibility?

I must point out that in any situation where its possible to get troops into melee range with the enemy, you tend to get close order formations, simply because they were the most effective formation for melee. it was the threat of cavalry that kept troops of Napoleon's day in close order, not just the difficulties of controlling troops in open order*. once infantry firepower reached the point where it was simply not possible for cavalry to force themselves into melee range without suffering unacceptable losses (like fusilier says, adoption of breechloaders), then you find cavalry switching from shock action to mounted infantry, and infantry start loosening their formations to reduce casualties.


*difficulties that had known solutions, as the presence and effectiveness of skirmishers proves. it was just difficult and expensive to implement, as it required a strong and capable NCO corps that can control the troops, without direct oversight by the officers which both takes time to create and requires men of sufficient quality to join the ranks, which in turn requires terms of service that such men find acceptable.

Carl
2015-11-03, 02:39 AM
Cannon with that ability were considered a superweapon and a game-changer in 1944. German soldiers mutinied before facing that a second time. No type of cannon with less capability CAN coldstop massed formations, or else the mass charge wouldn't have remained a major part of warfare until 1915.

The kind of massed infantry formations were discussing where gone by 1915 let alone 1944 though so i'm not sure what either of those has to do with this.

The sort of formation were talking about doesn't need a 5" 45cal firing proximity fused ammo to tear it up easily enough to make the use of the formation impractical.


Napoleonic artillery firing shrapnel shells failed to achieve that effect for the simple reason that actually getting the shells to detonate at exactly the right moment was beyond the precision of the fusing of the day. Combined with the extremely limited danger radius and you had a weapon that even with entire batteries firing en mass struggled to get enough hits to shatter a single formation.

Give them completely accurate fuses, a way of accurately measuring the range, and a better danger radius and napoleonic style formations aren't going to work. But the natural inaccuracy and limited RoF of the guns will keep them from doing the same to skirmishers because skirmishers require that many more hits.

Milodiah
2015-11-03, 07:53 PM
Ok, so I have an interesting situation here...our GM is dropping the party into a bit of a Stargate-style situation in which we'll be stuck in some alternate dimension with no support. My character is a surgeon, and I've been informed that I'll be stuck with what I can carry in a parachute insertion.

Most of the stuff you see in terms of field surgery are based on the assumption that an hour from now the person will be in real surgery...but here that's not the case. I'll also add that this character is not a military corpsman or anything else, he is a trauma surgeon from an urban hospital who has been selected for whatever reason (playercharactritis and such), but I am apparently being equipped by the military.

So, what would I be dropped in with given that I have only enough space for a backpack and some satchels, but at the same time have both the training and the need to do stuff far more advanced than the average combat medic is expected to do?

I have a full write-up for the basic corpsman's trauma kit, as well as a minor surgery kit, but I lack anything like IV drip, blood/plasma/saline-glucose, etc.

GraaEminense
2015-11-04, 11:14 AM
I just read a couple of blog posts about pre-modern battlefields, I thought some here would find them an interesting read. The idea of reestablishing safe distances and taking "breaks" in the fighting matches very well with my reenactment experiences, from duels, skirmishes and battles.

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.no/2015/10/pre-modern-battlefields-were-absolutely.html
http://scholars-stage.blogspot.no/2015/10/a-few-more-thoughts-on-terrors-of-pre.html (http://scholars-stage.blogspot.no/2015/10/pre-modern-battlefields-were-absolutely.html)

Incanur
2015-11-04, 12:30 PM
I want to add that rodeleros weren't so much eliminated as folded into the pikemen and arquebussiers. Every soldier carried a side sword, and they were supposed to keep a steel rodela/rotella hanging on their backs. A soldier was expected to be able to drop his pike or arquebuss and fight as a swordman if necessary. That said, soldiers often left their shields back with the baggage if they thought they weren't going to use them or they were going to be a hindrance.

I don't know of any evidence that Spanish pikers carried shields at their backs. Raimond de Fourquevaux, an veteran French military commander, recommend that pikers carry shields on their backs, but it's unclear whether this actually happened in the field. Burgundian pikers apparently carried small shields in the late 15th century, and some Scottish pikers in the middle of the 16th century used shields - though not on their backs, but strapped on the arm while holding the pike. The Dutch under Maurice of Nassau used shields for pikers in similar fashion. See this thread (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=289390).

I'd love to have evidence that the Spanish also had pikers use shields, or that something like Fourquevaux's system happened in practice.

Beleriphon
2015-11-04, 01:26 PM
Like mentioned before, the crux is that we don't know the factions involved and the worth of the target.

That's pretty much important because we tend to think and talk about the armies we know and that have high visibility in our societies and these tend to be "modern" armies with "modern" sensibilities on how to conduct war.
Among other things, that means absurdely high equipment prices, the unability to conduct a total war or the unwillingness to conduct a war of attrition or engage in a meatgrinder situation.

So, for example, that situation practically cries out for indiscrikinate high altitude carped bombing, something that modern armies not really engage in. (to my knowledge)

Modern armies have that aspect in their doctrine of war still, the difference is that no war army since the Korean War has actually required that level of indiscriminate destruction, at least by any western powers. The Iran-Iraq War was certainly a meatgrinder, and involved chemical weapons use by both sides. The major problem is that most of the major actions currently in place that the western powers are involved are against guerilla fighters where carpet bombing is a terribly inefficient use of high explosives.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-04, 02:56 PM
To help break in the new thread, I have a vague, not-exactly fighting-related, but relevant question. I've heard of a bunch of different names given to eras in history, but I'm not 100% sure when or sometimes even what those eras are. Can I get a quick primer on some common names for time periods? I know not everyone in the world calls the same bits of time the same thing, so names for eras from diverse locations would be especially helpful.
I just want to be able to get my "bronze age", "Ming Dynasty", "Early Modern Era", and "before agriculture" straight.

Bronze age and before agriculture vary extremely on where you're talking about. It's a lot easier to remember them by the how they take place after the invention of bronze and before agriculture. It helps a lot more in imagining what you're talking about. If you're before agriculture you are thus before domesticated animals (except dogs), before large scale deforestation and before cities (mostly). Early modern era is a slightly better word for renaissance when talking about anything but art. It starts around 1500 or when marked by inventions at the printing press, which puts its mark on civilization around the same time as early firearms do (well, the useful kind anyway, it's about when armies start consisting of firearms users). I suppose I could google the rest to stick dates on them (roughly a few thousand, no idea (Knaight put a great answer up), already answered and over 10.000 years ago), but so could you. :smallwink:


Two questions about entirely different things:

1. In a modern setting, how would one go about creating a defensible position out of a pretty much random spot on a glacier? The idea is that there's something inside the glacial ice that's incredibly valuable - to the extent that it's worth building a base around. What sort of things would you do to make something capable of repulsing or at least slowing the attacks of another modernized force?

Dig in, deep. Now you're not just hiding behind tens of meters of ice, but also behind the frozen artifact your enemy wants to take intact. Have your heavy materiel engage the enemy somewhere where they're not pinned to one place, guard your entrance with as many men as fit in your hallway.


2. Again, in a modern setting: What sort of technique would work best for someone wielding a sword* as far as self-defense is concerned? Mainly thinking in terms of ways to deal with firearms, multiple opponents, etc. in a setting where no one is armored and all parties are likely close together.

*Currently indeterminate type. Something more like a two-hander than a rapier.

This is a bad idea. You're using a very obvious non-hidden weapon, and you're using it in self defense, so you don't get the drop on people. A knife or some other small hand to hand weapon, that might work, as could any kind of small throwing weapon. Multiple opponents with guns and they know exactly what you can do to them (cut them down when you're a meter and a half from their position), those are some bad odds.

The upside is that most people who get shot in an urban situation were less than 20 foot/6 meter away from their attacker. So you really don't have that much distance to close. But if they already have their weapon drawn and aimed at you (because if I am robbing three people one of whom has a sword I know who I'm aiming for), it's still too much distance.


The Iran-Iraq War was certainly a meatgrinder, and involved chemical weapons use by both sides.

That's a controversial statement at best. It could be that the Iranian government really likes editing Wikipedia, but it looks like only Iraq used them, or only they used them on a large scale (50.000 death, 100.000 if you count long term effects).


bayonet (unless you decide that they never figured out that you can shove a knife in your gun barrel to get a spear)

To be fair, that bit of figuring out took the real world a lot longer than it should have as well.:smallcool:

No brains
2015-11-04, 03:34 PM
I find this page helpful, when I forget which period goes where: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods

Thank you for the link to the list. Those are usually helpful. :smallsmile:


Bronze age and before agriculture vary extremely on where you're talking about. It's a lot easier to remember them by the how they take place after the invention of bronze and before agriculture. It helps a lot more in imagining what you're talking about. If you're before agriculture you are thus before domesticated animals (except dogs), before large scale deforestation and before cities (mostly). Early modern era is a slightly better word for renaissance when talking about anything but art. It starts around 1500 or when marked by inventions at the printing press, which puts its mark on civilization around the same time as early firearms do (well, the useful kind anyway, it's about when armies start consisting of firearms users). I suppose I could google the rest to stick dates on them (roughly a few thousand, no idea, already answered and over 10.000 years ago), but so could you. :smallwink:

Though this kind of response is a little more interesting, particularly for world-building. What are the exceptional examples where technology doesn't obey standard ages, either by failing to spread or by appearing from an independent source? I think North America never really had a "Bronze Age", but are there other cases where this mode of thinking doesn't work?

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-04, 03:44 PM
What are the exceptional examples where technology doesn't obey standard ages, either by failing to spread or by appearing from an independent source? I think North America never really had a "Bronze Age", but are there other cases where this mode of thinking doesn't work?

The best exception I can think of is South/Middle America. There's a long period there (which going by memory includes the Aztecs, Inca's and Maya's) where they pretty much know how to make and work bronze and several other alloys, but they're barely using it. Their stone technology had gotten so good (and perhaps there wasn't a lot of copper in those parts, as was also the case in northern Europe) that they never really made the switch to using metal. Yet in terms of organization and even some parts of technology they were more an iron age civilization than anything else.

Roxxy
2015-11-04, 08:32 PM
may I suggest that you give us an idea what sort of effects you are looking for, and we can then steer you in the right direction. its quicker than you trying to guess what the right solution is and us repeatedly pointing out problems with it.

what is it you see want to see in your battles? is it a pseudo modern battlefield but with matchlock muskets? or is it situation where a melee is still a possibility?

I must point out that in any situation where its possible to get troops into melee range with the enemy, you tend to get close order formations, simply because they were the most effective formation for melee. it was the threat of cavalry that kept troops of Napoleon's day in close order, not just the difficulties of controlling troops in open order*. once infantry firepower reached the point where it was simply not possible for cavalry to force themselves into melee range without suffering unacceptable losses (like fusilier says, adoption of breechloaders), then you find cavalry switching from shock action to mounted infantry, and infantry start loosening their formations to reduce casualties.


*difficulties that had known solutions, as the presence and effectiveness of skirmishers proves. it was just difficult and expensive to implement, as it required a strong and capable NCO corps that can control the troops, without direct oversight by the officers which both takes time to create and requires men of sufficient quality to join the ranks, which in turn requires terms of service that such men find acceptable.


The kind of massed infantry formations were discussing where gone by 1915 let alone 1944 though so i'm not sure what either of those has to do with this.

The sort of formation were talking about doesn't need a 5" 45cal firing proximity fused ammo to tear it up easily enough to make the use of the formation impractical.


Napoleonic artillery firing shrapnel shells failed to achieve that effect for the simple reason that actually getting the shells to detonate at exactly the right moment was beyond the precision of the fusing of the day. Combined with the extremely limited danger radius and you had a weapon that even with entire batteries firing en mass struggled to get enough hits to shatter a single formation.

Give them completely accurate fuses, a way of accurately measuring the range, and a better danger radius and napoleonic style formations aren't going to work. But the natural inaccuracy and limited RoF of the guns will keep them from doing the same to skirmishers because skirmishers require that many more hits.I'll go over what I intend the main force of focus, the Vendalian Army, to operate like. Vendalia is a rather Eberronesque setting, meaning that magic tends to get used as technology, and there is a big gulf between the time period of Vendalia's military technology and the advancement of their transportation and communication infrastructure, industrial capacity, medical capabilities, and agricultural abilities.

The firearms of the day are muskets. Matchlocks are dominant, but flintlocks have been recently developed, and are starting to replace older weapons. Muskets are not as dominant a military weapon as they were on Earth, however. The main reasons are the lack of close order formations that can deliver a massed volley, the need to engage individual targets with relatively rapid fire, and very lengthy training times for soldiers that make learning a more time intensive weapon feasible. The military does use muskets frequently, as they are easy for non-archers to use and have good penetrative power if you are fighting a particularly tough monster or something, they just aren't the primary ranged weapon.

The primary ranged weapon is the bow, which in Vendalia would be a laminated bamboo recurve with waterproof glue. Traditionally, Vendalians have used the longbow, but the recurve was adopted because it is easier to use from cover, the smaller size makes it more convenient to use in forest, mountain, and urban environments, and it can deliver a higher rate of fire than the longbow. Bamboo is used because it's cheap, common, and a supurlative bowmaking material. Vendalian archers engage individual targets at relatively short ranges, are the most common type of Vendalian infantry, and are always supported by melee infantry.

Melee infantry can come in a few forms. Infantry are typically classified by the weight of armor they wear (Archers can be light or medium infantry). Light infantry usually have a gambeson, and are largely scouts, skirmishers, or garrison troops. They typically aren't melee troops, though, often carrying bows or firearms. Medium infantry are by far the most common in the Vendalian military. They wear brigandine and most often carry a halberd, though some carry a shield and axe or hammer. Those with a shield are expected to focus on protecting the archers to a greater degree than the halberdiers. Heavy infantry are the least common, as they are expensive and difficult to equip and maintain. They have three quarter plate and a halberd or two handed sword. A big reason gambesons and brigandine are preferred armors is because they can be quickly produced in a factory assembly line to a handful of general sizes, then adjusted by an armor fitter to fit the individual soldier (removing or adding plates/fabric/leather, trimming or extending straps, and so on). That takes a lot more time, energy, and expense to do with plate armor, and the government is paying for everyone's equipment rather than expecting them to provide it. Heavy infantry can be very effective at assaulting fieldworks and artillery if they can get close enough, however. Regardless of classification, any soldier has a steel helmet, and probably carries a basket hilted broadsword as a sidearm. Weapons and armor are high quality steel, almost always stainless.

Cavalry are still useful, but not heavy cavalry. Military commanders tend to either avoid open fields or fill them with defensive works, and infantry like to use cover wherever possible, which blunts the usefulness of the cavalry charge. There just isn't a whole lot of open space for a heavy cavalry unit to operate a lot of the time, and where there is it's filled with trenches, foxholes, and stakes. Also, infantry archers are numerous and used to aiming for individual targets, of which a charging horse is a big one. Halberdiers are quite capable of fighting cavalry as well, especially when said cavalry lack the space or terrain for a proper charge. As a result, cavalry is mostly used for scouting, screening, raiding, pursuit or harassment, or rapid deployment of mounted infantry, and tends to wear brigandine or a breastplate rather than three quarter plate. Archers are common among the cavalry.

Artillery is made up of smoothbore cannon, but advances in ammunition have greatly increased its lethality. Mithril cannonballs have about four times the range of iron cannonballs, and mages have figured out reliable methods of detonatonating balls in midair over enemy troops. Depending on the side of the cannon, the resulting shrapnel can kill soldiers 20 to 70 meters away. Often, flammable jelly or caustic substances are added to artillery. Mages are also classified as artillery, though they tend to use their spells to do things like create entagling vines, create earthworks, destroy earthworks, and similar battlefield control tasks rather than directly bombard infantry (In 3.5/PF terms, spells above level 3 are virtually never available to the military). Industrialization has made cannon available in large numbers, and what they lack in loading speed the Vendalian Army makes up for in sheer quantity of guns, finding rolling barages particularly effective. Commanders compensate for this by using earthworks heavily, not lining up troops in close order, trying to fight in terrain that provides cover instead of open terrain where possible, and fighting defensive battles in cities, mountains, or forests if possible. Infantry do still fight in formations, but not close formations like Napoleonic troops. They prefer to be more spread out. As a result, NCOs and junior officers have a lot of control over their units, and can weild a great deal of influence on the success or failure of a batte. A good NCO corps is an absolute necessity for the Vendalian way of war.

There is no military elite such as a knighthood in Vendalia. Enlisted largely come from the middle or lower classes and officers from the upper classes (and are recruited through universities), but this is more socio-economic than purely social. Conscription is legal but not currently in use, so all Vendalian soldiers are volunteers, most of them viewing the military as a career. A newly enlisted soldier is typically learning how to fight for the first time. It's not something kids are usually taught. Training times are long, typically over a year in peacetime. Alchemical enhancement of soldiers is ubiquitious. It's hard to quantify that outside a D&D 3.5/Pathfinder context, because alchemical enhancement is basically the magic item system of the game, except the character themself gets magically enhanced instead of putting on a belt that gives +2 Strength. This is partially why bows are still common - bows take a fair amount of training to build up the necessary strength to use, but soldiers in training are building that strength up rapidly because of the magic. Militaries are of modest size, because soldiers are quite expensive to train and maintain, and the infrastructure needed to keep an army functioning is massive.

Is there any information I'm neglecting to mention that you need?

fusilier
2015-11-04, 09:49 PM
I don't know of any evidence that Spanish pikers carried shields at their backs. Raimond de Fourquevaux, an veteran French military commander, recommend that pikers carry shields on their backs, but it's unclear whether this actually happened in the field. Burgundian pikers apparently carried small shields in the late 15th century, and some Scottish pikers in the middle of the 16th century used shields - though not on their backs, but strapped on the arm while holding the pike. The Dutch under Maurice of Nassau used shields for pikers in similar fashion. See this thread (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=289390).

I'd love to have evidence that the Spanish also had pikers use shields, or that something like Fourquevaux's system happened in practice.

This website, mentions that Spanish pikemen "sometimes" carried shields --
http://www.oocities.org/ao1617/weapon.html

(That's an archived version of that site, there's an updated version, but it's either currently offline or it's down).

However, it's possible that they've muddled things up a bit. I believe it was common to *convert* pikemen into halberdiers or sword/shield men during particular actions (like certain phases of a siege), when the pike was considered too unwieldy.

spineyrequiem
2015-11-05, 12:03 AM
The primary ranged weapon is the bow, which in Vendalia would be a laminated bamboo recurve with waterproof glue. Traditionally, Vendalians have used the longbow, but the recurve was adopted because it is easier to use from cover, the smaller size makes it more convenient to use in forest, mountain, and urban environments, and it can deliver a higher rate of fire than the longbow. Bamboo is used because it's cheap, common, and a supurlative bowmaking material. Vendalian archers engage individual targets at relatively short ranges, are the most common type of Vendalian infantry, and are always supported by melee infantry.

Melee infantry can come in a few forms. Infantry are typically classified by the weight of armor they wear (Archers can be light or medium infantry). Light infantry usually have a gambeson, and are largely scouts, skirmishers, or garrison troops. They typically aren't melee troops, though, often carrying bows or firearms. Medium infantry are by far the most common in the Vendalian military. They wear brigandine and most often carry a halberd, though some carry a shield and axe or hammer. Those with a shield are expected to focus on protecting the archers to a greater degree than the halberdiers. Heavy infantry are the least common, as they are expensive and difficult to equip and maintain. They have three quarter plate and a halberd or two handed sword. A big reason gambesons and brigandine are preferred armors is because they can be quickly produced in a factory assembly line to a handful of general sizes, then adjusted by an armor fitter to fit the individual soldier (removing or adding plates/fabric/leather, trimming or extending straps, and so on). That takes a lot more time, energy, and expense to do with plate armor, and the government is paying for everyone's equipment rather than expecting them to provide it. Heavy infantry can be very effective at assaulting fieldworks and artillery if they can get close enough, however. Regardless of classification, any soldier has a steel helmet, and probably carries a basket hilted broadsword as a sidearm. Weapons and armor are high quality steel, almost always stainless.



A composite bow doesn't sound like it'll be all that useful in this situation. If you're firing it faster than a longbow, that is going to mean it's less powerful than one, and against plate armor even longbow arrows tended to glance off. They might be good for harassing fire and dealing with light infantry, but they're not going to stop a big mob of nutters in heavy armor coming in and wrecking stuff.

It's also going to be expensive as hell. A composite bow takes at least a month to dry, and then needs to be shot regularly until it builds up to its full potential (admittedly, you could do this while training the soldier). To make matters worse, composite bows are about the most fragile piece of military technology around that isn't a horse; if they get too wet, they're ruined, and they require fairly regular care from what I can tell. This is going to be less than ideal if you want to take them into all environments like you seem to. The arrows will also be very expensive, depending what you're fletching them with; IIRC, if you're using goose feathers you have to use the flight feathers, and there aren't all that many of those on a goose. You can reuse them, but they break and get lost regularly so it's not ideal to rely on it. Finally, the size and delicacy of arrows will make logistics tricky, you can't just have a big barrel of gunpowder and some lead like you do with muskets.

Finally, I might be wrong but I don't think stainless steel makes for very good armor and weapons. We don't tend to use it in reenactment certainly, though that may be because of how shiny it is.




Cavalry are still useful, but not heavy cavalry. Military commanders tend to either avoid open fields or fill them with defensive works, and infantry like to use cover wherever possible, which blunts the usefulness of the cavalry charge. There just isn't a whole lot of open space for a heavy cavalry unit to operate a lot of the time, and where there is it's filled with trenches, foxholes, and stakes. Also, infantry archers are numerous and used to aiming for individual targets, of which a charging horse is a big one. Halberdiers are quite capable of fighting cavalry as well, especially when said cavalry lack the space or terrain for a proper charge. As a result, cavalry is mostly used for scouting, screening, raiding, pursuit or harassment, or rapid deployment of mounted infantry, and tends to wear brigandine or a breastplate rather than three quarter plate. Archers are common among the cavalry.



Why aren't heavy cavalry useful? Composite bows won't have the punch to go through decent plate except maybe at suicidally short ranges, so a barded horse and man is going to get through the hail pretty well. Terrain could cause an issue, but no matter what it's useful to have a fast and bleedin' terrifying force to punch through weak points in the enemy line.




Artillery is made up of smoothbore cannon, but advances in ammunition have greatly increased its lethality. Mithril cannonballs have about four times the range of iron cannonballs, and mages have figured out reliable methods of detonatonating balls in midair over enemy troops. Depending on the side of the cannon, the resulting shrapnel can kill soldiers 20 to 70 meters away. Often, flammable jelly or caustic substances are added to artillery. Mages are also classified as artillery, though they tend to use their spells to do things like create entagling vines, create earthworks, destroy earthworks, and similar battlefield control tasks rather than directly bombard infantry (In 3.5/PF terms, spells above level 3 are virtually never available to the military). Industrialization has made cannon available in large numbers, and what they lack in loading speed the Vendalian Army makes up for in sheer quantity of guns, finding rolling barages particularly effective. Commanders compensate for this by using earthworks heavily, not lining up troops in close order, trying to fight in terrain that provides cover instead of open terrain where possible, and fighting defensive battles in cities, mountains, or forests if possible. Infantry do still fight in formations, but not close formations like Napoleonic troops. They prefer to be more spread out. As a result, NCOs and junior officers have a lot of control over their units, and can weild a great deal of influence on the success or failure of a batte. A good NCO corps is an absolute necessity for the Vendalian way of war.




If artillery is this good, why hasn't it become WW1? With a range of at least three miles and the technology to make a ball explode at the optimum moment when it passes over an enemy formation, they are going to be the most lethal things in the world. It sounds like they have the power to force people to dig in, and then the accuracy to lock down a section of the enemy for overwhelming infantry assaults. About the only thing it lacks is half-decent infantry weapons, which would make defending much harder and allow some really serious breakthroughs if they weren't stopped by enemy artillery. I'd expect the scientist (equivalents) in this universe would be desperately working on better defensive measures and counter-battery tactics, as if you could neutralize the enemy artillery you'd be able to attack relatively easily, and once you've achieved a breakthrough you can mess everything up with cavalry.

Roxxy
2015-11-05, 01:28 AM
A composite bow doesn't sound like it'll be all that useful in this situation. If you're firing it faster than a longbow, that is going to mean it's less powerful than one, and against plate armor even longbow arrows tended to glance off. They might be good for harassing fire and dealing with light infantry, but they're not going to stop a big mob of nutters in heavy armor coming in and wrecking stuff.Well, it's always going to have the shorter and therefore lighter arrow, but there isn't really anything precluding a recurve with a massive draw weight. I would expect soldiers using strength enhancement magic to be able to draw bows over 120 pounds. What I've heard of recurve bows that powerful is mixed and inconclusive, but this is fantasy, so we can roll with it. So we end up with a lot of weight on a shorter draw distance. Probably only workable because we have magic, but that's okay. If we just go straight fantasy and rock 150 or so, that's pretty dangerous even with a breastplate. Heavy infantry are around, but they aren't very common, and that may well be a situation where the halberdiers or someone with a musket or hammer is the right tool.


It's also going to be expensive as hell. A composite bow takes at least a month to dry, and then needs to be shot regularly until it builds up to its full potential (admittedly, you could do this while training the soldier). To make matters worse, composite bows are about the most fragile piece of military technology around that isn't a horse; if they get too wet, they're ruined, and they require fairly regular care from what I can tell. This is going to be less than ideal if you want to take them into all environments like you seem to. The arrows will also be very expensive, depending what you're fletching them with; IIRC, if you're using goose feathers you have to use the flight feathers, and there aren't all that many of those on a goose. You can reuse them, but they break and get lost regularly so it's not ideal to rely on it. Finally, the size and delicacy of arrows will make logistics tricky, you can't just have a big barrel of gunpowder and some lead like you do with muskets.I'm not too worried about the weapon getting wet, since we have the material knowledge to waterproof them. Similar story with fletching. It's probably best to not use real feathers at all, and a civilization with Eberron levels of magitech can sythesize something equivalent. Likewise, drying is probably less of an issue with mages about. I don't think the issues of moving the arrows and building the bow up to the proper potential are deal breakers.


Finally, I might be wrong but I don't think stainless steel makes for very good armor and weapons. We don't tend to use it in reenactment certainly, though that may be because of how shiny it is.This I'm curious about. Is it just too shiny for use in combat? What else combines the material qualities of steel with high corrosion resistance? That's important, because in terms of climate and terrain we're dealing with something very similar to the American West Coast and some Pacific Islands. So, military operations in both temperate rainforests and tropical rainforests are a reality, as well as a lot of coastal and naval operations. I was thinking something resistant to corrosion might be very useful in such environments.


If artillery is this good, why hasn't it become WW1? With a range of at least three miles and the technology to make a ball explode at the optimum moment when it passes over an enemy formation, they are going to be the most lethal things in the world. It sounds like they have the power to force people to dig in, and then the accuracy to lock down a section of the enemy for overwhelming infantry assaults. About the only thing it lacks is half-decent infantry weapons, which would make defending much harder and allow some really serious breakthroughs if they weren't stopped by enemy artillery.That largely is what I'm thinking, just with infantry tactics that discourage close order marching or cavalry charges. Though I do anticipate some long range accuracy issues, as these are smoothbores. I imagine the mages can allieviate this, just like they can get balls to detonate reliably, but even then these guns are not 155s. I do think I should tone down the fuses a bit. How about they will reliably detonate at the specified range or time interval, but they can't sense whether enemy forces are present at the time of detonation?
I'd expect the scientist (equivalents) in this universe would be desperately working on better defensive measures and counter-battery tactics, as if you could neutralize the enemy artillery you'd be able to attack relatively easily, and once you've achieved a breakthrough you can mess everything up with cavalry.The scientists and mages always want better killing tools, the most recent being the flintlock, which is just now being adopted and will increase reliability and ease of use of firearms. In terms of trying to eliminate artillery, commanders try to use light infantry or mounted infantry to do this, for exactly the reason you describe. If you can slip someone close enough to the enemy guns to wreak havoc, you can attack in force and likely break through. Problem is, the enemy knows this full well.

Carl
2015-11-05, 05:50 AM
My first question is why are flintlocks only just showing up?

To build the kind of cannon your talking of, (never mind the kind of steels your proposing to use), requires fairly advanced ,metallurgy. Whilst it's not the only limitation on the development of flintlock mechanisms, it's definitely one of the bigger one.

Just as importantly your cannonballs demonstrate the ability to magically produce fire on demand. There's no reason to be using even flintlocks at this point. Bringing the matchlock hammer down should just produce a burst of flame in the touchole, (or hell have the barel completely sealed and the flame manifest in there), which ignites the powder. And given alchemical cannonballs are so standard there's even the question of whether they should be using powder anymore. Either some much more volumetrically favourable substance, or even just have the weapon enchanted to produce the gasses when it's enchantment is activated by the hammer strike.


The problem you've got is schizo tech. Your artillery and melee infantry even on the mundane level are demonstrating a level of sophistication that makes it nearly impossible not to have good infantry firearms.


