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

[Max_Killjoy]

.50 will do for most non-bunker walls, as well as for most armored vehicles and at close range for light tanks.

It's a ridiculous size for ammunition. Just look at those pictures on google. The cartridge as a whole is easily big enough to be used as a stabbing weapon and just the bullet could still kill you if it fell on you from a tall building. It's the largest ammunition size you can aim at people without being trialed for war crimes. (Admit it, it could have been true. :smalltongue: Instead it's just the largest size which is not listed as an explosive device in its own right or something like that.)

I'd worry more about the overpenetration problem, that might be a reason to bring a different gun. But just for getting through the wall in the first place, .50.

(They're also one of the reasons the American weapon laws are so popular with Mexican drug cartels, very good armor piercing qualities (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2224-6-ugly-things-i-learned-selling-guns-to-drug-cartels.html).)


The .50 is capable of punching through a heavy brick wall and skill easily killing the target at ranges over a half mile.

(As for your parenthetical, that was hardly a problem with actual US guns laws, but rather with the worthless bumbling agency in question.)

[Mike_G]

A .50 cal will punch through just about any wall you may encounter, but the gun weighs a ton, and the ammo weighs a ton. Well, OK the gun weighs 30 pounds, and ammo weighs almost 4 ounces per round. So you get four rounds to the pound.

A .30-06 or 7.62 mm round will defeat just about any residential wall, and the gun is a lot lighter. maybe 8 to 10 pounds, and much lighter ammo. About 20 rounds to the pound.

A .223 round will easily go through plywood and stud construction, which is most modern housing and that gun is really portable. About 7-8 pounds and the ammo is negligible by comparison. I carried hundreds of rounds in magazine pouches when I was in the USMC, and it doesn't slow you down much.

I just looked it up and 1000 rounds of .223 weighs 28 lbs, or the same as 112 .50-cal rounds.

Even pistol ammo will go through interior sheetrock walls. and now you're into really lightweight and concealable.

So yeah, .50 cal can always be the answer if all you care about is penetration, but that's on the edge of "I want a vehicle to carry it around." Because the gun plus 100 rounds is like going into battle with an eight year old on your back.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

(The point I was trying to make was more that there's indeed no need to go bigger than that, like 20mm. There usually is no overkill, but that get's kind of close.)

[Mr. Mask]

I'll just have to disagree based on what I've seen. I've seen a lot of people who have been targeted and knifed. I haven't seen many people fight off an attack with a knife. I've seen a lot of guys who have traded knife wounds until they both went down.

And unless you put it in his eye or cut his throat, you probably won't disable a person in seconds with a knife. I've seen guys who eventually passed out with wounds on the chest, the belly, the neck who have kept on going for quite a while.

I learned how to fight with a knife, but it wouldn't be my first choice for self defense. It would be my first choice if I walked up behind a guy in the chow hall, yanked his head back, stuck it in the side of his neck and dragged it out the front, spraying his buddies to drive home the lesson. That isn't mugging and self defence, that's Saturday night behind the bar. If those people knew how to use a knife, they wouldn't be having petty fights.

Hair, shirt, arm, shoulder, whatever, then cut the neck, guts, or between the ribs. Standing around trading blows is just a waste of time and blood.


Oni, Dangerousness of Weapons to Self: The way it was described, it was made to sound that it happens commonly to the extent that arming yourself is more dangerous. I am not convinced of such a thing.


Cobalt, Knives for Self Defence: Even a little pocketknife is fine, so long as it's sharp and you practice cutting some. Those are legal in a lot of places. But you do need to know what you are doing, else you'll end up trading blows. For getting away, if you have a clear path to run you don't really need a weapon. A weapon is for when your assailants bar your path. Note that there are muggers smart enough to leave a path open you can run to, which just leads into a dead end or another ambush.

I mentioned my thoughts on the problems of club versus knife earlier. If you can carry around a full baton, that's a lot more gear than a pocket knife, and can't be concealed readily. A pair of brass knuckles is concealable, but I would far, far prefer the knife. Of course, you do bring up a point, if you are unwilling to use the knife, the brass knuckles may be better for that reason. You may change your mind about bludgeoning if you ever have to bludgeon someone, but not necessarily. Bleeding is scary.


Max, Criminal Professionalism: There are a lot of dumb criminals around, sure. The professionals are the ones who really get around. Some people never run into professional criminals, other run into several. Generally, if you prepare for the worst situation, you can deal with a less dangerous situation. The professionals, I assure you, have the very best combat experience. An occupation of incapacitating, killing, and hunting people.

What kind of baton are you thinking of? A steel telescopic one? From what I recall of expert opinions on them, I think they were considered less immediately incapacitating, which is an issue for a self defence weapon. It might depend on the make of it... I'll have to read up on that text again.


rrgg, Pepper Spray: Civilian pepper spray, especially in some areas, is weak as water. Other stuff, meant for police, bears or the like, can make human lungs collapse. Like phosgene, a non-lethal gas that accounts for 80% of the gas casualties of the great war.

But either way, that's why I warn people. It's also really random among those hit with it. Some people will whiff a little of it that blows back in the wind and be crawling on the ground, others will just get mad.


Oni, Max, Baseball bats: Britain has a habit of charging people for anything that looks vaguely like a weapon, while failing to effectively enforce control of illegal weaponry. As the recent assassination shows.


Storm: Oh yeah, if you aren't willing to use a weapon, don't carry it.

[Brother Oni]

Oni, Dangerousness of Weapons to Self: The way it was described, it was made to sound that it happens commonly to the extent that arming yourself is more dangerous. I am not convinced of such a thing.

Without seeing any data, I'm not making a claim either way, just stating the obvious that it's easier to be stabbed with a weapon if there's a weapon available in the first place.


Oni, Max, Baseball bats: Britain has a habit of charging people for anything that looks vaguely like a weapon, while failing to effectively enforce control of illegal weaponry. As the recent assassination shows.

Without getting too deep into it, banning zip guns is virtually impossible as they're so easy to make - just head to your nearest DIY shop. Ammunition is significantly harder to get but I haven't read any details yet of what she was actually shot with, so can't rebutt your statement regarding effective control of illegal weaponry.

British laws are intended to prevent people arming themselves for defence, so things that are intended purely for defence and/or be carried covertly (eg pistols under a certain length, pepper spray, collapsible batons, etc) are typically illegal. I'm not going to get into whether that's right or wrong, just stating what the situation is.

[2D8HP]

Years ago (1990's) I bent down to pick something up and some pepper spray that was in a canister in my front pants pocket was released. Within an hour I suffered incredible pain that lasted for hours.
No joke.
:smallfrown:

[fusilier]

I'm pretty sure phosgene is a lethal gas.

[cobaltstarfire]

Phosgene is basically mustard gas isn't it?


It's something most welders are trained to look out for, because the UV radiation from arc welding can interact with degreasers and AC coolant to create phosgene gas or other nasty things that'll shred your lungs.


@ Brass Knuckls: I'm not sure about in Europe, but aren't Brass Knuckles illegal in a lot of the US? I remember hearing about how the folks who make GTA sent out Brass Knuckls as a gift with some special order of one of their games, which ran into some serious legality issues...maybe it varies by state.

Either way personally speaking, I don't carry around weapons, or spray or anything, but I also live in a place where I feel is fairly safe. In my case I'm such a durp if I had spray I'd probably spray myself in the heat of the moment, and I don't trust myself with a knife (or a gun). The only thing I really have going for me is that I make a habit of knowing my surroundings, and am excessively paranoid/distrustful of strangers. (like I have probably never really been in danger, but if I feel I'm being followed, or something looks suspicious I always change my path)

[rrgg]

Yeah, you don't want to use pepper spray in an enclosed space and if you do, it needs to be ventilated afterward.

This was outside. I suppose it wasn't very windy that day.

[Gnoman]

Phosgene is basically mustard gas isn't it?


No. Phosgene is an asphixiant, like chlorine. It is a superior weapon because it is colorless and lacks the potent odor of chlorine, but is denser and doesn't spread quite as well. Mustard gas is a vesicant, causing nasty and extremely painful blisters on any skin it touches, including the lungs if inhaled.

[cobaltstarfire]

Ahh I see, too bad I'm long done with that course...though I'm not sure the instructor would appreciate me arguing with him over it anyway.


Though I suppose "basically like mustard gas" as the instructor said isn't necessarily saying that phosgene is mustard gas...just that they're both not really something you want to be exposing yourself to.

[Mike_G]

That isn't mugging and self defence, that's Saturday night behind the bar. If those people knew how to use a knife, they wouldn't be having petty fights.

Hair, shirt, arm, shoulder, whatever, then cut the neck, guts, or between the ribs. Standing around trading blows is just a waste of time and blood.




I'm just wondering, how many knife wounds have you seen?

Wounds have been more or less my job since 1986, first inflicting and now treating, and sticking a knife between someone's ribs does very little to incapacitate them, at least quickly enough to get away.

Knives make fairly small wounds, so they don't tend to sever muscles or tendons unless you are very lucky, and most organs won't be disrupted enough to shut down in under a minute, which leaves blood loss, which is dangerous, but not painful nor debilitating until the tank gets too low to feed the brain and muscles. And adrenaline with it's vasoconstriction and increased heart rate helps make up for the loss, so a guy who is fighting you will keep right on fighting you until he bleeds out. A knife wound in the lung will kill or incapacitate you by making it hard to breathe...eventually.

Bullets make a much bigger wound channel by cavitation, and bounce around, hitting lots of stuff and they can shatter bones. Blunt force that breaks bone will disable somebody. Shearing through muscle or organs will stop someone, but you need a big blade for that. Actually damaging the central nervous system will stop you cold, but good luck getting a knife into the brain or spinal cord.

So, short of cutting the great vessels in the neck, or stabbing a person in the actual heart, or putting the blade in his eye, it's damn hard to get a quick kill with a knife. You might get lucky and slice the tendons in a guy's wrist if you cut him while he swings at you, but it's not easy to do.

I have had to wrestle stabbed patients into the ambulance with chest and belly wounds and one neck wound. These guys had fatal wounds, they just didn't know it yet, and they were still very dangerous.

Is a knife dangerous? Sure. Is it better than nothing? Probably. Would I choose it for self defense? No.

[fusilier]

No. Phosgene is an asphixiant, like chlorine. It is a superior weapon because it is colorless and lacks the potent odor of chlorine, but is denser and doesn't spread quite as well. Mustard gas is a vesicant, causing nasty and extremely painful blisters on any skin it touches, including the lungs if inhaled.

Right, mustard gas is blistering agent (vesicant). Fatal in large enough doses, although most non asphyxiant gases were. Also it's not technically a gas, and more of an aerosolized oily liquid. As a result it tended to settle (rather than disperse) and contaminate areas. Typically mustard gas was used to neutralize an area that was to be avoided by your own troops during an attack.

Phosgene was sometimes mixed with diphenylchloroarsine (the Germans called the mixture "blue cross" if I remember) -- the arsine family of gases were actually particulates and some of the early gas mask filters weren't designed for them. It was a "sternutator", which is a chemical that attacks the upper respiratory system (causing things like sneezing). Poisonous in high concentrations, it could still cause symptoms in very low concentrations. The idea was the sternutator would cause wearing a gas mask to be extremely uncomfortable and the soldiers would remove it, allowing them to be exposed to the more deadly phosgene.

[Mr. Mask]

Mike: No, you had it right earlier. Grab them, and open up their neck with a long cut. You'll half-sever their head. They'll bleed out shortly and go into shock. That also works with the abdomen and cutting between the ribs. I'm surprised you haven't seen cases of ineffective gunshot wounds, where someone randomly got hit in the arm and is pretty much fine. Guns and knives are effective, if you use them properly.

Actually, people have continued to fight after getting stabbed in the heart, some continuing on for a week just fine, and some having their heart badly ruptured but fighting on for a couple of minutes. I think the latter cases were on drugs.

[Max_Killjoy]

And never mind that for some reason, 90+% of knife wounds seen in the real world look nothing like that sort of "surgical strike"....

[Incanur]

I know somebody who used a box cutter of all things to defend against a person attacking with metal pipe. A cut or two to the belly apparently got the assailant to stop.

Many folks find blades terrifying and hate being cut or stabbed. Some people will indeed keep fighting despite horrific wounds, but that takes commitment.

Humans have carried knives/daggers/etc. for self-defense for hundreds of years. I'm not staying this is a good option, but it's a thing people do.

[Mr. Mask]

And never mind that for some reason, 90+% of knife wounds seen in the real world look nothing like that sort of "surgical strike".... I thought you disliked myth-based statistics? There is definitely no surgical precision necessary. If it was, there would be 170 dead instead of 29, in the Kunming attack.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Mike: No, you had it right earlier. Grab them, and open up their neck with a long cut. You'll half-sever their head. They'll bleed out shortly and go into shock.

Why would you ever do that? If you're in a position to grab someone from behind and slice their neck I'm pretty sure there are usually other options to get them to back off, since you clearly have the upper hand in this fight.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing per se to defend yourself by killing someone if they were clearly going to try and kill you (and I'd also be fine with it if they were "merely" going to do something of at least sort of comparable magnitude and you had no other way to stop them), but it's not very elegant to do it when you're winning. So if that is the quick kill solution, hard to pull off when you're actually in trouble, a knife is not a good self defense weapon if you want to have a worst case scenario quick kill solution.

[Mr. Mask]

From behind, yes, that would be an ambush. Only legally justified if they were, for example, shooting at somebody in the other direction, or searching for someone to attack. But from the side or other obscure angles, as the result of a struggle, i.e. you grab them by the shirt and unbalance them, and then strike before they can regain their balance and do the same to you - that would be reality. Knife fights resulting from criminal attacks are seldom duels like a fencing match. Usually, they're more like wrestling, since any attacker starts with the objective of controlling his target.

[Khedrac]

Actually, people have continued to fight after getting stabbed in the heart, some continuing on for a week just fine, and some having their heart badly ruptured but fighting on for a couple of minutes. I think the latter cases were on drugs.
It's not just being stabbed...
I read once that one of the reasons USA law enforement are trained to "shoot twice to the centre of mass" was because of a case where someone continued to return fire (using an automatic weapon) after being shot through the heart.
The "double tap" does not guarantee they will stop, but it makes it much more likely.
The "shoot at centre of mass" is because they have a responsibility to innocent bystanders and by aiming for the middle of the biggest part of the body there is the smallest chance of a miss with the risks of riccochets etc. that come with misses; this is why they trained not to "shoot to disarm" or other risky strategies.
Needless to say actual shot selection will depend on circumstances and shooter accuracy.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It's not just for bystanders I'd wager. When someone is shooting at you you want to be as sure as possible that you can take them down as fast as possible. And that means shooting for the center of mass.

[Mr. Mask]

Well, centre of mass is also just common sense for combat training. I can't remember the precise numbers from the FBI research into handgun statistics, but a lot of shots miss even aiming for centre of mass.

Interestingly, most of the instructions I've heard for handguns these days is three or four rounds into the torso. You also get fancier ones like two in the body, one in the head, where I know instructors to advise more like three in the body, two in the head. And these are paper targets, they'll keep shooting if there's a dangerous guy still standing.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The one (or two or more) in the head (or alternatively in the upper torso) might be a bit much for police. I'd expect them to mostly do that after they take just a short moment to look if someone is still trying to aim their gun. With "just" the shots in the body you might still be able to save the shooter, which in police work is generally a plus. (Assuming no other shooters around to focus on etc etc.)

It also saves on therapy costs. Looking someone straight in the eyes and pulling the trigger for a deliberate kill shot tends to get to people.

[Mr. Mask]

That was mainly in military, counter terrorism, and SWAT programs. Their policy was pour lead into anything not tied up and hostage. Mozambique is noted that you're supposed to check if they're down before shooting them in the head. Largely, if someone survived, I figure it's because the shooter missed the head when they fell over from the two in the body.

Clearing buildings tends to get to people. The ones who stick around there tend to be self-selected as adventurous types, who may do fine until it haunts them in their old age.