As for your artillery. The problem here isn't the fuse. it's the danger radius. A 50m+ danger radius means that you only have to put the shell in the same postcode as the target to wipe a huge chunk out of a skirmisher formation, let alone a fixed formation. You can afford to be off in aim and fusing by quite a bit and still be lethal.

Get the radius down enough, (like 10m or less), and you've got a whole other ball game, (pun not intended), because the radius gets too small to reliably kill more than a few member of a formation per shot and if the shot deviates due to cannon inaccuracies it's going to have even more issues being effective vs them.


As for cavalry, not an expert, (duh), but my understanding is that there's not much of a difference between the kind of terrain heavy cavalry can handle and light cavalry can handle, so terrain would only really prevent heavy cavalry if it prevented all cavalry.

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-11-05, 06:15 AM
As for your artillery. The problem here isn't the fuse. it's the danger radius. A 50m+ danger radius means that you only have to put the shell in the same postcode as the target to wipe a huge chunk out of a skirmisher formation, let alone a fixed formation. You can afford to be off in aim and fusing by quite a bit and still be lethal.

Get the radius down enough, (like 10m or less), and you've got a whole other ball game, (pun not intended), because the radius gets too small to reliably kill more than a few member of a formation per shot and if the shot deviates due to cannon inaccuracies it's going to have even more issues being effective vs them.

Agreed - at 50m radius, that's enough to take out anyone on a football field, and any spectators in the lower seating bowl as well.



As for cavalry, not an expert, (duh), but my understanding is that there's not much of a difference between the kind of terrain heavy cavalry can handle and light cavalry can handle, so terrain would only really prevent heavy cavalry if it prevented all cavalry.
Might not some terrain slow or fatigue heavy cavalry more than light cavalry?

Closet_Skeleton
2015-11-05, 06:30 AM
"Dynasty" at least, refers specifically to the years when a particular family was reigning over an empire or kingdom. The time of the "Ming Dynasty" therefore should not be in dispute by historians unless there was a lot of shenanigans with claims on the throne that historians can't decide who was in charge of the empire at some time.

Sadly dynasty is not such a simple term.

In Europe, Dynasties are large families of rulers which tend to rule over multiple states. Some of these families practised split inheritance where the state would be divided between the sons or shared by them as co-rulers. They are often called 'Houses' instead which is more accurate and specific. Foreign rulers were often invited in through election, conquest and or marriage, spreading dynasties.

Chinese dynasties are not actually families, but separate states that only inherit some of the structures of previous states. The actual families ruling the dynasties have different names (eg the ruling house of the Qing dynasty was the Aisin Goro clan who also ruled one of the many states using the name Jin dynasty at one point).

So in Europe dynasties move between states which continue to exist but in China dynasties are states founded by families.

In Egyptology, they have another definition of dynasty. Actual evidence for how the various successive rulers in Egyptian dynasties actually related to each other is very limited so while its usually assumed they were successive generations of one family this may not have always been the case. The Egyptian dynasties were basically made up in the 3rd century BC by the historian Manetho and argued about ever since.

Many dynasties were actually treated as entire ethnic groups. For example the Ottoman (Osmâniyye) Empire was a state ruled by the house of Osman whose ruling class identified themselves as an Ottoman ethnicity despite coming mostly from a diverse background of often Christian slaves.

The Bahri dynasty of Mamluke Cairo had some cases of sons succeeding fathers, but more often the Sultans adopted one of their generals, many of whom had been purchased as slaves or captured in battle, as their heir. It was replaced by the Burji dynasty who were also former slave soldiers but of Circassian extraction and were a similar mixture of sons and slaves of previous rulers.


I think North America never really had a "Bronze Age", but are there other cases where this mode of thinking doesn't work?

Stone/Bronze/Iron ages aren't used in the Americas at all by most professional archaeologists.



As for cavalry, not an expert, (duh), but my understanding is that there's not much of a difference between the kind of terrain heavy cavalry can handle and light cavalry can handle, so terrain would only really prevent heavy cavalry if it prevented all cavalry.

The kind of terrain a horseman can move on depends a lot on his skill and the breed and training of the horse as well as local knowledge/familiarity. So situations where light cavalry would be able to move through some areas that heavy cavalry could not are plausible but it would be more down to the specific light and heavy cavalry in question rather than being tied to simplified abstract battlefield roles that don't mean much.

There's also a big different between terrain that a cavalry unit could move through if they had to and what terrain they can actually fight from horseback in (also that not all cavalry actually did fight on horseback outside of exceptional circumstances).

Brother Oni
2015-11-05, 07:40 AM
The firearms of the day are muskets. Matchlocks are dominant, but flintlocks have been recently developed, and are starting to replace older weapons. Muskets are not as dominant a military weapon as they were on Earth, however. The main reasons are the lack of close order formations that can deliver a massed volley, the need to engage individual targets with relatively rapid fire, and very lengthy training times for soldiers that make learning a more time intensive weapon feasible. The military does use muskets frequently, as they are easy for non-archers to use and have good penetrative power if you are fighting a particularly tough monster or something, they just aren't the primary ranged weapon.

While lengthy training times are not an issue for raising a force, does it still apply once you're at war and need to replace casualties rapidly? I can foresee troop quality going rapidly downhill if conscription becomes necessary to maintain troops numbers.
It takes a lifetime to train a good longbowman, a day to train someone in a musket and that's not starting on the infrastructure or cultural emphasis required (when the English went to war, a mini geese genocide occurred to supply feathers for fletching, plus it was law that men had to practice every Sunday with a minimum distance required if you were over 18).

I also think you're overestimating the inaccuracy of muskets a bit - for a raw recruit who can barely march in a straight line, I'd agree with you that they're pretty much only useful in a massed volley at 50 yards (with maybe a 50% hit rate). Experienced musketeers were better with the same sort of accuracy at about 100 yards.

By the time you hit the 18th/19th Century, muskets had an effective range of ~175 yards (the Brown Bess for example), although they still maintained the same sort of accuracy before. Flintlock rifles like the Baker Rifle were significantly more accurate with an effective range of 200 yards with experienced riflemen often scoring kills beyond this - during the Napoleonic wars, Thomas Plunkett shot a French general then the general's aide de camp at a significant distance (reports vary from 250 yards to 600 yards).

Tobtor
2015-11-05, 07:43 AM
Though this kind of response is a little more interesting, particularly for world-building. What are the exceptional examples where technology doesn't obey standard ages, either by failing to spread or by appearing from an independent source? I think North America never really had a "Bronze Age", but are there other cases where this mode of thinking doesn't work?

1) Several areas of northern Europe (Northern Sweden, most of Norway, areas in Finland and Russia, introduced agriculture together with the bronze age, so they never really had a "neolithic" (if undersood as stone age with agriculture). (if a copper-age existed, Scandinavia was almost entirely left out).

2) Many hunter-gatheres affected by European explores (all over the world) and who was later colonised missed out on a lot of "periods", and whent straight to semi-modern.

3) The people at Globekli Tepe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe) seem to have misunderstood what time period they were in. What! late hunterer gatheres (earliest neolithic) with massive ritual buildings? Someone should have told them that they were 4-5,000 years to early. These people would be to the ancient Egyptians, what the ancient Egyptians is to us.

The nice stone-bronze-iron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-age_system)-later ages was invented by Europeans, and work well for central parts of the old world (and for most areas of Asia).

Carl
2015-11-05, 07:57 AM
Agreed - at 50m radius, that's enough to take out anyone on a football field, and any spectators in the lower seating bowl as well.

Hell if he thing has significant concussion effect a 10m radius is still enough to level most modern houses down to their foundations.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-05, 11:44 AM
Oni: Interestingly, some people I've known reckoned they could put rounds reliably within four inches on a target even past 100 yards, with a smooth-bore. It's possible that they didn't properly simulate the randomness of ball and powder. Of course, you do see some WW1 footage of soldiers standing firing at each other at less than 50 yards as if it were the Napoleonic era; yet few of them fall down for all those shots. So maybe most soldiers just have lousy aim.

Knaight
2015-11-05, 12:40 PM
Oni: Interestingly, some people I've known reckoned they could put rounds reliably within four inches on a target even past 100 yards, with a smooth-bore. It's possible that they didn't properly simulate the randomness of ball and powder. Of course, you do see some WW1 footage of soldiers standing firing at each other at less than 50 yards as if it were the Napoleonic era; yet few of them fall down for all those shots. So maybe most soldiers just have lousy aim.

If you've got a precisely loaded well maintained smoothbore using an extremely well fitted bullet made to perfectly fit it, they can be pretty accurate. Even before rifling, there were occasionally small groups of snipers using exactly that. In general though, the conditions were less than ideal. Plus, it's a lot easier to aim precisely when target shooting in a safe environment than it is when other people are shooting back.

Beleriphon
2015-11-05, 01:31 PM
By the time you hit the 18th/19th Century, muskets had an effective range of ~175 yards (the Brown Bess for example), although they still maintained the same sort of accuracy before. Flintlock rifles like the Baker Rifle were significantly more accurate with an effective range of 200 yards with experienced riflemen often scoring kills beyond this - during the Napoleonic wars, Thomas Plunkett shot a French general then the general's aide de camp at a significant distance (reports vary from 250 yards to 600 yards).

Then there's the fact that during the 3rd (4th?) Allied wars against Napoleon a British admiral Horatio Nelson was shot by a French sailor who was in the rigging. This all during a full blowing broadside barrage between the two vessels.

Gnoman
2015-11-05, 04:58 PM
That largely is what I'm thinking, just with infantry tactics that discourage close order marching or cavalry charges. Though I do anticipate some long range accuracy issues, as these are smoothbores. I imagine the mages can allieviate this, just like they can get balls to detonate reliably, but even then these guns are not 155s. I do think I should tone down the fuses a bit. How about they will reliably detonate at the specified range or time interval, but they can't sense whether enemy forces are present at the time of detonation?The scientists and mages always want better killing tools, the most recent being the flintlock, which is just now being adopted and will increase reliability and ease of use of firearms. In terms of trying to eliminate artillery, commanders try to use light infantry or mounted infantry to do this, for exactly the reason you describe. If you can slip someone close enough to the enemy guns to wreak havoc, you can attack in force and likely break through. Problem is, the enemy knows this full well.

Toning down the fuse would help a lot - what you've got here is a magical device that perfectly mimics the radar-fuzed "variable-time" shell from WWII, which was a greater game-changer than the jet engine or cruise missile. Accuracy doesn't make that much of a difference here, as most artillerymen could get even a culverin ball to come close enough to a given target to detonate, and any reasonable (as mentioned, the warhead you're discussing is also far too powerful) explosive payload is going to make it almost impossible to shoot without killing somebody.


Set it to a time delay and you have a shrapnel shell from the mid-to-late 19th century, which is far less disruptive because it becomes very difficult to get it to burst exactly where you want, because small differences in atmosphere make a (comparatively) huge difference to flight time, and the limitations of observation induce errors.

However, the difference between your artillery and your personal firearms is akin to putting up a Mig-21 or F-5 Tiger up against the Wright Flyer - even toning down the shell as suggested, you're putting late 19th century artillery up against early 17th century personal firearms, when the underlying technology is identical.

Brother Oni
2015-11-05, 05:03 PM
So maybe most soldiers just have lousy aim.

There's a couple of things regarding that - as Knaight said, a well maintained weapon with an experienced user could achieve good accuracy at comparatively long ranges, while a poorly fitting ball/irregular powder charge/panicking shooter could miss the broadside of a barn or fail to fire at all. I believe somebody mentioned muskets recovered from an American battlefield (Gettysburg?) had as many as 5 cartridges and balls rammed inside, indicating that the weapon failed to fire then the user reloaded anyway.

There's also the psychology of killing where generally, soldiers had to be mentally taught to kill another person and not fire harmlessly in the air. The book 'On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society' by Lt Col Grossman goes into this in quite some detail, although I remember somebody questioning the colonel's qualifications on the subject, citing the fact that Grossman had apparently never been in active combat judging from the medals he was awarded (I want to say Mike G or Galloglaich, but my memory's a bit fuzzy).
Nevertheless becoming desensitised to killing another living thing is an important step to killing effectively - I believe it was found during one of the world wars that conscripted farm labourers were much quicker at overcoming this mental block, presumably since killing things formed part of their regular pre-military life.

Carl
2015-11-05, 06:17 PM
Accuracy doesn't make that much of a difference here, as most artillerymen could get even a culverin ball to come close enough to a given target to detonate

Not with a reasonable warhead they couldn't.

And again the fuse is a non-issue because either you've got a warhead that can mass decimate skirmishers or you haven't. Anything else with an accurate timed fuse is going to see very little difference from a proximity fuse. You actually have to drop back to the very poor timed fuses of the actual smoothbore muzzle loading cannon era to make the difference mean anything.

Mike_G
2015-11-05, 06:28 PM
Accuracy is tough to judge.

We can shoot muskets on the range and get decent accuracy. But this means taking your time to load, using properly sized balls and taking time to aim and fire.

In practice, many soldiers will fumble loading, forget to prime the weapon, drop the cartridge, and if they do get the thing loaded, they will snatch at the trigger in panic and jerk the weapon.

Remember, people are trying to kill them, and while every instinct is screaming for them to run or lie down and take cover, they have to perform a complex series of (in ACW drill) nine distinct moves.

Shooting on a range at a piece of paper at a known distance that isn't trying to kill you, while none of your friends are screaming as they die from a belly wound, and no shells scream over your head, and your bloodstream isn't about half adrenaline is easy.

Hitting a target in the stress of battle involves mentally shutting out all the horror and focusing on a simple, mundane task. Until you've done very precise things under stress you just can't understand.

The only way to get real combat results would be if we screamed in your ear and threw rocks at you while you tried to do musketry drill.

Watch the scene from Glory where Matthew Broderick's character makes the recruit do musketry drill under stress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90x6kAcVP54

Gnoman
2015-11-05, 07:14 PM
And again the fuse is a non-issue because either you've got a warhead that can mass decimate skirmishers or you haven't. Anything else with an accurate timed fuse is going to see very little difference from a proximity fuse. You actually have to drop back to the very poor timed fuses of the actual smoothbore muzzle loading cannon era to make the difference mean anything.

If that is the case, why does every single source state that reliable airbursts were nearly impossible before the VT fuze, that this is why the most common shell being fired before that was impact-fused despite it being exponentially worse, and why Allied generals considered the fuse "a revolution in land warfare".

Broken Crown
2015-11-05, 08:14 PM
Then there's the fact that during the 3rd (4th?) Allied wars against Napoleon a British admiral Horatio Nelson was shot by a French sailor who was in the rigging. This all during a full blowing broadside barrage between the two vessels.

Of course, there were several snipers in the French ship-of-the-line Redoutable's fighting tops, and Nelson's flagship Victory grappled with Redoutable at about 1:00 PM, after which the range to Victory's quarterdeck was well under 100 yards. Lord Nelson was finally hit at 1:15, after the French snipers had been trying to shoot him for at least 15 minutes. (Nelson was a conspicuous target: He always wore all his awards and decorations in battle.)

Carl
2015-11-05, 08:30 PM
If that is the case, why does every single source state that reliable airbursts were nearly impossible before the VT fuze, that this is why the most common shell being fired before that was impact-fused despite it being exponentially worse, and why Allied generals considered the fuse "a revolution in land warfare".

Because by the time fusing had gotten accurate enough, (as in the value could be set precisely enough and the variance from that was low enough), and shell kill radiuses were large enough to make it work the way fire from artillery was conducted had changed drastically.


There are 5 things that need to align for an airburst to do it's job:

1. The range to target needs to be accurately known to within a certain variance value. A bad value means the fuse is set wrong and the shell detonates early or late.

2. The accuracy of the gun. An inaccurate gun can result in the shell flying wide, high, or low resulting in the shell detonation so far to the sides or above the target, (or blowing into the ground short), that the blast is wasted.

3. The variance in muzzle velocity from shot to shot. Again too big a variance and the shot will detonate long or short.

4. The variance in the fusing, if the fuse is off by too many fractions of a second, the shell will detonate early or late.

5. The danger radius. The bigger this is the more off the sell can be.


Technology of the era could get a decent handle on 1 and 3, and use of massed fiore tactics could deal adequately with 2. Indeed the relatively short range low arc trajectories of the era make 2 and 3 much less relevant as they induce much smaller changes in travel time for any given error.

Where the technology of the era fell short was on 4 and 5. Danger radii where so poor shells had to be place very precisely. perhaps more so tan even the era's ability to deal with 1 and 3 allowed for, but more importantly the fusing of the era was nowhere near even remotely in the same ball park as what was required.

By the time IRL got a handle on points 4 and 5 artillery firing ranges and degree of trajectory arc had increased to the point where point 1-3 had become insoluble for various reasons, (the longer the travel time the greater an effect accuracy has on travel time, and the more effect on trajectory muzzle velocity has, and measuring ranges accurately over those greater distances was much harder). But the use of smoothbores restricts rnage and thus trajectory arc much more.


What Florian is suggesting here is a fuse accurate enough that it eliminates one aspect of the issue, and a danger radii good enough it eliminates the other. The technology of the era in the kind of engagement smoothbore artillery is at all useful in at the ranges it's useful at can determine range, and control muzzle velocity well enough that the limitation on effective airbursts is danger radii and fuze accuracy.


At any given range for a known travel time to that range at any given muzzle velocity and for a given danger radius with a relatively uncurved trajectory the maximum deviations can be expressed thus:

Maximum allowable range measurement accuracy is equal to the danger radii.

Maximum allowable muzzle velocity variance is equal to danger radii divided by flight time.

Maximum allowable fuse variation is equal to danger radii divided by muzzle velocity.

Broken Crown
2015-11-05, 09:47 PM
My biggest question about this scenario is actually about transportation.

Moving cannons is a nightmare without some form of motorized transport. This is especially true if the terrain is anything but flat and level. If the standard battlefield scenario involves massed artillery fire in mountainous terrain, mobility will be essentially non-existent. Presumably, Vendalia and similar countries would establish impregnable fortresses to guard their mountain passes, Maginot Line style.

I expect, given the rugged, forested terrain, that an important aspect of warfare would be infiltration for the purposes of cutting off the supply lines of fortresses so that they couldn't sustain an artillery barrage. Otherwise, I imagine that a direct assault would result in huge numbers of casualties, and gains measured in yards rather than miles.

fusilier
2015-11-06, 12:53 AM
My biggest question about this scenario is actually about transportation.

Moving cannons is a nightmare without some form of motorized transport. This is especially true if the terrain is anything but flat and level. If the standard battlefield scenario involves massed artillery fire in mountainous terrain, mobility will be essentially non-existent. Presumably, Vendalia and similar countries would establish impregnable fortresses to guard their mountain passes, Maginot Line style.

I expect, given the rugged, forested terrain, that an important aspect of warfare would be infiltration for the purposes of cutting off the supply lines of fortresses so that they couldn't sustain an artillery barrage. Otherwise, I imagine that a direct assault would result in huge numbers of casualties, and gains measured in yards rather than miles.

Historically, artillery was moved around with horses, mules, and oxen (and sometimes people). In very mountainous terrain, the load could be broken up to make it easier to move. Later mountain guns/howitzers were specifically designed to be broken down and loaded onto mules. I think the mountain divisions still do this, as there are places where it's just too hard to get motorized transport into. During WW1, the Italians and Austrians were forced to carry some cannons into position on foot, because even mules couldn't make it to where they were trying to get (I can't find the video of that at the moment but I've seen it).

During the Renaissance, artillery was generally pretty static once it was on the battlefield, although there were times when quite heavy guns were repositioned tactically, the main artillery kind of opened the battle, before the rest of the forces joined.

fusilier
2015-11-06, 01:00 AM
Accuracy is tough to judge.

We can shoot muskets on the range and get decent accuracy. But this means taking your time to load, using properly sized balls and taking time to aim and fire.

In practice, many soldiers will fumble loading, forget to prime the weapon, drop the cartridge, and if they do get the thing loaded, they will snatch at the trigger in panic and jerk the weapon.

There are claims that the first volley was usually the best (some wargames simulate this) as the soldiers had been able to load that shot in safety and calm.

However, there's also evidence that the accuracy of modern weaponry deteriorates greatly off of the firing range too. A somewhat humorous anecdote by Emilio Lussu (Un anno sull'altipiano) of his battalion attempting to shoot a single deserter who was crossing no-mans land, caused him to comment that he noticed that when excited the soldiers tended to shoot with both eyes open, and not take careful aim as they were trained. It was, admittedly, a pretty bizarre incident.

Thiel
2015-11-06, 02:45 AM
There are claims that the first volley was usually the best (some wargames simulate this) as the soldiers had been able to load that shot in safety and calm.

However, there's also evidence that the accuracy of modern weaponry deteriorates greatly off of the firing range too. A somewhat humorous anecdote by Emilio Lussu (Un anno sull'altipiano) of his battalion attempting to shoot a single deserter who was crossing no-mans land, caused him to comment that he noticed that when excited the soldiers tended to shoot with both eyes open, and not take careful aim as they were trained. It was, admittedly, a pretty bizarre incident.
Modern weapons only makes the loading easier. The stress is still there to affect your aim. Plus you're shooting at a moving target that might be hard to see.

Brother Oni
2015-11-06, 03:36 AM
Historically, artillery was moved around with horses, mules, and oxen (and sometimes people).

Moving field guns into position over difficult ground with people is more common than you think and it's a tradition that's still upheld (although not for combat purposes): field gun competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun_competition) (video of a competition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK86PzUVO8Q)).

There's the issue of getting the ammunition up to the artillery pieces - the Poles used a bear during WW2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(bear)).

Mike_G
2015-11-06, 07:56 AM
There are claims that the first volley was usually the best (some wargames simulate this) as the soldiers had been able to load that shot in safety and calm.

However, there's also evidence that the accuracy of modern weaponry deteriorates greatly off of the firing range too. A somewhat humorous anecdote by Emilio Lussu (Un anno sull'altipiano) of his battalion attempting to shoot a single deserter who was crossing no-mans land, caused him to comment that he noticed that when excited the soldiers tended to shoot with both eyes open, and not take careful aim as they were trained. It was, admittedly, a pretty bizarre incident.

And this is precisely why I lose patience with people who take range accuracy and try to extrapolate to find battlefield accuracy. Like that idiot who says only one man in ten tried to shoot the enemy, because in drill at 50 yards, 75% of shots hit a six foot tall sheet of paper, and when the results in combat were so much worse, concluded it was because men didn't want to fire.

Modern rifles are much better than muskets, but aiming is still a skill that requires precision and a steady hand, which are hard when you are under a lot of stress.

On the range, with nobody trying to kill me, I can reliably hit a man sized silhouette target at 500 yards, using a standard M16 with iron sights, no advanced optics. But that is training, with a stable prone position, a support sling, and all the time in the world to aim and shoot. Those results cannot be extrapolated to the battlefield. If they did translate, then no Marine would ever miss a shot under 200 yards.

They do tell us about the theoretical capabilities of the weapon, but not the practical effectiveness of it.

fusilier
2015-11-06, 12:58 PM
Moving field guns into position over difficult ground with people is more common than you think and it's a tradition that's still upheld (although not for combat purposes): field gun competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun_competition) (video of a competition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK86PzUVO8Q)).

There's the issue of getting the ammunition up to the artillery pieces - the Poles used a bear during WW2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(bear)).

If the cannon only needed to be moved a relatively short distance, manhandling it into position was certainly common, especially if they were maneuvering it into or through unusual terrain (like a swamp). However, sometimes, they were moved strategically by people hauling them along roads and trails -- I imagine this was typically done because of a shortage of animals to haul them.

That's cool about the bear. :-)

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-06, 01:17 PM
During the Renaissance, artillery was generally pretty static once it was on the battlefield, although there were times when quite heavy guns were repositioned tactically, the main artillery kind of opened the battle, before the rest of the forces joined.

I've always found this kind of odd, but indeed. Horse artillery, which actively skirmishes by riding out, setting up their cannons, firing them and retreating again, was rarely used until the late 18th century or so (although there are examples known from the early 17th century). I guess metalworking progress made the cannons lighter compared to the punch they packed.


(also that not all cavalry actually did fight on horseback outside of exceptional circumstances).

Some sources make the distinction between cavalry and mounted infantry for that. It's just kind of hard to see from pictures which one you're dealing with, and either kind of unit could usually switch to the other way of fighting if that was advantageous in whatever situation they were in.

Galloglaich
2015-11-06, 01:41 PM
I may be missing something, but artillery shooting non-explosive (i.e. solid) shot was already very effective, in fact critical at destroying concentrations of troops in the open field as early as the mid 1300's and was in routine use after the Hussite Wars in the 1420's. Those guns were mobile (carried on wagons and towed behind horses) even back then. Larger field guns were established on a fairly widespread basis in the 17th Century, some people credit the "invention" to Gustavus Adolphus but he really just did some reorganizing on this basis. I think he also was one of the first to start systematically using shot like grapeshot. Guns of this type (with mostly solid shot) remained extremely critical in destroying both cavalry and infantry columns in the Napoleonic Wars (IIRC Wellingtons big innovation was to position on the reverse slopes of hills just like you would do to hide from tanks in WWII) and remained important in the US Civil War and Franco Prussian Wars even though mortar and artillery shells were coming online then.

Explosive shells also go way back, they just weren't really reliable enough due to the fuzes to be really safe to use. But grenade launchers (called hand mortars) go back to the 16th Century.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Early_Modern_Grenade_Rifles%2C_Bayerisches_Nationa lmuseum%2C_M%C3%BCnchen._Pic_01.jpg/330px-Early_Modern_Grenade_Rifles%2C_Bayerisches_Nationa lmuseum%2C_M%C3%BCnchen._Pic_01.jpg


As for using a sword as a personal defense weapon, I would actually disagree with the dismissal. In the real world, a big knife is a fairly strong statement even when people have guns. Knives are dangerous. Even when the other people have guns. Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/v/watch?v=DNOP3X9OyzM

Pistols can easily kill you with one shot but are not all that reliable at guaranteeing you are killed or mortally wounded even with multiple shots. You may die later of course, but that is cold comfort for the person who shot you if you planted an 8" bayonet in their chest.

https://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/mexico/2002/0713groups_protest08.jpg

In much of the world today, including places in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, machete's are prominent weapons in areas of what you might call urban conflict. Even when a lot of different firearms are around. They are also commonly used in riots and gang activity.


A sword can vary enormously in quality. The skill of a wielder even more so. But a top end sword can cause horrific wounds worse (and more decisive) than what you would often see from a pistol, especially in the hands of a skilled swordsman. You could cut off arms and legs and big chunks of bodies very, very quickly and easily if you know what you are doing and have a good katana or say, a high end Albion sword designed for cutting.


Of course none of this would help you at all as an individual defensively against someone armed with a pistol or a shotgun except as a possible deterrant. But I might imagine that if you had some good, high quality (relatively) light body armor with a layer of really efficient trauma absorption material like say, 3do, you would probably be pretty damn dangerous to mess with.


Even with my pistol, if I had made this guy really angry (like one of the people in that video I linked) I would stay far away. That sword can take my arm off like nothing if he knows what he is doing (and that particular guy does, I'm pretty sure)

http://m6.i.pbase.com/o9/64/521964/1/153776186.52dHcylc.Principe002.JPG

G

Broken Crown
2015-11-06, 02:10 PM
Historically, artillery was moved around with horses, mules, and oxen (and sometimes people). In very mountainous terrain, the load could be broken up to make it easier to move. Later mountain guns/howitzers were specifically designed to be broken down and loaded onto mules. I think the mountain divisions still do this, as there are places where it's just too hard to get motorized transport into. During WW1, the Italians and Austrians were forced to carry some cannons into position on foot, because even mules couldn't make it to where they were trying to get (I can't find the video of that at the moment but I've seen it).

During the Renaissance, artillery was generally pretty static once it was on the battlefield, although there were times when quite heavy guns were repositioned tactically, the main artillery kind of opened the battle, before the rest of the forces joined.

This was essentially my point: Artillery can be moved, but without motorized transport it has low strategic mobility and almost no tactical mobility (especially if the guns are big enough to fire the sort of powerful explosive shells that are being discussed). Your guns need to be in place before the battle begins to be much use.

Thus, the defender gets a huge advantage in this situation, as the attacker would need to set up his guns while under fire from the defender's massed artillery, which is presumably already in place in a favourable and fortified position. The only way I can see this not being a problem is if the attackers' guns outrange the defenders' by a significant amount.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-06, 03:04 PM
as the attacker would need to set up his guns while under fire from the defender's massed artillery, which is presumably already in place in a favourable and fortified position. The only way I can see this not being a problem is if the attackers' guns outrange the defenders' by a significant amount.

The easier solution is to not set up your guns within the range of the enemies artillery. It's not a historically often successful tactic. You use your artillery to pound their infantry, so that their infantry will be out of the way when your cavalry attacks their artillery. Combinations like that, but much less simplified.

Milodiah
2015-11-06, 03:12 PM
Ok, so I have an interesting situation here...our GM is dropping the party into a bit of a Stargate-style situation in which we'll be stuck in some alternate dimension with no support. My character is a surgeon, and I've been informed that I'll be stuck with what I can carry in a parachute insertion.

Most of the stuff you see in terms of field surgery are based on the assumption that an hour from now the person will be in real surgery...but here that's not the case. I'll also add that this character is not a military corpsman or anything else, he is a trauma surgeon from an urban hospital who has been selected for whatever reason (playercharactritis and such), but I am apparently being equipped by the military.

So, what would I be dropped in with given that I have only enough space for a backpack and some satchels, but at the same time have both the training and the need to do stuff far more advanced than the average combat medic is expected to do?

I have a full write-up for the basic corpsman's trauma kit, as well as a minor surgery kit, but I lack anything like IV drip, blood/plasma/saline-glucose, etc.

...anyone?

Mike_G
2015-11-06, 03:45 PM
...anyone?

OK, here's the big question: Do you need to stay mobile, or can you set up a field hospital?

Saline for infusion can be mixed on site. You have a sterile bag with salt in it (or glucose or whatever your choice of electrolytes is) you boil some water or distill it then add it to the bag.

Water is the heavy part of the equation. A liter or normal saline has a whopping 9 grams of NaCl in it, which weighs--well, 9 grams. The water weighs a kilogram.

The thing is, if you can't set up a field hospital, there's no point in doing major surgery, since you won't have a place to recover. The world's greatest surgeon can't fix up a guy so well from a major trauma that he will be able to walk out of the field.

I've been a Marine and a paramedic, so I've seen a lot of field medicine. The thing is, you are trying to stabilize immediate life threats and then get the patient to definitive care. You can't carry definitive care in a backpack.

You can stop the bleeding, insert a chest tube to reinflate a lung, give the initial does of antibiotics, splint bones, or give medicine to reverse life threatening allergic reactions, but even the ER expects to send the patient up to the OR or the ICU.

Emergency medicine is usually just the first step in the chain of survival.

Galloglaich
2015-11-06, 04:01 PM
OK, here's the big question: Do you need to stay mobile, or can you set up a field hospital?

Saline for infusion can be mixed on site. You have a sterile bag with salt in it (or glucose or whatever your choice of electrolytes is) you boil some water or distill it then add it to the bag.

Water is the heavy part of the equation. A liter or normal saline has a whopping 9 grams of NaCl in it, which weighs--well, 9 grams. The water weighs a kilogram.

The thing is, if you can't set up a field hospital, there's no point in doing major surgery, since you won't have a place to recover. The world's greatest surgeon can't fix up a guy so well from a major trauma that he will be able to walk out of the field.

I've been a Marine and a paramedic, so I've seen a lot of field medicine. The thing is, you are trying to stabilize immediate life threats and then get the patient to definitive care. You can't carry definitive care in a backpack.

You can stop the bleeding, insert a chest tube to reinflate a lung, give the initial does of antibiotics, splint bones, or give medicine to reverse life threatening allergic reactions, but even the ER expects to send the patient up to the OR or the ICU.

Emergency medicine is usually just the first step in the chain of survival.

Former army medic here. Agree 100% with everything Mike said. The most futuristic thing I ever saw was using superglue to seal up bad wounds. That and some burn creme that seems to heal all kinds of skin trauma very quickly (by which I mean days rather than weeks)

You can treat people for shock, reduce the risk of infection, stop bleeding, make a lot of wounds on the limbs stable in the field, at least temporarily, with the right kind of bandages, splints, casts, or even something like a tourniquet (very temporary). They can even get around, depending on the specific wound and they might heal -or they might not. Foreign matter deep in the wound, or say a ruptured artery or a shattered bone can mean rapid decline. Significant wounds to the body or the head (like gunshot or shrapnel wounds) have to be evacuated. As mike mentioned you can temporarily re-inflate a lung, but anything that punctures the chest / abdominal cavity is basically going to require surgery in the long run. Even with antiobiotics, plasma, IV, it will only help for so long. Ruptured intestines or liver, spleen, pancreas etc. means you need to be in the hospital real quick or prepare to enter the next world.

G

snowblizz
2015-11-06, 04:02 PM
I've always found this kind of odd, but indeed. Horse artillery, which actively skirmishes by riding out, setting up their cannons, firing them and retreating again, was rarely used until the late 18th century or so (although there are examples known from the early 17th century). I guess metalworking progress made the cannons lighter compared to the punch they packed.
Making strong and light cannons, and strong and light carriages took a while. Also you don't want to spend a long time under fire reloading, so even if you can quickly position you still have to load/reload.
Interestingly the Swedes were again at the forefront of horse-artillery inventing loads of pre-made ammunition types (basically cartridges* for the artillery) and a harness/carriage/combo which allowed the gun to face the way it was going when moving meaning you didn't need to unhitch and turn it around. I'm not gonna say they might even have been able to fire while hitched up. It was a significant improvement for horse artillery though.
*if the term is used correctly

One of the major contributions of Sweden under Karl XIV Johan (ex-marshal Bernadotte) against Napoleon was the Swedish artillery, especially horse-artillery, participating in IIRC the battle of Leipzig. I'm winging it a bit but IIRC they were so fast and put so much firepower they stopped some French assaults dead, because they seemed to be a force many times their size. It's something I feel like I've read somewhere, but I'm not a 100%.


Larger field guns were established on a fairly widespread basis in the 17th Century, some people credit the "invention" to Gustavus Adolphus but he really just did some reorganizing on this basis. I think he also was one of the first to start systematically using shot like grapeshot. Don't think anyone seriously claims that. It's the light "infantry gun" that he's credited for.

What the Swedes did was to take the concept of firepower further than anyone else at the time. And they did it systematically and strategically. Regimental cannons for units, commanded musketeers (with cannon too) to beef up the cavalry line. They cut down the number of calibres used in the field to just the 3, 12 and 24 pounders, the latter being an adequate siege weapon too. Unlike others they could afford the luxury of creating and systematically deploying cannon types in a considered way. A period of peace and their metallurgical industry naturally helped.
They may not have been the inventors of the light gun concept, but they were the ones that saw where it was going, and made it a reality and an integral part of the formations on an army scale. And working towards it with purpose, like the lighter gun weights that made regimental cannons as portable as the infantry they supported. And lighter cannons also means you can have more of them.

Carl
2015-11-06, 04:23 PM
@Milodiah: I probably should have stepped in and said something like that but i kept expecting the wiser heads to step. Advances have done a lot to increase what medics can do, (i remember reading about a local ambulance trialing a new spray on antibiotic/antiseptic coagulant that was letting them do away with pressure bandages for example), but at the end of the day all they're doing is making sure they'll live to see proper treatment, (that needs trucks full of equipment, several trained professionals, and a secure area where troops can spends week to years recuperating). One thing you see a lot in fiction that to my understanding doesn't happen IRL is digging bullets out of the wound. Unless they need to get into the wound to do emergency trauma medicine, (severed artery or that kind of thing), they leave the stuff in till they reach the field hospital. I remember reading a newspaper piece about a british army soldier who was sent to the field hospital with an unexploded RPG still in him.

Galloglaich
2015-11-06, 04:33 PM
Making strong and light cannons, and strong and light carriages took a while. Also you don't want to spend a long time under fire reloading, so even if you can quickly position you still have to load/reload.
Interestingly the Swedes were again at the forefront of horse-artillery inventing loads of pre-made ammunition types (basically cartridges* for the artillery) and a harness/carriage/combo which allowed the gun to face the way it was going when moving meaning you didn't need to unhitch and turn it around. I'm not gonna say they might even have been able to fire while hitched up. It was a significant improvement for horse artillery though.
*if the term is used correctly

One of the major contributions of Sweden under Karl XIV Johan (ex-marshal Bernadotte) against Napoleon was the Swedish artillery, especially horse-artillery, participating in IIRC the battle of Leipzig. I'm winging it a bit but IIRC they were so fast and put so much firepower they stopped some French assaults dead, because they seemed to be a force many times their size. It's something I feel like I've read somewhere, but I'm not a 100%.

Don't think anyone seriously claims that. It's the light "infantry gun" that he's credited for.

What the Swedes did was to take the concept of firepower further than anyone else at the time. And they did it systematically and strategically. Regimental cannons for units, commanded musketeers (with cannon too) to beef up the cavalry line. They cut down the number of calibres used in the field to just the 3, 12 and 24 pounders, the latter being an adequate siege weapon too. Unlike others they could afford the luxury of creating and systematically deploying cannon types in a considered way. A period of peace and their metallurgical industry naturally helped.
They may not have been the inventors of the light gun concept, but they were the ones that saw where it was going, and made it a reality and an integral part of the formations on an army scale. And working towards it with purpose, like the lighter gun weights that made regimental cannons as portable as the infantry they supported. And lighter cannons also means you can have more of them.

Sure, but without going out and finding all the images to post, you have the Hussites doing all this in the 1420's on a fairly large scale, both field guns on wheeled carriages (often breach loading field guns, incidentally) as well as smaller guns on wagons, both cannon and multi-barrel weapons. By the mid 15th Century it seems to have been widespread. You see the systematic deployment of different caliber field guns on wheeled carriages, boats, and wagons all over the place in the Swiss illustrated chronicles from the 1460's-1470's and you also incidentally see very systematic organization of what looks like cartridges for the guns, of different sizes carefully arranged in boxes etc.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/44/f8/c7/44f8c71cdfd8631a9ca4adaa47ac4b60.jpg
For example these specific types of wheel-mounted field guns were called 'feldschlange' something like field serpent, and they were usually of a specific (medium) caliber and often breach loaders. They were used both as field weapons and on ships.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/humble_1483.JPG
This is unfortunately a lower res image but if you look closely you'll see small guns on the wagons (breach loading and pintle mounted, in most cases) and larger 'feldschlanges' next to them, used in the field rather than the siege as in the first time, and once again you can see the pre-measured 'cartridges' in white bags neatly arranged in boxes.



I think all Gustavus Adolphus really did was do these kinds of things with a different type of army, based on less skilled (and expensive) labor than the most effective militaries had in the medieval era. But that did have enormous importance because it meant conscripts and the near equivalent could be used to bulk up armies and quickly trained and integrated into existing armies, and they were cheaper to deploy and therefore could be much bigger.

G

Galloglaich
2015-11-06, 04:34 PM
And also much easier to control for a sovereign like Karl Gustav.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-06, 04:45 PM
One thing you see a lot in fiction that to my understanding doesn't happen IRL is digging bullets out of the wound. Unless they need to get into the wound to do emergency trauma medicine, (severed artery or that kind of thing), they leave the stuff in till they reach the field hospital. I remember reading a newspaper piece about a british army soldier who was sent to the field hospital with an unexploded RPG still in him.

Even "real" hospitals often leave them in these days. The bullet has been all but sterilized by the heat from the air friction, and anything that was still alive on it has rubbed off one one piece of meat or another. So there's really no good immediate reason to remove the bullet. (In fact, historically a lot of people have died from infection after getting shot, but the infection generally stemmed from their own shirts. The smart money was on stripping naked before a duel. This would also help convince the other guy that you were mad and he didn't want to fight you after all.) The projectile is now somewhere deep inside the body, at the end of its path, and a surgeon can cause a lot of bleeding by going after it.

Sure, for long term complications it might be nice not to have your body inflammate around a foreign object semi-constantly, but that's something you can always fix with going back in when the patient is not already bleeding to death.

Mike_G
2015-11-06, 05:06 PM
Even "real" hospitals often leave them in these days. The bullet has been all but sterilized by the heat from the air friction, and anything that was still alive on it has rubbed off one one piece of meat or another. So there's really no good immediate reason to remove the bullet. (In fact, historically a lot of people have died from infection after getting shot, but the infection generally stemmed from their own shirts. The smart money was on stripping naked before a duel. This would also help convince the other guy that you were mad and he didn't want to fight you after all.) The projectile is now somewhere deep inside the body, at the end of its path, and a surgeon can cause a lot of bleeding by going after it.

Sure, for long term complications it might be nice not to have your body inflammate around a foreign object semi-constantly, but that's something you can always fix with going back in when the patient is not already bleeding to death.

I had a teacher back when I was young who had fought in WWII. He still had a fragment of a Japanese bullet under his skin, and some grenade fragments. Every so often a piece would work it's way to the surface, and he'd literally pick out forty year old grenade fragments.

Plenty of people have a bullet left behind of it was too close to a major artery for safe removal.

I have heard of field surgeons opening up an incision,to expose a severed artery and clamping it.

Current thoughts on tourniquets are that you can leave them on for quite some time without tissue necrosis. I know that's not what they taught us back in the 80s when G and I were active duty, but on my current civilian medic job, we just got new protocols based studies from the military and now the acceptable tourniquet time in in hours.

The best tourniquet, BTW, is a blood pressure cuff. Inflate it until the bleeding stops. It's nice a wide, so it doesn't cut into the flesh, and you can adjust the tightness, and after you stop the initial bleeding, you apply a pressure bandage, then in an hour, you let some of the pressure out and see if it's still bleeding. You can perfuse the limb and preserve function without completely releasing the tourniquet.

Galloglaich
2015-11-06, 05:09 PM
The best tourniquet, BTW, is a blood pressure cuff. Inflate it until the bleeding stops. It's nice a wide, so it doesn't cut into the flesh, and you can adjust the tightness, and after you stop the initial bleeding, you apply a pressure bandage, then in an hour, you let some of the pressure out and see if it's still bleeding. You can perfuse the limb and preserve function without completely releasing the tourniquet.

Yes indeed!

Carl
2015-11-06, 05:34 PM
The best tourniquet, BTW, is a blood pressure cuff. Inflate it until the bleeding stops. It's nice a wide, so it doesn't cut into the flesh, and you can adjust the tightness, and after you stop the initial bleeding, you apply a pressure bandage, then in an hour, you let some of the pressure out and see if it's still bleeding. You can perfuse the limb and preserve function without completely releasing the tourniquet.

That's actually the sort of stuff the spray on stuff i mentioned was designed to replace. (The ambulance crew in the article where raving about it). But they'd heard about it through someone in the military who themselves had just started trialing it so i've no idea how the trials turned out long term. Cost might have been an issue.

Mike_G
2015-11-06, 05:52 PM
That's actually the sort of stuff the spray on stuff i mentioned was designed to replace. (The ambulance crew in the article where raving about it). But they'd heard about it through someone in the military who themselves had just started trialing it so i've no idea how the trials turned out long term. Cost might have been an issue.

The military has had QuickClot for a while now. It was powder last I knew, but it was a coagulant applied to a wound. That sounds simlar to what you're talking about. We don't have it on civilian ambulances in general, although some services may have gotten special project waivers to try it.

There is a new product that is a syringe full of little sponges that you inject into a wound. It was designed for gunshot wounds.

Honestly, a tampon actually works pretty well, which makes sense when you think about it.

One of the few benefits of active combat is that the military does tend to make some discoveries about medicine, particularly emergency and trauma, that wind up making their way into civilian medicine.

Carl
2015-11-06, 06:36 PM
The military has had QuickClot for a while now. It was powder last I knew, but it was a coagulant applied to a wound. That sounds similar to what you're talking about. We don't have it on civilian ambulances in general, although some services may have gotten special project waivers to try it.

The article wasn't detailed, it was one of those super short ones. All i know is they were raving about it because it was a simple can of stuff that they sprayed on and it clotted, covered, sealed, and disinfected the wound all in one go and removed the need for any kind of tourniquet, or bandage, (they said they put dressings over to protect it), and was easy to remove once they got them to a hospital to access the wound for more advanced care. Technically it didn't even need a dressing over it, though they used one to protect the covering anyway apparently. But the ability to completely disinfect and seal a major wound in less than 30 seconds, (semi quoting there, can't remember exact wording but that was the facts of the description), was something they really loved. Not to mention the whole experience was apparently much less unpleasant for the patient.

Sounds like it might be a spray on liquid, (possibly an emulsion or suspension), containing that quikclot stuff plus presumably an anti-bacterial/viral agent and some kind of setting compound to form a covering.


Mentioning it mostly because it's exactly the sort of thing Milodiah would probably want to cart along. I doubt from what was said it would deal with a severed artery, but anything less, handy to have when you can't cart around spare blood.

snowblizz
2015-11-06, 07:49 PM
Sure, but without going out and finding all the images to post, you have the Hussites doing all this in the 1420's on a fairly large scale, both field guns on wheeled carriages (often breach loading field guns, incidentally) as well as smaller guns on wagons, both cannon and multi-barrel weapons. By the mid 15th Century it seems to have been widespread. You see the systematic deployment of different caliber field guns on wheeled carriages, boats, and wagons all over the place in the Swiss illustrated chronicles from the 1460's-1470's and you also incidentally see very systematic organization of what looks like cartridges for the guns, of different sizes carefully arranged in boxes etc.

I think all Gustavus Adolphus really did was do these kinds of things with a different type of army, based on less skilled (and expensive) labor than the most effective militaries had in the medieval era. But that did have enormous importance because it meant conscripts and the near equivalent could be used to bulk up armies and quickly trained and integrated into existing armies, and they were cheaper to deploy and therefore could be much bigger.

G

Contemporaries themselves were apparently impressed enough with the idea to make note of it. Charles the V (HRE) reduced the number of calibres carried to 7(!). That doesn't sound like someone who has been using a small standardized artillery park for two centuries. In 1609 the Spanish reduced their number down to 4 ("It is truly remarkable to have reduce all our guns to these four calibres") on the advice of Diego Uffano, to 48, 24, 12 and 6 pounders.
Clearly the contemporaries considered that they were hampered by their large number of different calibres and required shot and stuff even into the 1600s and regarded the standardisation of calibres a feat in of itself.
G2A did not invent it as such, but seems to have been the one to put it together. AFAICT contemporaries agreed with the idea that what was done was in some respects new. The 3 pounder regimental from the accounts seems to be a new innovation. Not in it's size or anything, but in the combination of factors, the ability to manufacture a stronger lighter cannon, using less of a charge, deploying this cannon directly with the infantry and having it move with them as an integral part of the formation. Because in the form it comes into being in the 1600s persists into the 1800s or there abouts.
Napoleon is credited with the idea for Grand Batteries, but surely having batteries wasn't new either. But this specific instance of artillery use seems to have been considered innovative. Worked for a time too.

In the 1600s they seemed to have considered regimental guns that could keep up with advancing infantry new. Or they had no clue what so ever about the time they lived in and wrote about?

Brother Oni
2015-11-06, 11:43 PM
Sounds like it might be a spray on liquid, (possibly an emulsion or suspension), containing that quikclot stuff plus presumably an anti-bacterial/viral agent and some kind of setting compound to form a covering.


There are a couple of these products either on the market or in clinical trials. One I know of (Fibrocaps (http://www.profibrix.com/fibrocaps/overview/)) is a spray on powder which causes coagulation and clotting. It's a little more advanced than Quikclot (it has thrombin and fibrinogen which are natural components of the clotting process as opposed to kaolin (essentially clay dust), which sets and provides a stable surface for the clotting to begin), so it's still in clinical trials last I heard.

They're also developing alternate dosing forms for different applications, for example a spray on powder isn't as effective as an impregnated gelatin sponge inserted into an incision, but it's a lot easier to use in the field.

MrZJunior
2015-11-07, 12:50 AM
Does anyone know much about warfare in early modern South East Asia, the Malay Sultanates to be specific? I am mulling over a setting based in part on them and I would like to know more.

I can't imagine that they fought many large scale battles, the geography doesn't seem suited to them. I would expect it would be mostly small raids by ships and piracy.

What did naval warfare look like during this time period? Did people wear armor? How common were cannons?

Storm Bringer
2015-11-07, 04:37 AM
The military has had QuickClot for a while now. It was powder last I knew, but it was a coagulant applied to a wound. That sounds simlar to what you're talking about. We don't have it on civilian ambulances in general, although some services may have gotten special project waivers to try it.

There is a new product that is a syringe full of little sponges that you inject into a wound. It was designed for gunshot wounds.

Honestly, a tampon actually works pretty well, which makes sense when you think about it.

One of the few benefits of active combat is that the military does tend to make some discoveries about medicine, particularly emergency and trauma, that wind up making their way into civilian medicine.

speaking as a serving (U.K.) soldier, we currently do not use QuickClot, but have something we use for certain parts of the body (specifically, armpits, the groin and other natural cavities). What we currently use is Celox gauze, which is a thin bandage treated with something extracted form shellfish, which is simply stuffed into the cavity until you cant get any more in, then held in place to let it set and seal. if you want to see videos of its effectiveness, check YouTube, where they show a test on a (live) pig.


On tourniquets, I'm told the type in use in the 80s of 90s were quite narrow, and tended to write off the limb when used, while the current design (http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/n-nr1m3w/dkhoki88/products/87/images/320/cat_lrg__34575.1416454849.1280.1280.jpg?c=2)is a somewhat wider, and less likey to cause tissue damage. I'm told most of the problems are caused by toxin buildup, though (ie crap builds up in the limb, and when you release the CAT, you dump a whole load of toxin onto the already weakened body).

Mike_G
2015-11-07, 07:46 AM
speaking as a serving (U.K.) soldier, we currently do not use QuickClot, but have something we use for certain parts of the body (specifically, armpits, the groin and other natural cavities). What we currently use is Celox gauze, which is a thin bandage treated with something extracted form shellfish, which is simply stuffed into the cavity until you cant get any more in, then held in place to let it set and seal. if you want to see videos of its effectiveness, check YouTube, where they show a test on a (live) pig.


That's interesting. The US military has similar stuff for packing wounds. Not sure if it's exactly the same. I was a grunt, not a corpsman when I was in.

There are very few civilian Assault Man job openings, though, so now I'm a medic.




On tourniquets, I'm told the type in use in the 80s of 90s were quite narrow, and tended to write off the limb when used, while the current design (http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/n-nr1m3w/dkhoki88/products/87/images/320/cat_lrg__34575.1416454849.1280.1280.jpg?c=2)is a somewhat wider, and less likey to cause tissue damage. I'm told most of the problems are caused by toxin buildup, though (ie crap builds up in the limb, and when you release the CAT, you dump a whole load of toxin onto the already weakened body).

Yeah, that's true. Your cells are still producing waste, but the bloodstream isn't taking it away to be filtered out by the kidneys. And it's worse if cells are damaged, because now you have the broken bits of cell.. The same thing happens in crush injuries if they roll the thing off you, all the trapped stuff washes back into central circulation.

That's one reason a BP cuff is great. You can let the pressure down incrementally and not hit the system with a big surge of stuff.

I am a big fan of tourniquets, and i think peopel get too frightened of them. I've literally saved a guy with a blood pressure cuff used as a tourniquet. He was pushing down the trash a a barrel and a broken bottle sliced his ulnar artery. he was literally pumping blood when we got there. He'd tied a towel around the wound, but it had soaked through. My partner threw on a trauma dressing, but that soaked through pretty much instantly. I put on the cuff and inflated it and the bleeding stopped. In seconds. We transported him to the hospital and he went to surgery and fully recovered.

As far as tourniquet times, look at orthopedic surgery. I had my wrist operated on. They put a tourniquet on for the duration of the surgery, which was about an hour with no ill effects. They routinely us tourniquets in knee replacements and other complicated procedures and leave them on for quite a while.

Storm Bringer
2015-11-07, 08:59 AM
That's interesting. The US military has similar stuff for packing wounds. Not sure if it's exactly the same. I was a grunt, not a corpsman when I was in.

There are very few civilian Assault Man job openings, though, so now I'm a medic.




Yeah, that's true. Your cells are still producing waste, but the bloodstream isn't taking it away to be filtered out by the kidneys. And it's worse if cells are damaged, because now you have the broken bits of cell.. The same thing happens in crush injuries if they roll the thing off you, all the trapped stuff washes back into central circulation.

That's one reason a BP cuff is great. You can let the pressure down incrementally and not hit the system with a big surge of stuff.

I am a big fan of tourniquets, and i think peopel get too frightened of them. I've literally saved a guy with a blood pressure cuff used as a tourniquet. He was pushing down the trash a a barrel and a broken bottle sliced his ulnar artery. he was literally pumping blood when we got there. He'd tied a towel around the wound, but it had soaked through. My partner threw on a trauma dressing, but that soaked through pretty much instantly. I put on the cuff and inflated it and the bleeding stopped. In seconds. We transported him to the hospital and he went to surgery and fully recovered.

As far as tourniquet times, look at orthopedic surgery. I had my wrist operated on. They put a tourniquet on for the duration of the surgery, which was about an hour with no ill effects. They routinely us tourniquets in knee replacements and other complicated procedures and leave them on for quite a while.

I think the reason people are unwilling to use them is the perception (in military circles, at least) that if you put a tourniquet on a limb, your casualty is going to loose that limb. I think this is a holdover form the older types of tourniquet, which I am told were basically a wire you wrapped around the limb then twist tightened. Because of this, people would rather try less drastic measures that wont result in amputation first, and tend to see the CAT as a last resort.


btw, if you want to see the Celox vid I was on about, check the link in the spoiler

WARNING! this is a demonstration of something designed for trauma treatment and stemming catastrophic bleeding. their will be a lot of blood. when I was shown this video in training, they said the pig used in this demonstration survived and made a full recovery, but still, if you don't want to see a pig spurting out blood, don't click on the link.

for those that do, click here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSf5Asa8rc)

Hjolnai
2015-11-07, 10:38 AM
I was just reading the Wikipedia article on the Napoleonic Wars and came across this: Golden Cavalry of St George (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Cavalry_of_St_George), which refers to 18th and 19th century subsidies paid by the British government to other states, particularly their allies against Napoleon. Are there any known examples of this sort of strategy in earlier history?

I wouldn't be surprised if similar economic warfare was used all the way back to Roman times, though not likely on the same scale.

The article on the Napoleonic Wars also mentions that England ended up with a debt of more than twice their GDP, which is dangerous even now - that seemed quite surprising to me.

Spiryt
2015-11-07, 11:10 AM
Well, without going back too much, I think that Britain was generally sponsoring Prussian State from it's very beginnings.

Britain had money, and Prussia was performing political action that were generally favorable to British business.

Beleriphon
2015-11-07, 11:15 AM
...anyone?

Full blown life threatening trauma? You best option to the make your patient comfortable and let them die peacefully in their sleep. Without a trauma centre you'd be an overpaid mortician.

snowblizz
2015-11-07, 02:33 PM
I was just reading the Wikipedia article on the Napoleonic Wars and came across this: Golden Cavalry of St George (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Cavalry_of_St_George), which refers to 18th and 19th century subsidies paid by the British government to other states, particularly their allies against Napoleon. Are there any known examples of this sort of strategy in earlier history?

I wouldn't be surprised if similar economic warfare was used all the way back to Roman times, though not likely on the same scale.

The article on the Napoleonic Wars also mentions that England ended up with a debt of more than twice their GDP, which is dangerous even now - that seemed quite surprising to me.

Define "earlier". During the 30YW eg Sweden was given subsidies by France, which continued into 1700s. 1700s by and large were big on this. Not surprisingly because Britain was now a "super power" but didn't have or want the manpower commitment to go with it. The decline of Sweden as a major power came about in large by being tied to France this way but being isolated geographically among France's enemies.

As a matter of fact the Romans eg did pay peoples to fight for them. The main difference I'd say that we need to get to the more modern times with nation states for it to be as visible as the British example. The Athenians I'd say were doing something similar, incidentally also a mercantile naval power.

Really it's mercenaries, but on a big scale.

Brother Oni
2015-11-07, 03:10 PM
Yeah, that's true. Your cells are still producing waste, but the bloodstream isn't taking it away to be filtered out by the kidneys. And it's worse if cells are damaged, because now you have the broken bits of cell.. The same thing happens in crush injuries if they roll the thing off you, all the trapped stuff washes back into central circulation.


Also if the blood supply is insufficient for the cells, they can start dying and bursting from hypoxia (which if left long enough develops into dry gangrene), also resulting in broken cell bits.

To clarify for the non-medical people, this breakdown of cells is called rhabdomyolysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhabdomyolysis), and the various intra cellular components can have a detrimental effect on your heart (potassium ions much like the potassium chloride used in lethal injections), kidneys (myoglobin) or the immune system (various cell signalling chemicals triggering the clotting cascade in random places throughout the body) among other effects.



btw, if you want to see the Celox vid I was on about, check the link in the spoiler

WARNING! this is a demonstration of something designed for trauma treatment and stemming catastrophic bleeding. their will be a lot of blood. when I was shown this video in training, they said the pig used in this demonstration survived and made a full recovery, but still, if you don't want to see a pig spurting out blood, don't click on the link.

for those that do, click here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSf5Asa8rc)


Hmm, reading up about Celox, the active ingredient is chitosan, which is derived from chitin (the main structural protein in the exoskeleton of crustaceans and insects). The positively charged chitosan binds to naturally negatively charged red blood cells, which drags in platelets thus forming the clots. One important selling point for Celox is that unlike the kaolin used in Quikclot, it doesn't generate significant amounts of heat.

So that's three different haemostatic agents, all achieving the same goal via different mechanisms. I love science. :smallbiggrin:

Roxxy
2015-11-07, 03:48 PM
On the subkect of war in my campaign setting, I'm starting to feel more and more like my idea just isn't going to work for me. It's not that I have schizotech and magic, it's that figuring out how they intertwine is too complicated for my knowledge base, and I'm so busy with work and school that I don't really have time to figure this stuff out. Thank you for all the comments that show me it doesn't really make sense.