[Brother Oni]

Interestingly, most of the instructions I've heard for handguns these days is three or four rounds into the torso. You also get fancier ones like two in the body, one in the head, where I know instructors to advise more like three in the body, two in the head. And these are paper targets, they'll keep shooting if there's a dangerous guy still standing.

The 'two in the body, one in the head' is known as the Mozambique Drill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill). Edit: Sorry, didn't see that you'd already noted the name of the technique. I need to stop posting before I have my morning caffeine fix.

There's body cam footage of a pair of officers who get drawn on by a person they're arresting and right up to the moment he's still on the ground, from my opinion, there always seemed to be the potential for him to shoot the officers. It later turned out that the man was possibly attempting 'suicide by cop' since he was only armed with a BB gun.

Here's footage from both of the officers' viewpoints:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V9AOsWQzpc&bpctr=1466242502

[Brother Oni]

Here's the other one since I can only embed one video per post.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSiqfM2GR4E

If I remember correctly, in this sort of situation, they're trained to shoot until the threat is stopped, hence why they both unloaded their magazines into the man. Officer Griffin initially tried to go for her taser first before switching to her pistol, which is why she seemed slower on the draw.

[Max_Killjoy]

I thought you disliked myth-based statistics? There is definitely no surgical precision necessary. If it was, there would be 170 dead instead of 29, in the Kunming attack.

One, I didn't say "surgical precision", I said "surgical strike", regarding the very deliberate "grab, rend defenseless, cut neck" attack you described. Last I read, the majority of knife attack wounds reported, at least in the US, are random and superficial compared to what you describe. Most people, even "professional criminals", attack in an overhand or underhand stabbing motion, not in the sort of manner you're claiming.

Two, you're claiming that "surgical precision" "isn't necessary", and try to support this by saying that more people would have died if it were necessary? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Third, the point here isn't what can be done with a knife, it's addressing this ridiculous claim that there's a hardened core of "professional criminals" who commonly practice some sort of street-fu knife-attack art, highly skilled in the one-grab one-cut takedown, or in actual knife-fighting. Maybe that's true in other parts of the world, but in the US? Not so much.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

All the real "hardcore" gangsters carry guns anyway, even over here. Knives are for drunks and petty robbers, of which there are a lot more.

[Mr. Mask]

Max: ??? Surgical strike instead of surgical precision? What difference are you making?

No, you're talking about petty crooks and punks who get picked up, most of whom's crime isn't centred on violence. Not the sort of people who gut someone in the restroom, so the police have to rush in and try to help them keep their organs inside them till the ambulance arrives.

Think. If it were necessary to have surgical precision to effectively use a knife, what would that imply of a successful knife massacre?

Depends on the city and area. You're getting statistics from across the whole USA, so of course the cases of punks showing off will drown out people from actual knife traditions. Mexico, for example, has some really fine tradition. Some of that has bled over into the USA.

Do you have any actual experience in this matter, or are you simply perpetuating myths and common misconceptions?


Expert: You don't consider Kunming a serious case...? That is an example of proficient knife use.



Oni: Yeah, that's the thing. You can shoot a pistol while wounded and on the ground. And it's hard to tell someone who's down for the count from someone faking or just a little stunned (so they'll wake up to the attack, suddenly). What with all the adrenaline and panic, you don't want to teach your officers to hesitate, either.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Okay, in China terrorists use knives.

[Max_Killjoy]

Max: ??? Surgical strike instead of surgical precision? What difference are you making?

No, you're talking about petty crooks and punks who get picked up, most of whom's crime isn't centred on violence. Not the sort of people who gut someone in the restroom, so the police have to rush in and try to help them keep their organs inside them till the ambulance arrives.

Think. If it were necessary to have surgical precision to effectively use a knife, what would that imply of a successful knife massacre?

Depends on the city and area. You're getting statistics from across the whole USA, so of course the cases of punks showing off will drown out people from actual knife traditions. Mexico, for example, has some really fine tradition. Some of that has bled over into the USA.

Do you have any actual experience in this matter, or are you simply perpetuating myths and common misconceptions?


Random people (in the US at least) do not get knifed (or shot) in the bathroom by "pro knifers" for no reason, outside of some very specific examples. Random people are targeted as victims of other crimes, in which the use of a weapon is a means to the ends of robbery or rape or whatever, and very rarely is the criminal trained or practiced in some martial art (formal or informal) of knife use.

Again, you're the one who described what I sarcastically termed a "surgical strike" when you talked about the attacker grabbing someone so they can't evade the cut and then slicing them open very deliberately -- no one said anything about "surgical precision"


Given the story you're telling here, I don't think you should be accusing anyone else of "perpetuating myths" -- and don't tell me to "think" when your example situation appears to be directly counter to the claim your making.

[Mr. Mask]

Expert: ?? Because it's a Chinese racial bonus?



Max: 'Given the story you're telling here, I don't think you should be accusing anyone else of "perpetuating myths"'

You accused others of this... and yet this is how you respond? An empty appeal to absurdity.


Umm... martial art doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. I'm referring to people who can use knives skillfully, not that they took a prestige class. This is basic prison rush tactics, brutal and simple.

I can think of three cases of people being knifed in restrooms, offhand.

"I said surgical strike! Not surgical precision!" ....OK.

It seems you didn't bother to think about it. If you were required to have surgical precision in strikes to effectively knife someone, then you would be striking people with surgical precision. In a massacre, the injury to death ratios would reflect this.

[Knaight]

Expert: ?? Because it's a Chinese racial bonus?

Because if they had access to guns when going on a spree killing, they'd have used those instead (or maybe explosives, if that's what they had access to). The sort of person who decides to go out and kill everyone they can as a part of some coordinated militant group are generally the sort of person who use the most effective weapon they can get their hands on. In this case, it was a knife*. In the US, it's generally at least one gun, and occasionally a bomb.

*Although I've seen enough Chinese-English translation to know that if the term "knife" comes up in translation from Chinese, and it's about something used as a weapon, there's a pretty good chance that the item being described would fall within what the word "sword" gets used for in English. Someone stabbing their family member in a domestic dispute probably used a knife; several militants in a coordinated attack where the term "long knife" specifically comes up in reporting (e.g this BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367)) seems like a case where they may well have had swords.

[snowblizz]

Because if they had access to guns when going on a spree killing, they'd have used those instead (or maybe explosives, if that's what they had access to). The sort of person who decides to go out and kill everyone they can as a part of some coordinated militant group are generally the sort of person who use the most effective weapon they can get their hands on. In this case, it was a knife*. In the US, it's generally at least one gun, and occasionally a bomb.

*Although I've seen enough Chinese-English translation to know that if the term "knife" comes up in translation from Chinese, and it's about something used as a weapon, there's a pretty good chance that the item being described would fall within what the word "sword" gets used for in English. Someone stabbing their family member in a domestic dispute probably used a knife; several militants in a coordinated attack where the term "long knife" specifically comes up in reporting (e.g this BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367)) seems like a case where they may well have had swords.

I'd not be so sure of that. I always got the impression it involved traditional uyghur weapons. Not that infomration from out of there is to be relied on. I had a Chinese roommate who had stories about how savage and barbarian they were and once pulled a knife on him when in a disagreement in buying something (along the lines of "pulled the knife and stabbed it into the table"). I'm just pointing this out for the general perception of how they are seen. So stories would likely inflate the weapons in question. Looking online for examples of what seems traditional weapons many of them are fairly substantial, and could easily be described as long knives by someone accustomed to less hefty knives. The knives in question are sorta like bowie knives. Wouldn't be able to that easily bring very long edged weapons. However, it makes sense if it was something more in line with "traditional dress" items.

[Knaight]

I'd not be so sure of that. I always got the impression it involved traditional uyghur weapons. Not that infomration from out of there is to be relied on. I had a Chinese roommate who had stories about how savage and barbarian they were and once pulled a knife on him when in a disagreement in buying something (along the lines of "pulled the knife and stabbed it into the table"). I'm just pointing this out for the general perception of how they are seen. So stories would likely inflate the weapons in question. Looking online for examples of what seems traditional weapons many of them are fairly substantial, and could easily be described as long knives by someone accustomed to less hefty knives. The knives in question are sorta like bowie knives. Wouldn't be able to that easily bring very long edged weapons. However, it makes sense if it was something more in line with "traditional dress" items.

It could easily be that too. The point is, the term "knife" in English can cover a surprisingly wide number of implements before translation, and while the term "knife" usually conjures up a fairly straight, fairly short, and fairly light implement most of the time (with something like a chef's knife being at the high end), it can also be used for something like a machete. A switchblade is a pretty bad weapon at inflicting quickly incapacitating injuries. A machete can do that just fine. Either way though, a gun is much more dangerous, and would almost certainly have been used if easily available.

[Mr. Mask]

Knaight: Two points on that.

Depending on their skill set, knives still could have been the superior weapon. Firearms give range, and if you have sufficient skill and position, this can be (and often is) a huge advantage. But in a crowded, enclosed space, the blade is probably superior. At very minimum, it does not require reloading, and is more difficult to take away. In the hands of a practiced user, it can and will inflict more debilitating injuries faster, in an enclosed, crowded space. Tueller drill proves this point very dramatically.

Yes, before launching a major attack against a facility where the attackers would be easily outnumbered 25 to 1 or worse, I'm sure that the knives they selected were more suitable for combat than your average pocketknife. This does not discount the damage potential of a smaller blade. A small-caliber revolver would have fared much worse as well. To match the damage potential of the Kunming attack using firearms, a person would have needed a belt-fed machinegun.


It's easier to land an immediately debilitating cut with a larger knife. I know of enough cases of pocket knives gutting people, or cutting half their face and jaw off, or nearly severing their neck, that I would not say they are incapable of swift incapacitation. While it is theoretically possible to keep fighting for a few seconds with major arteries cut, internal organs exposed, or the like, this level of damage is at least as debilitating as anything you're likely to see from firearms. Truly immediate debilitation is only possible from massive damage to brain or upper spine, and sticking a knife in someone's head will do that the same as a bullet or grenade splinter will.



Snow: This is the traditional Uighur knife you're thinking of: http://www.chamdancing.com/uploads/6/3/2/9/6329329/s628758411694232589_p22_i6_w1606.jpeg
http://greendragonsociety.com/images/Uyghur%20Knives_Header.jpg
http://www.worldknives.com/images/dynamic/products_1445_2_original.jpg

And, as you figured, here are the knives from the attack: http://beijingcream.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Knives-used-in-Kunming-attack.jpg

One eight inches, the other about five.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Expert: ?? Because it's a Chinese racial bonus?

Because as Knaight says they couldn't get a gun. If they could an organized Multi-person assault like that would have "scored" more than under 4 kills per attacker. I don't think the police would have tried tear gas before just shooting the attackers either in that scenario. (As much of an error as that was even in this scenario.)

In the sentence you were originally replying to I state that there aren't many super well trained knife fighting criminals because all the real baddies who take their weapon use seriously both in the Netherlands and in the USA, and most similar countries like the UK and Czechia use gun. Which means if you do get a chance to defend yourself with a knife, you're probably fighting a more "common" criminal, and they're probably "only" decent at knife fighting.

In China they can't get guns. I don't live in China.

[Brother Oni]

*Although I've seen enough Chinese-English translation to know that if the term "knife" comes up in translation from Chinese, and it's about something used as a weapon, there's a pretty good chance that the item being described would fall within what the word "sword" gets used for in English.

The chinese word for knife is dao (刀), however the character means 'blade' generically, which is why it's also the same word for the single edged sabre dao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_(sword)).

Typically they differentiate between different types of sabres by appending prefixes to indicate their construction or aesthetic eg Liuyedao (willow leaf sabre) or niuweidao (ox-tailed sabre), but that's not common among everyday use where they all get called dao.


To match the damage potential of the Kunming attack using firearms, a person would have needed a belt-fed machinegun.

In a similar crowded, enclosed environment, I find it highly dubious that you're suggesting the three attackers in the Bataclan concert hall attack in Paris would have achieved the same death toll armed with knives rather than with the assault rifles they used instead.

While I agree that blade beats firearms at short distances, that's only if one person is attacking the other. In a situation where it's blade versus unarmed civillian or firearm versus unarmed civillian, the firearm is going to win out in my opinion.

[Max_Killjoy]

In a similar crowded, enclosed environment, I find it highly dubious that you're suggesting the three attackers in the Bataclan concert hall attack in Paris would have achieved the same death toll armed with knives rather than with the assault rifles they used instead.

While I agree that blade beats firearms at short distances, that's only if one person is attacking the other. In a situation where it's blade versus unarmed civillian or firearm versus unarmed civillian, the firearm is going to win out in my opinion.

The myth of the knife and the "knife culture" keeps growing here, I see (not directed at you).

I do actually know someone who deals with some of these "knife culture" criminals (mostly illegal immigrants in an southwest American city), and he tells a hairy story about one of his fellow officers breaking the arm of a guy who tried something that now reminds me of this whole "grab and slice" thing. Part of their training is being able to disarm and disable someone at close range, including being able to bring their firearm to bear while in physical contact with the attacker if necessary, and evidently it tends to make short work of these hyper-machismo "knife-culture" guys.

[Vinyadan]

I don't think that blade beats firearm. A gun can be used while concealed, a gun allows you to wound with little effort, a gun can shoot that guy who is running away without you having to go after him, a gun shoots faster than you can swing your arm, a gun will throw people to the ground.
There may be a distance at which blade and firearm can cancel each other's advantages during a fight, but a gun is simply too easy to use.

[Brother Oni]

I don't think that blade beats firearm. A gun can be used while concealed, a gun allows you to wound with little effort, a gun can shoot that guy who is running away without you having to go after him, a gun shoots faster than you can swing your arm, a gun will throw people to the ground.
There may be a distance at which blade and firearm can cancel each other's advantages during a fight, but a gun is simply too easy to use.

At distances of 21 feet or less, a person armed with a knife can close the distance and potentially fatally injure the firearms user before they can assess the situation, draw their firearm and fire two shots CoM (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM)). Demonstrations of this exercise is known as the Tueller drill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill), as mentioned earlier.

I believe the FBI currently recommends a minimum of 30 feet and at 21 feet, the firearms user can typically get a shot off while being stabbed.

That there are techniques and situations that reduce this 21 feet less - having your weapon up and ready to acquire a target or various other defensive shooting techniques as mentioned earlier (either firearms based melee techniques as Max_Killjoy mentioned or close shooting skills as espoused by groups such as the IDPA) for example.

A typical pistol will not throw a person to the ground unless they fall over from the shock and pain - the momentum of a round just isn't enough. I can crunch the numbers if you like, but Mythbusters has been tested this with various weapons from pistols to shotguns and even a Barrett (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPGNtFU0ww0)) and you need a comparatively massive round like a shotgun slug shell.

Edit: Given that there are techniques to draw your pistol and shoot an assailant in melee combat, much like iaido or aikido techniques to draw your sword while in a similar situation, does that mean gun-fu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAH_6V5h4c) is now a real thing? :smallbiggrin:

[snowblizz]

and you need a comparatively massive round like a shotgun slug shell.

Even a full on shotgun blast barley shifts a pig in a bullet proof vest (to make sure the energy is put into target). As in just enough of mm:s to get it to drop of a precariously balanced hook.

Edit: And I see the clip does show that actually.

[Mike_G]

I'm just going to state, categorically, that bullets have a ton more stopping power than knives.

This is on average, sure. You can find instances that lie outside this trend. Most are apples to oranges: big knives versus small guns, shot in the arm vs stabbed in the eye, etc, so I'm not going to argue anecdotes.

But I have seen and treated a lot of wounds, and gunshots disable far more quickly than knife wounds, give comparable injury location.

Bullets dump much more energy into the target, produce a wider, deeper wound channel, bounce around and rip up more stuff, and can shatter bones or fragment, producing multiple projectiles.

There is a reason the expression "bringing a knife to a gun fight" isn't praise.

[Vinyadan]

At distances of 21 feet or less, a person armed with a knife can close the distance and potentially fatally injure the firearms user before they can assess the situation, draw their firearm and fire two shots CoM (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM)). Demonstrations of this exercise is known as the Tueller drill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill), as mentioned earlier.

I believe the FBI currently recommends a minimum of 30 feet and at 21 feet, the firearms user can typically get a shot off while being stabbed.

That there are techniques and situations that reduce this 21 feet less - having your weapon up and ready to acquire a target or various other defensive shooting techniques as mentioned earlier (either firearms based melee techniques as Max_Killjoy mentioned or close shooting skills as espoused by groups such as the IDPA) for example.

A typical pistol will not throw a person to the ground unless they fall over from the shock and pain - the momentum of a round just isn't enough. I can crunch the numbers if you like, but Mythbusters has been tested this with various weapons from pistols to shotguns and even a Barrett (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPGNtFU0ww0)) and you need a comparatively massive round like a shotgun slug shell.


The advantage of the blade in these cases isn't due to the blade being a blade, but to the blade user striking first. If he had had a gun, the result would have been the same, only denying the breathing room of 1.5 seconds to cover the distance, substituted by a to me unknown time needed to aim.

[Mike_G]

The "21 foot rule" is somewhat disputed, and even if we accept it, it doesn't say a knife is a better weapon than a gun within 21 feet.

It says that a man with a knife (or any hand to hand weapon) can cover 21 feet to reach you by the time you can draw and aim a gun. And probably by the time you can draw a knife, BTW. So you should be cautious of anyone within that distance. It's often cited to justify shooting somebody who didn't have a gun and was only fifteen feet from an officer, because he "could have had a weapon" and "looked like a threat" and was within 21 feet.

Guns are much deadlier than knives, by almost any standard. You can keep citing the attack in China,

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html

But 10 men, armed with big knives (the article refers to a "two foot blade") killed 29 people and wounded 130. Which is about 20% fatalities, and about 3 people killed per attacker.

One man in Orlando killed 49 people and wounded 53 with a gun. Almost 50% fatalities, all by one man.

I honestly don't know why this is even a controversy. If I had to defend myself against anybody, under any credible circumstances, I'd prefer a handgun over a knife. Even if we were close enough to be wearing the same pair of pants. With each foot further away he is, the argument for the gun becomes even stronger.

[Knaight]

But 10 men, armed with big knives (the article refers to a "two foot blade") killed 29 people and wounded 130. Which is about 20% fatalities, and about 3 people killed per attacker.
It refers to a "blade at least 2 feet long". That two foot figure is the minimum, and like I said earlier, the term "knife" here is brushing up awfully close to sword territory. Even with weapons that ranged from knives to what was at least almost a sword, it was still vastly less lethal than a gun.


I honestly don't know why this is even a controversy. If I had to defend myself against anybody, under any credible circumstances, I'd prefer a handgun over a knife. Even if we were close enough to be wearing the same pair of pants. With each foot further away he is, the argument for the gun becomes even stronger.
There are some people with an incentive to portray guns as no more dangerous than knives, but other than that I have no idea either.

[Max_Killjoy]

The "21 foot rule" is somewhat disputed, and even if we accept it, it doesn't say a knife is a better weapon than a gun within 21 feet.

It says that a man with a knife (or any hand to hand weapon) can cover 21 feet to reach you by the time you can draw and aim a gun. And probably by the time you can draw a knife, BTW. So you should be cautious of anyone within that distance. It's often cited to justify shooting somebody who didn't have a gun and was only fifteen feet from an officer, because he "could have had a weapon" and "looked like a threat" and was within 21 feet.

Guns are much deadlier than knives, by almost any standard. You can keep citing the attack in China,

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html

But 10 men, armed with big knives (the article refers to a "two foot blade") killed 29 people and wounded 130. Which is about 20% fatalities, and about 3 people killed per attacker.

One man in Orlando killed 49 people and wounded 53 with a gun. Almost 50% fatalities, all by one man.

I honestly don't know why this is even a controversy. If I had to defend myself against anybody, under any credible circumstances, I'd prefer a handgun over a knife. Even if we were close enough to be wearing the same pair of pants. With each foot further away he is, the argument for the gun becomes even stronger.


I lost track of how the China attack became part of the discussion.

Based on the evidence at hand, I'd conclude that a firearm is usually more effective than a blade, unless the wielder of the blade has distinct advantages going into a situation.

At the same time, since it's being mentioned, the China attack is one of many examples that it doesn't take a firearm to kill or wound many people. If there were no firearms or combat knives or whatever in the world, the attacks that make sensationalist headlines could (and often would) still be carried out with other tools. We are literally surrounded by potentially deadly implements every day, and yet for some people certain weapons hold this status as almost a sort of fetish (in the old, magical sense), an object supposedly imbued with powers to mystically seize control of people and change them from safe and peaceful, into vicious maniac killers.

A single five-gallon can of gasoline has immense killing potential that most people seem utterly ignorant of. A car can kill dozens with the right location and timing. Household chemicals. etc.

[Brother Oni]

The advantage of the blade in these cases isn't due to the blade being a blade, but to the blade user striking first. If he had had a gun, the result would have been the same, only denying the breathing room of 1.5 seconds to cover the distance, substituted by a to me unknown time needed to aim.

Well if it takes the defending firearms user 1.5 seconds to assess, draw and shoot, it's a pretty safe bet that it would take the attacking firearms user the same amount of time, probably less since they're initiating and thus don't have to assess the situation.

As Mike_G said, the Tueller drill demonstrates that at short ranges both people are likely to end up down on the ground bleeding out, not that the blade is superior to the firearm in this specific situation. It's to remind firearms users from becoming complacent because of the range and damage advantage of their weapon over a blade. Edit: I've realised that I said 'blade beats gun' in an earlier post in error - I should amend my statement to 'blade trades with gun at short distances', although I still stand by the position that there's a distance where nobody stands a chance, regardless of the weapon (about 10ft or less, according to the video).

Again like Mike_G, I'd opt for a firearm over a blade as well in the same situation.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well if it takes the defending firearms user 1.5 seconds to assess, draw and shoot, it's a pretty safe bet that it would take the attacking firearms user the same amount of time, probably less since they're initiating and thus don't have to assess the situation.

As Mike_G said, the Tueller drill demonstrates that at short ranges both people are likely to end up down on the ground bleeding out, not that the blade is superior to the firearm in this specific situation. It's to remind firearms users from becoming complacent because of the range and damage advantage of their weapon over a blade. Edit: I've realised that I said 'blade beats gun' in an earlier post in error - I should amend my statement to 'blade trades with gun at short distances', although I still stand by the position that there's a distance where nobody stands a chance, regardless of the weapon (about 10ft or less, according to the video).

Again like Mike_G, I'd opt for a firearm over a blade as well in the same situation.

How much does it change the results if both the attacker with the knife and the defender with the firearm have to start with weapons secured? What if both get to start with weapons out and in various states of readiness?

Is the defender ONLY allowed to use the firearm to defend, or can he use another defensive technique that puts the attacker in a vulnerable position (such as redirecting his attack into a throw, then using the firearm)?

.

[cobaltstarfire]

So I have a question about armor usage in particular. This is a two part question for two different groups of critter.


If a society in a very metal poor area, with a fairly weak martial tradition were pushed into war, what would be the path they'd take for armor if they used any at all? Technologically speaking they in particular are probably early/mid middle ages?

I've done a little bit of poking around myself on wikipedia, and guess that if they were to start using armor it'd be padded armor, hardened leather, scale, or things with plates in them? I don't think drawing wire would be easy or common, but some may be able to wear mail. (though these are those animal "fae" critters like the heron riders I was bugging you all about last thread, so I bet they'd hate to wear mail anyway, it's probably not fun at all to get your fur pinched in chain mail, those who do wear it probably would cut their fur very short or wear extensive wrappings around the areas most likely to be caught or pinched by mail)


The second part of the question is what sorts of armor might be seen from a more hunter/gathery kind of society? These in particular are a bunch of clans who are good at hunting, and by extension are more capable at doing war than the agrarian society mentioned above (or at least I'm assuming having a strong tradition of hunting things would be easy to apply to combat too). But any real war they've had is the stuff of legends. Would they already have some form of body protection for hunting, or would that more likely be something they develop over the course of a war?

[Mr Beer]

The Japanese were metal-poor I believe, so their martial traditions should provide a vast trove of inspirational material. Of course, the weak martial tradition, maybe not so much.

Hunter-gatherers likely won't have a tradition of wearing armour unless their prey is exceptionally dangerous and maybe not even then. Long spears are arguably the best primitive defence for hunting dangerous animals. Fun fact, boar spears sometimes had a crossbar on them to stop an enraged beast completely impaling themselves in order to maul the hunter.

I could be wrong but have heard that farming societies tend to have better warriors than hunters, even though that's somewhat counter-intuitive. Reason being they create excess calories which allows full time specialist roles such as clergy and fighters and lords.

[cobaltstarfire]

There are cultural reasons for the agrarian society not being especially martial, there are other things too (like magic accessibility).

I'm only asking about armor, and what kinds may be used or developed, if it means that the hunter/gathery group has to steal and copy what armors the agrarian ones have that's fine.

[fusilier]

I think your description of armor for the agrarian society sounds fine. Keep in mind that chainmail was usually worn over leather or cloth padding.

Hunter-gather societies. Camouflage might be used for hunting, but I don't think armor would be used (I suppose that would depend upon prey). If there's ritualized combat and/or raiding there could be armor. As for the type of armor: leather? Padded or not, and maybe some cloth padded armor? I know the Comanches liked to stuff paper* in their hardened, leather shields, and they could apparently stop musket balls at long range.

*Westerners who encountered Comanches often remarked on their fascination with books.

[Mr. Mask]

Expert, Oni: ? 29 kills is on par with the most successful rampages in history. About five of them are in the early thirties, and only a couple get absurd at 72 kills, the most successful rampage. He still got less than the 172 casualties. If we divide the casualties by seven, we get as little as 24. It mightn't hit the top ten list, but it is a clear demonstration of an effective weapon.

You can't get guns in Paris, either. Chinese criminals and terrorists have guns. The Xinjiang black market gets theirs from Pakistan and Russia. This was an organized and dedicated attack, the Uighur could've gotten guns if they thought it would've made a difference. In their target location, they would've needed something belt fed to get that result. Not very concealable.... but you're not pulling that off with a 9mm. Had they walked in there and pulled handguns, they would have been beaten to death by their would-be victims after the first three or four shots. That's simply not the correct tactical envelope for using a handgun.

All weapons have an ideal range of engagement. The Tueller Drill clearly demonstrates that zero to 3 feet is a really bad range for firearms.


Oni: "In a similar crowded, enclosed environment, I find it highly dubious that you're suggesting the three attackers in the Bataclan concert hall attack in Paris would have achieved the same death toll armed with knives rather than with the assault rifles they used instead."

? What difference would that have made? The people were cut off from escape, rounded up, and executed. I don't think the rifles even made it faster at that point.


Max: Edged weapons, if used properly, are utterly lethal. Any weapon, if used by idiots, will fail. Since he seems to not have already, get him to look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-lDtCHFmvg

I assumed they still used this video for training. Newer training may have been targeted at the problem since this video was made, but I know of no data suggesting that the problem has been reduced.

You can find out the answer to your questions about the Tueller drill, in it.


Vinyadan: Guns and knives each have their utilities, as you point out. Shooting with a concealed gun is only useful as a tool for assassination and hostages. You won't hit a moving target reliably with your gun in your jacket. Knives don't really require that much effort for the cutting, it's everything else that requires effort. Same with a gun, anyone can pull a trigger. ...Well, you'd think so, a lot of people don't even do that right. As Oni mentioned, knives work up close, guns work with at least a little distance and readiness. A lot of thugs assume guns are easy to use, and so end up hitting a lot of nothing.

If you start drawing, he will start drawing. It becomes a race, where the slight edge you get for drawing first is dampened by your method of concealing the gun not being as clean a draw as a holster. Unless you take the cop totally off guard... which makes knife or gun a moot point. Once they get up close with the knife... then you have problems even if you've drawn.


Mike: If you bring a gun to a knife fight, you will surely die. A gun fight is a fight at distance, and a knife under those conditions is, indeed, not terribly useful. A knife fight is a wrestling-distance encounter, and at that distance, the firearm is as much a liability as an asset.


Oni, Close Quarters with a knife: Test it. At 50 feet, obviously the ranged weapon wins. At 20 feet, likely both will be critically wounded. At 3 feet, even with the firearm in hand but not specifically aimed at the opponent, the blade will prove superior every time. Make sure to swap places with your partner, to make up for any differences in ability.




So I have a question about armor usage in particular. This is a two part question for two different groups of critter.


If a society in a very metal poor area, with a fairly weak martial tradition were pushed into war, what would be the path they'd take for armor if they used any at all? Technologically speaking they in particular are probably early/mid middle ages?

I've done a little bit of poking around myself on wikipedia, and guess that if they were to start using armor it'd be padded armor, hardened leather, scale, or things with plates in them? I don't think drawing wire would be easy or common, but some may be able to wear mail. (though these are those animal "fae" critters like the heron riders I was bugging you all about last thread, so I bet they'd hate to wear mail anyway, it's probably not fun at all to get your fur pinched in chain mail, those who do wear it probably would cut their fur very short or wear extensive wrappings around the areas most likely to be caught or pinched by mail)


The second part of the question is what sorts of armor might be seen from a more hunter/gathery kind of society? These in particular are a bunch of clans who are good at hunting, and by extension are more capable at doing war than the agrarian society mentioned above (or at least I'm assuming having a strong tradition of hunting things would be easy to apply to combat too). But any real war they've had is the stuff of legends. Would they already have some form of body protection for hunting, or would that more likely be something they develop over the course of a war? If hunting is still their main trade, leather, horn, and a bit of bone is likely if they haven't anything better. Of course, that's assuming they bother to turn the leather and other bits into armour. If they're not warlike, there's no reason to, some high quality fur clothing is enough armour for hunting (about as protective as a good jacket).

Samurai armour... that would require some dedicated pursuit of war, and a pretty well organized society. Not sure they could be hunter gatherers at that point. That would also require a supply of lacquer as well. You can make some boiled leather scale or the like, but it will end up very different.

Being hunter gathers, they'll have a lot of skilled fighters who are good at hit and run, guerrilla warfare and such. Now, if they're not very warlike, then they won't be as fierce as the Britons and Germanic tribes Rome fought, but they'd be more fierce than civilians.

If they have a lot of sheep, or cotton, padded armour would be easier to make.

Now, if they're hunter gatherers by the middle ages, then that implies the group is very poor, way behind the other societies, and that they don't appear to be trading for technology, metal or such, or copying their neighbours. The causes and reasons, I leave to you.

[rrgg]

So I have a question about armor usage in particular. This is a two part question for two different groups of critter.


If a society in a very metal poor area, with a fairly weak martial tradition were pushed into war, what would be the path they'd take for armor if they used any at all? Technologically speaking they in particular are probably early/mid middle ages?

I've done a little bit of poking around myself on wikipedia, and guess that if they were to start using armor it'd be padded armor, hardened leather, scale, or things with plates in them? I don't think drawing wire would be easy or common, but some may be able to wear mail. (though these are those animal "fae" critters like the heron riders I was bugging you all about last thread, so I bet they'd hate to wear mail anyway, it's probably not fun at all to get your fur pinched in chain mail, those who do wear it probably would cut their fur very short or wear extensive wrappings around the areas most likely to be caught or pinched by mail)


The second part of the question is what sorts of armor might be seen from a more hunter/gathery kind of society? These in particular are a bunch of clans who are good at hunting, and by extension are more capable at doing war than the agrarian society mentioned above (or at least I'm assuming having a strong tradition of hunting things would be easy to apply to combat too). But any real war they've had is the stuff of legends. Would they already have some form of body protection for hunting, or would that more likely be something they develop over the course of a war?

Padded or textile armor is considered a "theoretical" armor for the early middle ages in that it was effective and well within most societies' ability to make, but primary sources are pretty much completely silent about any sort of armor like this being used. In the later middle ages gambesons and jacks definitely took off in a major way with many troops reportedly even preferring them to mail or plate. Some of the thicker padded jacks made with over 30 layers of cloth were described as rendering the wearer basically invulnerable to sword thrusts and arrow wounds. In the new world famously many conquistadors were quick to abandon their metal armors for the thick cotton armor worn by the natives which they felt was easier to wear and provided just as much protection against everything but firearms.