Carl
2015-11-07, 04:05 PM
No worries roxxie. Feel free though to explain what you think/want magic to be capable of and i'm sure we could collectively speculate on potential applications and how that would affect the battlefield. Honestly stuff like that is something i really adore about worldbuilding.

warty goblin
2015-11-07, 04:11 PM
On the subkect of war in my campaign setting, I'm starting to feel more and more like my idea just isn't going to work for me. It's not that I have schizotech and magic, it's that figuring out how they intertwine is too complicated for my knowledge base, and I'm so busy with work and school that I don't really have time to figure this stuff out. Thank you for all the comments that show me it doesn't really make sense.

It's a little off-topic, but I'd make a different suggestion; just ignore that it doesn't make sense. 'Making sense' is a very hard and limiting standard to apply to the fantastic; and I don't think gets anybody anywhere a lot of the time. The fantastic is often most enjoyable in the forms that don't make sense - possibly in fact because they don't make sense - so as far as I can make out, there's no reason to pin the entirety of one's imagination to this particular standard.

Which isn't to say that there's a problem with wanting a setting that does make sense, or having one's taste bend in that direction. However sometimes the setting one wants is more or less orthogonal to anything sensible. The usual solution in this forum is to make up this this that and the other elaborate justification for the thing you actually want in the first place; an enterprise which takes a huge amount of energy, saps tremendous enthusiasm for the creative process, and for what? Made up stuff to justify made up stuff, as if that makes any of it more real or less made up? Just make it up, go with it, and have fun.

Beleriphon
2015-11-07, 04:41 PM
On the subkect of war in my campaign setting, I'm starting to feel more and more like my idea just isn't going to work for me. It's not that I have schizotech and magic, it's that figuring out how they intertwine is too complicated for my knowledge base, and I'm so busy with work and school that I don't really have time to figure this stuff out. Thank you for all the comments that show me it doesn't really make sense.

I think your best bet is to just emulate a period of warfare you like and explain why swords still work functionally in a place where magic artillery is a thing. Maybe the artillery is fragile and hard to move. Maybe the wizards that make things go bang run out of juice too fast. Maybe artillery is a thing, but the alchemical powder only works in large quantities so man portable firearms don't work. Also keep in mind that round shot fired from artillery was super dangerous to formations since a single cannon ball could bounce through formations, or if aimed correctly just blast right through a column of men up to 40 deep.

Clistenes
2015-11-07, 06:51 PM
I don't know of any evidence that Spanish pikers carried shields at their backs. Raimond de Fourquevaux, an veteran French military commander, recommend that pikers carry shields on their backs, but it's unclear whether this actually happened in the field. Burgundian pikers apparently carried small shields in the late 15th century, and some Scottish pikers in the middle of the 16th century used shields - though not on their backs, but strapped on the arm while holding the pike. The Dutch under Maurice of Nassau used shields for pikers in similar fashion. See this thread (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=289390).

I'd love to have evidence that the Spanish also had pikers use shields, or that something like Fourquevaux's system happened in practice.

I think La organización militar en los siglos XV y XVI - Actas de las II Jornadas Nacionales de Historia Militar mentioned something about it, but I can't find it online.

There is mention, long after the swordmen corps had been eliminated, of pikemen and arquebussiers participating in assaults to fortifications and surprise nocturnal attacks armed with rotellas and swords.

There is mention of arquebussiers running in the battlefield covering themselves with their steel rotellas, until reaching shooting range, and then kneeling, shooting a few times, unsheating and moving to melee. I think that in Pavia some units did that, they shoot at the French cavalry from cover, and later they jumped to engage the enemy sword in hand.

There is even mention of the Spanish arquebussiers kneeling behind their shields, to make smaller targets, waiting for the enemy to shoot before making a final sprint and shooting their own weapons at closer range (the early arquebuss had an effective range of 50 meters, and there is mention of Spanish gunmen shooting their weapons at 20 meters from the enemy).

You have to take into account that spanish steel rotellas weren't small bucklers, but real shields the diameter of a car's wheel.

Pikemen were trained to hold their pikes with just one hand, using a foot to keep the pike in place, so they could either hold a rotella or a sword, ready to unsheath:

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

They wouldn't use the pike AND the rotella at the same time, however. The steel rotella would be taken after dropping their pikes, and sometimes to cover themselves form gunfire when maintaining static positions. They wouldn't use the rotella while fighting with the pike.

Anyways, in practice, the division of soldiers into pikemen, arquebusseers and swordmen was largely ignored. Tallest and strongest soldiers were made pikemen, halberdiers or musketeers, and smaller soldiers were made arquebussers, but all veterans soldiers were expected to be trained in the use of all weapons and able to fill the gaps caused by losses. If they needed swordmen, they took their swords and rotellas, if they needed gunmen, they took their arquebuss.

As time went on, swords became less and less useful, and clashes between blocks of pikemen became less frequent, so shields were ditched altogether.

MrZJunior
2015-11-07, 10:40 PM
I was just reading the Wikipedia article on the Napoleonic Wars and came across this: Golden Cavalry of St George (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Cavalry_of_St_George), which refers to 18th and 19th century subsidies paid by the British government to other states, particularly their allies against Napoleon. Are there any known examples of this sort of strategy in earlier history?

I wouldn't be surprised if similar economic warfare was used all the way back to Roman times, though not likely on the same scale.

The article on the Napoleonic Wars also mentions that England ended up with a debt of more than twice their GDP, which is dangerous even now - that seemed quite surprising to me.

The Byzantines would often pay subsidys to step nomad people to get them to fight each other.

Incanur
2015-11-07, 11:08 PM
I think La organización militar en los siglos XV y XVI - Actas de las II Jornadas Nacionales de Historia Militar mentioned something about it, but I can't find it online.

Okay, thanks, I'll have to look that up. I don't recall anything from the 16th-century Spanish manuals I've read about shields on the back.


There is mention, long after the swordmen corps had been eliminated, of pikemen and arquebussiers participating in assaults to fortifications and surprise nocturnal attacks armed with rotellas and swords.

Yes, I believe I have seen references in Spanish and other primary sources to shields used at assaults.


Pikemen were trained to hold their pikes with just one hand, using a foot to keep the pike in place, so they could either hold a rotella or a sword, ready to unsheath:

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

Note that this position was specifically for resisting cavalry. Against other pikers and presumably other types of infantry, pikers typically held their pikes in both hands in order to give powerful thrusts and/or ward opposing pikes.


They wouldn't use the pike AND the rotella at the same time, however.

Note that the Dutch did do this according to an early 17th-century manual, as did at least some 16th-century Scottish pikers.

Clistenes
2015-11-08, 06:46 AM
Note that the Dutch did do this according to an early 17th-century manual, as did at least some 16th-century Scottish pikers.

Wasn't Nassau the one who despised clashes between pike blocks, and said that his pikemen should thrust only once against enemy pikemen and inmediately unsheath their swords and seek melee combat? If he told his soldiers to do that, it would make sense that they had a rotella strapped to their arm. Other generals from other countries put fullly armoured men in the front ranks, and instructed them to repeatedly stab the enemy with their pikes.

The Spaniards used rodeleros for the same purpose, but I have never read any mention of the whole block dropping their pikes and taking their swords (and anyways, at Maurice of Nassau's time most pikemen in the Flemish tercios weren't Spaniards, but German mercenaries, while the Spaniards were mostly arquebussiers).

Incanur
2015-11-08, 11:20 AM
Wasn't Nassau the one who despised clashes between pike blocks, and said that his pikemen should thrust only once against enemy pikemen and inmediately unsheath their swords and seek melee combat?

I suspect you're thinking of the ill-fated English gentleman Sir John Smythe. If Maurice of Nassau gave similar advice I've never seen it and would like to. A Dutch manual does show how to transition from holding the shield and pike to drawing the sword and becoming a basic targetier. An English source on the Dutch system describes using shield and sword in conjunction, though it doesn't say anything overall about how to engage opposing pikers in the Dutch system.


The Spaniards used rodeleros for the same purpose, but I have never read any mention of the whole block dropping their pikes and taking their swords (and anyways, at Maurice of Nassau's time most pikemen in the Flemish tercios weren't Spaniards, but German mercenaries, while the Spaniards were mostly arquebussiers).

In Smythe system, only the first rank or mabye first two ranks drops their pikes, though presumably more would do so in a hard-fought battle. About the same goes for Fourquevaux's system, and in his imagined battle Fourquevaux described how pikers picked up their pikes again after the melee. Machiavelli also talked about pikers being forced to resort to their swords up close. Some Spanish, Spanish-influenced, and German manuals and accounts do seems to assume the sort of pike fencing at length that Smythe hated, however.

Galloglaich
2015-11-08, 07:55 PM
Contemporaries themselves were apparently impressed enough with the idea to make note of it. Charles the V (HRE) reduced the number of calibres carried to 7(!). That doesn't sound like someone who has been using a small standardized artillery park for two centuries. In 1609 the Spanish reduced their number down to 4 ("It is truly remarkable to have reduce all our guns to these four calibres") on the advice of Diego Uffano, to 48, 24, 12 and 6 pounders.
Clearly the contemporaries considered that they were hampered by their large number of different calibres and required shot and stuff even into the 1600s and regarded the standardisation of calibres a feat in of itself.
G2A did not invent it as such, but seems to have been the one to put it together. AFAICT contemporaries agreed with the idea that what was done was in some respects new. The 3 pounder regimental from the accounts seems to be a new innovation. Not in it's size or anything, but in the combination of factors, the ability to manufacture a stronger lighter cannon, using less of a charge, deploying this cannon directly with the infantry and having it move with them as an integral part of the formation. Because in the form it comes into being in the 1600s persists into the 1800s or there abouts.
Napoleon is credited with the idea for Grand Batteries, but surely having batteries wasn't new either. But this specific instance of artillery use seems to have been considered innovative. Worked for a time too.

In the 1600s they seemed to have considered regimental guns that could keep up with advancing infantry new. Or they had no clue what so ever about the time they lived in and wrote about?

Well for one thing, keep in mind a lot of the history we are more familiar with from that era are essentially propaganda in praise of these monarchs, it's not worked out from a systematic analysis of warfare in the period necessarily -though some really good military historians do heap a lot of praise on Gustavus Adolphus for his accomplishments. Which were certainly real.

But it's a well established fact that the Hussites for example were using those war wagons with (mostly small to medium caliber) cannon keeping up quite easily with their infantry. And we know they continued to be used in many parts of Europe through the 15th and well into the 16th Centuries. If these people didn't know the histories of other regions besides their own I wouldn't be that surprised. Why these war-wagons went away in the West is an interesting question, it may have been that they were vulnerable to larger field guns. They seem to have still been used with efficacy on a large scale as late as the Battle of Molodi in 1572

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

The Russian version of the war wagon, more of a moving mantlet,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulyay-gorod

...accompanied by guns of various calibers, was critical in the victory, which is notable for the fact that the gun-wagons were used on the move not as a static defense. This too, was something fairly common in the 15th Century.

But I believe the muscovites were relying at least partly on Cossacks to achieve this victory. Up until the 17th Century powerful monarchies were often having to rely on mercenaries recruited from the militias of folks like the Swiss cities like Bern and Zurich and the Czech towns like Tabor, or from places like the Zaparozhian Sich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhian_Sich) in the Ukraine, home of the Western Cossacks.

These people were very expensive to hire, unruly, often came from cities or clans which had different agendas than the king did and made all kinds of demands especially if they played a key role in a victory. Princes did not like this needless to say. This is why they were often trying to figure out how to form royal armies more or less entirely under their own control organizationally. Perhaps the first to start this were the English in how they incorporated longbowmen mostly from their rural yeoman classes. Or perhaps from Venice in how they organized their militias, or France creating systematic organization of heavy cavalry under royal control, and later, musketeers. Or Poland with the system of their Hussars.

What Gustav Adolphus really did was invent some cannon (and cavalry) innovations which fit in to a royal army model, as an army of the State. So it's more of a technical / social / organizational innovation than a purely technical one. And I think that is what his peers recognized. A skilled army under that kind of royal control is extremely valuable compared to say, having to rely on Swiss mercenaries. In the technical sense though these inventions were not necessarily new.

G

snowblizz
2015-11-09, 08:23 AM
What Gustav Adolphus really did was invent some cannon (and cavalry) innovations which fit in to a royal army model, as an army of the State. So it's more of a technical / social / organizational innovation than a purely technical one. And I think that is what his peers recognized. A skilled army under that kind of royal control is extremely valuable compared to say, having to rely on Swiss mercenaries. In the technical sense though these inventions were not necessarily new.

G
And that was pretty much what I was trying to say. Just noting that the Osprey book on the Swedish army I was looking at makes a big point of debunking a lot of the "he invented it stuff". So it's not as bad as some uncritical anglo-saxon writers, the authors word there, not mine.
Warwagons or not, and earlier lighter guns or not, there seems to have been a contemporary discussion on who gets credit for the light regimental gun. Some of the notes eg had some Swiss taking credit for the invention. A Ebenhard of Zurich in 1622-23 e.g. A von Siegroth is noted as being mentioned oftne for the origins for the design of the light regimental gun. So it's not just "we are making stuff up for the king".

Also not everything in life came from the Hussites, even when they did something similar earlier. Just because they had war wagons didn't mean the invented the tank...:smalltongue:
What are the calibre/weights of the guns they would drag along the wagons though? A light Swedish 3 pounders is still ~140 kgs IIRC, not mounting very many of those on the side of a wagon and not blasting it off.

Galloglaich
2015-11-09, 11:55 AM
And that was pretty much what I was trying to say. Just noting that the Osprey book on the Swedish army I was looking at makes a big point of debunking a lot of the "he invented it stuff". So it's not as bad as some uncritical anglo-saxon writers, the authors word there, not mine.
Warwagons or not, and earlier lighter guns or not, there seems to have been a contemporary discussion on who gets credit for the light regimental gun. Some of the notes eg had some Swiss taking credit for the invention. A Ebenhard of Zurich in 1622-23 e.g. A von Siegroth is noted as being mentioned oftne for the origins for the design of the light regimental gun. So it's not just "we are making stuff up for the king".

Also not everything in life came from the Hussites, even when they did something similar earlier. Just because they had war wagons didn't mean the invented the tank...:smalltongue:
What are the calibre/weights of the guns they would drag along the wagons though? A light Swedish 3 pounders is still ~140 kgs IIRC, not mounting very many of those on the side of a wagon and not blasting it off.

They carried small guns, usually pintle mounted, on the wagons, and larger guns on carriages which would be positioned in between the wagons usually when in action.

I actually don't think the Hussites invented it either, since a lot of their special weapons including the war wagons appear in Conrad Keysers famous 1405 military manual Bellifortis. I think it's almost certain that a lot of these things were around in much of the latter part of the 14th Century.

The gun with the wheeled carriage may have been one of their innovations, at least partly, and you usually see depictions like this;

http://getasword.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/hussite-weapons-houfnice-howitzer.jpg

I have a good photo of one, an early 15th Century antique, which I would guess (not based on much since you can't tell scale in the photo) about 75-90 mm caliber. A breach loader. Longer and thinner barrel than the one in the image above, but similar configuration with the aiming bracket in the back etc.

You also see those larger wheeled serpentine guns such as the one I posted upthread from the Swiss manual

Mr. Mask
2015-11-09, 03:59 PM
I would like to discuss room-clearing doctrine, namely SWAT.

I've known people who have a strong preference for slicing the pie and taking cover by the door frame, rather than charging in like a line of ducks at a shooting gallery (there was a case that worked out exactly like that, every guy who entered the room got shot, with two deaths--against one defender with a shotgun). I've heard SWAT instructors disdain slicing the pie, without explaining their reason. Rushing into the room is an effective tactic for taking scared, willing prisoners, which is handy--but if you have one defender who can shoot who was not blinded, you're running into an enemy's line of fire with them having the drop on you (and they may well have cover).

Flash-bangs certainly make it easier for you either way. Whether you mow down a bunch of stunned hostiles from cover, or rush forward to cuff them before the ringing in their ears stops. Admittedly, if you're too willing to mow them down, you may as well skip to frag grenades (not so useful in a hostage situation).
One of the few arguments I can see in favour of charging in, is it increases your potential firepower. But one or two guys who are good shots should be able to clear a room in a couple of seconds from cover, and if your guys get shot before they move into position you'll end up with no firepower as you walk into a crossfire.
The other argument is room penetration and angles, where the enemy may have good cover for dealing with your breach-point, but not so good if you enter and go to the right of the room. The counter I have seen posed is that your enemies having prepared cover is a good reason not to enter their line of fire (as they will shoot you).
One argument for charging in is to intimidate the enemy. While that is a good tactic for taking scared, willing prisoners, anyone not suitably intimidated will simply shoot you or give you the bayonet.

I have seen recommended tactics like using ordinary doors as cover. Doors do not make good cover, and the method described made them poor concealment. Walls in most buildings make poor cover, but some have argued they make good concealment (statistically, shooting people through walls and hitting them is very hard).


I have tried to work out bad points against sticking to the door frame and using cover. One is that a smart enemy could try to lay fire so that even crouching or sitting prone, you're likely to get hit--though if they're firing from an angle (corners of the room are pretty good spots to shoot incoming SWAT from), it'll get very hard to pinpoint the enemy while blinded by muzzle-flare and flash-bangs.

Another idea is that the enemy might be able to try throwing grenades--but they'd have to be pretty darn confident they could get that grenade through the doorway and around the corner, else they'll be well within the kill radius.

They can probably pin down the invaders from multiple prepared positions, if you stick to the doorway. And if you fire at any of them, they can take cover, while their friends lay fire from other angles. This does require them to not be stunned and taken out via the flash-bang, and in that scenario they are very dangerous to anyone entering the room. And of course, being pinned and unable to advance is highly preferable to having your team wiped out.

Carl
2015-11-10, 01:40 AM
On situation in which rushing in and damm the danger is nearly always sound is with hostages or other innocents in the target room. In that situation getting in and ending things as hard and fast as possible could well be the difference between the bad guys executing them, and/or them getting killed in the crossfire and them living.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 04:01 AM
I can sort of see that argument, but I can't fully agree. If things go well and the terrorists are blinded by flash-bangs, picking them off from cover is usually a reasonable option. If some of the terrorists aren't blinded or shocked, then instead of rescuing the hostages you'll be mowed down as you enter the room, the hostages no better off.

If hostages are being used as cover, that does incentivise getting a better firing angle to put them out of the line of fire. However, you have to weight this against the chance you'll just be mowed down attempting to get that better angle, and that firing while moving increases the chance of hitting one of the hostages yourself. And of course, if they are using one of the hostages as a bodily shield, getting a better angle and moving about is only likely to cause the terrorist to fire at you or the hostage, while not really giving you a better shot.

Carl
2015-11-10, 08:23 AM
What it comes down to is this:

If they're worried about crossfire then that means they have good reason to believe the hostages may be in the line of fire. Thats a good reason to get in and clear the line of fire.


If they're worried about them executing the hostages it gets even more brutally simple that that. They have to get to those hostages and neutralize all hostiles around them without giving the hostiles a single moment where they're not too busy either dying, avoiding fire, or shooting back to spare time to shoot at the hostages. it may sound callous but in that situation if the hostiles have a chance to shoot at something you want to ensure they have a clear clean shot at one of your guys, because they'll almost certainly take it over shooting at the hostages.

You also have to remember in the real world the osage takers only have so big a mag on their guns. given typical poor trigger discipline as well they're going to run out of bullets and have to reload pretty fast, so the second wave will get the job done one way or the other because against a properly trained team that's got good trigger discipline having to reload means you've got several seconds where they can just shoot you and there's nothing you can do.


Also bear in mind a big part of the planning of such things is about doing the absolute best to discourage the hostiles from being pre-positioned and ready for you.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 09:14 AM
These are reasonable points.

Hostages being directly in the line of fire is incentive to get in there and find a new attack angle, but it also makes breaching from that doorway terribly risky to the hostages. Either your men will be shot as they move into position, or the hostages will get shot while your men move into position, more probably both, or you get lucky and neutralize the terrorists after crossing the room's no-man's land. If you shoot from the door frame, you can risk shooting over the hostages' heads as you're not moving while shooting, your team is less at risk, and the same problem of hostages potentially being shot by terrorists exists. I feel the benefits of the room breach don't outweigh taking cover, as you aren't really bettering things by that much by approaching and either moving towards or out-flanking the hostages in the crossfire (as they're likely to be shot in the time it takes you to move). Either way, I feel the better option would be to breach from somewhere else, as neither are good conditions.

I will give you the point that SWAT can take bullets better than the hostages. SWAT tend to carry good ballistic armour, and despite being shot frequently deaths are fairly rare. So, advancing to make themselves an alternate target has some grim appeal. Though generally if a terrorist puts a gun to someone's head, even snipers will generally not go for a head shot till they take it away. Breaching a room in such a situation puts the operators at quite a standstill. While this can be done to threaten the last remaining terrorist (which might be a horrible idea), it also exposes you to traps and counter-attack (so you better be sure they're the last ones).

Criminals are often terrible shots, and will waste plenty of ammo. Even so, relying on this isn't really a good idea. If you take cover by the doorway, even a good shot is liable to waste their mag failing to hit you or trying in vain to shoot through the wall. And at the ranges SWAT work at, eve a terrible shot shooting full auto has a pretty decent chance of hitting your guys, especially if they flood the wall (it starts to get hard to miss).

Mostly, whether the terrorists are well positioned or not will depend on factors outside SWAT tactical doctrine. You can try to use stealth, so the enemies you haven't reached aren't prepared, but that's about it. If the flash grenades work effectively, you should be able to clear a room within a second or two from cover, not giving the enemy a chance to do much as they're under fire and stunned. If the flash grenades don't work effectively, some men might succeed at taking nearby cover, giving them a comparable position to your own. If the flash bangs aren't effective and you breach the room , enemies are liable to shoot you from cover as you do so.


It seems like SWAT breach tactics have rather specific or questionable utilities, while the more cautious approach of taking cover has advantages to SWAT members in most situations.

snowblizz
2015-11-10, 10:16 AM
It seems like SWAT breach tactics have rather specific or questionable utilities, while the more cautious approach of taking cover has advantages to SWAT members in most situations.

SWAT members are expendable, hostages are not.

The SWAT tactics aren't to spare the SWAT, but any hostages.

I'm gonna say I'm inclined to trust that the SWAT teams know what they do. Except when they are just patrol officers in combat gear they got cheap form military surplus driving in in their military grade combat vehicle, also military surplus. The tactics will depend on the situation though right? It's always easy to armchair general stuff.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 11:17 AM
To say SWAT are entirely expendable is going a bit far. But the question is really whether having SWAT run into fire for the sake of it is really improving the hostages' chances. Aside from the specific scenarios, it doesn't seem to be offering much advantage.

It's not so much that SWAT do weird things in weird cases. The baseline doctrine is questionable. You haven't seen how they recommend clearing a closed closet.... Someone stands directly in front of the closet and opens the door, while the other guy is meant to rush in from the side. This leaves the door-opener entirely exposed to fire from any enemy in the closet, while crossing the door-opener's line of fire so he can't even risk giving supporting fire. The reason for this second man, or why you even need to move into the closet when you don't need room penetration? None. It's just the SWAT method. In WW1, this was called the cavalry charge.

It's similarly easy to believe the current method must be the best one because everyone is doing it, but regularly in history bad methods come and go. Like the fiasco in LA where the two bank robbers in body armour took on a hundred traffic cops. Many were shocked that an action-movie thing like that could happen because they figured police must be well equipped to deal with such. They had requisition weapons from a commercial gun shop to fight the bank robbers. Armchair general be damned, just imagine the next room is full of guys waiting to shoot you, and see how ready you feel to charge straight in. Mathematically, you're exposing yourself to as many attackers as possible, while reducing the effectiveness of your aim, and giving your brain a lot more room to scan and a lot more targets to choose between. Whereas slicing the pie, exposing as little of yourself as possible as you cautiously examine the room, that gives you a chance to take enemies out on equal terms at worst (tactically). The former is a tactical method based off the strategy of Gallipoli: "they will get scared and surrender," which like Gallipoli doesn't give thought to what you do if the enemy instead fights back, and if they shoot you before you can capture the mountains.


So far, the best I can think of is that if the enemy aren't using armour piercing weapons, SWAT tend to be heavily armoured enough they can survive a few hits. This allows them to tank shots and try to move to a position that leaves them almost defenceless, but maximizes their firepower potential. This is terribly crude tactically, but when working with superior troops with good armour it might still result in worthy returns. That still leaves the question of whether you can't accomplish your goals without getting your operatives shot. And if the enemy use weapons effective at defeating your armour, then you would be mowed down.

Carl
2015-11-10, 11:44 AM
So far, the best I can think of is that if the enemy aren't using armour piercing weapons

Given armour piercing ammo isn't legal to own and is thus rather hard to get ahold of that's a safe assumption.


To say SWAT are entirely expendable is going a bit far.

No it's not, the mission priority in these situations is pretty much always:

1. get the hostages out alive.

2. Capture or kill all the bad guys.

3. get your own team out alive.



The point your missing here Mask is that unless they start killing the hostages the SWAT are never going to storm in against a known prepared position with alert pre-aimed enemies waiting that they can't supress with flash bangs. They simply won't go in. They don't deliberately walk into more fire than they have to.

Your example with the door for example misses the key point, it takes longer to open the door, and then step through that it does to open it while someone else goes through, because the guy opening it has to go around the door after he's opened it. He also won;t be able to effectivlly fire a weapon with one hand on the door handle.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 12:22 PM
That certainly is handy for SWAT, in either direction. Of course, dealing with terrorists and high-profile criminals, them having illegal weaponry wouldn't be unheard of.

I don't think the SWAT mission statement is, "we care more about killing a bad guy than getting you out alive." It is their job to kill or capture targets, but it would contradict your point about not storming in against tough odds if the survival of the SWAT members was last place. If ten SWAT members died, and ten terrorists were killed, that mission wouldn't be considered a success, that'd be considered a total disaster.


SWAT certainly won't walk into more fire than they have to. But generally they have had to walk into a lot of fire before, and will again. France just recently had several hostage situations in one week. There has recently been a disturbing trend in counter-terrorism where everyone bunches up in front of an exterior doorway, some with ballistic shields. They fire blindly at the terrorists if they show up, and everyone is suitably in each others way so they can't move or retreat. If the terrorists had packed some grenades or home-made bombs, they would've taken out some twenty or thirty cops. The only thing that saved them was the terrorists having small firearms. What's worse, with all that blind panic fire, the hostages were at quite some risk.

The other major problem SWAT have faced is lacking or misleading intel, that caused them to walk into a bad fight. One old man, one shotgun, barricaded in a one story house. SWAT go in after him, two officers are killed and the rest had to retreat. And that's what happens if your tactics are bad and rely on luck (I forgot to mention, that's the alternative to trying to pierce SWAT's armour--use volume of fire to hit unarmoured spots).


You're welcome to try that closet trick, but I'm not helping. You're trading someone's life (through death or debilitating injuries) for an eighth of a second (because if someone is waiting in there, they will immediately open fire before the closet is even fully opened). Also, DON'T go through. If they have a rifle, knife, or even a pistol, you could easily be screwed. And one hand on a weapon, at about two feet of range tops... you could fire an LMG one handed on full-auto at that range, and would probably hit. Shooting an assault rifle one handed is a cute trick, but it gets impressive when someone does it with an AK74u.

And this is where SWAT tactics misses the key point. The point isn't to do everything as fast as possible. It's to do it well, with few casualties on your own side and little left to luck as to how things will go.

TheOneHawk
2015-11-10, 12:25 PM
How easy/hard is it to take off a body part with various weapons in combat? Like, I figure a greataxe could take off an arm with a solid hit, while a scimitar might be able to take off a hand and a dagger couldn't remove more than a finger. Also, how rare would it be in actual middle ages combat to land a hit hard and accurately enough to amputate something?

Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 12:59 PM
To give some perspective, the Japanese tameshigiri used to use actual bodies. Swords were rated by how many human bodies (spines you might say) they could cut through. The record for a katana, as far as I'm aware, is 7. There are many examples that managed 5, and 2 was very common.

Of course, that is a set-up cut, with prisoners piled on top of each other on the ground, where combat will be a lot more random. Plus, these tests were conducted by the most skilled swordsmen, meaning they were excellent at performing a cut, where an inept fighter won't perform a proper cut.

There are some archaeological statistics on the number of various wounds found on dead bodies, and some of those will be handy in working out how common amputations are. As you mentioned, the weapon used will make a great difference. As will the skill of those involved, and the armour being worn (amputating a limb through armour would be excessively hard). And of course, you get cases like wagon wheels amputating soldiers in war, and such as that.


I'm afraid I'm not sure how to answer your question more specifically. Stuff like whether both fighters are fighting defensively or very aggressively with heavy blows will also make a big difference, so it really depends on the situation. I guess I could say that the number of severed limbs and the like is much less common than in much of popular media, as simply mangling limbs and torsos was much more likely to occur rather than a clean amputation.