If they really don't have a strong military tradition though it may in fact be that most of them are going to war in just their day-to-day clothes. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are completely unarmored, there are occasional mentions of thick cloaks or winter greatcoats being able to turn aside projectiles and cuts, but in general they probably aren't going to do as well as a people who have taken time to actually manufacture proper armor for each man.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

29/8 <4.

Not a great score, especially since working together and coordinating usually yields better results than going in alone.

But mostly I really don't get why we're talking about this as an example for why knives do or do not make a good self defense weapon. Sure, it's a hot topic right now, people are discussing it to argue Orlando could have happened without guns, but as flat as that comparison falls, and as useless it is to base weapon laws just on mass shootings rather than the other 10.000 gun homicides, 20.000 gun suicides and 500 lethal gun accidents that happen every year in the US (population well over 300 million), the comparison simply fits even less into a self defense discussion.

So please, give us a few more posts about how a full rifle squad couldn't kill 30 civilians, and then we'll move on to other real world armor, tactics and weapon questions.

[Maquise]

What information is there about the naming of swords, as far as actual historical accounts go? I think I heard that Charlemagne had a sword with a name, Joyeuse or something similar I believe.

[Brother Oni]

Yeah, I'm just going to move on as I think it's pointless to discuss something if at least one party is not amenable to change as it just degenerates into a shouting match.


How much does it change the results if both the attacker with the knife and the defender with the firearm have to start with weapons secured? What if both get to start with weapons out and in various states of readiness?

Is the defender ONLY allowed to use the firearm to defend, or can he use another defensive technique that puts the attacker in a vulnerable position (such as redirecting his attack into a throw, then using the firearm)?


As I mentioned earlier, if the defender has in weapons in various states of readiness, it reduces the minimum safety distance they need to maintain - I believe the videos that both Mr Mask and I posted demonstrate the various states of readiness and their effect on the minimum range (about 7ft if the pistol is drawn and on target if I remember correctly), and alternate methods of defence (eg kick the attacker in the groin repeatedly while holding off the knife, then draw your weapon as he goes to ground).

There's a video of a police officer trying to draw his weapon while within arm's reach of an armed assailant who already has his own pistol ready. It doesn't end well.


What information is there about the naming of swords, as far as actual historical accounts go? I think I heard that Charlemagne had a sword with a name, Joyeuse or something similar I believe.

Wikipedia has a list of notable swords, both real and legendary (link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_swords)).

Famous Japanese swordsmiths named particular blades; the smith Masamune (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masamune) had a number of famous blades, the Honjo Masamune being the most famous one.

There are also a number of legendary and ceremonial weapons with names - the Kusanagi no Tsurugi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusanagi) has a legendary status rivalling that of Excalibur of Arthurian legend.


There's the Chun Jun, the sword of King Goujian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Goujian) from China's Spring and Autumn period (8th - 4th century BC), which is kept in the Hubei Provincial museum today. There's not much contemporary information on the sword specifically but it is essentially stamped with the owner's name on it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Sword_of_Goujian%2C_Hubei_Provincial_Museum%2C_201 5-04-06_01-edit.jpg

[Spiryt]

So I have a question about armor usage in particular. This is a two part question for two different groups of critter.


If a society in a very metal poor area, with a fairly weak martial tradition were pushed into war, what would be the path they'd take for armor if they used any at all? Technologically speaking they in particular are probably early/mid middle ages?



For vast majority of combatants fitting those criteria throughout the history 'no armor whatsover' would be the answer.

Armor, no matter of material, does require fair amount of tradition, skill and spare resources.

Plenty of descriptions of 'Barbarians' going to war with pants, spear and shield, and that's all.


These in particular are a bunch of clans who are good at hunting, and by extension are more capable at doing war than the agrarian society mentioned above (or at least I'm assuming having a strong tradition of hunting things would be easy to apply to combat too).


Well, it may seem 'logical' in some way, but actually strictly and heavily agrarian societies like, famously, Romans, were some of most aggressive, combative bastards out there.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Agrarian societies have to be a lot more territorial than hunter-gatherers, and they're generally (much) bigger societies. If they keep cattle they also have to deal with predators, possibly even more often than hunters.

[Vinyadan]

29/8 <4.

Not a great score, especially since working together and coordinating usually yields better results than going in alone.

But mostly I really don't get why we're talking about this as an example for why knives do or do not make a good self defense weapon. Sure, it's a hot topic right now, people are discussing it to argue Orlando could have happened without guns, but as flat as that comparison falls, and as useless it is to base weapon laws just on mass shootings rather than the other 10.000 gun homicides, 20.000 gun suicides and 500 lethal gun accidents that happen every year in the US (population well over 300 million), the comparison simply fits even less into a self defense discussion.

So please, give us a few more posts about how a full rifle squad couldn't kill 30 civilians, and then we'll move on to other real world armor, tactics and weapon questions.

Wow, we've had a total of 470 homicides (of all varieties, 246 with guns) in a year. We have about 1/5 of US population, but less than 1/20 of the killings, so, in proportion, 1/4 of the rate (0.75:100.000 vs US 3.9:100.000). The suicide rate is more similar (more than 1/2 of the US, 6,7-8,5:100.000 vs US 13:100.000). World average for homicide is 6.2:100.000.
Now I get why the median age around here is 44 years with 82 years of life expectancy, while the US has 37 and 78-79 :smalltongue: (also, people here don't make kids anymore).

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, I'm just going to move on as I think it's pointless to discuss something if at least one party is not amenable to change as it just degenerates into a shouting match.

I know exactly what you mean. :smallfrown:



As I mentioned earlier, if the defender has in weapons in various states of readiness, it reduces the minimum safety distance they need to maintain - I believe the videos that both Mr Mask and I posted demonstrate the various states of readiness and their effect on the minimum range (about 7ft if the pistol is drawn and on target if I remember correctly), and alternate methods of defence (eg kick the attacker in the groin repeatedly while holding off the knife, then draw your weapon as he goes to ground).

There's a video of a police officer trying to draw his weapon while within arm's reach of an armed assailant who already has his own pistol ready. It doesn't end well.

Yeah, that's not going to end well.

I probably missed some of your notes on different scenarios in the back and forth on "blade magic" that was going on at the same time.

[Max_Killjoy]

29/8 <4.

Not a great score, especially since working together and coordinating usually yields better results than going in alone.

But mostly I really don't get why we're talking about this as an example for why knives do or do not make a good self defense weapon. Sure, it's a hot topic right now, people are discussing it to argue Orlando could have happened without guns, but as flat as that comparison falls, and as useless it is to base weapon laws just on mass shootings rather than the other 10.000 gun homicides, 20.000 gun suicides and 500 lethal gun accidents that happen every year in the US (population well over 300 million), the comparison simply fits even less into a self defense discussion.

So please, give us a few more posts about how a full rifle squad couldn't kill 30 civilians, and then we'll move on to other real world armor, tactics and weapon questions.

I stopped paying attention, is someone really claiming that?

Part of the reason it gets so hard to disentangle apples from oranges on the subject is that there's a lot of deliberate conflation on the subject, especially on the part of parentalist "progressive" disarmament advocates in the US. For example, when I referred to cooked statistics earlier -- an example of that would be the way that they try to poo-poo self-defense by cooking up stats that include a single giant lump of homicides, suicides, accidents, etc on one side of the ledger, and then on the self-defense side, only include incidents in which the attacker was actually killed, leaving out when the attacker ran away, was held by the defender until police arrived, was wounded, or was otherwise stopped by an armed defender without actually being killed in the process. (When the truth is, these are people who simply don't believe in self-defense, and consider any response to attempted violence to be the sole purview of the state.)

So, when you have blatant intellectual dishonesty like that going on, statistics end up being the b**** of agenda and thus a giant freaking tangled mess.

[Brother Oni]

I stopped paying attention, is someone really claiming that?

The claim (as I understand it), is that in a packed concert hall of around 1,500 capacity, three men with large knives would have done as equally well in killing 89 people as they would have done with the assault rifles they actually used (the Bataclan theatre during the Paris attacks).

[cobaltstarfire]

Agrarian societies have to be a lot more territorial than hunter-gatherers, and they're generally (much) bigger societies. If they keep cattle they also have to deal with predators, possibly even more often than hunters.

That is something I hadn't considered, and will have to think about it. I haven't really nailed down what the wild fauna of the world is beyond "dominated by archosaurs". So far I've only come up with some domesticated birdlike creatures, I really do need to tackle predators...It's been pretty challenging to come up with macrofauna that are archosaurs but don't look too much like dinosaurs. (dinosaurs feel a little out of place)

The agrarian folks are descended from some pretty warlike of people. So they should at least know about things like armors or swords and even have some heirlooms, they just don't really have many people who are capable of producing objects of war and I figure it's made harder by lack of good metals. (the hunter gatherers don't really have swords at all, since they've never had need of them in "recent" memory).


The hunter gathery folks did settle several times a year at old temple complexes to trade between clans and stuff. They use those locations as caches too. I want them to be martial beyond the hunting so based on what you all are saying they might have some traditions they follow that help with that. (they are already a very strange mix of bound up by tradition, but also highly willing to absorb new things into their body of knowledge)

But yes, the fighting that is meant to break out between these two is over the agrarian ones breeding like bunnies and generally being territorial, though I'm certain the huntery folks probably started to feel pretty aggressive too. The fighting probably started about when the hunter ones got fed up and started settling down around the borders and refused the let the agrarians expand any further.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The claim (as I understand it), is that in a packed concert hall of around 1,500 capacity, three men with large knives would have done as equally well in killing 89 people as they would have done with the assault rifles they actually used (the Bataclan theatre during the Paris attacks).

The "claim" I was responding to with that post was that the eight Chinese stab-terrorists wouldn't have done better if they had used guns.

[snowblizz]

The hunter gathery folks did settle several times a year at old temple complexes to trade between clans and stuff. They use those locations as caches too. I want them to be martial beyond the hunting so based on what you all are saying they might have some traditions they follow that help with that. (they are already a very strange mix of bound up by tradition, but also highly willing to absorb new things into their body of knowledge)
That'd be an ideal place/instance for settling disputes (hunting rights, and such, maybe feuds of varies kinds) in a very ritualistic type of combat. Duels, maybe small unit clashes of just flinging spears (some archery amybe, slings, javelins, stuff tha'd be sort of hunting) at each other. This is something hunter-gatherer societies often did since they couldn't sustain large loss of life. This would focus on the lone hunter, the single champion over a more mass combat type.

Spear/stave fighting would be somethign making so much sense as these trials of combat. Could even have them get some primitive armour for these bouts, for when the lethality level of a combat is to be cut down.


But yes, the fighting that is meant to break out between these two is over the agrarian ones breeding like bunnies and generally being territorial, though I'm certain the huntery folks probably started to feel pretty aggressive too. The fighting probably started about when the hunter ones got fed up and started settling down around the borders and refused the let the agrarians expand any further. Or simply, the hunters are losing all their prime hunting grounds to useless farmland, their prey being killed off or domesticated. Basically their way of life is being slowly eroded. That's a source of conflict older than recorded history.

[Tobtor]

Well, it may seem 'logical' in some way, but actually strictly and heavily agrarian societies like, famously, Romans, were some of most aggressive, combative bastards out there.

And all the people Romans really fought, including all the northern Barbarians (Goths, Vends, Alamanians, Britons, etc). Only exception is the only thing that is sometimes more aggressive than agrarian societies: Huns who are mainly nomads and pastoralist (at least mainly so, and in the beginning). Similar Mongols and many other hordes from steppe regions are dominantly herders, and tend to be very aggressive (though many also have both hunting and agricultural as well).


What information is there about the naming of swords, as far as actual historical accounts go? I think I heard that Charlemagne had a sword with a name, Joyeuse or something similar I believe.

There are a great deal of named swords in Icelandic Sagas (30 cases or more), but many aren't actual accounts (that is: contemporary with the action they portrey), but some are quite close in time. Also a named spear in Sturlunga Saga (a contemporary saga about things happening a few years before the writing), is said to be a reforged version of an older sword, I cant presently remember the name.

It is without a doubt a real tradition to name important weapons in Northern Europe (as well as other important artefacts, such as armour, shields, golden rings, drinking horns etc).

[Mike_G]

Mike: If you bring a gun to a knife fight, you will surely die. A gun fight is a fight at distance, and a knife under those conditions is, indeed, not terribly useful. A knife fight is a wrestling-distance encounter, and at that distance, the firearm is as much a liability as an asset.places with your partner, to make up for any differences in ability.
.

OK, I'm calling Shenanigans.

What experience or training do you have?

I have been an infantryman, a fencing instructor and a paramedic. I know a bit about fighting, guns, blades and wounds.

Unless you are the one Navy SEAL who doesn't have a literary agent yet, I respectfully ask that you stop talking down to me or subtantiate your posts with some credentials.

[Brother Oni]

That is something I hadn't considered, and will have to think about it. I haven't really nailed down what the wild fauna of the world is beyond "dominated by archosaurs". So far I've only come up with some domesticated birdlike creatures, I really do need to tackle predators...It's been pretty challenging to come up with macrofauna that are archosaurs but don't look too much like dinosaurs. (dinosaurs feel a little out of place)

Maybe something based on the extinct terror birds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae)? Their descendants like shoebills are fairly terrifying when riled (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFyIMTZ16Hk)) and cassowaries have been known to injure or kill people (plus according to various accounts, they're mean as hell and get even worse if their chicks are threatened).


The "claim" I was responding to with that post was that the eight Chinese stab-terrorists wouldn't have done better if they had used guns.

Ah thanks for that. I lost track of the various knife superiority example claims that were going on.

[Vinyadan]

Don't forget Curtana, she's still around and truncated.

[Max_Killjoy]

OK, I'm calling Shenanigans.

What experience or training do you have?

I have been an infantryman, a fencing instructor and a paramedic. I know a bit about fighting, guns, blades and wounds.

Unless you are the one Navy SEAL who doesn't have a literary agent yet, I respectfully ask that you stop talking down to me or subtantiate your posts with some credentials.


I silently called Shenanigans a while back...



The "claim" I was responding to with that post was that the eight Chinese stab-terrorists wouldn't have done better if they had used guns.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done worse...

[cobaltstarfire]

Maybe something based on the extinct terror birds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae)? Their descendants like shoebills are fairly terrifying when riled (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFyIMTZ16Hk)) and cassowaries have been known to injure or kill people (plus according to various accounts, they're mean as hell and get even worse if their chicks are threatened).

.

I don't think I can ever get over how creepy shoebills are.

I have looked at terror birds a little bit, and have used ratites for references in certain things, mostly stuff like feat and wing claws. I've also been looking into terrestrial crocs, and have experimented with drawing four legged bird creatures too. There's also flight capable predators to worry about (agrarian and hunter/gatherers alike probably have good ranged weapons...). Cassowaries could be interesting because of their casks, I might come up with some bird monsters that have interesting head ornamentation.


I've definitely got plenty more to think about and tweak, thanks everyone for the feedback.

[snowblizz]

I don't think I can ever get over how creepy shoebills are.

I have looked at terror birds a little bit, and have used ratites for references in certain things, mostly stuff like feat and wing claws. I've also been looking into terrestrial crocs, and have experimented with drawing four legged bird creatures too. There's also flight capable predators to worry about (agrarian and hunter/gatherers alike probably have good ranged weapons...). Cassowaries could be interesting because of their casks, I might come up with some bird monsters that have interesting head ornamentation.


I've definitely got plenty more to think about and tweak, thanks everyone for the feedback.

You need to google the "Dodorex" from ARK Survival Evolved. :smallbiggrin: They made the creature for one of the game's events. Out natural history is kinda filled with nasty critters we coudl only imagine. I must admit the land crocodiels scare the bedjeesus out of me. There's just something so wrong with those...