Carl
2015-11-10, 01:08 PM
It's to do it well, with few casualties on your own side and little left to luck as to how things will go.

And this is the part where your simply flat out wrong.

Both from a case of maximising surprise and shock factor and especially from the PoV of successfully getting hostages out alive speed is everything you do it fast or the enemy gets organised the hostages get shot and you fail the mission,.

And that why the SWAT survival is low priority. It's not that they don't want them all to come home alive. But they're paid to get shot and and if necessary die to complete the mission objective. The Mission objective, the condition of victory, for SWAT and the like is firstly to minimise the short term threat to the civilian population, (via rescuing hostages and preventing collateral damage to nearby civilians), and then to prevent the long term threat to the civilian population, (via capturing or eliminating the threat). For obvious reasons they don't throw away manpower or lives, but avoiding deaths of the team comes second to completing the main objective.

It's called acceptable losses.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 02:03 PM
"It's to do it well, with few casualties on your own side and little left to luck as to how things will go."

"And this is the part where your simply flat out wrong."

I don'think it'll be possible for us to agree about what success is in combat, then. Sun Tzu said the highest form of victory was to defeat the enemy without loosing an arrow--but apparently winning without losing anything doesn't have value.


"Both from a case of maximising surprise and shock factor and especially from the PoV of successfully getting hostages out alive speed is everything you do it fast or the enemy gets organised the hostages get shot and you fail the mission,.

And that why the SWAT survival is low priority. It's not that they don't want them all to come home alive. But they're paid to get shot and and if necessary die to complete the mission objective. The Mission objective, the condition of victory, for SWAT and the like is firstly to minimise the short term threat to the civilian population, (via rescuing hostages and preventing collateral damage to nearby civilians), and then to prevent the long term threat to the civilian population, (via capturing or eliminating the threat). For obvious reasons they don't throw away manpower or lives, but avoiding deaths of the team comes second to completing the main objective."

I don't think you understand the kind of operation a SWAT incursion entails. If the terrorists are too trigger happy, then the moment they hear the first shot, all the hostages will be dead. Opening the closet door faster will make no difference, because they don't operate on speed clocks like a race or a video game. It's a matter of coercion and diplomacy to keep the hostages alive. Preferably, you infiltrate stealthily, or secure the hostages as the very first step of the operation, to leave as little to chance as you can. If that's not possible, you simply have to do your best to fight your way to the hostages. Many terrorists have hesitated to kill hostages, whether from fear of legal reprisal, moral ethics, or thinking they can repel the attack and still get what they want, or just confusion. And the worst thing you can do is hurry things so that you lose team mates: So you no longer have the manpower to be effective; you have to stop, patch up, and carry back your wounded; your team is demoralized, and the terrorists will regain their morale if they work out one of your guys was hit; the loss of team members and moral will damage your own organization, your biggest advantage; and strategically, you're going to start feeling the loss of skilled SWAT members that accrue over time (as recruitment figures shoot down), and terrorists will be emboldened by it. An eighth of a second, so that you can spend minutes trying to salvage a very bad mission.

If the mission is so poorly thought out that it comes down to an eighth of a second as to whether you succeed, then the problem wasn't how quickly you opened the closet. The mission was hopeless from the start, due to bad planning or extreme terrorists.


"It's called acceptable losses."

This is pretty disturbing. I can imagine this in reality. "Hey, these new tactics are making casualties eight times as frequent." "Yeah, but we're also completing courses eight quarters of a second faster! We're getting so many purple hearts, we're going to go down in history as the purple-heart legion!" "More like the lost boys...."

Carl
2015-11-10, 03:37 PM
First it's not an eighth of a second, it's probably over a second. And secondly there's a lot more than one door typically. Saving a second plus per door makes for much faster situation and those seconds really do matter in reality. This has been proven countless times in real life. Thats why the developed these doctrines, because they found themselves being late and people died because they where a few seconds too slow.

You're also missing the big point. SWAT e.t.cc will never, (short of a situation like them starting killing the hostages), knowingly charge into an enemy that is waiting for them. They'll only go in if they have surprise on their side. That's not to say their tactics aren't optimized for mission success if they are seen coming. But they don't go for those situation by default because they know that will mean severe losses and likely dead hostages.


If the terrorists are too trigger happy, then the moment they hear the first shot, all the hostages will be dead.

Not true. The moment the first shot is fired the terrorists are going to wonder what the hell is going on, they need vital seconds to process what's happening, to think to react. The whole high speed approach is about getting into the hostage room/s so fast that they don't have time for that and they're still in panic mode when the SWAT bursts in because then instincts will kick in and they'll respond to the big obvious threat that is the men pouring into the room and start shooting at the SWAT.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 04:18 PM
Go to a closet, and try it. If it takes you a full second to open a closet, even if you want to get a two-handed grip on your weapon before moving, then you're doing something weird. As it is, I'm not even sure it really saves a noticeable amount of time if I get someone else to help (about an eighth of a second, I still think).


"And secondly there's a lot more than one door typically. Saving a second plus per door makes for much faster situation and those seconds really do matter in reality. This has been proven countless times in real life. Thats why the developed these doctrines, because they found themselves being late and people died because they where a few seconds too slow."

You'll have to source a claim for this, because I really can't think of a combat situation where using lousy tactics to save a few seconds would've made a positive difference.


"You're also missing the big point. SWAT e.t.cc will never, (short of a situation like them starting killing the hostages), knowingly charge into an enemy that is waiting for them. They'll only go in if they have surprise on their side."

Umm... the guy with the shotgun was barricaded in. They knew that he knew that they were coming for him. SWAT does prefer to surprise hostiles, but the main time to call SWAT is when the offenders are violent and refusing to comply, so the element of surprise is in limited quantities. Sometimes they do just besiege the place for a month, and that might be the wisest, safest idea, but many times SWAT decides to go in and do their job.

Where did you get the idea SWAT refuse to attack an aware enemy?


"That's not to say their tactics aren't optimized for mission success if they are seen coming. But they don't go for those situation by default because they know that will mean severe losses and likely dead hostages."

I never suggested those situations were sought after.... simply, those are the situations which do arise, where their tactics are put under trial by fire. There's nothing impressive about seeing lightning and hearing thunder, so if your tactics are only good when the task is simple, then they're lousy tactics.


"Not true. The moment the first shot is fired the terrorists are going to wonder what the hell is going on, they need vital seconds to process what's happening, to think to react. The whole high speed approach is about getting into the hostage room/s so fast that they don't have time for that and they're still in panic mode when the SWAT bursts in because then instincts will kick in and they'll respond to the big obvious threat that is the men pouring into the room and start shooting at the SWAT."

And when all the SWAT team members are dead, the terrorists can take a breather and calm down. Not even SWAT rush as much as you seem to think. They check and reload ammo after each room with hostiles, there are procedures which take a couple of seconds just to communicate that the room is cleared and everyone is OK, and SWAT never run to destinations. The idea of splitting hairs over a second has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with video game speed-running. Gamers who run everywhere and reach the last room quickly in a tired, disarrayed mass, will get mopped up by even sloppy criminals (and get flanked from all sides, if they weren't wiped out sooner).

There's a decent training video on SWAT tactics called High Risk Entry. See if you can find it, as it'll clear up your confusion about SWAT incursions.

Gnoman
2015-11-10, 05:19 PM
Given armour piercing ammo isn't legal to own and is thus rather hard to get ahold of that's a safe assumption.


Not quite. Armor-piercing ammunition for handguns and shotguns is very tightly regulated and difficult to get, but most rifle ammunition, even though it isn't specifically AP, will punch through almost any practical body armor, so somebody with the modern equivalent of a Garand is going to be a huge threat to any SWAT team.

Carl
2015-11-10, 08:20 PM
Go to a closet, and try it. If it takes you a full second to open a closet, even if you want to get a two-handed grip on your weapon before moving, then you're doing something weird.

No i'm doing what i see every video of the kind of maneuver your talking about do. The guy opening the door steps back with the door and so has to step around it to get into the doorway. That takes a lot more than an eighth of a second and gives the enemy vital time to react to the door opening.



Umm... the guy with the shotgun was barricaded in. They knew that he knew that they were coming for him. SWAT does prefer to surprise hostiles, but the main time to call SWAT is when the offenders are violent and refusing to comply, so the element of surprise is in limited quantities. Sometimes they do just besiege the place for a month, and that might be the wisest, safest idea, but many times SWAT decides to go in and do their job.

Where did you get the idea SWAT refuse to attack an aware enemy?

Documentary several years ago.

Wasn't US focused though. Probably should have said that up front.

And i'm talking about in hostage situations.

Procedures are different when it's just a nutjob or 5 barricaded in. I can't say i know as much there. But where hostages are concerned their only willing to go in if they absolutely have to because going in radically raises the risk to them, so it's only done when they feel it's less dangerous to the hostages to go in than not.



And when all the SWAT team members are dead, the terrorists can take a breather and calm down. Not even SWAT rush as much as you seem to think. They check and reload ammo after each room with hostiles, there are procedures which take a couple of seconds just to communicate that the room is cleared and everyone is OK, and SWAT never run to destinations. The idea of splitting hairs over a second has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with video game speed-running. Gamers who run everywhere and reach the last room quickly in a tired, disarrayed mass, will get mopped up by even sloppy criminals (and get flanked from all sides, if they weren't wiped out sooner).

If you could actually comprehend anything i'm saying it would help. Or had a basic clue. I don't usually get this frustrated but i'm feeling seriously ticked off right now. No of course they don't run along pell mell. That's not going to do any good whatsoever. I shouldn't have to point this out. Just as i shouldn't have to point out that because of that need to run checks before each door they go out of their way to minimise the number of rooms and hostels they have to go through wherever possible if there is a threat to the hostages beyond crossfires, (and even then they'll do it sometimes). Whilst it's an especially extreme example, in part because special forces where involved, the SAS storming of the iranian embassy where the rappelled onto balcony's is a perfect example of position men to maximise the number of rooms cleared quickly and minimise the time taken to get to the hostages to the best of their ability.

The point your missing is that in reality what you think happens when they go through the door doesn't happen. I'm trying to explain the reasons behind this and some of what i know of what formed the doctrine but at the end of the day your wedded to your view of what should happen, whilst the relatively low casualty rates of SWAT per operation and the relatively high success rates categorically prove that said worldview is wrong. If your not willing to accept that and focus on the why it works instead of whether you think it should then i don;t see what else we have to discuss because where just going to go around in circles.

Galloglaich
2015-11-11, 12:36 AM
To give some perspective, the Japanese tameshigiri used to use actual bodies. Swords were rated by how many human bodies (spines you might say) they could cut through. The record for a katana, as far as I'm aware, is 7. There are many examples that managed 5, and 2 was very common.

Of course, that is a set-up cut, with prisoners piled on top of each other on the ground, where combat will be a lot more random. Plus, these tests were conducted by the most skilled swordsmen, meaning they were excellent at performing a cut, where an inept fighter won't perform a proper cut.

There are some archaeological statistics on the number of various wounds found on dead bodies, and some of those will be handy in working out how common amputations are. As you mentioned, the weapon used will make a great difference. As will the skill of those involved, and the armour being worn (amputating a limb through armour would be excessively hard). And of course, you get cases like wagon wheels amputating soldiers in war, and such as that.


I'm afraid I'm not sure how to answer your question more specifically. Stuff like whether both fighters are fighting defensively or very aggressively with heavy blows will also make a big difference, so it really depends on the situation. I guess I could say that the number of severed limbs and the like is much less common than in much of popular media, as simply mangling limbs and torsos was much more likely to occur rather than a clean amputation.

That was a very good post, and a good answer to the question.

To add to this, I'd say there are a few specific battefields which have given us a lot of forensic evidence as they call it, allowing us to develop some statistics on things like limb amputations. The battlefields at Towton in the UK and Wisby (sorry... Visby) in the island of Gotland, in what is now Sweden are two of the most famous for this kind of thing. In both battles a lot of people got buried very quickly, some in their armor. So they are a treasure trove of data on how people fought in these times.

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

http://www.economist.com/node/17722650

Visby shows a fairly high ratio of amputations, mostly lower left leg if I remember correctly, and even a few double-amputations. If you do a little digging you can find forensic data, and even photos of skeletal remains with evidence of sword wounds.

This is a skull from Towton. As you can see, the weapons they were using (in this case a sword, or possibly an axe or a bill) cause rather devastating wounds. Worse than you typically see on tv.

http://www.eaines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Skull-from-towton.jpg

This is a rather neatly-severed bone from Wisby. I may be wrong but I think that may be a femur.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/Visby2(2).jpg


http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53cd2bbde4b0d4e3bfa9e6ff/t/53ea9a7ee4b0a70179a4ca2c/1407883957107/
regarding the test cutting mr. Mask is talking about, this is something we routinely do in HEMA. If you know what you are doing even a little bit, (a few weeks of training) with the right kind of sword you can cut right through the equivalent of a human limb petty easily. I have cut 3 tatami mats at once in cutting competitions at HEMA events using (high end) European style sword replicas and I'm not particularly good at cutting. Watch this guy cutting tatami at 0:30 seconds of this New York Times video about HEMA. That is from a tournament in Baltimore last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5zueF4Mu2uM#t=30

there are also a lot of videos of people cutting through deer carcases and so on

As you can see you can cut right through one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4j3mvrDyQ

G

Closet_Skeleton
2015-11-11, 05:08 AM
I actually don't think the Hussites invented it either, since a lot of their special weapons including the war wagons appear in Conrad Keysers famous 1405 military manual Bellifortis. I think it's almost certain that a lot of these things were around in much of the latter part of the 14th Century.

Siege weapons on a carriage goes back to the ancient greek Helepolis in the 4th century BC and the non-ranged version goes back to 9th century Assyria. Conrad Keysers himself claims he's just describing things from Alexander the Great's time, but he would because he had a anti-progress medieval mindset and may not have had actual access to much ancient Greek material.

On the other hand there's a lot of infeasible rubbish wonder weapons in those military manuals.

What the Hussites are doing is not inventing weapons, but successfully taking siege weapons to the battlefield in a very dramatic way.


The gun with the wheeled carriage may have been one of their innovations, at least partly, and you usually see depictions like this;l

A gun with wheels is not automatically a very mobile one. There are a lot of various degrees of mobility. Improving mobility can be as much an innovation as introducing it.

A war wagon is not in anyway a proto-type tank, its a field fortification and more a antecedent of trench warfare than mechanised warfare.. Its only 'relatively' mobile. It probably couldn't retreat very fast if it had to.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-11, 06:59 AM
G: Thanks G! Your post does a better job, though. I've never been as good at finding these great pictures and sources. Thanks for sharing.




No i'm doing what i see every video of the kind of maneuver your talking about do. The guy opening the door steps back with the door and so has to step around it to get into the doorway. That takes a lot more than an eighth of a second and gives the enemy vital time to react to the door opening. Don't open the closet from in front of the door. That's exactly where a potential hostile is likely to shoot when they see the door opening (or at random, when they just panic or hear a noise). Stand to the side of the closet with the doorknob, then open it and peek in from there. If you can, it's even better to have a guy or two take cover from a distance in front of the closet, and open fire on it if they see any hostile inside (if you do this, you need them a distance back, so the hostile is unlikely to get a bead on them or hit them with panic fire). But never have anyone standing directly in front of a closet that might have hostiles inside. If you can rig it that way, you're saving time and


Documentary several years ago.

Wasn't US focused though. Probably should have said that up front.

And i'm talking about in hostage situations.

Procedures are different when it's just a nutjob or 5 barricaded in. I can't say i know as much there. But where hostages are concerned their only willing to go in if they absolutely have to because going in radically raises the risk to them, so it's only done when they feel it's less dangerous to the hostages to go in than not. Not sure which one that is, but they were probably talking about the goals and what is normally done. Sometimes, for whatever reason, tactical units end up raiding these places. It's possible the US are the only ones known for doing it, but I'd be surprised if there were no cases in Europe.

And yeah, don't go in unless you think it gives the hostages a better chance than not. Since some governments won't give in to terrorist demands, generally SWAT is your only chance to get them out alive unless the terrorists surrender.


If you could actually comprehend anything i'm saying it would help. Or had a basic clue. I don't usually get this frustrated but i'm feeling seriously ticked off right now. No of course they don't run along pell mell. That's not going to do any good whatsoever. I shouldn't have to point this out. Just as i shouldn't have to point out that because of that need to run checks before each door they go out of their way to minimise the number of rooms and hostels they have to go through wherever possible if there is a threat to the hostages beyond crossfires, (and even then they'll do it sometimes). Whilst it's an especially extreme example, in part because special forces where involved, the SAS storming of the iranian embassy where the rappelled onto balcony's is a perfect example of position men to maximise the number of rooms cleared quickly and minimise the time taken to get to the hostages to the best of their ability. I have also felt frustrated throughout this talk. Sorry about that.

As for not doing any good whatsoever... that was my point. If you're willing to lose a man in a procedure because you don't want to spend a second, then you should be willing to ignore closets or rooms or just run between points, as that saves you even more time for what might be less risk. Ignoring all those procedures, of course, is suicidal, as every risk you ignore stacks up until one of them comes to fruition.

And yeah, the SAS did what I described. Breach at the point that puts you as close to the hostages as possible, so you can secure them very early in the operation.


The point your missing is that in reality what you think happens when they go through the door doesn't happen. I'm trying to explain the reasons behind this and some of what i know of what formed the doctrine but at the end of the day your wedded to your view of what should happen, whilst the relatively low casualty rates of SWAT per operation and the relatively high success rates categorically prove that said worldview is wrong. If your not willing to accept that and focus on the why it works instead of whether you think it should then i don;t see what else we have to discuss because where just going to go around in circles.

Umm, police fatality rates are always low. Medical procedures are just that good. Some of them will be breathing through tubes or walking on crutches, but the number of SWAT will remain low despite taking many hits (their armour is also really nice). In 2014, despite almost 50,000 assaults, only 53 police officers died as a result (in America). Four of those were involved in tactical operations, so presumably SWAT, but no data was given on how many were injured during such operations. So, it's not that I'm wedded to this view, you're just ignorant of what casualty rates should look like.

To be honest, I have been trying to work out a way for SWAT tactics to make sense for a while now, as I wanted to have a SWAT-inspired unit for a game. Unfortunately, actually thinking about the tactics instead of making excuses like they'll never face hard resistance, there's simply very little gain for a lot of unnecessary risk, and downright inexcusable doctrine like how they clear closets. But instead of thinking about how that closet method is pointlessly killing one of your own guys, you prefer to believe SWAT can do no wrong, and come to the most extraordinary claims for how little one of the lives of your operatives are worth. It is very hypocritical to accuse me of being one-sided in my assessment, when you have said literally nothing for the advantages of taking cover instead of venturing forth.

Mike_G
2015-11-11, 08:31 AM
This is a rather neatly-severed bone from Wisby. I may be wrong but I think that may be a femur.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/Visby2(2).jpg


G

The long bone on the left is an ulna (forearm bone, severed near the wrist.). The one on the right, with both ends intact, is a tibia. (it's upside down.The projection at the top is the bump on the outside of your ankle.)

Beleriphon
2015-11-11, 10:24 AM
G: To be honest, I have been trying to work out a way for SWAT tactics to make sense for a while now, as I wanted to have a SWAT-inspired unit for a game. Unfortunately, actually thinking about the tactics instead of making excuses like they'll never face hard resistance, there's simply very little gain for a lot of unnecessary risk, and downright inexcusable doctrine like how they clear closets. But instead of thinking about how that closet method is pointlessly killing one of your own guys, you prefer to believe SWAT can do no wrong, and come to the most extraordinary claims for how little one of the lives of your operatives are worth. It is very hypocritical to accuse me of being one-sided in my assessment, when you have said literally nothing for the advantages of taking cover instead of venturing forth.

Mask, keep in mind that SWAT Teams aren't military. They're the rough equivalent to civilian police forces as the SEALs, SAS, KSK or JTF2 are to regular military. Regular military use the same tactics as SWAT teams to clear a building, but at the same time they're also fighting soldiers or other armed combatants who have at least some semblance of formal training. SWAT teams usually operate against armed and barricade civilians. SWAT teams are neither equipped, nor trained to deal with full blown paramilitary situations.

You aren't wrong, there are plenty of situations where SWAT tactics are going to fall down, and fall down hard. But those aren't normally the scenarios SWAT teams deal with. Think of Die Hard if you will. Hans Gruber would have annihilated an actual SWAT response. Not because SWAT tactics are bad, but because they aren't at all designed to respond to that sort of scenario where perpetrators are military trained. You would send a SWAT team to deal with Russian Specnaz that are robbing a bank, but I wouldn't expect things to go well for the police force at all because the Specnaz are trained the exact same way as SWAT teams and are more than capable of handling themselves in a firefight.

For some information about such failures see the Budynnovsk Hospital Crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budyonnovsk_hospital_hostage_crisis). This failed for the reasons you call out. The Chechens were a trained, battle hardened force so regular tactics aren't going to work, because the situation is completely irregular. The thing that ended the crisis was negotiation because an actual assault of the building had failed completely.

Think of things another way the Mexican drug cartels have a had significant success against Mexican police in part because they treat their thugs like soldiers and train them as such. Even Mexican special forces have failed in raids against the cartels because the ground level soldiers are trained how to respond appropriately to an attack. Most terrorists or other criminals aren't though, because they don't have the time or resources to do so.

Carl
2015-11-11, 12:12 PM
Mask, keep in mind that SWAT Teams aren't military. They're the rough equivalent to civilian police forces as the SEALs, SAS, KSK or JTF2 are to regular military. Regular military use the same tactics as SWAT teams to clear a building, but at the same time they're also fighting soldiers or other armed combatants who have at least some semblance of formal training. SWAT teams usually operate against armed and barricade civilians. SWAT teams are neither equipped, nor trained to deal with full blown paramilitary situations.

You aren't wrong, there are plenty of situations where SWAT tactics are going to fall down, and fall down hard. But those aren't normally the scenarios SWAT teams deal with. Think of Die Hard if you will. Hans Gruber would have annihilated an actual SWAT response. Not because SWAT tactics are bad, but because they aren't at all designed to respond to that sort of scenario where perpetrators are military trained. You would send a SWAT team to deal with Russian Specnaz that are robbing a bank, but I wouldn't expect things to go well for the police force at all because the Specnaz are trained the exact same way as SWAT teams and are more than capable of handling themselves in a firefight.

For some information about such failures see the Budynnovsk Hospital Crisis. This failed for the reasons you call out. The Chechens were a trained, battle hardened force so regular tactics aren't going to work, because the situation is completely irregular. The thing that ended the crisis was negotiation because an actual assault of the building had failed completely.

Think of things another way the Mexican drug cartels have a had significant success against Mexican police in part because they treat their thugs like soldiers and train them as such. Even Mexican special forces have failed in raids against the cartels because the ground level soldiers are trained how to respond appropriately to an attack. Most terrorists or other criminals aren't though, because they don't have the time or resources to do so.

This. Thanks for putting most of what i was trying to say across in a much better manner. The average sort SWAT deals with simply don't have the training, (and this often includes many though not all forms of terrorist/freedom fighter), to react to sudden unexpected circumstances well. And SWAT assaults are all about shock tactics intended to push the enemy completely off balance and deny them that time to think and react intelligently. But the i'd allready said this once allready.

If they go up against a well trained and equipped enemy then frankly even military special forces would struggle to pull it off without eating massive losses even if the whole thing isn't time critical because no tactic in the world makes attacking a prepared defensive position defended by well trained, equipped and supplied individual's anything less than a complete meatgrinder. History has proven this time and again in urban combat.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-11, 03:09 PM
Beleriphon: Hmmm, I see your point on one hand. For say, unarmed suspects, SWAT tackling them tends to work for taking them down and getting prisoners, even if you're putting yourselves at risk. When it comes to armed terrorists or hostage situations, that's quite dangerous. Tactical units are, unfortunately, called in for some such cases (which is either where different tactics should be used, or a different unit).

Hmmm... for taking captives from less-resistant enemies, I wonder if their focus should be less on breaching and more on the combined use of gas (CS or capsaicin hydrochloride, I think would be best), rubber-pellet grenades, and rubber bullets (there was a particular model I'm thinking of, that transferred all the energy into the body--but I can't remember what it was called). If that isn't enough to take down an enemy, taking prisoners is probably not the priority (as eliminating the targets is hard enough). And if you use that from cover, you're still putting yourself at less risk, I'd think.

Currently, that method is just an idea. The immediate problems I see is that if you fail to disable a target and they get to cover, or you only partially wound a target and they can arm themselves, you might miss an opportunity to have grabbed them while they were too stunned to do anything. Wounded or missed targets taking cover would be a risk for the breaching team, who'd need to go into the room regardless to secure targets and wipe out resistance. The breaching team would use lethal weapons, as they need to be certain they can put a target down instantly if they need to and can shoot through cover. In rooms with too much cover, you may just have to use a classic SWAT breach or shoot the targets from cover with lethal weapons (if the targets seem too dangerous to detain safely). Having to carry two sets of weapons or a lethal and non-lethal team could be a bit of an issue.

This is an interesting thought, I'm going to ponder it for longer. Thanks Beleriphon!

Knaight
2015-11-11, 05:58 PM
If they go up against a well trained and equipped enemy then frankly even military special forces would struggle to pull it off without eating massive losses even if the whole thing isn't time critical because no tactic in the world makes attacking a prepared defensive position defended by well trained, equipped and supplied individual's anything less than a complete meatgrinder. History has proven this time and again in urban combat.

It depends on the means of attack. An infantry attack is generally going to end poorly, but a defensive position well defended against infantry attack might well be helpless against something like artillery.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-11, 06:01 PM
Well, you know what they say.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e21/rhainor/funny%20stuff/MPost75-149645434_337ca27a3c.jpg

Carl
2015-11-11, 06:56 PM
It depends on the means of attack. An infantry attack is generally going to end poorly, but a defensive position well defended against infantry attack might well be helpless against something like artillery.

Well obviously, i was assuming given the context of the discussion that it was a situation where they had to storm in on foot. he ability to deliver large quantities of HE and HE-Frag with great precision from delivery platforms that are hard to effectively counter is why in open field battles the value of a strong defensive position has diminished greatly. But anytime you either have too many target's, insufficiently clear intel, or an unwillingness to inflict the required collateral damage you time and again see defensive positions become complete man-shredders.

PersonMan
2015-11-12, 08:16 AM
Two questions.

First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

snowblizz
2015-11-12, 08:28 AM
Two questions.

First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

There already exists submersible transports (basically subs). Subs are used to insert special forces/raid teams. That's probably about where the usefulness ends. The problem is that it will be slow as heck, or visible. Check how large a modern amphibious assault vessel is and then consider it doesn't need to carry everything itself.

In the modern world you don't loot as such, but for raids look at the special forces operations. Anything bigger than that is not going to be feasible as a "raid". Big means visible, in various ways, and in the modern world that's very very difficult to avoid. Again in the modern world there's just not "loot" in the same way. What are you gonna do, jack a few Jags? Basically yes the costs are going to be too prohibitive compared to what you get. Most likely.

E.g. look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

Mr. Mask
2015-11-12, 09:15 AM
Some of the Marines in Iraq looted an Iraqi military base for socks. They had not been supplied enough socks. I think they might've also been low on batteries.

Armies tend to loot or requisition food, fuel, and medicine. They'll loot for whatever else they need, but those are the big ones. If they're rather bandit, they might also be gathering all the money and valuables they can, to the extent of cutting off ring fingers and removing gold teeth.

Beleriphon
2015-11-12, 09:21 AM
Two questions.

First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

Sure, something the size of a ballistic missile sub could be converted to support troop delivery, although it would be cramped. This would be a short range assault vehicle rather than long range transport.


Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

Depends. Modern asset assault was done constantly during the WWII by commandos. The Devil's Brigade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Special_Service_Force) is a good example of the kind of things commandos did. So in terms of asset destruction a huge number of operators aren't needed, but for full a raid where the purpose is capture loot then yeah its probably not really worth it since anything truly valuable tends to be hard to find, non-portable like fancy cars, or generally unstealable with things such as bank accounts. Gold bullion and art are still good to steal, but the issue is largely one of where do you sell something that isn't intrinsically valuable.

Tobtor
2015-11-12, 09:22 AM
Just posting here since some might be interested. There is a Norwegian film about the medieval period which is being released next year. It called "birkebeinerne" (the birch legs) and is based on sagas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKbnq_3gL20

The costumes seem OK. Some of the armour is too late (its set ion 1206 there shouldn't be much plate around), but at least it look medieval (and not like "The Vikings"-serie which does not look anything really).

GraaEminense
2015-11-12, 10:11 AM
Oh God our reenactment community has been tearing the costumes in that movie to shreds since the first images were released. It is, to be honest, pretty bad: if you see someone with genuinely good kit you can bet they are volunteer extras from one of the reenactment groups, while most of the production kits are fantasy creations with little basis in reality.

http://www.varden.no/polopoly_fs/1.1395361.1428681547!/image/581646037.jpg_gen/derivatives/derivative_article_980/581646037.jpg

Not saying the movie won't be good, it may well be, but the costumes suffer from lack of funding: most are recycled from older movies.