[cobaltstarfire]

Does it make you feel any better to know that at least some land crocs were herbivores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simosuchus)?

Then again being grass eaters doesn't stop hippos from being even more terrifying than crocs...so maybe armored plant eating crocs are just worse....at least the croc in question is uh small?

To try to drag this back slightly onto topic, have there been any real reports of armadillos deflecting gun shots?

[Brother Oni]

I have looked at terror birds a little bit, and have used ratites for references in certain things, mostly stuff like feat and wing claws. I've also been looking into terrestrial crocs, and have experimented with drawing four legged bird creatures too. There's also flight capable predators to worry about (agrarian and hunter/gatherers alike probably have good ranged weapons...).

Or really good boar spears (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_spear) (bird spears?) to ensure that a diving predator is more likely to skewer themselves and stop rather than impale themselves down the shaft and still kill the wielder.

Depending on their prevalance and how much trouble they give the natives, it could give rise to certain clothing characteristics (no broad brimmed hats so they can always keep one eye on the sky), cultural mannerisms (they're only comfortable when they're indoors or have something sturdy over their heads) or proverbs ('hawk dive' meaning a sudden, unforseen and usually terminal accident).

Incidentally, this would make them experts at stopping cavalry, since they're used to stopping a significantly faster diving aerial predator than a charging horse and their weapons are designed for much higher energy impacts; since KE = 0.5mv2, the higher speed has more effect than the higher mass. Since you've given them a fairly weak martial history, they probably won't develop their bird spears into chiavarina like in medieval warfare.

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/wildRose/section7_files/264.jpg

[Roxxy]

In military forces where a substantial portion of the soldiers learn the language of command after enlistment, or at least have in the past, such as the French Foreign Legion, has the language barrier caused major problems?

In my fantasy setting, a major nation lacks a single dominant language. Significant portions speak Spanish, Italian, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic, among other languages, and the military recruits huge numbers of foreigners. The line to immigrate is long because a lot of people want to, and you can join the military at an embassy without ever seeing the nation before basic training. People do it because they get catapulted into citizenship without needing a visa and their immediate family get visas without waiting in line. The military likes it because it helps them meet their goal of zero conscription. Does exacerbate the language issue, though.

Language of command is actually Latin, even though that's basically nobody's native tongue. Issue is that a dominant language doesn't exist, and picking one common language would piss people off who speak other languages. Enough educated people spoke academic Latin at the time that it was seen as a useful compromise. Naturally, soldiers learn to understand commands, not to actually speak the language in day to day conversation. Though schools usually teach kids basic phrases, and public signage is usually multilingual, with Latin as one of the languages (This was a response to the military adopting the language, not the other way around). Latin has basically been taken up as a trade language, like English is in many non-English speaking regions. Tech level is roughly 1960s.

How do you guys think this effects the military? Can it be an effective force when everyone speaks a second language?

[cobaltstarfire]

Seems like it could work to me, though I really don't know. Kind of sounds like trade pidgin only for war?


Or really good boar spears (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_spear) (bird spears?) to ensure that a diving predator is more likely to skewer themselves and stop rather than impale themselves down the shaft and still kill the wielder.



Right now I'm imagining something strange like lots of metal "cups" in the ground around settlements in which a spear meant for stopping a diving bird could be stuck in to help brace against the impact or something. I can't imagine someone being able to hold a spear against a diving bird if it's even more force than a charger horse (how do people even hold a charging cavalry, I always was under the impression that a good deal of them would still get squished... or is the idea to deter the horse/boar/bird so that it doesn't run into the spikes in the first place?)

I imagine even if they aren't very martial they must have very hardy disposition to stand and let a large pointy bird dive at them.

[fusilier]

In military forces where a substantial portion of the soldiers learn the language of command after enlistment, or at least have in the past, such as the French Foreign Legion, has the language barrier caused major problems?

In my fantasy setting, a major nation lacks a single dominant language. Significant portions speak Spanish, Italian, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic, among other languages, and the military recruits huge numbers of foreigners. The line to immigrate is long because a lot of people want to, and you can join the military at an embassy without ever seeing the nation before basic training. People do it because they get catapulted into citizenship without needing a visa and their immediate family get visas without waiting in line. The military likes it because it helps them meet their goal of zero conscription. Does exacerbate the language issue, though.

Language of command is actually Latin, even though that's basically nobody's native tongue. Issue is that a dominant language doesn't exist, and picking one common language would piss people off who speak other languages. Enough educated people spoke academic Latin at the time that it was seen as a useful compromise. Naturally, soldiers learn to understand commands, not to actually speak the language in day to day conversation. Though schools usually teach kids basic phrases, and public signage is usually multilingual, with Latin as one of the languages (This was a response to the military adopting the language, not the other way around). Latin has basically been taken up as a trade language, like English is in many non-English speaking regions. Tech level is roughly 1960s.

How do you guys think this effects the military? Can it be an effective force when everyone speaks a second language?

I think the Austro-Hungarian army required officers to be able to speak two or three languages, and this apparently wasn't a problem. Other instances I know of typically involve the soldiers learning commands and little more. That can be a problem if complicated instructions need to be imparted for a mission (it's less of a problem for older "linear" tactics).

[Clistenes]

What information is there about the naming of swords, as far as actual historical accounts go? I think I heard that Charlemagne had a sword with a name, Joyeuse or something similar I believe.

El Cid's swords were called Tizona ("Black") and Colada ("Smelted Steel"). Tizona is real, and it is kept in the Museum of Burgos. Colada is lost, and it may be real or legendary.

Lopera ("Wolf Slayer") was Saint Ferdinand/king Ferdinand III of Castile's sword. He was so fond of this sword that he had it replace the royal scepter in the royal regalia of Castile.

Legbiter was Magnus III of Norway's sword.

Curtana, also known as the Sword of Mercy, is the ceremonial sword of the kings of England.

Szczerbiec was the ceremonial sword of the kings of Poland.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Does it make you feel any better to know that at least some land crocs were herbivores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simosuchus)?
Awwww, it's cute!


Then again being grass eaters doesn't stop hippos from being even more terrifying than crocs...so maybe armored plant eating crocs are just worse....at least the croc in question is uh small?
For the dangerous larger herbivore you could cast an aetosaur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmatosuchus). It's a bit out of place in a world of mostly birds, although less so than say a rhinchosaur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynchosaur), and it may look a bit much like an ankylosaurus, which would sort of break the no dino rule. But it is available.


To try to drag this back slightly onto topic, have there been any real reports of armadillos deflecting gun shots?
Can't imagine that, honestly. An armadillo is way too small for that, a layer of armor made from biological materials thick enough for turning a bullet would be far too heavy. Maybe on an extremely lucky shot coming in at an enormous angle, changing course just a bit through contact.

A properly fictionalized glyptodon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyptodon), maybe, but mostly because of the words "properly fictionalized". If giant herons can carry riders, giant armadillo's can turn bullets. It's roughly in the same ballpark of "not impossible, but evolution might need some convincing".

[Max_Killjoy]

The heaviest extant flying bird is 40 pounds -- but diving raptors max out at about 20 pounds. The fastest diving speed for a large raptor is about 200mph.

Horses weigh up to 2200 pounds. A full gallop can be over 30mph, and 55mph is the listed record in a sprinting gallop -- kinda like a full charge, I'd say.

For kinetic energy, 1/4 the velocity trades with 16 times the mass, IIRC... so traveling at 1/4 the velocity, the horse would need to weigh 16 times as much as the bird to have the same KE. So to have the same KE as a diving eagle, the 50mph horse would only need to weigh 320 pounds.

KE isn't necessarily the thing we want to look at, even. Momentum = mass * velocity, and force = mass * acceleration (in this case, negative acceleration as you try to stop the horse or bird) -- which would remove the "advantage" that velocity enjoys in KE.

Clearly, stopping a diving bird of prey isn't harder than stopping a charging horse, assuming you can bring your method to bear with the right timing.


* we're treating mass and weight as interchangeable here for shorthand, which pretty much works since we're assuming the same gravity throughout the thought experiment.

[cobaltstarfire]

Those are pretty cool looking, the first one has a really interesting skull shape. And they have both a silhouette that isn't too dinosaurey. I'm not against dinosaurs entirely, but most of them, non-bird therapods in particular feel wrong. In contrast I drew something similar to the armored plant eating land croc, then gave it some plates similar to a stegosaurs (but no thagomizers) and it felt fine.


But things like land crocs, or other kinds of archosaurs that aren't as birdlike I think can work. It'll help give the world some diversity. I've already got some tiny little "hoppers" that are based on some crazy little pterasaur precursor. (It's basically a lizard with really really long skinny legs and arms, darn things are cute...and thought to hop around like gerbils or something)


I wonder if the reports of armadillos ricocheting bullets are from people who somehow shot their foot or leg, and were too embarrassed to admit that they failed to handle their gun properly..or were drunk or something.

Edit: Max all of what you've just spoken isn't actually relevant to the world that my critters are in, you weren't around when I was asking about stuff related to Heron riders, but we're already assuming certain physics are not being entirely respected in this world, these are giant birds of prey. If you want to argue about how unrealistic "giant" birds of prey are feel free, but I'm going to ignore it because it's irrelevant to the conversation. I have never even nailed down whether it is normal sized herons being ridden by rodent sized critters, or giant sized herons being ridden by human sized critters, and I don't really ever intend to do so. :smalltongue:

[Max_Killjoy]

Edit: Max all of what you've just spoken isn't actually relevant to the world that my critters are in, you weren't around when I was asking about stuff related to Heron riders, but we're already assuming certain physics are not being entirely respected in this world, these are giant birds of prey. If you want to argue about how unrealistic "giant" birds of prey are feel free, but I'm going to ignore it because it's irrelevant to the conversation. I have never even nailed down whether it is normal sized herons being ridden by rodent sized critters, or giant sized herons being ridden by human sized critters, and I don't really ever intend to do so. :smalltongue:

I went into analysis mode.

I'm not going to argue about giant birds in a fantasy world, if they're part of the fictional conceits of that world.

A horse-sized heron would be a hell of a thing to see.

[Storm Bringer]

In military forces where a substantial portion of the soldiers learn the language of command after enlistment, or at least have in the past, such as the French Foreign Legion, has the language barrier caused major problems?

In my fantasy setting, a major nation lacks a single dominant language. Significant portions speak Spanish, Italian, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic, among other languages, and the military recruits huge numbers of foreigners. The line to immigrate is long because a lot of people want to, and you can join the military at an embassy without ever seeing the nation before basic training. People do it because they get catapulted into citizenship without needing a visa and their immediate family get visas without waiting in line. The military likes it because it helps them meet their goal of zero conscription. Does exacerbate the language issue, though.

Language of command is actually Latin, even though that's basically nobody's native tongue. Issue is that a dominant language doesn't exist, and picking one common language would piss people off who speak other languages. Enough educated people spoke academic Latin at the time that it was seen as a useful compromise. Naturally, soldiers learn to understand commands, not to actually speak the language in day to day conversation. Though schools usually teach kids basic phrases, and public signage is usually multilingual, with Latin as one of the languages (This was a response to the military adopting the language, not the other way around). Latin has basically been taken up as a trade language, like English is in many non-English speaking regions. Tech level is roughly 1960s.

How do you guys think this effects the military? Can it be an effective force when everyone speaks a second language?

since NATO functions fine with a majority of the members speaking English as a second language at best, yhea, it can work.

what you would see is things like basic training being done in the soliders "native" tongue, with all the Spanish speaking recuits being trained in platoons together and all the Chinese speakers in a separate platoon. all recruits would go though intensive Latin courses with a heavy practical element.

there is two ways I see the army going, basically either spiltting down along language lines or deliberately blending them. the former has the advantage that the squads and platoons will function better with no langage issues, but it will significantly reduce the integration at the higher level (the unit commanders struggling to talk to one another, for example). Mixing will bring the language issues to the fore, but it will conversely force the use of latin, and blend the disparate nationalities and cultures together. Having to use Latin as your primary language to get anything done might slow things down at the base level, but once the troops have been using it for any length of time, they can and will become fluent and it will greatly simplify things.

I think it may be a better choice for a army that is seen and used as a immigration and integration tool.

the issue with "learning the commands" level if that it leads to units being on the same side and operating in very close proximity but are unable to properly co-ordinate as they lack the ability to really talk to one another. On a 19th century battlefield, you can do that because the massed formations meant that tactical control was held at battalion command level, and you only needed the colonels to be able to speak to each other. On a modern battlefield, the highly dispersed formations mean that every squad leader would need that ability to talk left and right with troops form neighbouring units, so advanced command of Latin would be needed down to that level at least. also, what about support troops? would it be possible to ensure that a Spanish speaking unit would be resupplied only by Spanish speaking logistic troops? or that their medics can all speak Spanish when they come to take the wounded off them? or that the mechanic that comes to fix their tanks can understand them when they explain the problem?

in short, while they might get by with rote learning of commands for a while, the nature of running a modern army and the amount of interaction required between the units and arms would rapidly lead to latim becoming that core language of the army and fluent speaking of it being a requirement for any job more demanding that being a grunt.


depending on how long this has been going on, I'd expect to find that the widespread use of Latin would start to filter back into civvie life, as immigrant soldiers who settled down after service would be speaking it as the primary tongue, leading to it gaining greater prominence in normal life as a second language for most people. Most diplomatic and business meetings in the real world are conducted in English, even when its not the primary language of any of the people involved.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I wonder if the reports of armadillos ricocheting bullets are from people who somehow shot their foot or leg, and were too embarrassed to admit that they failed to handle their gun properly..or were drunk or something.

*Googles.* Oh wow, looks like I might have been wrong. Stories about bullets bouncing straight back even.

Okay, hypothesis time, I've got my mad scientist face on. As far as I can tell all these stories are about pistol bullets, those are relatively slow with a relatively large frontal surface, so low penetration power. The scale layers themselves can't handle the kinetic energy they carry, and armadillo scales draped over a juicy steak would still see the bullet tearing through the scale layer and entering the meat. But if you hit a bony part of the armadillo the bones can help take the kinetic energy, the scale layer doesn't deform and tear and the scales "just" have to be hard enough to not shatter. They're probably made of keratin or something similar (too lazy to check, it's the stuff nails and rhino horns are made of), which is pretty hard... With just the right amount of meat between the scales and the bones for a little damping to help the scales in their quest to not break, maybe this could happen?

It's still a tall tale, but if there are that many reports of it...

And if it is true, the armadillo might even survive it. If the scales, meat and bones can spread the force out it's like being hit while wearing a bullet proof vest. An armadillo isn't very big, so it's still a decent punch, but not really fatal in itself at that point. The biggest problems might be internal bleeding and/or broken bones near the impact point.

[Carl]

KE isn't necessarily the thing we want to look at, even. Momentum = mass * velocity, and force = mass * acceleration (in this case, negative acceleration as you try to stop the horse or bird) -- which would remove the "advantage" that velocity enjoys in KE.


Remember though that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Still momentum is generally the more important factor, but that doesn't mean velocity is completely irrelevant, it's dependent on a lot of variables and depending on what those are there will be a sweet spot where the KE vs Momentum curves come out at the most efficient solution overall.

[snowblizz]

or is the idea to deter the horse/boar/bird so that it doesn't run into the spikes in the first place?)
Yes. Though not so much in deterring the case of the boar. But horses at least won't very easily go into something spiky.



In military forces where a substantial portion of the soldiers learn the language of command after enlistment, or at least have in the past, such as the French Foreign Legion, has the language barrier caused major problems?Probably. Can't think of any specific examples atm but I have the feeling I've read about such. Misunderstanding orders, not being recognized as friendlies, that sorta thing.
But can and has been done a lot. Many multilingual empires did after all. E.g. the Austria-Hungary in WW1, they had a lot of issues, language was one of them. But am thinking had they had their other ducks in a row they coulda managed the language.
And I guess the Canadian military like the Finnish one is essentially bilingual but with emphasis on one language. In fact the Finnish do like many of old did and have a specific training and units for the other language.