Tobtor
2015-11-12, 11:03 AM
From your statement the actor is the guy in the middle.

But compared to say; the Vikings or the majority of other "hitorical" films I find the costumes much better (though not good). For one they actually show characters with colours on their clothing... even the actor have something that look like a medieval weave beneath the leather/fur. But I commented alone on the trailer, I have now googled pictures and can see some bad stuff. But still the costumes are alot better than most of what you see in other movies. The design is more authentic (for the period) with long tunics etc

Compare with a release from the Vikings:

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2015/01/vikings_season3_hero_1-H.jpeg

The Birkebeiner movie seem to have a bit too much leather, and a mix of different historical costumes etc, but compared to something that must have had 100times the costume budget, I am not sorry they had a low budget...

Brother Oni
2015-11-12, 01:56 PM
Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

Further to previous answers, the issue of looting ammunition was part of why NATO and Warsaw Pact countries adopted different ammunition standards, for example NATO's 7.62mm cartridge (7.62x51mm) was not compatible with the Russian 7.62mm (7.62x39mm) one, plus when NATO countries started using 5.56x45mm, the Russians had their own 5.45x39mm.


Oh God our reenactment community has been tearing the costumes in that movie to shreds since the first images were released. It is, to be honest, pretty bad: if you see someone with genuinely good kit you can bet they are volunteer extras from one of the reenactment groups, while most of the production kits are fantasy creations with little basis in reality.

When I was still doing re-enactment, the typical pay was ~£100 for a day's filming, which made it attractive to most re-enactors and the production staff got authentic costumes with trained bodies to put in them for cheap compared to the cost of hiring/making them then hiring untrained actors on top of that and showing them how to wear it properly.

GraaEminense
2015-11-12, 02:07 PM
The Birkebeiner movie seem to have a bit too much leather, and a mix of different historical costumes etc, but compared to something that must have had 100times the costume budget, I am not sorry they had a low budget...
Oh, agreed: compared to countless other shows they are not doing badly at all. They do have a fair amount of decent stuff mixed in, but suffer from acute fantasy-armour-and-pointless-straps-and-belts-syndrome. It could certainly be worse, I'm just miffed that a movie based on an iconic, well documented historic event in a period we have pretty good sources on can't do better.

@Oni: Sounds reasonable, I haven't asked the guys how much they were paid.

Mongobear
2015-11-12, 03:07 PM
Just curious how effective any of the various Greatsword variants were in actual battlefield situations. The ones I can think of off-hand are Claymore, Zweihander, Flamberge, and Grosse Masser. (Im sure there are more versions, these are just the most common ones that I know of.)

Were they actually practical weapons in a mass warfare for entire units to be equipped with? Or were they more of a specialist/duelist weapon for small skirmishes?

What types of (dis)advantages did each version have over one another, as well as what sort of armor/shield/weapons did they work best/worst against?

Broken Crown
2015-11-12, 03:34 PM
First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

This is a thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_deck_shelter)


Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

"Getting loot" and "destroying enemy assets" are really two entirely different missions. Destroying assets can be done with special forces teams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid), but these days is normally done with aircraft.

Given the cost of operating modern military equipment, getting "loot" is not profitable; there's virtually nothing you can steal that has enough cash value to justify the cost of sending an army to steal it. However, plenty of operations are conducted for the purpose of acquiring something that has strategic value, be it intelligence, fuel supplies, or socks.

Beleriphon
2015-11-12, 04:01 PM
Just curious how effective any of the various Greatsword variants were in actual battlefield situations. The ones I can think of off-hand are Claymore, Zweihander, Flamberge, and Grosse Masser. (Im sure there are more versions, these are just the most common ones that I know of.)

Were they actually practical weapons in a mass warfare for entire units to be equipped with? Or were they more of a specialist/duelist weapon for small skirmishes?

What types of (dis)advantages did each version have over one another, as well as what sort of armor/shield/weapons did they work best/worst against?

From what I understand the big zweihander type sword was used landsknechts as a pike breaker. Effectively the guy wielding it would get it moving a big figure-eight pattern and walk towards the enemy line. The idea being that he would hack the ends of pikes to bits and probably take a few pikers out too boot. Whether that's actually how they were used is questionable, but the story has been around since the 17th century so take that as you will.

Incidentally a flamberge is a one handed sword with a wavy blade, the big two handed one is properly a flammenschwert.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-12, 04:05 PM
Mongobear: They were more specialist weapons. They were sometimes (or often, if you look at specific regions and times) at the flanks of formations, so they could cut down incoming cavalry or try to break into enemy pike formations. They were considered pretty valuable for the latter use, and were highly paid--though it was a risky job that got many of them killed, and only successfully broke the other formation some of the time (I've seen it argued either way for whether the tactic was worth it).

The Japanese also used some great swords or ōdachi, though more for killing horses than pike formations from what I remember, and never really in units. I don't think such a thing as a unit of great sword users would really exist, unless it was more of a semi-organized band of riders doing some head-hunting.

I think the details of claymores, Zweihänder and the like are too vague to really compare them. Zweihänder just means a two-handed sword. Haven't checked out if the others have consistent enough stats to really check out, either. Generally, they're considered pretty good against pikes, shields and horses, as they can cut the horses more easily with the increased range and damage, can break shields, and were considered able at breaking pike formations. For worst, I'm not really sure. Some have said they're worst against a smaller sword (say hand-and-half), since greatswords are a little slow and unwieldy by comparison. Other than that, I'm not sure. Maybe a six foot spear?



Broken Crown: The only thing worth mustering an army for is war reparations and oil/mineral rights, these days. Or just good ol' conquest.

Though, if your army is in the area or passing through, soldiers can generally steal whatever they can carry with them. Or you could send a small raid to requisition/loot supplies or loot you want/need.

It used to be that raiding and sabotage went hand and hand, till the break up of modern war. Raiders would come in, grab everything they wanted, then if they wanted burn and sabotage what was left to hurt the enemy (burning crops was popular). That still happens in smaller conflicts around the world. The reason it doesn't with large "modern" armies is that when you take a village, town or city, why would you give it up? Raiders don't have the wish or the manpower to keep the ground they capture, as the spoils are their goal--but that doesn't really work for modern armies. Not unless you're going with scorched-Earth tactics, burning and destroying everything you capture as soon as it's no longer of use.

Of course, this is very different from a modern military raid on the enemy. The ancient equivalent would be sneaking into a castle to open the gate, or to destroy their cannon. It's entirely alien from Viking raids on coastal villages.


Beleriphon: Hmm, interesting. I don't think that should be possible, unless the pikes were really flimsy. You might be able to take the head off a pike in optimal conditions. From what I've heard, it seems swordmasters were paid a lot for this role of breaking into pike formations, so I figure their role involved attempting to swipe pikes out of the way, get close, then lay havoc into the enemy formation until you were killed or it broke. Casualty rates for this job were apparently pretty high, and success rates were so-so, so I think that'd fit.

Honest Tiefling
2015-11-12, 04:18 PM
If one were to get a scar from a magical flaming weapon, assuming that the magical fire worked like normal fire upon the face, what would the resulting scar look like? If anyone is curious, it is meant to be a magically-inclined version of dueling scars. So describing them might come up a bit.

Beleriphon
2015-11-12, 04:23 PM
Mongobear: Beleriphon: Hmm, interesting. I don't think that should be possible, unless the pikes were really flimsy. You might be able to take the head off a pike in optimal conditions. From what I've heard, it seems swordmasters were paid a lot for this role of breaking into pike formations, so I figure their role involved attempting to swipe pikes out of the way, get close, then lay havoc into the enemy formation until you were killed or it broke. Casualty rates for this job were apparently pretty high, and success rates were so-so, so I think that'd fit.

Thus why the tactic was perhaps not accurately representing the actual use of the sword. I think you're referring specifically to the doppelsöldner who got double pay since the work was so dangerous. Either way some dude swinging a six foot sword marching towards you is probably pretty scary.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-12, 04:31 PM
Beleriphon: Exactly right. The morale effect along of them trying and maybe succeeding at getting inside your pike's range would be worth a lot against less-disciplined pikers.



Honest: Depends on the degree of the burn from how hot the blade is, and how long after receiving it it's been. Here is an example of a 2nd degree burn ten days later (mildly unpleasant): http://shrinershospitalcincinnati.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2nd-degree-chest.jpg

I'll see if I can find any sources on scars over time at varying degrees.

EDIT: So far, I've found this, that shows a first and second degree burn's progress over a couple of weeks. They seem to be advertising some kind of scar-removing product, so ignore that (I've no idea if it's a hoax or whatever, but the burn pictures are good): http://www.justaboutskin.com/2015/04/burn-scar-treatment/

Something I forgot to mention, is these scars will be combined with blade scarring: https://maniacofmagicdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/razor-blade-scars-nathan-allen-the-maniac-of-magic-comedian-magician-entertainer-entertainment-des-moines-iowa.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Adolf_Hoffmann-Heyden.JPG Cuts from blades often won't scar if you clean them out. But if it's combined with fire, there's not much way to avoid scarring.

Honest Tiefling
2015-11-12, 04:38 PM
Thanks! Do you have any ideas how the blade part might interact with the scarring?

Mr. Mask
2015-11-12, 04:42 PM
My guess would be it'd be like a duelling scar, but redder like the burn scars I showed. G and Mike could tell you better than I could. I'm trying to work out a similar injury you could base it off, something that cuts and burns.

EDIT: Oh, and here's a nasty 3rd degree burn scar (it looks more unpleasant than the first): http://dermatologytimes.modernmedicine.com/dermatology-times/news/examining-current-trends-scar-treatment?page=full

So, if it's a third-degree burn (ouch!!), you're looking at some warped skin along that duelling scar. Of course, how good the treatment (or in the case of duelling scars, mistreatment) is will make a lot of difference to how the scars form (or prevention of forming).

Honest Tiefling
2015-11-12, 04:44 PM
My guess would be it'd be like a duelling scar, but redder like the burn scars I showed. G and Mike could tell you better than I could. I'm trying to work out a similar injury you could base it off, something that cuts and burns.

Thanks for your help!

Mr. Mask
2015-11-12, 04:45 PM
Added a couple of edits to those posts with added pictures and comments. Hope that helps.

Broken Crown
2015-11-12, 06:30 PM
Broken Crown: The only thing worth mustering an army for is war reparations and oil/mineral rights, these days. Or just good ol' conquest.

Even war reparations haven't been worth it for a while. During the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, the Entente powers discovered that the entire economic output of the German Empire for a couple of decades wouldn't cover the costs of fighting the war.

Likewise, a huge amount of money is spent on protecting access to oil supplies. But that falls under "strategic value," so presumably it's worth spending money on it.


The Japanese also used some great swords or ōdachi, though more for killing horses than pike formations from what I remember, and never really in units. I don't think such a thing as a unit of great sword users would really exist, unless it was more of a semi-organized band of riders doing some head-hunting.

I'd always understood that ōdachi existed less as a useful weapon than as a source of bragging rights, both for the swordsman ("I'm so strong that I can wield this ridiculous huge blade") and the swordsmith ("I'm so skilled that I can forge this ridiculous huge blade"; no mean feat, given the quality of Japanese iron).

Brother Oni
2015-11-12, 07:08 PM
So, if it's a third-degree burn (ouch!!), you're looking at some warped skin along that duelling scar. Of course, how good the treatment (or in the case of duelling scars, mistreatment) is will make a lot of difference to how the scars form (or prevention of forming).

Even with good treatment, keloid tissue formation can sometimes be a bit random but in general you're correct.



I'd always understood that ōdachi existed less as a useful weapon than as a source of bragging rights, both for the swordsman ("I'm so strong that I can wield this ridiculous huge blade") and the swordsmith ("I'm so skilled that I can forge this ridiculous huge blade"; no mean feat, given the quality of Japanese iron).

Some odachi were temple or ritual offering weapons and these were the overly long weapons made to prove either the swordsman's or swordsmith's skill rather than actual combat weapons.
There was a similar two handed anti cavalry weapon, the nagamaki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamaki), although it more a spear with long blade / sword with a long handle than a two handed sword.

The Chinese has a similar long double handed single edged weapon, the Zhanmadao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanmadao), which was used as an anticavalry weapon.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-12, 08:40 PM
Crown: True, though WW1 was a very costly war. If it had ended as quickly as the war between France and Germany in WW2, the war reparations and conquest would've been worth a lot. I see your point that oil rights mightn't be worth as much economically as they are strategically.

Hmm, I thought it was ōdachi. Oni might know better as to what large swords were popular against horses.



Oni: Had always wondered about that, with scars. Thanks for clarifying for me!

Talakeal
2015-11-14, 02:47 PM
I was talking to someone about fighting a dragon, and a question was raised:

How flammable is armor? Specifically quilted armor of the padding underneath a suit of mail or plate?

Could it catch on fire if you are hit by a flaming attack or standing near a source of heat?

Would wearing flammable materials be more of a liability than a protection when fighting someone using flaming or heat based attack, be it dragon's breath, a flame thrower, or merely one of those flaming arrows that Robin Hood movie's like so much?

Gnoman
2015-11-14, 06:58 PM
I was talking to someone about fighting a dragon, and a question was raised:

How flammable is armor? Specifically quilted armor of the padding underneath a suit of mail or plate?

Could it catch on fire if you are hit by a flaming attack or standing near a source of heat?

Would wearing flammable materials be more of a liability than a protection when fighting someone using flaming or heat based attack, be it dragon's breath, a flame thrower, or merely one of those flaming arrows that Robin Hood movie's like so much?

Against a flamethrower (945° C- 1,200° C depending on fuel) or dragon's breath (typically stated to being hot enough to melt gold (1,064°C)), the metal armor would probably be just as bad, if not worse, than the flammable backing, because it would conduct the heat and cook your entire body instead of you "just" being burned around the actual contact point. At that point the much cooler flames from your burning clothes are the least of your problems.

Against flaming arrows, cloth or paper armor might actually leave you worse off than going without. However, the use of flaming arrows was quite rare as they are actually very poor weapons for most purposes, as they lose both power and accuracy.

Roxxy
2015-11-14, 07:48 PM
I was playing a video game as a US Marine getting shot at by a sniper with a .50 in Iraq. This got me thinking. I wouldn't doubt that insurgents use .50s, but are they really that good a weapon for such a force? The way it looks to me, it's just too heavy. As an insurgent, you need to be very mobile, especially against Americans, who can pinpoint your location and send in artillery or air support. Or just send a lot of small arms fire your way. It feels like a rifle that big takes too much effort to move to facilitate the rapid relocation one would use to conteract that level of enemy firepower. What say you guys?

Mike_G
2015-11-14, 08:04 PM
I was playing a video game as a US Marine getting shot at by a sniper with a .50 in Iraq. This got me thinking. I wouldn't doubt that insurgents use .50s, but are they really that good a weapon for such a force? The way it looks to me, it's just too heavy. As an insurgent, you need to be very mobile, especially against Americans, who can pinpoint your location and send in artillery or air support. Or just send a lot of small arms fire your way. It feels like a rifle that big takes too much effort to move to facilitate the rapid relocation one would use to conteract that level of enemy firepower. What say you guys?

A .50 caliber rifle is heavy, but not ridiculously so. It compares to a light machine gun or rocket launcher. The Barret that the US uses weighs about 30 pounds (13 kg), which is about 4 times what an M4 weighs, but not much different from an M240 7.62 LMG.

If we're looking at Soviet style weapons, which is more likely for insurgents, a PKM light machine gun weighs about 17 pounds. Ammo is lighter than .50 ammo, but you'd burn a lot more of it.

I don't know if the Russians make a .50 caliber equivalent rifle.

For further comparison, and RPG-7 weighs 15 pounds. So, if you carried that plus an AK-47 (since you can shoot the RPG at everything, and you'll want something when you've fired your rocket) you'd have almost the saem weapon weight.

The .50 caliber sniper rifle is a lot to lug around the battle field, but is roughly in line with other support weapons. The advantage is you can control a lot of area with it.

The bad thing for an insurgent is once you start picking people off with that kind of gun, the conventional squad you have pinned down will probably call artillery or air and vaporize the area you are in. That's not a problem for a US sniper.

Carl
2015-11-14, 09:17 PM
@Mike_G: Check this page: http://world.guns.ru/sniper-e.html

All except the special subsonic one are in the 25 pound range.

Roxxy
2015-11-14, 10:24 PM
So, not quite as bad as I thought, but too much of an attention getter?

Anyway, my game presents another question. America just invaded Iran with 50 thousand troops. That sounds like a ludicrously small number, given that we invaded Iraq, a smaller country with a lower population and an army that never recovered from the Gulf War, with over 180 thousand American troops and about as many allied troops. What I would like to ask is how many troops you guys think America would need to go in with to take and occupy the country.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-14, 11:16 PM
Gnoman, Talakeal: Would an asbestos surcoat help much? While it probably won't melt, I don't know if it's THAT insulative (assuming it was somehow giving total coverage).

Gnoman
2015-11-15, 03:25 AM
Gnoman, Talakeal: Would an asbestos surcoat help much? While it probably won't melt, I don't know if it's THAT insulative (assuming it was somehow giving total coverage).

An insulatory layer would help a lot if it were thick enough, but would be a very real hazard in and of itself. Much like modern NBC protection, it would trap so much body heat that you would be in danger of heat stroke even on a fairly cool day.

fusilier
2015-11-15, 03:55 AM
I was talking to someone about fighting a dragon, and a question was raised:

How flammable is armor? Specifically quilted armor of the padding underneath a suit of mail or plate?

Could it catch on fire if you are hit by a flaming attack or standing near a source of heat?

Would wearing flammable materials be more of a liability than a protection when fighting someone using flaming or heat based attack, be it dragon's breath, a flame thrower, or merely one of those flaming arrows that Robin Hood movie's like so much?

As Gnoman pointed out the level of heat is so high the inflammability of the cloth isn't going to matter much --

However, wool is pretty resistant to fire, and while I've seen it claimed that it will burn, I've never actually seen it happen. I recently heard about somebody applying a blow torch to a replica WW1 German tunic, singeing the outside, then scraping it down (this was supposed to emulate the wear that would have occurred through use . . . or something). Personally, I've had matchcord ash burn a hole in my wool sleeve, but the wool didn't actively burn, and the cotton canvas interfacing underneath wasn't harmed.

Wool was pretty popular as a cloth, but I'm not sure how common it was on padded armors. The padding itself could be a more serious issue, if it's made from raw fibers it might catch fire pretty easily, depending upon the material -- hemp tow is actually used as a tinder. So in addition to the raw material, how it's woven also seems to have an effect of inflammability.

Although if you're being blasted by flame hot enough to melt gold, I suspect this is all moot.

Storm Bringer
2015-11-15, 05:32 AM
So, not quite as bad as I thought, but too much of an attention getter?

Anyway, my game presents another question. America just invaded Iran with 50 thousand troops. That sounds like a ludicrously small number, given that we invaded Iraq, a smaller country with a lower population and an army that never recovered from the Gulf War, with over 180 thousand American troops and about as many allied troops. What I would like to ask is how many troops you guys think America would need to go in with to take and occupy the country.

the game is battlefield 3, isn't it? its starting to sound familiar.

to answer the question, it depends on what the objective is. if its a limited "bite and hold" type op, 50,000 (big division/small corps sized) might be enough.

also, was it 50,000 troops total or 50,000 American troops? America could be one (large) part of a coalition of other nations that is invading Iran.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-15, 11:24 AM
An insulatory layer would help a lot if it were thick enough, but would be a very real hazard in and of itself. Much like modern NBC protection, it would trap so much body heat that you would be in danger of heat stroke even on a fairly cool day. Very true. I guess if you could make it a surcoat, you could sling it over your shoulder when there are no dragons around (sort of like the scarf of a really protective grandma). Although, in the long term, breathing any asbestos would be a bad idea.

You could also try lining your shield with the stuff, let it and the air between you and your shield dissipate the heat.

Gnoman
2015-11-15, 12:40 PM
Very true. I guess if you could make it a surcoat, you could sling it over your shoulder when there are no dragons around (sort of like the scarf of a really protective grandma). Although, in the long term, breathing any asbestos would be a bad idea.

You could also try lining your shield with the stuff, let it and the air between you and your shield dissipate the heat.

That might work, provided that the flames strike the shield squarely.

Thiel
2015-11-15, 01:29 PM
Very true. I guess if you could make it a surcoat, you could sling it over your shoulder when there are no dragons around (sort of like the scarf of a really protective grandma). Although, in the long term, breathing any asbestos would be a bad idea.

You could also try lining your shield with the stuff, let it and the air between you and your shield dissipate the heat.

I don't think long term asbestosis, or long term anything really, is going to be much of an issue for someone who tries to kill a dragon with a metal stick.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-15, 01:42 PM
Very, very true.


Gnoman: Mm, if your aim(?) is a bit off, you'll be looking at a melted face or legs. If the volume of the flame is bigger than your shield.... problem. Admittedly, preventing most of the volume of the flames hitting you might save you (depending on how much and how hot and what you're wearing).




Heroes
Something a bit more unusual I'd like to pose. If in ancient warfare you had some legendary warriors with beyond-human qualities, what would be a good use for them?

To go into more detail, we'll say each hero can approximately kill a hundred men single-handed. To make it interesting, lets say the era is 150BC around the Mediterranean.

Some of the men will have unique powers, but for now we'll focus on one with extreme strength and speed. These men can run alongside horses, can march with 300 pounds of equipment, and can fight using ridiculously heavy weapons (if they want to). I could see them being given some kind of crazy polearms, and breaking enemy pikes or spears (I talked with someone who's worked with wood, and apparently it is possible to damage/splinter/split them with a large weapon, from his experience). And no shield or armour could protect you from his strike. Even chariots would be smashed to bits. And likely, they can throw javelins of a similar ferocity.

So, if in an army of 6,000 (Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Carthaginians, Seleucid, pick your preference), you had 10 men like this, how would you use them?

PersonMan
2015-11-15, 02:40 PM
Question: what sort of techniques would a smith use, if they intended on churning out as many swords or similar weapons as possible, disregarding the quality*?

*Assuming they need to be just good enough to pass a minor inspection i.e. don't shatter on the first swing or similar.

Brother Oni
2015-11-15, 02:43 PM
I was playing a video game as a US Marine getting shot at by a sniper with a .50 in Iraq. This got me thinking. I wouldn't doubt that insurgents use .50s, but are they really that good a weapon for such a force? The way it looks to me, it's just too heavy. As an insurgent, you need to be very mobile, especially against Americans, who can pinpoint your location and send in artillery or air support. Or just send a lot of small arms fire your way. It feels like a rifle that big takes too much effort to move to facilitate the rapid relocation one would use to conteract that level of enemy firepower. What say you guys?

People get very inventive when it comes to carting around heavy weapons:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/20/16/2AB22CF400000578-3168287-image-a-20_1437405803845.jpg


to answer the question, it depends on what the objective is. if its a limited "bite and hold" type op, 50,000 (big division/small corps sized) might be enough.


Also, is that all combat arms or does it include support troops? Depending on the tooth to tail ratio, that could be as few as 5-7 thousand direct combat guys.


That might work, provided that the flames strike the shield squarely.

In the saga, Beowulf commissioned a solid metal shield so he could get close enough to slay a dragon.

With regard to protection from dragon breath and armour protection, it's not just the problem of ignition, it's the flames getting through the eye and mouth holes of the helmet, causing burns to the eyes and other soft tissue as well as the possibility of inhalation and subsequent damage to the lungs.

Suppose we ignore that issue, heat transfer to the armour is highly dependent on the type of dragon breath. If it were jet of burning fluid like a military flamethrower, you've got a roast in a can knight but a jet of burning gas isn't as efficient at heat transfer.
I remember crunching the numbers in a previous version of this thread and the equivalent energy to deliver 3rd degree burns to bare flesh over ~20% of the body would only raise a set of full plate harness to about 80(?) degrees I think, which is suitably insulated by a period gambeson, let alone a flame retardant one. Internal heat is an issue though as mentioned earlier.

I vaguely remember something about dragonfire being insanely hot in the course of my calculations, but I forget the context. Give me a while to try and find it.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-15, 02:54 PM
Person: You're probably looking at a sharpened iron bar. Not as sharp as it could be, as they used only one kind of steel that had enough elasticity that it wouldn't break. May be poorly balanced. Of course, the kind of metal used will depend on what's cheapest and easiest to mass-produce.

Roxxy
2015-11-15, 03:10 PM
the game is battlefield 3, isn't it? its starting to sound familiar.

to answer the question, it depends on what the objective is. if its a limited "bite and hold" type op, 50,000 (big division/small corps sized) might be enough.

also, was it 50,000 troops total or 50,000 American troops? America could be one (large) part of a coalition of other nations that is invading Iran.Maybe it was Battlefield 3...

They weren't really clear on the objective of the invasion, but I'd guess occupation, given the context. I did get the impression that it was Americans only, but even if it wasn't, it'd question where the rest of the troops are coming from. I can't see it being done with fewer troops than Iraq, and that was 380,000. So if we say it takes just as many (and I think that's too few), America needs to scrounge up 330,000 allied troops in a matter of weeks. Who can send that many troops if America can only spare 50,000? You could have the entire EU on board, and it would still sound pretty iffy.

Spiryt
2015-11-15, 04:11 PM
Question: what sort of techniques would a smith use, if they intended on churning out as many swords or similar weapons as possible, disregarding the quality*?

*Assuming they need to be just good enough to pass a minor inspection i.e. don't shatter on the first swing or similar.

Well, it hugely depends on iron industry surrounding said smiths....

If sufficient amount of decent iron for sword is something rather rare and tricky to get, like on some plains in 5th century BC?

Or you can buy some 1kg of decent iron/steel in beam shape for fairly low price at market, say in England in 18th century? Or today?

That changes almost everything, I would say.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-15, 05:44 PM
Question: what sort of techniques would a smith use, if they intended on churning out as many swords or similar weapons as possible, disregarding the quality*?

*Assuming they need to be just good enough to pass a minor inspection i.e. don't shatter on the first swing or similar.

This sort of happened at least ones, and much more recently than you'd think. When the western front of WW1 turned into trench warfare the troops needed hand to hand weapons fast, so they used stuff like shovels. The army blacksmiths on all sides also started churning out weapons for this use. They came up with the "French nail" (http://www.militaryantiques.co.uk/showthumbc.asp?p=images/items13542.jpg), generally made from a sharpened railway spike/nail, which later developed into the trench knife (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg). They also made trench clubs (http://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/wp-content/mcme-uploads/2014/07/196200071-013.jpg), basically maces. Both these weapons were made in a wide variety of shapes and types, and in large numbers.

If we're talking pre-gun, I'm not sure we'd be looking at swords here. Clubs/maces, large pointy daggers and spears are pretty easy to make. Even a half decent short sword is probably more difficult to make than that, and uses more valuable steel (often one of the first non-food resources to become scarce in times of war). Hammers, axes and most pole arms are at least easier to make than some types of swords. If they do end up choosing swords, probably something (semi-)short, and sturdy. Maybe something like a gladius, maybe more like a cutlas.


Something a bit more unusual I'd like to pose. If in ancient warfare you had some legendary warriors with beyond-human qualities, what would be a good use for them?

To go into more detail, we'll say each hero can approximately kill a hundred men single-handed. To make it interesting, lets say the era is 150BC around the Mediterranean.

Some of the men will have unique powers, but for now we'll focus on one with extreme strength and speed. These men can run alongside horses, can march with 300 pounds of equipment, and can fight using ridiculously heavy weapons (if they want to). I could see them being given some kind of crazy polearms, and breaking enemy pikes or spears (I talked with someone who's worked with wood, and apparently it is possible to damage/splinter/split them with a large weapon, from his experience). And no shield or armour could protect you from his strike. Even chariots would be smashed to bits. And likely, they can throw javelins of a similar ferocity.

So, if in an army of 6,000 (Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Carthaginians, Seleucid, pick your preference), you had 10 men like this, how would you use them?

I wouldn't want them to die. They're a very limited resource. They can kill a thousand enemy soldiers, sure, but if they live they can kill a thousand more for every following battle. I'd probably let them skirmish with ranged weapons, in one or two groups, with some ablative support units. I'd only let them fight the enemy straight on if I thought that could push them to the breaking point and result in their surrender. If a battle is going poorly getting them out there could turn the tide of the battle, but it could also get them all killed. They might be more useful covering the retreat. Alternatively I'd split them off from the main forces altogether, letting them circle around the enemy troops and march on the enemy capital. With the fighting strength of a thousand men but the detectable presence of just ten of them they could be a formidable special ops force.

I also think the harder question is "how would I counter the enemy´s heroes?" That one I don't know... Flamethrowers?

Brother Oni
2015-11-15, 07:35 PM
So, if in an army of 6,000 (Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Carthaginians, Seleucid, pick your preference), you had 10 men like this, how would you use them?

I'd think their strategic uses in raiding and/or commando roles would far outweigh their tactical use (imagine 10 of them sneaking into a city to open the gates from the inside or as leaders of raiding bands performing a variation of Chevauchee).