In my fantasy setting, a major nation lacks a single dominant language. Significant portions speak Spanish, Italian, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic, among other languages, and the military recruits huge numbers of foreigners. The line to immigrate is long because a lot of people want to, and you can join the military at an embassy without ever seeing the nation before basic training. People do it because they get catapulted into citizenship without needing a visa and their immediate family get visas without waiting in line. The military likes it because it helps them meet their goal of zero conscription. Does exacerbate the language issue, though.To be honest I don't quite see the whole language issue. E.g. the Austria-Hungary wasn't dominantly Austrian, but that seems to have been where the miltary leaned to (even though it was a very complicated state structure).
Basically in your situation the military can pick and choose, so whatever language they went with is what you learn and if you don't like it, back of the line is that way.


Language of command is actually Latin, even though that's basically nobody's native tongue. Issue is that a dominant language doesn't exist, and picking one common language would piss people off who speak other languages. Enough educated people spoke academic Latin at the time that it was seen as a useful compromise. Naturally, soldiers learn to understand commands, not to actually speak the language in day to day conversation. Though schools usually teach kids basic phrases, and public signage is usually multilingual, with Latin as one of the languages (This was a response to the military adopting the language, not the other way around). Latin has basically been taken up as a trade language, like English is in many non-English speaking regions. Tech level is roughly 1960s.Well you did present service as attractive, that gives leverage to pick a language and stick with it. Screw those who don't like it.
But I can see them going the route of Latin as lingua franca, it would probably not be constrained to the military though. Sorta like how many states use English or other former colonial overlord languages in an official capacity since they contain many different languages.


How do you guys think this effects the military? Can it be an effective force when everyone speaks a second language?Yes, probably. In a more modernish army they'd mostly adopt one langauge and stick with that. You would probably be trained and officered by somemone who spoke your language but would be taught enough to get you by with others. Obviously there's scope for misunderstandings and such. I think the more pressure applied the more cracks there would be. Not like speaking English (and being clearly marked as friendlies) helped the Britts avoid friendly fire incidents with Americans in the gulf wars. More stuff like that. But for most grunts it probably wouldn't be a serious issue.

[Roxxy]

since NATO functions fine with a majority of the members speaking English as a second language at best, yhea, it can work.

what you would see is things like basic training being done in the soliders "native" tongue, with all the Spanish speaking recuits being trained in platoons together and all the Chinese speakers in a separate platoon. all recruits would go though intensive Latin courses with a heavy practical element.

there is two ways I see the army going, basically either spiltting down along language lines or deliberately blending them. the former has the advantage that the squads and platoons will function better with no langage issues, but it will significantly reduce the integration at the higher level (the unit commanders struggling to talk to one another, for example). Mixing will bring the language issues to the fore, but it will conversely force the use of latin, and blend the disparate nationalities and cultures together. Having to use Latin as your primary language to get anything done might slow things down at the base level, but once the troops have been using it for any length of time, they can and will become fluent and it will greatly simplify things.

I think it may be a better choice for a army that is seen and used as a immigration and integration tool.

the issue with "learning the commands" level if that it leads to units being on the same side and operating in very close proximity but are unable to properly co-ordinate as they lack the ability to really talk to one another. On a 19th century battlefield, you can do that because the massed formations meant that tactical control was held at battalion command level, and you only needed the colonels to be able to speak to each other. On a modern battlefield, the highly dispersed formations mean that every squad leader would need that ability to talk left and right with troops form neighbouring units, so advanced command of Latin would be needed down to that level at least. also, what about support troops? would it be possible to ensure that a Spanish speaking unit would be resupplied only by Spanish speaking logistic troops? or that their medics can all speak Spanish when they come to take the wounded off them? or that the mechanic that comes to fix their tanks can understand them when they explain the problem?

in short, while they might get by with rote learning of commands for a while, the nature of running a modern army and the amount of interaction required between the units and arms would rapidly lead to latim becoming that core language of the army and fluent speaking of it being a requirement for any job more demanding that being a grunt.


depending on how long this has been going on, I'd expect to find that the widespread use of Latin would start to filter back into civvie life, as immigrant soldiers who settled down after service would be speaking it as the primary tongue, leading to it gaining greater prominence in normal life as a second language for most people. Most diplomatic and business meetings in the real world are conducted in English, even when its not the primary language of any of the people involved.

I think that melds pretty well with what I'm imagining the public sphere looking like. Could well be that Latin is made a required language in grade school, like English is in Norway IIRC, so local recruits know at least a little Latin when they sign up. I do agree that the civilian sector uses Latin a lot. It's something you can expect most people to understand enough of to communicate.

I could have sworn English classes for second language speakers were a thing when I was in basic (US Navy, 2011), so there's that. Never got past basic, though, so I can't speak to the operational end.



I'm guessing the Regimental System, if used, shouldn't be ethnically based? I would prefer an integrated military where everyone speaks Latin (even if training takes longer) than regiments that all speak different languages.

[Roxxy]

Snip

So, something to keep in mind as an issue, but not a crippling one if well managed?

[snowblizz]

So, something to keep in mind as an issue, but not a crippling one if well managed?

Yes.

At some point someone under fire will be yelling incomprehensible stuff at a very baffled operator not sure if they are reporting being attacked by giant pink butterflies or requesting artillery support. But it'll be isolated incidents talked about on internet forums 40 years later and not army being eaten by giant pink tyrannosaur rexes bad.

[Mr Beer]

Unless you are the one Navy SEAL who doesn't have a literary agent yet, I respectfully ask that you stop talking down to me or subtantiate your posts with some credentials.

I chuckled

[Vinyadan]

In military forces where a substantial portion of the soldiers learn the language of command after enlistment, or at least have in the past, such as the French Foreign Legion, has the language barrier caused major problems?

In my fantasy setting, a major nation lacks a single dominant language. Significant portions speak Spanish, Italian, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic, among other languages, and the military recruits huge numbers of foreigners. The line to immigrate is long because a lot of people want to, and you can join the military at an embassy without ever seeing the nation before basic training. People do it because they get catapulted into citizenship without needing a visa and their immediate family get visas without waiting in line. The military likes it because it helps them meet their goal of zero conscription. Does exacerbate the language issue, though.

Language of command is actually Latin, even though that's basically nobody's native tongue. Issue is that a dominant language doesn't exist, and picking one common language would piss people off who speak other languages. Enough educated people spoke academic Latin at the time that it was seen as a useful compromise. Naturally, soldiers learn to understand commands, not to actually speak the language in day to day conversation. Though schools usually teach kids basic phrases, and public signage is usually multilingual, with Latin as one of the languages (This was a response to the military adopting the language, not the other way around). Latin has basically been taken up as a trade language, like English is in many non-English speaking regions. Tech level is roughly 1960s.

How do you guys think this effects the military? Can it be an effective force when everyone speaks a second language?

That sounds like the situation in Italy after it was united in 1861. Local dialects were extremely different from each other and not mutually understandable, and the official language was a form of literary Tuscan dialect which had survived for 300 years as a language of literature, but which nobody learnt as a mother language. There also was the issue of Greek, Albanian, German and Slavic speakers. AFAIK, people simply used Italian (the literary language). It was actually the first step through which Italian became widely known and spoken in Italy. The second large step was the introduction of universal instruction in ground school (6-8 y.o.). The third step was TV, after WWII, after which regional dialects began a widespread decline in use, even in the private and familiar sphere, with a few exceptions in the North-East, where they are on the rise.
Of course, Italian dialects are all romance languages like Italian, so the difficulties were surely smaller than for a Chinese trying to learn Latin. You may want to make a comparison with the Israeli troops in the founding times, since they had different origins, although Jew have historically received a much better instruction than the average of their times, so they also are a special case.
TBH, the closest example would probably be colonial armies in places with rich language diversity. However, these differ because of the fact that people actually come from the same place and the language barrier is due to other reasons, although there remains an overlying commanding language (English, French and so on). As for general info about language learning in the Foreign Legion, read this. https://books.google.it/books?id=59fl2aQLSBsC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=zachary+%22lyons%22+%22french+foreign+legion%22&source=bl&ots=pXtZs9D1wb&sig=VuuBHrEX-4HrKOtZWlVk_EL4NKM&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1qYuU3LfNAhUFUhQKHUv0BKoQ6AEIMzAC#v=on epage&q=zachary%20%22lyons%22%20%22french%20foreign%20le gion%22&f=false

[fusilier]

That sounds like the situation in Italy after it was united in 1861. Local dialects were extremely different from each other and not mutually understandable, and the official language was a form of literary Tuscan dialect which had survived for 300 years as a language of literature, but which nobody learnt as a mother language. There also was the issue of Greek, Albanian, German and Slavic speakers. AFAIK, people simply used Italian (the literary language). It was actually the first step through which Italian became widely known and spoken in Italy. The second large step was the introduction of universal instruction in ground school (6-8 y.o.). The third step was TV, after WWII, after which regional dialects began a widespread decline in use, even in the private and familiar sphere, with a few exceptions in the North-East, where they are on the rise.
Of course, Italian dialects are all romance languages like Italian, so the difficulties were surely smaller than for a Chinese trying to learn Latin. You may want to make a comparison with the Israeli troops in the founding times, since they had different origins, although Jew have historically received a much better instruction than the average of their times, so they also are a special case.
TBH, the closest example would probably be colonial armies in places with rich language diversity. However, these differ because of the fact that people actually come from the same place and the language barrier is due to other reasons, although there remains an overlying commanding language (English, French and so on). As for general info about language learning in the Foreign Legion, read this. https://books.google.it/books?id=59fl2aQLSBsC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=zachary+%22lyons%22+%22french+foreign+legion%22&source=bl&ots=pXtZs9D1wb&sig=VuuBHrEX-4HrKOtZWlVk_EL4NKM&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1qYuU3LfNAhUFUhQKHUv0BKoQ6AEIMzAC#v=on epage&q=zachary%20%22lyons%22%20%22french%20foreign%20le gion%22&f=false

Expanding on this a little:

In Italy, after unification, the army was used as a tool for nationalization. The idea was a unit would be recruited from two different localities then stationed to a third: an attempt to create a kind of national character. Most officers however were from northern provinces, and they often had difficulty communicating with soldiers from Southern Italy and Sicily. Various biases and the high illiteracy rate (higher among Southern Italians) meant that the available officer and NCO pool often excluded people from Southern Italy. So there were few people in authority who could communicate easily. Dialectical differences were part of it, but some could be considered separate languages altogether.* The only exception was made for Sardinia -- Sardinian was considered too different of a language so their troops were organized together into brigades, and their officers were generally university educated (at mainland universities) and could speak both Italian and Sardinian.

*In some isolated places in Sicily people spoke (and perhaps still speak) a variant of Medieval Provencal. So even within such places the language could vary considerably.

[Mr. Mask]

Expert: The question in debate, earlier, was if a smallish edged weapon could inflict critical damage quickly. Could it be used as weapon of self-protection against various forms of aggression? The response was that the large number of edged weapon crimes do show that a blade of moderate size can be used to disable humans within the expected time frame. Furthermore, studies resulting from firearm-armed law-enforcement personnel being killed or seriously injured with edged weapons, show that in certain conditions the blade can actually be the superior weapon. The rambling beyond that seemed mostly aimed at distracting attention away from this basic point.

Whether or not YOU, personally, could use a blade for self-defense is still open. Obviously, a person who lacks the skill, determination, or situational awareness to deal with an attack is doomed, regardless of the type of weapon carried. Furthermore, edged weapons do require a certain psychological hardness that can sometimes be bypassed by closing one's eyes and pulling a trigger (if you don't mind hitting a few innocent bystanders). But these are personal problems, not related to the properties of the knife.

Realistically, we will never know if any historical situation would have turned out differently had the attackers used a different weapon. Issues of the individual's skill, probability of detection before an attack could be launched, and random resistance by the intended targets can never be fully analyzed.


Mike: That is an ad hominem attack and an appeal to authority. Both are logical fallacies. Unless you are actually claiming that you have engaged criminal targets with both firearms and edged weapons, or have studied the scenario of those who have, then you are just repeating whatever you were taught as well. Seeing a few sample wounds as a paramedic is good experience, but unless you had some data on the assailants, there is little evidence there. Anybody can see the work of unskilled attackers, and draw questionable conclusions. This guy was shot in the leg, and not hurt too badly, therefore firearms are ineffective. This other guy was hit in the head with a sniper rifle, therefore firearms are deadly.

[Storm Bringer]

I think that melds pretty well with what I'm imagining the public sphere looking like. Could well be that Latin is made a required language in grade school, like English is in Norway IIRC, so local recruits know at least a little Latin when they sign up. I do agree that the civilian sector uses Latin a lot. It's something you can expect most people to understand enough of to communicate.

I could have sworn English classes for second language speakers were a thing when I was in basic (US Navy, 2011), so there's that. Never got past basic, though, so I can't speak to the operational end.



I'm guessing the Regimental System, if used, shouldn't be ethnically based? I would prefer an integrated military where everyone speaks Latin (even if training takes longer) than regiments that all speak different languages.


if you're planning to include a british style regimental system with different units having regional associations, then segregation by language can work. See the British Indian army or the Gurkhas for examples. Again, the majority of soldiers learnt English as a second language to ease inter unit co-operation (and most units were officered by british officers, which removed the language issue at command level). use of the regimental system would, like I said, allow the low level formations to function with minimal language issues, and it would act as a recruiting tool and a (the Gurkhas, for example, are massively over-subscribed, to the point of 10 plus applicants for every space)

I know English courses are a thing for the UK forces, which have a significant number of non native English speakers (commonwealth troops, Gurkhas, etc). while we do run into the occasional issue, most of the time it works out

if latin is acting as a lingua franca then not only would most people receive at least some formal training in it, but I think you'd find the government would tend to operate in latin as well, to put everyone at a equal disadvantage. while the local town council may use, say, Greek to speak to the people it is in charge of, it will keep all its records in Latin, so that a Spanish speaking Auditor can check the files without needing a translator. the Centeral government will issue all its proclamations in latin, and while they may provide translations, all the actual laws and such will be kept in latin.



maybe have a look into how the Peoples Republic of China operates, as for the majority of its citizens, Mandarin Chinese is not their mother tongue.

[Brother Oni]

Right now I'm imagining something strange like lots of metal "cups" in the ground around settlements in which a spear meant for stopping a diving bird could be stuck in to help brace against the impact or something. I can't imagine someone being able to hold a spear against a diving bird if it's even more force than a charger horse (how do people even hold a charging cavalry, I always was under the impression that a good deal of them would still get squished... or is the idea to deter the horse/boar/bird so that it doesn't run into the spikes in the first place?)

I imagine even if they aren't very martial they must have very hardy disposition to stand and let a large pointy bird dive at them.

Unless the ground is soft mud, it's typically fine for supporting a spear against a charging opponents. Pikemen did it against cavalry by bracing the butt of their pike against the ground and their hind foot (from experience, never rest the butt against your body or even cupped in your rear hand).

I think you're under-estimating the hardiness of people who would have to live with the potential of predator attacks. In my opinion, the predators would have scattered a defenceless permanent settlement long ago if their standard response to an attack is to scatter mindless while shrieking in terror, so therefore if they're an agrarian society which necessitates a permanent or semi permanent settlement, then they need some sort of countermeasure to persistent flying predator attacks.



KE isn't necessarily the thing we want to look at, even. Momentum = mass * velocity, and force = mass * acceleration (in this case, negative acceleration as you try to stop the horse or bird) -- which would remove the "advantage" that velocity enjoys in KE.


The reason I looked at KE is that books like The Knight and the Blast Furnace use KE as the metric for the defensive capability of armour and weapon lethality. Modern firearms and body armour specifications typically list their values in KE (eg muzzle energy or resistance levels).

While I'm not a physicist and am most likely missing something obvious, I can see issues with using the other attributes you've mentioned for lethality measures:

Momentum is good for measuring whether the moving object can knock the target down, but doesn't really measure lethality directly - as indicated earlier, firearm rounds don't have very high momentum but are still lethal.
I believe Force would need to also measure the area of contact to assess lethality - the average amateur boxer manages typical forces of around 2500N, but a punch typically isn't lethal (using my 63cm2 fist as a rough approximation, that's 396kPa unless I've mucked something up). Push that 2500N through a 1mm2 icepick tip though and it's most certainly lethal (2.5 GPa or about 4 orders of magnitude greater).