If you had intended to use them on a battlefield, drawing on my experience of the closest possibly analogy (playing Dynasty Warriors with a high level character), run around like a mobile reserve, propping up weak points in your army while smashing enemy strong points. Where possible, focus on the enemy officers to undermine the leadership of the troops under their command. When the opportunity presents itself, decapitate the enemy army with a tactical strike on their generals.

Whether they do this in small groups or individually with a personal bodyguard is entirely up to you. Tactically, 10 such mobile reserves would be better, although without modern communications, co-ordinating them would be tricky thus I'd send some out with general orders of 'do whatever you can in this area' while the others would be held back under direct command.

Honest Tiefling
2015-11-15, 07:52 PM
Something a bit more unusual I'd like to pose. If in ancient warfare you had some legendary warriors with beyond-human qualities, what would be a good use for them?

Is kidnapping someone to use as a hostage to force the opposing army to surrender an option? I feel that someone more knowledgeable about warfare will squash this idea, but my first impulse is to sneak in, grab the king and ignore the army.

You mention strength and speed, but NOT the ability to heal from a spear wound. Putting them on the battlefield is the last thing I'd do, given that a lucky spear toss will eliminate one of my godly heroes and I assume I cannot just find pretty ladies of around 40 years of age to see if they've been visited by a certain god and might have an extra hero lying around.

spineyrequiem
2015-11-15, 08:11 PM
Very, very true.

So, if in an army of 6,000 (Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Carthaginians, Seleucid, pick your preference), you had 10 men like this, how would you use them?

I'd probably use them how we often use our best fighters in reenactment; propping up weaknesses in the line until you can send a unit of proper reinforcements, and occasionally running out as a hit squad to cut off and take out any particularly nasty groups of enemies. You can see some South Korean riot police doing this here. https://youtu.be/sbFSVh1mmiw?t=3m5s

Generally speaking, if I were using them on the battlefield I'd put them in the places where they could do the most damage without risk to themselves, so within the main line and not right at the front. Oh, and I'd give them the most armor I physically could, 'cause they're probably strong enough to fight without being affected by the weight. Assuming they can deal with the heat, of course...


Gnoman, Talakeal: Would an asbestos surcoat help much? While it probably won't melt, I don't know if it's THAT insulative (assuming it was somehow giving total coverage).

I did hear about some (egyptian?) knights at some point in the 12th Century who wore what are believed to have been asbestos surcoats and set themselves on fire immediately before going into combat. Apparently they could still fight, but only for about twenty minutes before they started to cook in their armour. They were terrifying for those twenty minutes though...



This is something of an odd question, but can anyone think of plausible combat support roles for a teenage girl in Japan's Volunteer Fighting Corps in 1945, in a theoretical WW2 where Japan didn't surrender before the allied invasion of Kyushu? The thing I'm writing is set in (as you can probably guess) Japan, in some sort of urban area which they've decided to defend with ground troops (I'm really hoping that was part of the plan for Operation Ketsugo...), and whatever role she takes has to be suitable for someone fairly physically weak, require minimal training, actually have existed in 1945 Japan (for instance I'm told they didn't really have dedicated stretcher-bearers, so that's out), be sociable enough that I can do some character development for her friends and be non-vital enough that chucking them all a bamboo spear and telling them to go kill Americans when they show up is a sensible decision by the higher-ups.

Also, who would have led units of the Volunteer Fighting Corps? Would it have been Kempeitai, or regular army officers? Or someone else entirely?

Gnoman
2015-11-15, 08:43 PM
This is something of an odd question, but can anyone think of plausible combat support roles for a teenage girl in Japan's Volunteer Fighting Corps in 1945, in a theoretical WW2 where Japan didn't surrender before the allied invasion of Kyushu? The thing I'm writing is set in (as you can probably guess) Japan, in some sort of urban area which they've decided to defend with ground troops (I'm really hoping that was part of the plan for Operation Ketsugo...), and whatever role she takes has to be suitable for someone fairly physically weak, require minimal training, actually have existed in 1945 Japan (for instance I'm told they didn't really have dedicated stretcher-bearers, so that's out), be sociable enough that I can do some character development for her friends and be non-vital enough that chucking them all a bamboo spear and telling them to go kill Americans when they show up is a sensible decision by the higher-ups.


A bomb is an entirely plausible role.

spineyrequiem
2015-11-15, 09:02 PM
A bomb is an entirely plausible role.

Three of her friends get to try their hand at that particular role... This is more something she can do before the Americans show up.

Mr Beer
2015-11-15, 10:51 PM
So, if in an army of 6,000 (Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Carthaginians, Seleucid, pick your preference), you had 10 men like this, how would you use them?

On the battlefield, I would give them the best armour that they could still run around in at a good rate and a supply of overstrength bows or a lot of spears. They would be under instruction to lay down devastating fire on choice targets (enemy siege weapons, elite troops, commanders and missile troops) while avoiding direct battle. With their speed and armour, they could probably survive multiple battles completely unscathed, which is what I want. They are only to engage to prevent catastrophes or maybe to eliminate the enemy command.

But really, I wouldn't use them much on the battlefield. This is like the WW2 superheroes you proposed, I don't want them dying in battle. I want them sneaking into the enemy camp and stealing their horses, poisoning their water, firing their grain and assassinating their leaders.

They can be spies, messengers, scouts, assassins and special forces.

EDIT

If for some reason they have to get into toe-to-toe fighting, I want them in ultra-heavy armour, basically impervious to normal weaponry and with heavy polearms as their main weapon for maximum damage and reach. They should have swords as a backup weapon, made of extra thick bronze so as to be highly durable.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-16, 12:24 AM
I wouldn't want them to die. They're a very limited resource. They can kill a thousand enemy soldiers, sure, but if they live they can kill a thousand more for every following battle. I'd probably let them skirmish with ranged weapons, in one or two groups, with some ablative support units. I'd only let them fight the enemy straight on if I thought that could push them to the breaking point and result in their surrender. If a battle is going poorly getting them out there could turn the tide of the battle, but it could also get them all killed. They might be more useful covering the retreat. Alternatively I'd split them off from the main forces altogether, letting them circle around the enemy troops and march on the enemy capital. With the fighting strength of a thousand men but the detectable presence of just ten of them they could be a formidable special ops force. This is very true. You don't want to waste them, whatever you do.

Interestingly, thinking about it with the point below, skirmishing range may potentially be worse for them, if the enemy are actively trying to send archers after them. Of course, if you can shoot the enemy from outside their range, that's as safe as it gets. Of course, you're probably minimizing their effectiveness, doing that, so that the 10 of them may only kill a hundred men under such conditions. If they can skirmish with the enemy for an extended period like that, that's a good way to wear out the enemy and lure them out.

Using them to cover a retreat or reinforce your army sound like good ideas. As do spec-op missions.

They'd also be good at holding narrow places, as the Spartans did against the Persians, or the legend of Stanford bridge (which seemingly was just a legend).


I also think the harder question is "how would I counter the enemy´s heroes?" That one I don't know... Flamethrowers? Use the inverse ninja law, and make sure they outnumber you.

More seriously, it's quite likely there aren't any methods without risk or loss. If you can outnumber them with more and/or stronger heroes, possibly fighting from an advantageous position, then you can win with minimal risk and losses just as in war.

Also as in war, attacking them from outside their effective range where you can maximize the number of men attacking the heroes is good. So, artillery bombarding their position from a mile away, or a thousand archers blocking out the sun. Whereas in melee, you can only get about 6 people attacking one hero at a time (a few more with longer pikes and people stabbing over the front rank's shoulders).

Stuff like flamethrowers are definitely good, as their armour will have minimal effect protecting them against that, and it's an attack that can blanket an area and inflict serious damage. It does mean they might put an arrow or bullet in your fuel tanks, however, which can be a nasty way of having it used against you.



I'd think their strategic uses in raiding and/or commando roles would far outweigh their tactical use (imagine 10 of them sneaking into a city to open the gates from the inside or as leaders of raiding bands performing a variation of Chevauchee).

If you had intended to use them on a battlefield, drawing on my experience of the closest possibly analogy (playing Dynasty Warriors with a high level character), run around like a mobile reserve, propping up weak points in your army while smashing enemy strong points. Where possible, focus on the enemy officers to undermine the leadership of the troops under their command. When the opportunity presents itself, decapitate the enemy army with a tactical strike on their generals.

Whether they do this in small groups or individually with a personal bodyguard is entirely up to you. Tactically, 10 such mobile reserves would be better, although without modern communications, co-ordinating them would be tricky thus I'd send some out with general orders of 'do whatever you can in this area' while the others would be held back under direct command. That is true that they would excel in spec-ops and raiding roles, that rely on small groups. At the same time, I can see the advantages of having them around if you had to fight a field battle (or having them around to open the gates when you're planning a siege). One thing in particular being if the enemy focuses their heroes into their standing army, it'll give them a substantial advantage over you. If they can capture your army, then your nation will likely be forced to surrender, or wage a desperate guerilla war.

Interestingly, I've heard knights sometimes did what you described. Reinforcing the places that were having trouble and moving about the battlefield. Smashing enemy weakpoints or hammering in a new one if the chance arises.

What you mention with communications sounds wise. You can probably signal to them somewhat with flags or sounds if necessary, but a lot of it will be up to their intuition regardless. Though general orders like, "the left flank seems to be faltering, see what you can do," may still be suitable.

The question of whether to concentrate the heroes into one group or with personal bodyguards in an interesting one. I guess if you needed some serious firepower, combining all the heroes into one attack squad would be the main option. Whereas, if you want to cover a lot of places at once, having a support squad follow the heroes around and back them up would be wise. The latter would be vulnerable to the former, but the former would also be vulnerable to losing the battle where the hero squad wasn't.



Is kidnapping someone to use as a hostage to force the opposing army to surrender an option? I feel that someone more knowledgeable about warfare will squash this idea, but my first impulse is to sneak in, grab the king and ignore the army.

You mention strength and speed, but NOT the ability to heal from a spear wound. Putting them on the battlefield is the last thing I'd do, given that a lucky spear toss will eliminate one of my godly heroes and I assume I cannot just find pretty ladies of around 40 years of age to see if they've been visited by a certain god and might have an extra hero lying around. In many cases, that'd work. How much it works does vary, however, where if your goals/demands aren't reasonable enough or if there's a good enough candidate to replace the king, or too man people in positions of power, then it would be difficult.

While it's true that a non-immortal hero is liable to die on the battlefield eventually, theoretically they're much less likely to do so than the average guy. For one thing, they can wear heavy armour. When kidnapping kings, you will be putting them at a lot of risk. Infiltrating the enemy territory that far will be tricky, and the castle will likely be well-guarded. If you're spotted while trying to break in, it will be hard to survive. If you're spotted after breaking in, it'll be hard to escape and survive. Interior areas are largely to your strength, but you can't use large weapons indoors, and you an't wear heavy armour when sneaking about. The enemy also knows that castle a lot better than you do, and their efforts will likely be on trying to corner you. If you manage to reach the king before or while being spotted, escaping with him will be very difficult even with great strength and speed. It may turn things into an awkward hostage situation. If the enemy has any heroes, then it becomes all the more dangerous.

That's not to say this is a bad plan. It has specific circumstances that make it optimal, and even then it is something of a gamble (big risk vs. big reward).


I'd probably use them how we often use our best fighters in reenactment; propping up weaknesses in the line until you can send a unit of proper reinforcements, and occasionally running out as a hit squad to cut off and take out any particularly nasty groups of enemies. You can see some South Korean riot police doing this here. https://youtu.be/sbFSVh1mmiw?t=3m5s

Generally speaking, if I were using them on the battlefield I'd put them in the places where they could do the most damage without risk to themselves, so within the main line and not right at the front. Oh, and I'd give them the most armor I physically could, 'cause they're probably strong enough to fight without being affected by the weight. Assuming they can deal with the heat, of course...


I did hear about some (egyptian?) knights at some point in the 12th Century who wore what are believed to have been asbestos surcoats and set themselves on fire immediately before going into combat. Apparently they could still fight, but only for about twenty minutes before they started to cook in their armour. They were terrifying for those twenty minutes though... Lots of armour and not getting too aggressive with them sounds wise. Not sure if they'd be too much use outside of the front line, though. They could certainly slaughter any men who broke through your line, or who got trapped. And if they worked as a force that goes forward to trap more enemies in a pocket, they ought to be good at that.


That... is very neat. Forget flaming swords, flaming knights are where it's at!


On the battlefield, I would give them the best armour that they could still run around in at a good rate and a supply of overstrength bows or a lot of spears. They would be under instruction to lay down devastating fire on choice targets (enemy siege weapons, elite troops, commanders and missile troops) while avoiding direct battle. With their speed and armour, they could probably survive multiple battles completely unscathed, which is what I want. They are only to engage to prevent catastrophes or maybe to eliminate the enemy command.

But really, I wouldn't use them much on the battlefield. This is like the WW2 superheroes you proposed, I don't want them dying in battle. I want them sneaking into the enemy camp and stealing their horses, poisoning their water, firing their grain and assassinating their leaders.

They can be spies, messengers, scouts, assassins and special forces. To be honest, if you can get those guys in the camp, I'd have them set fire to it and slaughter everyone left and right. Poisoning water or stealing horses is for ninja who can't kill a hundred men single-handed. Getting those guys into a location for a good surprise attack is basically a victory condition. Combine it with a charge of convention infantry once the chaos starts, so they won't be alone for too long. Even assassinating a leader seems small, when you can use them to instead defeat the whole enemy army. If there's a specific circumstance, like they can rush forward and slaughter the leader and his bodyguards, then run away, then that's a case where they'd excel.

Giving the heroes plenty of ammo is a good idea. One thing it makes me wonder, is whether you could give them something like a miniature ballista. Bow are meant to lose a lot of efficiency after a certain size, but ballistae are still plenty powerful.

Brother Oni
2015-11-16, 03:40 AM
This is something of an odd question, but can anyone think of plausible combat support roles for a teenage girl in Japan's Volunteer Fighting Corps in 1945, in a theoretical WW2 where Japan didn't surrender before the allied invasion of Kyushu? The thing I'm writing is set in (as you can probably guess) Japan, in some sort of urban area which they've decided to defend with ground troops (I'm really hoping that was part of the plan for Operation Ketsugo...), and whatever role she takes has to be suitable for someone fairly physically weak, require minimal training, actually have existed in 1945 Japan (for instance I'm told they didn't really have dedicated stretcher-bearers, so that's out), be sociable enough that I can do some character development for her friends and be non-vital enough that chucking them all a bamboo spear and telling them to go kill Americans when they show up is a sensible decision by the higher-ups.

Also, who would have led units of the Volunteer Fighting Corps? Would it have been Kempeitai, or regular army officers? Or someone else entirely?

Some quick digging indicates that there wasn't a Japanese version of the Women's Land Army with only 1.4 million women entering the labor force between 1940 and 1944, the minister of welfare not drafting them out of consideration for the family system. In comparison at its height in the UK, 80,000 women were in the Women's Land Army with another 400,000 in the various services (including the then Princess Elizabeth who worked as an ambulance driver in London) and I can't find a figure for civilian roles women joined up in.

I'm also dubious of how much of an effective defence they could put up - towards the end, they were apparently conscripting men of up to 60 years of age and arming them with bamboo pikes as weapons were in such short supply.

Let me do some more research and I'll get back to you.

Edit: Derp, didn't read your post properly. According to the Wikipedia article, commanders of the Volunteer Fighting Corp would have been retired military personnel or civilians with weapons experience, so much like the British Home Guard. While they did receive combat training, they were mostly involved in construction, rationing and transport, so typical combat support roles, like guarding buildings, driving around supplies and men, etc.

If you did need another role - ammunition runner perhaps? She and the rest of her squad transport shells to the few remaining artillery pieces left in hand carts, but are forced to defend their position when enemy infantry turn up and threaten to take it. Let me think about it some more.

Great, now I can't get a Japanese version of Dad's Army out of my head.



The question of whether to concentrate the heroes into one group or with personal bodyguards in an interesting one. I guess if you needed some serious firepower, combining all the heroes into one attack squad would be the main option. Whereas, if you want to cover a lot of places at once, having a support squad follow the heroes around and back them up would be wise. The latter would be vulnerable to the former, but the former would also be vulnerable to losing the battle where the hero squad wasn't.

You could always send multiple hero units and their bodyguards together in a single deployment; I feel it's less effective to split up a single unit of heroes, assign them bodyguards and send them out separately (they haven't trained together, thus they don't know either's capabilities, plus their espirit de corps would be lower).

If they're running about in small trained bands, I'd personally make sure your heroes are not too distinctive from their bodyguards (ie no running alongside the horses) as that would easily highlight them out to enemy forces. I've read that in ancient battles, ballistae were used to snipe heavily armoured high value targets like cataphracts and I don't think your heroes are tough enough to survive that.

On the other hand, having your heroes in distinctive armour and highly visible banners is very good for morale and intimidation purposes ("Achilles is here! We will win this! Fight harder men!" and "Achilles is here! We're doomed! Run away!" respectively).

Kiero
2015-11-16, 05:42 AM
I don't know of any evidence that Spanish pikers carried shields at their backs. Raimond de Fourquevaux, an veteran French military commander, recommend that pikers carry shields on their backs, but it's unclear whether this actually happened in the field. Burgundian pikers apparently carried small shields in the late 15th century, and some Scottish pikers in the middle of the 16th century used shields - though not on their backs, but strapped on the arm while holding the pike. The Dutch under Maurice of Nassau used shields for pikers in similar fashion. See this thread (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=289390).

I'd love to have evidence that the Spanish also had pikers use shields, or that something like Fourquevaux's system happened in practice.

Just on this point, carrying a small shield strapped to the upper arm/shoulder was exactly how ancient Macedonian pikemen carried one while using a two-handed pike.

snowblizz
2015-11-16, 07:49 AM
On the other hand, having your heroes in distinctive armour and highly visible banners is very good for morale and intimidation purposes ("Achilles is here! We will win this! Fight harder men!" and "Achilles is here! We're doomed! Run away!" respectively).

It's seems Alexander the Great managed to pull this off several times. And he wasn't even a bonafide hero. Although the same accounts telling us that probably indicates he was.:smalltongue:

Galloglaich
2015-11-16, 08:11 AM
Siege weapons on a carriage goes back to the ancient greek Helepolis in the 4th century BC and the non-ranged version goes back to 9th century Assyria. Conrad Keysers himself claims he's just describing things from Alexander the Great's time, but he would because he had a anti-progress medieval mindset and may not have had actual access to much ancient Greek material.

I don't think the "anti-progress" medieval mindset was actually a real thing, in fact I think that is a worn out cliché and a gross oversimplification of the reality. Basing certain essentially new proposals on the principals of Classical "auctores" or authorities like Euclid or Aristotle, or even writing innovative treatises while claiming to be some Classical authority were all common practices, but it's not necessarily all that different from scientists and inventors today invoking the names and work of respected ancient scholars such as Blaise Pascal, Issac Newton or Albert Einstein in modern technological innovations, or the still-current use of terminology and nomenclature in Greek and Latin in almost all modern science, even though we know very well the "auctores" who established them were limited in their understanding of many things by todays standards.



On the other hand there's a lot of infeasible rubbish wonder weapons in those military manuals.

There are certainly some bizarre things that we don't yet understand, and some which may be rubbish, but we don't actually know how many were, or even if any of it really is. In fact, the more carefully they have looked at these so far the more sophisticated and legitimate many of these weapons appear to be. Without any doubt the war-wagon, cannon and firearms technologies in the Bellifortis are clearly precursors of what we know later became well established technologies. Some of these (like the war-wagon and the serpentine lock) were almost certainly simply older than we had originally thought.

A couple of years ago National Geographic did an interesting documentary on one of the (mid 15th Century) Talhoffer fight-books which included many of the Bellifortis inventions, a little better illustrated (Conrad Keyser wrote his book under exigent circumstances and had to rely on some itinerant artists of dubious skill to illustrate his original work) and they were able to prove the validity of several of the inventions therein, including the war wagons and the infamous 'scuba' suit.

http://coldwaterdiver.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Talhoffer-Diving-Suit-.jpg

This is the National Geographic documentary

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh5aey_ngc-medieval-fight-book-part-1-3_shortfilms

The trope of the backward, ignorant "anti-technology" medieval world is almost the opposite of the reality. Medieval European society was highly mechanized and eagerly embraced every new technology they could get their hands on. That is in fact how they gradually pulled ahead of many other parts of the world. The anti-technology world was really the Roman world, which preferred to use slave labor to machines.



What the Hussites are doing is not inventing weapons, but successfully taking siege weapons to the battlefield in a very dramatic way.

A gun with wheels is not automatically a very mobile one. There are a lot of various degrees of mobility. Improving mobility can be as much an innovation as introducing it.

There is certainly some truth to this, however...

...


A war wagon is not in anyway a proto-type tank, its a field fortification and more a antecedent of trench warfare than mechanised warfare.. Its only 'relatively' mobile. It probably couldn't retreat very fast if it had to.

Well, this is not entirely true. Certainly in many cases the war-wagons were used as a mobile fort (chained together in place as a fort), and proved valuable at resisting cavalry charges much like pike-squares, but it's another cliché in fact about the early war-wagons that they were only used this way, as wagon laagers. We know of at least four major battles: one by the original Hussites against the Germans during the Crusades in the 1420's, two by Hussite mercenaries fighting in the Hungarian Black Army against the Ottomans in the 1460's, and the one I already linked to upthread by the Muscovites (Russians) also against the Ottomans in the 1570's, in which the war- wagons were fighting in moving columns and defeated the (larger) enemy army by flanking them.

And we know from literary evidence and artwork that these war wagons were not just used by the Czechs, the Czechs were just the best at using them. They appear to be widespread in Central Europe especially in German-speaking areas, they show up in records in Scandinavia, and they were widely adopted by the Cossacks in what is now the Ukraine.

In fact it's also a similar cliché about pike squares that they were only used in static formations, but when deployed by more motivated troops like the Swiss who pioneered (if not actually invented) them, they were frequently used in fast-moving, hard-hitting columns.

I would not necessarily say that the medieval war-wagons were the precursors of tanks, but maybe the lineage could be said to have continued more or less uninterrupted to this weapon system the tachanka, widely used in the wars of the 1920's

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Taczanka.jpg

and perhaps, to the technical, now arguably the premier mechanized weapon of warfare in much of Africa and the Middle East.

http://images.alarabiya.net/bf/f2/640x392_5481_172519.jpg

...in the sense that the war wagons were a way to move firepower around the battlefield and for example place them into flanking positions. Much the same way that Karl Gustav moved his fast wheeled cannon.

In the medieval period the war-wagons also had the important role of acting as moving shields against gunfire and arrows, but that role probably faded in the West as more powerful muskets became widespread in the 16th Century. In the East they appear to have remained valuable as shields against arrows at least into the 17th Century, maybe much later.

G

Beleriphon
2015-11-16, 08:36 AM
AI don't know if the Russians make a .50 caliber equivalent rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSV-96. They do and it is used actively by both sides in the Syrian civil war. So the idea that you could see use for anti-material rifles used against Western troops in the middle east isn't impossible. As you noted however, artillery is still a problem for the sniper. I personally like the Barrett XM107 which fires 25mm grenades up 2.5km to take out hardened targets and light vehicles. Mind you its a not a production weapon, and would never appear outside of US forces at this point. The Destroyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidhwansak) is an Indian 12.7x108mm rifle that can also be field modified to fire 14.5x114mm round or 20x82mm cannon rounds.

Galloglaich
2015-11-16, 08:46 AM
Question: what sort of techniques would a smith use, if they intended on churning out as many swords or similar weapons as possible, disregarding the quality*?

*Assuming they need to be just good enough to pass a minor inspection i.e. don't shatter on the first swing or similar.

You should look at the 18th-19th Century when armies like that of England and France mass-produced hundreds of thousands of swords and sabers for their large armies of cannon-fodder, many of very questionable quality (often lacking a proper edge) but just barely serviceable. Kind of like orc weapons ala Saurumans forges in Lord of the Rings.

In the medieval period due to the craft guild system the quality of the swords tended to be much higher though they did produce them in pretty large quantity, using a lot of mechanization (mostly from water wheels) and complex networks of subcontractors to make them.


Regarding the big five and six foot 'true' two-handed swords, our best insight for their use is from the Spanish and Portuguese fencing manuals which deal with them more than those of anywhere else. In both a civilian and military context, they were intended for situations in which "few must contend with many", which seems to have been their specialist role. So as others have mentioned they seem to have often been used to defend banners, VIP's like captains, groups of cannons and gunners, and so on. Conversely they were also used to attack VIPs, banners, cannon etc. They often overlapped in this role with halberds.

Small units of two-handed swordsmen and halberdiers (often called "forlorn hopes") show up in the artwork of the Swiss chronicles under a separate banner from the main infantry columns, typically a crossed axe or crossed-halberd banner, and were deployed as shock troops.

Whether they were used to attack pike squares directly is controversial among academics but there is some evidence for it (not much), the precise context is unclear.

Two handed swords did seem to be used en-masse in battles at least some of the time. For example during one of the battles of the Revolt of Ghent (mid 15th Century) the Burgundian Duke Philip the Good deployed a large force of two-handed swordsmen in a forest and ambushed the (mostly polearm and gun-armed) burghers, routing them.

G

Brother Oni
2015-11-16, 10:01 AM
It's seems Alexander the Great managed to pull this off several times. And he wasn't even a bonafide hero. Although the same accounts telling us that probably indicates he was.:smalltongue:

During the Three Kingdoms era, at the battle of Wuzhang Plains in 234 AD, the strategist Zhuge Liang reputedly did this against his counterpart Sima Yi after he had died (legend has it that they used either a wooden dummy or a body double dressed up as Zhuge Liang, although one variation had the actual body in a palanquin and the banners did the rest).

Sima Yi was so terrified that he had fallen into yet another of Zhuge Liang's tricks that he fled in terror with his army, letting the Shu forces complete their tactical retreat.

Galloglaich
2015-11-16, 10:04 AM
I also think the main limitation of the two-handed sword was the amount of training it required to use effectively. Tradition tells us that fencing guilds in the German and Czech speaking areas, such as the Marx brothers of Frankfurt and the Federfechter of Prague, certified master fencers who then, in turn, could get pay as doublesoldners in landsknecht companies and other mercenary groups.

In the Spanish and Portuguese traditions, the montante, the large two-handed sword, was the symbol of the top ranked fencers well into the period (17th-18th Century) when it ceased to be a common or popular weapon on the battlefield or in civilian use (although it may have had a little longer lifespan than we originally thought). In the French and Belgian fencing guilds, and among the London Masters of Defense, training with the big two handed sword remained part of the qualification for being a fencing master well into the same period, perhaps as late as the 19th Century.

Just a guess but I'd estimate it probably takes somewhere near two years of regular training to become a master fencer at a minimum, based on the surviving manuals. A lot of militia, mercenaries and soldiers wouldn't have that much training even in the medieval era, by say the 17th Century it would be quite rare.

And just my personal opinion but you'd probably need at least a journeyman / provost level of training with that weapon to be useful with it in a fight.

G

Kiero
2015-11-16, 12:34 PM
It's seems Alexander the Great managed to pull this off several times. And he wasn't even a bonafide hero. Although the same accounts telling us that probably indicates he was.:smalltongue:

Well, he certainly believed he was the hero at the centre of an epic (and Achilles no less). But then he was a megalomaniacal nut-job, especially towards the end.

There's some evidence it was his charisma holding much of the spear-won territory he called an empire together. After all a rumour of his death was enough to cause a revolt amongst the remote-garrisoned Greeks who wanted to go home.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-16, 12:51 PM
Something I'd like to mention in relation to not getting your heroes killed, is that at times the survival of your army was what made the difference between victory and defeat. Sometimes, it would've been the end of your nation or people if you lost an army or a fortress or failed to prevent the enemy's advance.There are cases which don't fall into this category, like the Romans getting several armies crushed against Hannibal yet still winning the war (though Hannibal was essentially in that situation where he couldn't afford to lose), and in such cases being more cautious with your heroes may pay off.

I would also like to bring forward the factors of morale and the type of societies many ancients ones were. They often had their lords and kings leading battles and participating in hunts to keep their skills sharp, the equivalent to the USA President taking up regular skydiving and then going to act as a field general in every major war. This is what kept the morale of your troops up, as you lead by example. The heroes mightn't even accept the idea of not going and fighting to show their honour and courage, as men of their skill and power couldn't be meek men to be useful spec-ops, and the idea of letting other people die for you because you aren't willing to be put at risk may be hard for them to swallow.

Keeping the heroes in reserve and not risking them is wise, I just wonder if it mightn't be done despite that, due to desperation or culture. Other cultures may've been fine with keep the heroes away from the front, Chinese culture may be an example of this.



Oni: That makes sense. It makes me wonder what exact duties the hero's guard would have. I suppose watching his back and flanks, finishing off any enemies who the hero passes, holding off the enemy if the hero needs to retreat or is wounded, attending to the hero's wounds, supporting the hero's attacks so he can better make breakthroughs, delivering messages for the hero, keeping horses ready for the hero, signalling the HQ, and working with the hero against strong enemies or perhaps even enemy heroes (although some heroes may take offence to not duelling). That's about all I can think of. On that note, they're kind of like squires who followed knights into battle.