I've read articles which indicate that KE is a better metric for assessments of shrapnel lethality rather than firearms and that level of debate is beyond my knowledge, so if you think momentum or force is a better measurement of lethality, I'm all ears.


maybe have a look into how the Peoples Republic of China operates, as for the majority of its citizens, Mandarin Chinese is not their mother tongue.

I can't say what the specific Red Army language requirements are, but with regard to Mandarin Chinese, this is the official language of the country. As you've said, all official government speeches, (state) news broadcasts, proclamations, documents, etc are in this official language and is the only one taught in schools, with people picking up their regional dialects while at home.

There's generally heavy state sponsored endorsement of the official language (propaganda by any other name) to the level that Standard Mandarin Chinese underwent a rebranding exercise and is now officially called Putonghua or 'common language/tongue'.
While the mainland has its own character set for writing this is only a simplified version of the traditional Chinese which was standardised long ago in the Qin Dynasty (2nd Century BC) although it's evolved slowly since then. One legend has it that there was once around 18 ways of writing the character for sword (劍), which inspired the standardisation by the Qin Emperor, Qin Shi Huang.

[Max_Killjoy]

The reason I looked at KE is that books like The Knight and the Blast Furnace use KE as the metric for the defensive capability of armour and weapon lethality. Modern firearms and body armour specifications typically list their values in KE (eg muzzle energy or resistance levels).

While I'm not a physicist and am most likely missing something obvious, I can see issues with using the other attributes you've mentioned for lethality measures:

Momentum is good for measuring whether the moving object can knock the target down, but doesn't really measure lethality directly - as indicated earlier, firearm rounds don't have very high momentum but are still lethal.
I believe Force would need to also measure the area of contact to assess lethality - the average amateur boxer manages typical forces of around 2500N, but a punch typically isn't lethal (using my 63cm2 fist as a rough approximation, that's 396kPa unless I've mucked something up). Push that 2500N through a 1mm2 icepick tip though and it's most certainly lethal (2.5 GPa or about 4 orders of magnitude greater).


I've read articles which indicate that KE is a better metric for assessments of shrapnel lethality rather than firearms and that level of debate is beyond my knowledge, so if you think momentum or force is a better measurement of lethality, I'm all ears.


Sorry if my phrasing made it sound like I was saying "DON'T use KE", it was meant as "I don't know if we want to use KE".

I've been trying to find a good source on KE vs momentum vs deceleration as the best correlation with the danger/damage in a collision, and not finding it so far.

[Mike_G]

Mike: That is an ad hominem attack and an appeal to authority.


And still yopu dodge the question.

Yes, I am APPEALING to you to substantiate your AUTHORITY.

We've been through this before. You very authoritatively say things that I feel are utter, utter bollocks, somebody corrects you, citing their expertise in an area, you dismiss it, never disclosing any expertise or knowledge you may or may not have.

What branch did you serve in? What city police force do you work for? What trauma center did you do surgery at? Do you just have a lot of bodies buried in your backyard? Where the hell does this authority come from? You brush off my life experience, but blithely adopt an attitude of supreme knowledge.

Unless you served in the Ghurkas, I don't think you know nearly as much about knife wounds as you say.

So let's see your discharge papers from the Ghurkas, or take the tone down a peg.

[Max_Killjoy]

And still yopu dodge the question.

Yes, I am APPEALING to you to substantiate your AUTHORITY.

We've been through this before. You very authoritatively say things that I feel are utter, utter bollocks, somebody corrects you, citing their expertise in an area, you dismiss it, never disclosing any expertise or knowledge you may or may not have.

What branch did you serve in? What city police force do you work for? What trauma center did you do surgery at? Do you just have a lot of bodies buried in your backyard? Where the hell does this authority come from? You brush off my life experience, but blithely adopt an attitude of supreme knowledge.

Unless you served in the Ghurkas, I don't think you know nearly as much about knife wounds as you say.

So let's see your discharge papers from the Ghurkas, or take the tone down a peg.

Well said, sir.

[spineyrequiem]

How do people even hold a charging cavalry, I always was under the impression that a good deal of them would still get squished... or is the idea to deter the horse/boar/bird so that it doesn't run into the spikes in the first place?


You... Ah... Don't. Usually. Maybe a pike block could, but with spears below ten feet there's basically three ways it can go

1: The cavalry charge. The ground shakes, lances lower and a few guys in the front decide that maybe it doesn't need to be them right at the front. Then other people decide that if their mates are moving back maybe they should too till you get a ragged, disorganised line which the cavalry can smash straight into. A single man with a spear against a heavy cavalryman is usually in a lot of trouble since all the cavalryman needs to do is knock one spear to the side and he's won. The line routs and the cavalry ride them down.

2: The line holds. Horses, being relatively intelligent creatures, look at the thicket of pointy things with screaming men behind them and decide they won't commit suicide. The cavalry turn around and try again at a different part of the line.

3: The line holds, but for whatever reason the cavalry can't stop, whether because they're too close, because one of the horses dies on the way in or something else entirely. The front line of horses smash into the spearman and get skewered but their tremendous momentum means the spearman get crushed. The riders are catapulted off and sail into the rear ranks of the spearmen, where they're butchered by anyone who survived the impact of a high-velocity man in armour. The next rank of horses trips over the bodies of the first or avoids them to go into the spearman formation. Both sides experience horrendous casualties.

Pikes may have been long enough that you could actually stop a charging horse before it hit you, but I severely doubt that was the case with spears.

[Brother Oni]

Sorry if my phrasing made it sound like I was saying "DON'T use KE", it was meant as "I don't know if we want to use KE".

I've been trying to find a good source on KE vs momentum vs deceleration as the best correlation with the danger/damage in a collision, and not finding it so far.

Ah, sorry I mis-read your point. If you do find something, please let me know (I may have to ask you to lead me through it if it's a very technical paper though).


So let's see your discharge papers from the Ghurkas, or take the tone down a peg.

As an aside, have you served alongside British troops, Mike_G? You come out with some very English phrases sometimes.

[fusilier]

Ah, sorry I mis-read your point. If you do find something, please let me know (I may have to ask you to lead me through it if it's a very technical paper though).

I have seen a technical paper that was about armor penetration, and I remember an equation that had to do with force applied to an area to determine penetration. I don't remember the details but it was fairly involved and included various constants that had to do with the shape of the projectile and its material. I think the reason KE is used so much is that it's easy to measure and gives a rough indication of capability -- but only when all other things are roughly equal. E.g. comparing the kinetic energy of a musket ball to an armor piercing spitzer bullet is probably not very informative.

[Mike_G]

Ah, sorry I mis-read your point. If you do find something, please let me know (I may have to ask you to lead me through it if it's a very technical paper though).



As an aside, have you served alongside British troops, Mike_G? You come out with some very English phrases sometimes.

Never served with British troops, no. I spent time in England and Scotland as a civilian. And I was in a writers' group with a bunch of Brits, including a career sergeant in the Para Regiment. I probably picked up some stuff as we talked shop.

[Carl]

Yes.

At some point someone under fire will be yelling incomprehensible stuff at a very baffled operator not sure if they are reporting being attacked by giant pink butterflies or requesting artillery support. But it'll be isolated incidents talked about on internet forums 40 years later and not army being eaten by giant pink tyrannosaur rexes bad.

Yeah one story i remember reading about, (story is from WW2, Burma), was the aftermath of of a japanese attack on a british unit. The commander of the unit ordered his Gurkhas to bury the japanese, as they were doing so one of the japanese started moving indicating he was still alive. One the Gurkhas pulled out his knife and moved to finish the man off. The commanding officer seeing this stopped the Gurkha in question and asked him why he was doing it. he Gurkhas response? "We could bury him alive sir!".

[cobaltstarfire]

On bracing spears against charging/diving things, yeah I totally understand not bracing it against the body or in your hand...sounds like a good way to er, shatter whatever body part you are bracing it against. The ground probably won't often be super muddy around where these folk live because they practice a lot of techniques to keep the land healthy in general. They might have constant watches out for such dangers, and have different alarm calls for them too. Kind of like chickens.

I'm also imagining that they have really long pikes to deal with predators like storks or herons (or shoebills...the shoebills look like they may be more aggressive than the others...). Or they may opt to shoot at them...being the kind of creature that slowly looms over things it'd be easy to see them long before they get close enough to be a danger.





Mike: That is an ad hominem attack and an appeal to authority. Both are logical fallacies.

Something can be a logical fallacy and still be right....

[Mike_G]

On bracing spears against charging/diving things, yeah I totally understand not bracing it against the body or in your hand...sounds like a good way to er, shatter whatever body part you are bracing it against. The ground probably won't often be super muddy around where these folk live because they practice a lot of techniques to keep the land healthy in general. They might have constant watches out for such dangers, and have different alarm calls for them too. Kind of like chickens.

I'm also imagining that they have really long pikes to deal with predators like storks or herons (or shoebills...the shoebills look like they may be more aggressive than the others...). Or they may opt to shoot at them...being the kind of creature that slowly looms over things it'd be easy to see them long before they get close enough to be a danger.


You are bracing it against the ground. Often putting your back foot on it.

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

The hope is that the horses shy away from the thicket of points. If they do crash into the pikes, the butt end will dig into the ground, the point will be driven deeper in to the animal. The shaft may snap, but you won't be bowled over and the horse won't just run past, dragging you and the pike with it.

Hopefully, you have enough friends with whole pikes to maintain the formation as you become a swordsman with a stick in your off hand.

[Mike_G]

Good image of pikemen versus cavalry. Note the horses aren't slamming into the pikes, but shying away while the riders fire pistols to break up teh formation.

http://i.imgur.com/sj8RLmt.jpg

[cobaltstarfire]

Oooh, I do like pictures! I'm book marking that one that has the drills and different ways of handling a pike.

(if/when I ever get around to acting on the questions I ask here, it's going to be in comic form, so visual references are always very helpful).

I know I've been very thankful in the past, but I'm going to be again, cause you guys always think about stuff that would have never crossed my mind at all.

Thanks again for playing along with my weird world full of very large birds!

[Brother Oni]

Thanks again for playing along with my weird world full of very large birds!

If we're staying with the Tiny 12" tall critters from your last set of posts, crows and other corvids must be the bane of their lives as although they're much smaller than herons and shoebills, they're still about twice the size of the mice folk, carnivorous, aggressive and very intelligent.

Butcherbirds would probably run a close second as although they're not as big or as intelligent as crows, their habit of storing food is very memorable:

http://67.media.tumblr.com/497fadfb71a921cad5fb6cd8007baea0/tumblr_inline_nfcv83uMzm1rd0cfr.jpg

[fusilier]

Oooh, I do like pictures! I'm book marking that one that has the drills and different ways of handling a pike.

(if/when I ever get around to acting on the questions I ask here, it's going to be in comic form, so visual references are always very helpful).

I know I've been very thankful in the past, but I'm going to be again, cause you guys always think about stuff that would have never crossed my mind at all.

Thanks again for playing along with my weird world full of very large birds!

For illustrations, De Gheyn's The Exercise of Armes is the standard work for pike (and arquebus and musket) drill. Unfortunately it looks like it's out of print and a bit more expensive than when I picked up my copy. The plates were very large and expertly rendered (far better than any other manual I've seen). It's so detailed it can be used as a costuming manual too. First printed in the early 17th century, it's the basis of most pike drill that you will find on the internet. I'm pretty sure with some searching you'll find all the plates online.

[Roxxy]

if you're planning to include a british style regimental system with different units having regional associations, then segregation by language can work. See the British Indian army or the Gurkhas for examples. Again, the majority of soldiers learnt English as a second language to ease inter unit co-operation (and most units were officered by british officers, which removed the language issue at command level). use of the regimental system would, like I said, allow the low level formations to function with minimal language issues, and it would act as a recruiting tool and a (the Gurkhas, for example, are massively over-subscribed, to the point of 10 plus applicants for every space) On the other hand, this is a nation that perceives itself as in need of a more unified identity. The Regimental System can help from the perspective that it fosters a high degree of pride and loyalty within individual regiments, but basing regiments on ethnicity might not be the best system in a country trying to smooth over ethnic divisions. I'm thinking active regiments are formed by task (with geographic diversity being a goal) and reserves by region of recruitment.à


if latin is acting as a lingua franca then not only would most people receive at least some formal training in it, but I think you'd find the government would tend to operate in latin as well, to put everyone at a equal disadvantage. while the local town council may use, say, Greek to speak to the people it is in charge of, it will keep all its records in Latin, so that a Spanish speaking Auditor can check the files without needing a translator. the Centeral government will issue all its proclamations in latin, and while they may provide translations, all the actual laws and such will be kept in latin.
Seems logical enough. I do think Latin ought to be a mandatory subject in school.

[Roxxy]

That sounds like the situation in Italy after it was united in 1861. Local dialects were extremely different from each other and not mutually understandable, and the official language was a form of literary Tuscan dialect which had survived for 300 years as a language of literature, but which nobody learnt as a mother language. There also was the issue of Greek, Albanian, German and Slavic speakers. AFAIK, people simply used Italian (the literary language). It was actually the first step through which Italian became widely known and spoken in Italy. The second large step was the introduction of universal instruction in ground school (6-8 y.o.). The third step was TV, after WWII, after which regional dialects began a widespread decline in use, even in the private and familiar sphere, with a few exceptions in the North-East, where they are on the rise.That gives me an idea. TV is certainly a thing and Latin is taught in school, so perhaps Latin is becoming increasingly dominant and edging out some less common languages that lack large communities to keep them going. Maybe we're even seeing the first generations in centuries where many speak Latin as a first language, not a second language.

[cobaltstarfire]

If we're staying with the Tiny 12" tall critters from your last set of posts, crows and other corvids must be the bane of their lives as although they're much smaller than herons and shoebills, they're still about twice the size of the mice folk, carnivorous, aggressive and very intelligent.

Butcherbirds would probably run a close second as although they're not as big or as intelligent as crows, their habit of storing food is very memorable:

http://67.media.tumblr.com/497fadfb71a921cad5fb6cd8007baea0/tumblr_inline_nfcv83uMzm1rd0cfr.jpg

The way things are sized might end up turning a little bit wishy washy in the end, particularly when it comes to insects, or frogs...the idea of giant frogs have always struck me as extra terrifying... I can see butcher birds making for an interesting horror story. They might also be the kind of bird that would get hunted into extinction in more populace areas.

Corvids in general are something I decided a while ago to have been tamed in a way similar to how we did dogs...course there's still wild ones to be warry of. Though I haven't settled on whether I want the flying to have been domesticated out of them or not (seems they might be more useful to keep the flying, then they could help settlements by mobbing enemy birds).

I want the agrarian ones to kind of have a strong tie to birds, it popped into my head some time ago when I was reading about swallows I think? There are some that have come to rely on humans to put up bird houses for them, and humans like to put up bird houses for them cause they take care of pest insects really well. And I immediately just had this idea of settlements or fields with lots of little bird houses.

edit: also forgot, I'll keep The Exercise in Arms in mind too, I might swing by the giant used book store we have and see if there's a copy, there probably isn't but doesn't hurt to check (it's an old opera house so it's HUGE and there are a lot of really old books you wouldn't usually find anywhere else)

[rrgg]

Strangely enough towards the end of the 16th century pikemen tended to take on the role of fighting infantry and other pikemen rather than cavalry. During this period the cavalry lance was largely replaced wheellock pistols which could pierce most armors and outrange even the longest pikes, so the go-to weapon for defeating them started to become musket infantry instead, with some commanders attaching companies of musketeers to their cavalry in order to get a one up on the enemy horsemen. Pikemen were instead formed into blocks with deep "sleeves" of musketeers on either side to pour fire into the flanks of the enemy pike block. Eventually the advantage started to swing the other way with curriassiers riding beween the gaps of the "triplex acies" formations used and drawing swords to charge into the musketeers on the flank of each pike block.

http://i.imgur.com/ogmT8WL.jpg

Here is a picture depicting the battle of the dunes in 1658 showing mixed pike&shot infantry companies in the center of the army facing each other. Meanwhile companies of horsemen are placed and the flanks and rear mixed in with companies of foot musketeers (for instance P).