On the point of specific uses for heroes, I wonder if strong heroes would be well used in moving battering rams, siege towers, ladders, and using battering rams. A couple of strong heroes with a battering ram could probably do a lot of damage a lot faster. Or, if the defences are flimsy enough, give them huge sledgehammers and let them hack into them.

As mentioned before, in defeating any armoured enemies or horses, a strong hero is probably very apt, as well as for destroying enemy pikes and spears and shields (if they sweep along a line of shields with a big flail, you'll have few remaining shields). Heck, with tight enemy formations, they might even be able to bowl over the enemy formation by striking it hard (not entirely, but enough to hurt cohesion)? And of course, they may be skilled in moving things like cannon or ballistae around the battlefield (though generally you'd be better off with a couple of horses and a cart?). Oh, they could also give a horse a piggy back ride. That last one isn't in any way useful, but come on, a piggy-back horse!



Makes me wonder what use a really fast hero without much extra strength would be. They can cut thrice in the time it takes you to cut once, and can run like a fast horse, leaping and diving with the agility of an acrobat mixed with a giant flea.

Brother Oni
2015-11-16, 04:40 PM
Keeping the heroes in reserve and not risking them is wise, I just wonder if it mightn't be done despite that, due to desperation or culture. Other cultures may've been fine with keep the heroes away from the front, Chinese culture may be an example of this.]

Wait what? Are you claiming that Chinese culture is an example of keeping heroes away from the front? Off the top of my head, I can think of at least half a dozen examples from the Three Kingdoms alone where this isn't true and I'm sure I can find more from other periods with some research.



Oni: That makes sense. It makes me wonder what exact duties the hero's guard would have. I suppose watching his back and flanks, finishing off any enemies who the hero passes, holding off the enemy if the hero needs to retreat or is wounded, attending to the hero's wounds, supporting the hero's attacks so he can better make breakthroughs, delivering messages for the hero, keeping horses ready for the hero, signalling the HQ, and working with the hero against strong enemies or perhaps even enemy heroes (although some heroes may take offence to not duelling). That's about all I can think of. On that note, they're kind of like squires who followed knights into battle.

Don't forget recon and other scouting work, guard duty (even heroes have to sleep sometime), setting up camp, cooking, reloading weapons (eg crossbows) carrying other equipment, and various other skill sets that a dedicated fighter didn't have. On the battlefield, they keep the enemy off the hero's flanks and back, off the battlefield, there's a whole raft of secondary functions that combat troops need doing, even if they shared the duties back in Classical and Antiquity eras.
Finally, there's simple companionship. Humans are social animals and even an alpha creature like a hero needs friends to share experiences with.

The 2014 Hercules film is an excellent example of this - there's the eponymous hero with all the others providing secondary support, ranged combat, guidance, but they were more a band of comrades in arms than the military Antiquity equivalent of a superstar and his groupies.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-16, 05:07 PM
Well, in the case of kings and important commanders, I've been taught they saw the front less commonly than in Europe. And that it was even a legal offence for them to risk their lives by acting so brazenly as to accept a challenge to a duel or the like. So, if superhuman heroes fell into that category, they mightn't be allowed to take the front.

Of course, you'll be better educated in this matter, and can clear up my misunderstanding.



What you mention with secondary functions is also quite true. In some cases, convincing the hero to not be over-zealous and fool-hardy might be a very important role for them, in the case of an over-zealous hero.

Kiero
2015-11-16, 06:08 PM
Something I'd like to mention in relation to not getting your heroes killed, is that at times the survival of your army was what made the difference between victory and defeat. Sometimes, it would've been the end of your nation or people if you lost an army or a fortress or failed to prevent the enemy's advance.There are cases which don't fall into this category, like the Romans getting several armies crushed against Hannibal yet still winning the war (though Hannibal was essentially in that situation where he couldn't afford to lose), and in such cases being more cautious with your heroes may pay off.


The Romans are a special case though. They had one competitive advantage that virtually no one else in the ancient world could compete with: absolutely colossal reserves of manpower. They lost several armies against Hannibal's campaigns in Italy - hundreds of thousands of men. For any other nation that would have crippled them; even if they had more people, they wouldn't be trained and able to form coherent units.

The Romans, however, not only had many, many more men to draw upon (and an even larger reserve they hadn't touched at that point), but because of their levying system they were comprised of men who'd served before as well as green youths.

They had several more enitire-army-losing disasters in the centuries after that, which combined with some dodgy land reforms eventually drained the traditional pool. But then they resorted to the one they'd avoided for centuries before (ie the urban poor) which proved just as abdundant. Though it was the undoing of the Republic, since those men felt no special allegiance to the state.

Brother Oni
2015-11-17, 08:16 AM
Well, in the case of kings and important commanders, I've been taught they saw the front less commonly than in Europe. And that it was even a legal offence for them to risk their lives by acting so brazenly as to accept a challenge to a duel or the like. So, if superhuman heroes fell into that category, they mightn't be allowed to take the front.

Of course, you'll be better educated in this matter, and can clear up my misunderstanding.

You use the word 'commander' and there's a subtle distinction here. A commander is someone who leads the army and doesn't necessarily take to the field himself.

Zhuge Liang led a number of campaigns, yet people didn't think any less of him for not getting onto a horse to take some heads himself. In comparison Lu Bu was by all accounts a terrible leader, but led a number of battles successfully through force of personality and by personal strength of arms.

Your heroes with their enhanced physical capabilities, would fall squarely into the latter category, thus their reputation and effectiveness would stem from their martial might and they would have to prove that on the field of battle.

As for whether it was legal or not, it would depend on the era. Certainly Liu Bei was counselled not to take direct action a few times, but I'm not sure whether he was forbidden by law not to back then.

There's the legend of Sun Tzu where the Emperor challenged Sun Tzu's claim that he could train anybody into an effective fighting force by giving him the Emperor's harem of concubines. After the expected deliberate mishaps (dropping of weapons, 'mis hearing' orders and all round general 'weak women' act), Sun Tzu ordered the execution of the two head concubines for wilful insubordination.

The Emperor, not wanting to lose his two favourites, conceded the point but Sun Tzu refused, stating that a ruler could not interfere with the chain of command in the field, especially in matters of discipline, else he would lose all respect from his generals.
Reluctantly, the Emperor retracted his objection and the two concubines were executed, upon which there was a remarkable improvement in the attitude and competence of the remaining concubines, up to the point where they took on regular soldiers in a mock battle and won.



What you mention with secondary functions is also quite true. In some cases, convincing the hero to not be over-zealous and fool-hardy might be a very important role for them, in the case of an over-zealous hero.

Bear in mind that heroes are human too and some of the role would be simply getting the hero out of bed in the morning or stopping their temper tantrums (see Achilles as an example of both).

Storm Bringer
2015-11-17, 09:47 AM
Speaking of Sun Tzu, their is a anecdote recorded in one of the commentaries for The Art of War*1, which records warring states era army, In which the commanding general had given explicit orders for his army not to engage in duels, on pain of death.

One junior officer disobeyed this order, and left the ranks to fight two duels, winning both and taking the heads of his foes as proof of his skill.

The general ordered his execution. the officers commander begged of lenience, saying he was skilled in both combat and leadership. The generals rely was (paraphrasing) "I have no doubt of his skill, but he is disobedient, and I have no use of disobedient men, no matter how skilled".

The Warring States was a period when the army changed form "feudal" to "professional". Commanders in the preceding Spring and Autumn Period were the noble lords, who led by right of the political leaders, and are recorded as engaging in pre-battle duels*2. By the Warring States era, armies were apparently much bigger and things were, by necessity, a lot more organised. Commanders were professional generals, chosen for their skill, and granted the right to lead by the political leaders. they preferred discipline to bravery, hence why the brave but ill-disciplined officer was executed, as an example for the rest of the army.


*1. if you have not read The Art of War, I highly recommend doing so. Its got a lot to recommend it: It is very short by modern standards. I have a A5 sized copy that is less than the thickness of my hand, and that's in a large font. It deals with strategy and tactics at a significant abstract, which makes it very applicable to subjects other than warfare. its ridiculously easy to quote, as the work proper is written as a series of linked, but individually coherent statements (sort of like the chapters and verses of the Bible). really, give it a look, its worth it.

*2duels and such sort of a feature of warfare in this time, both in china and the west. Pitched battles, being such risky affairs, were not entered into lightly, and armies could often spend several days in close proximity before the actual battle. This lead to a lot of pre-battle manoeuvring and build up, with duels and raids being used to stoke the troops and demoralise the enemy, offering to the gods and such.

8BitNinja
2015-11-17, 10:00 AM
Hello,

I have a question on the subject of handguns

In my new game in development Futurequest, even though the world is set in the future, guns work pretty much the same as real life, with the exception of plasma bullets

My question is, how much more or less range and damage does a 9mm Handgun have with an AR-15 assault rifle

Even though I have shot both in real life, it was for hunting, not for scientific testing

Mike_G
2015-11-17, 10:15 AM
Hello,

I have a question on the subject of handguns

In my new game in development Futurequest, even though the world is set in the future, guns work pretty much the same as real life, with the exception of plasma bullets

My question is, how much more or less range and damage does a 9mm Handgun have with an AR-15 assault rifle

Even though I have shot both in real life, it was for hunting, not for scientific testing

The AR-15 has a ton more range, much more muzzle energy and far greater penetration.

The effective range of the AR-15 is about 300 yards. The 9 mm handgun is maybe theoretically 50, but practically about ten yards.

Damage is tough to quantify, but the AR-15 is very high energy, and will likely cause more cavitation, which is basically a shockwave inside the tissue. The 9mm isn't moving fast enough to do that. The 9mm is wider. Because it's 9mm not 5.56 mm, but the energy is an order of magnitude more for the AR-15.

Normal Kevlar body armor will generally stop a 9mm, but the 5.56 round will zip right through it.

The only thing a 9mm does better is be smaller, so it's easier to carry, to conceal and to use in very close quarters.

Carl
2015-11-17, 10:17 AM
At the end of the day ammo is going to play a large part, but at anything but very extreme range both are going to be about as lethal on any given hit location from what i understand. The 5.56 is more effective through armour, concealment, and is a lot more accurate, but the human body isn't especially durable.

The question of course becomes somewhat how much further into the future are your going and whats involved in these plasma bullets. Any power source capable of running something like that should be able to handle powered exoskeletons and maybe even all out powered armour, (power source is the limitation today). The addition either or both of those would completely re-write the rules that determine common calibres which might make 9mm and even 5.56 completely defunct as ammo choices.

Galloglaich
2015-11-17, 10:37 AM
At the end of the day ammo is going to play a large part, but at anything but very extreme range both are going to be about as lethal on any given hit location from what i understand. The 5.56 is more effective through armour, concealment, and is a lot more accurate, but the human body isn't especially durable.

The question of course becomes somewhat how much further into the future are your going and whats involved in these plasma bullets. Any power source capable of running something like that should be able to handle powered exoskeletons and maybe even all out powered armour, (power source is the limitation today). The addition either or both of those would completely re-write the rules that determine common calibres which might make 9mm and even 5.56 completely defunct as ammo choices.

Basically with the AR-15, you can kill people easily a block away with even boot camp level of training. Two blocks if you stop and aim. Three blocks if you are an expert. With the pistol you'll be lucky to hit people across the street unless you are a crack shot.

Either weapon might kill with one shot or fail to stop somebody after 5 shots.

Gnoman
2015-11-17, 10:49 AM
Hello,

I have a question on the subject of handguns

In my new game in development Futurequest, even though the world is set in the future, guns work pretty much the same as real life, with the exception of plasma bullets

My question is, how much more or less range and damage does a 9mm Handgun have with an AR-15 assault rifle

Even though I have shot both in real life, it was for hunting, not for scientific testing

Any rifle is going to outrange any pistol, and any intermediate round is going to outrange any handgun round.

Damage is much more complicated.

The damage done by a bullet is a function of the bullet mass, bullet profile and the bullet speed, but it's not a simple calculation by any means.

Let us compare, using typical ammunition and common firearms for the purpose of simplicity.

With some quick research
The AR-15 is specced at around 975 m/s with about a 55 grain (3.5 gram) projectile, delivering around 1,738 joules of energy to the target.
The Beretta M9 fires at around 381 m/s with about a 7.45 gram projectile, delivering around 570 joules of energy to the target.

In raw energy, the AR-15 delivers three times the punch of the 9mm.
In wound profile, despite the wider round, the 9mm doesn't deliver enough energy to set up a significant hydraulic shock by comparison, resulting in the person shot with an AR having a wound almost four times bigger than somebody shot with the Beretta, assuming a clean penetration on both. IF the 9mm disintegrated in the wound while the 5.56mm penetrated cleanly, the 9mm would be much more damaging.

Galloglaich
2015-11-17, 12:38 PM
I know this part of the discussion of the mobile cannons, war wagons etc. has kind of dropped off, but I wanted to post this link in case I didn't earlier when I first ran across it. I think it's eye-opening. Changed my perception anyway.

Those medieval volley guns were a lot more like machine guns or gattling guns than I personally had ever realized. If you had 10 or 15 of these on wagons blocking or flanking some kind of cavalry formation, you could do some real damage. Apparently in some battles they had hundreds of them (at least one that I know of in Flanders between Ghent and Bruges in the 14th Century)

So that war-wagon really is a lot like that Tachanka or a Technical in many respects. Just not quite as hard core.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mKVdMNcG48

G

8BitNinja
2015-11-17, 02:18 PM
Any rifle is going to outrange any pistol, and any intermediate round is going to outrange any handgun round.

Damage is much more complicated.

The damage done by a bullet is a function of the bullet mass, bullet profile and the bullet speed, but it's not a simple calculation by any means.

Let us compare, using typical ammunition and common firearms for the purpose of simplicity.

With some quick research
The AR-15 is specced at around 975 m/s with about a 55 grain (3.5 gram) projectile, delivering around 1,738 joules of energy to the target.
The Beretta M9 fires at around 381 m/s with about a 7.45 gram projectile, delivering around 570 joules of energy to the target.

In raw energy, the AR-15 delivers three times the punch of the 9mm.
In wound profile, despite the wider round, the 9mm doesn't deliver enough energy to set up a significant hydraulic shock by comparison, resulting in the person shot with an AR having a wound almost four times bigger than somebody shot with the Beretta, assuming a clean penetration on both. IF the 9mm disintegrated in the wound while the 5.56mm penetrated cleanly, the 9mm would be much more damaging.

Thank you for telling me

I already planned for rifles to have more range than handguns, so I had that part down, but I didn't know the handguns were going to have such less damage

Once again, Thanks

Carl
2015-11-17, 02:51 PM
Basically with the AR-15, you can kill people easily a block away with even boot camp level of training. Two blocks if you stop and aim. Three blocks if you are an expert. With the pistol you'll be lucky to hit people across the street unless you are a crack shot.

Either weapon might kill with one shot or fail to stop somebody after 5 shots.

I did cover all that under more accurate. My point was more that fringe cases aside they're both fairly lethal if they hit someone in the right spot and fairly "low", (for a given value of low obviously), lethality if they don't.


Thank you for telling me

I already planned for rifles to have more range than handguns, so I had that part down, but I didn't know the handguns were going to have such less damage

Once again, Thanks

be cautious about going too hyper realistic, you've got to know when to fudge the game mechanics on something to make things actually work or you end up with serious imbalances.

Galloglaich
2015-11-17, 03:24 PM
I did cover all that under more accurate. My point was more that fringe cases aside they're both fairly lethal if they hit someone in the right spot and fairly "low", (for a given value of low obviously), lethality if they don't.

Agreed - you get shot in the face with either weapon you are probably going to die. Get shot in the hand and you have a much better chance of living. Both are over the lethality threshold if they hit you in a lethal spot.




be cautious about going too hyper realistic, you've got to know when to fudge the game mechanics on something to make things actually work or you end up with serious imbalances.

I don't think you have to worry that much about it - you just have to be careful about what level of detail vs. abstraction you want to be in. There is no reason why you can't model rifles vs. pistols with realistic range bands. After all, these things do balance in real life.

G

Carl
2015-11-17, 03:40 PM
I don't think you have to worry that much about it - you just have to be careful about what level of detail vs. abstraction you want to be in. There is no reason why you can't model rifles vs. pistols with realistic range bands. After all, these things do balance in real life.

Oh i'm not saying you don;t have to use realistic range banding or anything, but you can get situations where if enough factors lign up with other game mechanics you get a situation where one weapon type is so inherently superior to any other that it becomes the go to option. Whilst the cause isn't hyper realism as such, D&D 3.5 basically has this with high level spells vs low level spells in many cases.

Galloglaich
2015-11-17, 03:57 PM
Oh i'm not saying you don;t have to use realistic range banding or anything, but you can get situations where if enough factors lign up with other game mechanics you get a situation where one weapon type is so inherently superior to any other that it becomes the go to option. Whilst the cause isn't hyper realism as such, D&D 3.5 basically has this with high level spells vs low level spells in many cases.

Yeah but when it comes to real world weapons and armor, in real life there is some kind of balance and you can find it for any time period. You just have to model everything realistic (not just adding one realistic element to an otherwise absurd cartoon like DnD 3.5) and then scale it at whatever level of detail / abstraction you want.

Trust me that does work.

G

Carl
2015-11-17, 04:20 PM
Trust me that does work.

Oh i agree it does, i've just yet to see system actually pull it off on an overall level, they usually only do it within a narrow area.

Mike_G
2015-11-17, 04:28 PM
Oh i'm not saying you don;t have to use realistic range banding or anything, but you can get situations where if enough factors lign up with other game mechanics you get a situation where one weapon type is so inherently superior to any other that it becomes the go to option. Whilst the cause isn't hyper realism as such, D&D 3.5 basically has this with high level spells vs low level spells in many cases.

But unless you want it to be silly, rifles are the better option for battlefield ranges, and handguns are the better option for close quarters.

Carl
2015-11-17, 04:47 PM
But unless you want it to be silly, rifles are the better option for battlefield ranges, and handguns are the better option for close quarters.

Yes but the system actually has to represent that in some fashion ;). ike i said i've seen games that get the general parameters right for some parts of the various weapon type equations but mess it up on others. TBH i brought it up because handguns vs everything are the main ones that get the short end of the stick in most cases.

Mr Beer
2015-11-17, 05:09 PM
Rifles vs. pistols should be the same as 'two handed greatsword' vs. 'dagger' as far as I'm concerned. If you're in a battlefield situation, the greatsword is just better. If you need to move incognito around an urban environment in order to sneak up on someone and kill them, a dagger is more appropriate.

GURPS is a good system to look at to see how this stuff is managed, if you have the time.

A military rifle will do more base damage, has a better range, accuracy (hit bonus when aimed) and rate of fire. It will also have a worse Legality Class and a worse Bulk rating, which affects both concealability and awkwardness if your opponent closes for melee.

Also, large calibre rounds get a Wound Modifier, so a large calibre pistol round (say .45) will do less base damage than a small calibre rifle round but whatever penetrates armour will do extra damage.

Diamondeye
2015-11-17, 10:20 PM
I know this part of the discussion of the mobile cannons, war wagons etc. has kind of dropped off, but I wanted to post this link in case I didn't earlier when I first ran across it. I think it's eye-opening. Changed my perception anyway.

Those medieval volley guns were a lot more like machine guns or gattling guns than I personally had ever realized. If you had 10 or 15 of these on wagons blocking or flanking some kind of cavalry formation, you could do some real damage. Apparently in some battles they had hundreds of them (at least one that I know of in Flanders between Ghent and Bruges in the 14th Century)

So that war-wagon really is a lot like that Tachanka or a Technical in many respects. Just not quite as hard core.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mKVdMNcG48

G

They're significantly more like giant shotguns than machineguns. They fire a quick burst of bullets that can do extensive damage, but then there's a long reloading process. They aren't capable of suppressing a target as a machine gun does.

fusilier
2015-11-18, 12:12 AM
They're significantly more like giant shotguns than machineguns. They fire a quick burst of bullets that can do extensive damage, but then there's a long reloading process. They aren't capable of suppressing a target as a machine gun does.

In the long run, a larger caliber cannon firing cannister was a lot more efficient (certainly quicker to reload) -- that didn't stop people from continuing to design and build the volley guns, they just didn't use them as often. Mitrailleuses were effective because they could be reloaded very quickly, at which point they were basically early machine guns though.

snowblizz
2015-11-18, 07:29 AM
As an interesting sidetrack handguns and low powered rifles are much better at penetrating through water than more powerful ones.
Mythbusters tested a actionmovie "hiding in water" scenario. I forget the exact distances now, but something like a 9mm pistol would penetrate lethally up to a meter whereas even a .50 cal anti-materiel rifle only got about 30 cms. Basically most high-power options simply shattered the bullet upon hitting the water.

Beleriphon
2015-11-18, 08:15 AM
As an interesting sidetrack handguns and low powered rifles are much better at penetrating through water than more powerful ones.
Mythbusters tested a actionmovie "hiding in water" scenario. I forget the exact distances now, but something like a 9mm pistol would penetrate lethally up to a meter whereas even a .50 cal anti-materiel rifle only got about 30 cms. Basically most high-power options simply shattered the bullet upon hitting the water.

Its because when entering water the bullet effectively disintegrated because it expends so much energy just pass throught the water. Its kind of like the old hitting water from any height is like falling onto concrete (also done by Mythbusters). But yeah, the more energy a bullet has when entering water the more likely it is to just disintegrate since the round can't handle the stress of such a dramatic loss of energy so quickly.

8BitNinja
2015-11-18, 10:03 AM
Basically with the AR-15, you can kill people easily a block away with even boot camp level of training. Two blocks if you stop and aim. Three blocks if you are an expert. With the pistol you'll be lucky to hit people across the street unless you are a crack shot.

Either weapon might kill with one shot or fail to stop somebody after 5 shots.

Because of the rifle's powder grain and barrel design, it can go farther.

Handguns are made for close quarters shooting

But even so, Handguns can be used for hunting, my grandpa won 10 trophies for handgun hunts

Galloglaich
2015-11-18, 01:21 PM
They're significantly more like giant shotguns than machineguns. They fire a quick burst of bullets that can do extensive damage, but then there's a long reloading process. They aren't capable of suppressing a target as a machine gun does.

Machine guns are not only used for suppressive fire, specifically machine guns on tachanka and technicals were / are often not used for suppressive fire but for ambushes and direct attacks against cavalry or vehicles / people caught in the open (respectively).

The shotgun analogy is also very limited because shotguns (barring special ammunition) have very short range and limited penetration, and are generally not crew-served weapons.

These volley-guns and the other light guns had potentially good range and very good penetration. With the pintle mount like in the video I suspect they were actually fairly accurate too. Many of them were in the 15-30mm caliber range which could punch through probably any armor at a pretty good range. This is even more true for the other larger guns which were used along side the volley guns.

I'm not sure volley guns were that hard to reload for an experienced crew either, and the other medium caliber guns were typically breach loaders at that time so they would be fast to reload.

G

fusilier
2015-11-18, 05:52 PM
I'm not sure volley guns were that hard to reload for an experienced crew either, and the other medium caliber guns were typically breach loaders at that time so they would be fast to reload.

They definitely took longer to reload than a cannon* -- that's why the plethora of designs created during the American Civil War were rarely used. Almost any place where a volley gun could be employed, like covering a bridge, could be just as easily served by a howitzer loaded with cannister.

*A musket takes longer to reload than a field cannon. In speed drills the field artillery always beat the infantry. In terms of loading, a cannon is basically a musket that has a whole crew doing the operation that one musketeer has to do. A volley gun is effectively a collection of muskets, but with less than one person to each barrel.

EDIT -- in the 15th century volley guns may still have been useful, but by the 16th century field artillery had progressed to the point where cannister or grapeshot would typically be able to fill that role.

Da Beast
2015-11-18, 09:00 PM
So this isn't a weapons/armor/tactics, but I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about how illegitimate children were viewed in medieval China. I'm currently playing a half elf from Tian-Shu (Pathfinder setting) whose backstory involves being an illegitimate child of an upper class family and I'm looking for some real world history to inform that backstory.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-19, 01:40 AM
A little tricky to answer. Confucius was illegitimate, potentially because his mother had been forced or forced into concubinage. You don't normally get fully illegitimate children, since concubines were the norm. So, the most common form of illegitimate children is probably from prostitutes, who were gravely disdained in China. And since nobles had concubines, it would be unusual for them to be interacting with prostitutes. The most likely case for that I can think of, is if the father was a womaniser on campaign somewhere, and decided to have the local village girls or prostitutes brought in for lack of a concubine. The common thing if you find out you've had an illegitimate child, I believe, is to make the mother a concubine and raise the child as one of your own (then you can cover up the embarrassment by saying she is and maybe always has been a concubine). If your character was brought in as a young child, she may not expect to see too much prejudice. If she was brought in when she was older, she'd need to learn etiquette fast or else be considered disgraceful. And of course, it depends how the elves view half-elves.

If the noble decided to deny that the child was his, then I'm not quite sure how things would go. If the mother persisted and the noble was a dangerous man, she may well be in danger for her life and be forced to flee, or forced to recant her "accusation" before being chased off.


Sorry if this is too vague, I couldn't think of a good case to reference. Hope this helps. Oni will probably be on later to give you a better answer.

Da Beast
2015-11-19, 01:40 PM
Sorry if this is too vague, I couldn't think of a good case to reference. Hope this helps. Oni will probably be on later to give you a better answer.

Thanks for the insights, I think it makes my backstory make sense. I probably should have elaborated, my character is a the daughter of a woman who is herself the daughter of a semi powerful father (I'm thinking either a low ranking noble man or wealthy merchant, haven't decided on which yet) while her father was an elven sailor who was only briefly visiting Tian. My character Jin, a gestalt warblade/scout, was cast out/ran away from home at a young age and was raised by a reclusive sword master in the woods. You know, standard adventurer fare.

Brother Oni
2015-11-19, 07:25 PM
Thanks for the insights, I think it makes my backstory make sense. I probably should have elaborated, my character is a the daughter of a woman who is herself the daughter of a semi powerful father (I'm thinking either a low ranking noble man or wealthy merchant, haven't decided on which yet) while her father was an elven sailor who was only briefly visiting Tian. My character Jin, a gestalt warblade/scout, was cast out/ran away from home at a young age and was raised by a reclusive sword master in the woods. You know, standard adventurer fare.

I've noticed that you've posted the same question in r/AskHistorians (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3tdz29/how_were_illegitimate_children_viewed_in_medieval/) and the answer there is far more comprehensive than I could give (my interest in history is primarily military and any societal knowledge I have is much more comparatively recent, thus I'm unsure of how it'd apply to older times).

As some additional background, each family in China kept a hukou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system) or family register, recording births, marriages and death, and is usually kept in the family temple or some other very safe place. I've looked at a modern-ish hukou (it still traces back several hundred years to the start of the family tree to a son of an Emperor) and it only records the male line; daughters and wives aren't included.

As MengJiaxin's and Mr Mask's replies have indicated, she would most likely be a disgrace to her mother's family (as her father is the absent elf), thus would most likely have a very hard life.
Given that she's a half elf, she'd also most likely be heavily discriminated against on account of race (assuming that the Tian Shu culture follows Chinese culture) and this would probably cause the family to pressure the mother to either sell her off to: a (very) desperate childless couple; a rich family looking for servants; a brothel or simply abandoned to die.

Depending on her Charisma score, she probably make for a star attraction in a brothel in a more cosmopolitan city, so her running away at a very early age would be a good thing, unless you wanted to incorporate that into her background.

Diamondeye
2015-11-20, 12:38 AM
Machine guns are not only used for suppressive fire, specifically machine guns on tachanka and technicals were / are often not used for suppressive fire but for ambushes and direct attacks against cavalry or vehicles / people caught in the open (respectively).

I didn't say they were only used for suppressive fire; I said they can do that and the primitive multibarrel guns could not. The ability to sustain fire is an essential, defining characteristic of a machine gun,


The shotgun analogy is also very limited because shotguns (barring special ammunition) have very short range and limited penetration, and are generally not crew-served weapons.

All of which are irrelevant to the comparison so no - it isn't limited. Cannons with canister shot are essentially giant shotguns as well. So are modern howitzers foring Killer Junior/Senior or Beehive. The weapons perform the function of a shotgun; it's not important if they are exactly like one.


These volley-guns and the other light guns had potentially good range and very good penetration.

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.


With the pintle mount like in the video I suspect they were actually fairly accurate too.

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.


Many of them were in the 15-30mm caliber range which could punch through probably any armor at a pretty good range. This is even more true for the other larger guns which were used along side the volley guns.

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.


I'm not sure volley guns were that hard to reload for an experienced crew either, and the other medium caliber guns were typically breach loaders at that time so they would be fast to reload.

G

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.

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.

Carl
2015-11-20, 01:38 AM
and have no modern equivalent because they're an evolutionary dead end.

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.