[Max_Killjoy]

The way things are sized might end up turning a little bit wishy washy in the end, particularly when it comes to insects, or frogs...the idea of giant frogs have always struck me as extra terrifying... I can see butcher birds making for an interesting horror story. They might also be the kind of bird that would get hunted into extinction in more populace areas.

Corvids in general are something I decided a while ago to have been tamed in a way similar to how we did dogs...course there's still wild ones to be warry of. Though I haven't settled on whether I want the flying to have been domesticated out of them or not (seems they might be more useful to keep the flying, then they could help settlements by mobbing enemy birds).

I want the agrarian ones to kind of have a strong tie to birds, it popped into my head some time ago when I was reading about swallows I think? There are some that have come to rely on humans to put up bird houses for them, and humans like to put up bird houses for them cause they take care of pest insects really well. And I immediately just had this idea of settlements or fields with lots of little bird houses.

Reference the devil frog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebufo), and the demon duck of doom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Duck_of_Doom).

[Mr Beer]

The way things are sized might end up turning a little bit wishy washy in the end, particularly when it comes to insects, or frogs...the idea of giant frogs have always struck me as extra terrifying...

Standard issue frogs and toads would represent a threat for children of 12" tall humans. Going down to fetch water? Watch out for bullfrogs...and pike and turtles.

Insects, well, the idea of large papery structures filled with thousands of 3-inch long wasps gives me the heebie-jeebies, so I imagine it would prey on the minds of our small humans as well. The larger real world spiders and scorpions are roughly human sized as well.

[cobaltstarfire]

Standard issue frogs and toads would represent a threat for children of 12" tall humans. Going down to fetch water? Watch out for bullfrogs...and pike and turtles.


And pretty much anything else that isn't essentially a minnow...death by bass and crawdad would probably be a thing. This is why stuff is going to be wishy washy in terms of relative size (in other words big or small to suit my needs >.>) Otherwise who's going to have time to build a society when they have to constantly worry about everything eating them in a single gulp?


Insects, well, the idea of large papery structures filled with thousands of 3-inch long wasps gives me the heebie-jeebies, so I imagine it would prey on the minds of our small humans as well. The larger real world spiders and scorpions are roughly human sized as well.

Yeaaaaaah, No thanks :smalltongue: I mean insects and arachnids are cool and all, but I reach my "grossed out" threshold really quickly when looking at most insects. Even the ones I can tolerate or even might consider cute (bumblebees?), I can only tolerate when they're teeny tiny, they start to become really gross/terrifying at high resolution.

[fusilier]

On the other hand, this is a nation that perceives itself as in need of a more unified identity. The Regimental System can help from the perspective that it fosters a high degree of pride and loyalty within individual regiments, but basing regiments on ethnicity might not be the best system in a country trying to smooth over ethnic divisions. I'm thinking active regiments are formed by task (with geographic diversity being a goal) and reserves by region of recruitment.à
Seems logical enough. I do think Latin ought to be a mandatory subject in school.

Italy after unification used the following scheme:

Infantry was organized into three major categories --

1. Permanent Regiments
2. Mobile Militia
3. Territorial Militia

The Permanent Regiments and the Mobile Militia were recruited and deployed as described above (recruited from two different regions stationed to a third, and occasionally moved around). The Territorial Militia served as a reserve and was made up of locally recruited soldiers.

If I remember correctly there were three different classes of conscripts. The difference was how long they spent in each of the organizations. The first class would be something like: 4 years in the permanent regiments, 7 in the mobile militia and 15 years in the territorial militia. The 2nd class would only spend six months to a year in the permanent regiment, more in the mobile before serving in the territorial. The final class went directly into the territorial militia after basic training. Or something like that.

It's a classic national service scheme common in the early 20th century -- I'm sure other nations did something similar.

[Gnoman]

Is there a known maximum fire rate for a crossbow or scorpion? I'm working on a weapon concept for my campaign that's essentially a repeating crossbow/scorpion (I haven't decided on the specifics of operation yet) with a Gatling-style crank, firing continually as long as the operator is cranking. I'm having trouble putting my concern into words, but I suspect that, because there's so much more movement needed to store kinetic energy in such a weapon than is needed to harness the chemical energy of gunpowder, the fire rate will be significantly lower.

The weapon is intended to be fitted to saddles on aerial mounts, and as a ground defense weapon against flying creatures, if that makes a difference.

[Mr. Mask]

Mike: I'm citing numbers. Large numbers of cases showing the extreme lethality of edged weapons in close-quarters engagements. You're arguing that, because you were in the infantry, you somehow know that this is not true. And your justification is that you were in the infantry, so you must be an expert on all things combat-related. This ignores huge blocks of data showing hundreds of dead and disabled cops, thugs, and soldiers as a result of edged weapon use ... many of those cases involving the losing party carrying a firearm at the time. I don't have to have military experience to read crime reports, or NATO combat wound studies, or any of that other block of data.

And I absolutely love the line about something being a logical fallacy and still right. Only in the world of the Internet can something be false and right at the same time.

So unless you, or your cohort, can produce FBI statistics, or something comparable from other known sources, showing that nearly every time a firearm-armed person encountered a knife-armed person, the firearm won ... then maybe you should take it down a notch. Because the numbers I'm looking at all say that, if the threat is detected at under 10 feet of range, the edged weapon wins.

[Max_Killjoy]

Mike: I'm citing numbers. Large numbers of cases showing the extreme lethality of edged weapons in close-quarters engagements. You're arguing that, because you were in the infantry, you somehow know that this is not true. And your justification is that you were in the infantry, so you must be an expert on all things combat-related. This ignores huge blocks of data showing hundreds of dead and disabled cops, thugs, and soldiers as a result of edged weapon use ... many of those cases involving the losing party carrying a firearm at the time. I don't have to have military experience to read crime reports, or NATO combat wound studies, or any of that other block of data.

And I absolutely love the line about something being a logical fallacy and still right. Only in the world of the Internet can something be false and right at the same time.

So unless you, or your cohort, can produce FBI statistics, or something comparable from other known sources, showing that nearly every time a firearm-armed person encountered a knife-armed person, the firearm won ... then maybe you should take it down a notch. Because the numbers I'm looking at all say that, if the threat is detected at under 10 feet of range, the edged weapon wins.


It's rare to see someone speak out of their backside with such a put-on of authoritativeness.

"I demand you show evidence to counter the evidence I haven't shown to back up the claim I've been making."

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))


PS: also, you fail at the quoted reply function.



I guess somewhere out there, there's an alternate reality in which firearms haven't supplanted melee weapons almost entirely... or where SEAL and SWAT teams draw their knives before clearing a building of hostiles...

[Max_Killjoy]

Is there a known maximum fire rate for a crossbow or scorpion? I'm working on a weapon concept for my campaign that's essentially a repeating crossbow/scorpion (I haven't decided on the specifics of operation yet) with a Gatling-style crank, firing continually as long as the operator is cranking. I'm having trouble putting my concern into words, but I suspect that, because there's so much more movement needed to store kinetic energy in such a weapon than is needed to harness the chemical energy of gunpowder, the fire rate will be significantly lower.

The weapon is intended to be fitted to saddles on aerial mounts, and as a ground defense weapon against flying creatures, if that makes a difference.

You'd need a complex gearing system to only advance parts of the weapon at specific points, spending most of the time cranking just working back the "string". I'm not really sure how practical it is.

[Mr. Mask]

Max: What data would you like? Percentage of handgun wounds that prove fatal? Percentage of edged weapon attacks against armed and usually armored police that prove fatal? Exactly what number would make or break the case for you?

The FBI stats show that shootings against police are about 15% fatal. Edged weapon attacks, including crude prison shivs against guards, are about 40% fatal. How about demonstrations by professionals, where countless training simulations have repeatedly shown the ease with which knife-armed attackers overwhelm shooters?

Or would you prefer I just respond with utter nonsense about how logical fallacies can still be true?

[cobaltstarfire]

And I absolutely love the line about something being a logical fallacy and still right. Only in the world of the Internet can something be false and right at the same time.


Something that is a logicsl fallacy isn't automatically false. A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, it doesn't neccessarily mean that the conclusion must be incorrect.

Though I suspect you and mike are talking past each other, being so hostile is uncalled for.

edit:

I'm not sure shivings in prison is a good piece of data to include. Of course there will be more shiv fatalities and injuries in prison, because the prisoners don't have access to guns.

editedit
also don't attribute my apparently stupid comments to mike, he doesn't deserve that. :p

[Mr. Mask]

Logical fallacy means that the reasoning is bad, so if one wants to prove the conclusion, one needs to come up with better reasons.

Um... percentages don't matter to the total number. 40% of 10 knifings, or 40% of 10,000 is still 40%. The reason for mentioning prison shivs is to stress that small, concealed weapons are effective.

[AslanCross]

May I sidetrack this discussion for a media-related question:

This is a Game of Thrones Episode 9 spoiler, since it seems to be coming up on a lot of commentaries on the episode. I'm keeping it in the most abstract terms, but those who have watched the episode will know who I am talking about.

Assumptions:
-Person A is a skilled military archer equipped with a composite bow.
-Person B is unarmored and is running away from Person A at full tilt over an open field. There are no obstructions.
-Person A is quite the psychopath and actually has no intentions of letting Person B out of this alive; it's really just a game to him. However, he gives Person B quite a headstart. I'd say anywhere from 150 to 200 yards.
-Person B is quite a distance away. I can't rewatch the episode right now, but from memory it seems the arrows took 2-3 seconds each to hit the ground.

Question:
Do Person B's odds of survival dramatically improve if he runs in a zig-zag way instead of in a straight line away from Person A?

[No brains]

May I sidetrack this discussion for a media-related question:

This is a Game of Thrones Episode 9 spoiler, since it seems to be coming up on a lot of commentaries on the episode. I'm keeping it in the most abstract terms, but those who have watched the episode will know who I am talking about.

Assumptions:
-Person A is a skilled military archer equipped with a composite bow.
-Person B is unarmored and is running away from Person A at full tilt over an open field. There are no obstructions.
-Person A is quite the psychopath and actually has no intentions of letting Person B out of this alive; it's really just a game to him. However, he gives Person B quite a headstart. I'd say anywhere from 150 to 200 yards.
-Person B is quite a distance away. I can't rewatch the episode right now, but from memory it seems the arrows took 2-3 seconds each to hit the ground.

Question:
Do Person B's odds of survival dramatically improve if he runs in a zig-zag way instead of in a straight line away from Person A?


B's best bet being hard to predict, but one variable that you didn't specify was if A is stationary or chasing B. If A is stationary, then a really random pattern would be best, but if A is pursuing, then B also needs to outpace A, so moving in directions other than directly away could be detrimental.

[Storm Bringer]

On the other hand, this is a nation that perceives itself as in need of a more unified identity. The Regimental System can help from the perspective that it fosters a high degree of pride and loyalty within individual regiments, but basing regiments on ethnicity might not be the best system in a country trying to smooth over ethnic divisions. I'm thinking active regiments are formed by task (with geographic diversity being a goal) and reserves by region of recruitment.à
Seems logical enough. I do think Latin ought to be a mandatory subject in school.

that can be made to work with the regi system as well.

Frist off, any unit with sufficient history will act as a recuiting tool. which would you rather join, the 42nd regiment, or the coldstream guards?. the same goes for elite units, such as the paras or the brand new in 1960 Air Cavalry.

Also, if the ethnic groups are regionally intermingled (Like, for example, the Balkans or the Israel/Palestine area) then the regional regiments may act as a strong unifying element that all groups can be proud of (like national sports teams, for example).


Logical fallacy means that the reasoning is bad, so if one wants to prove the conclusion, one needs to come up with better reasons.

Um... percentages don't matter to the total number. 40% of 10 knifings, or 40% of 10,000 is still 40%. The reason for mentioning prison shivs is to stress that small, concealed weapons are effective.

err, been keeping out of this, but two points:

1)Argument_from_fallacy
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy). saying a argument is wrong because it is a fallacy is, itself, a fallacy, because it does not, in and of itself, disprove the argument


2) theirs lies, dam lies and statistics. Also, the effectiveness of shivs in a highly controlled environment is not a foolproof indication of their effectiveness in a less controlled environment.

[AslanCross]

B's best bet being hard to predict, but one variable that you didn't specify was if A is stationary or chasing B. If A is stationary, then a really random pattern would be best, but if A is pursuing, then B also needs to outpace A, so moving in directions other than directly away could be detrimental.

Ah, forgot about that.

Nope, A is stationary. For added context, B was a hostage and being "released" back to his folk who were drawn up in battle lines on the opposite end of the field. A was with his own troops.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Yes, they do, depending on how accurate the archer is.

If the archer is good enough to hit the person reliably, he still needs to work with a bit of a delay in when his arrows arrive, flight time, which means he has to shoot at where the victim will be. If they run in an unpredictable pattern his chances of hitting them go down. I honestly have no idea easy it is to fire bows over these distances. If the arrows can still be fired in a relatively flat trajectory the flight time will be limited, decreasing the overal chances of the runner by a lot. If they have to fire in an arc there is a small chance they'll make it.

If the archer can only aim at the general area, at which point I would probably not call them a skilled archer, zigzagging does almost nothing to reduce the (already small) hit chance, but it does increse the amount of time spent within range of the bow. So there it might actually work against the victim.

[AslanCross]

Yes, they do, depending on how accurate the archer is.

If the archer is good enough to hit the person reliably, he still needs to work with a bit of a delay in when his arrows arrive, flight time, which means he has to shoot at where the victim will be. If they run in an unpredictable pattern his chances of hitting them go down. I honestly have no idea easy it is to fire bows over these distances. If the arrows can still be fired in a relatively flat trajectory the flight time will be limited, decreasing the overal chances of the runner by a lot. If they have to fire in an arc there is a small chance they'll make it.

If the archer can only aim at the general area, at which point I would probably not call them a skilled archer, zigzagging does almost nothing to reduce the (already small) hit chance, but it does increse the amount of time spent within range of the bow. So there it might actually work against the victim.

A was shown to be shooting in an arc, and the entire area was an open field. A ultimately hits B through the heart just as he was about to reach his brother.

Many commentators are saying "WTH did B run in a straight line?"

[wobner]

Max: What data would you like? Percentage of handgun wounds that prove fatal? Percentage of edged weapon attacks against armed and usually armored police that prove fatal? Exactly what number would make or break the case for you?

The FBI stats show that shootings against police are about 15% fatal. Edged weapon attacks, including crude prison shivs against guards, are about 40% fatal. How about demonstrations by professionals, where countless training simulations have repeatedly shown the ease with which knife-armed attackers overwhelm shooters?

Or would you prefer I just respond with utter nonsense about how logical fallacies can still be true?

a suspect shoots a police officer and genreally they run away, the cop likely had backup either on the scene or in route, or someone heard the gunshot and called for help, the suspect doesn't want to get caught, so they flee. A prisoner shivs a guard, and noone will neccessarily hear the stabbing, other prisoners won't neccessarily care to stop them even if they see it, the prisoner is already caught, and in many cases can't suffer any worse punishment than they are currently enduring(legally anyway), and might as well keep stabbing. Things get routine, guards get complacent, and so even though there is help nearby, its not neccessarily as alert as it needs be, as responsive.
Compare officer involved shootings with officer involved stabbings, or your conclusions are going to be tainted by far too many other factors, and in my oppinion, faulty.
fataly wounded doesn't mean the injury was neccessarily more grevious, but that help didn't get there in time.

Further, since as near as i can tell, this arguement really heated up when it was implied that an attacker on a rampage with a knife would do better than an attacker armed with a gun, I for one would like to see the statistics on these knife based rampages that resulted in more death and bloodshed than the gun based ones.
i'm aware of only this one, Thankfully it lists no fatalities, only 21 victims injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Regional_High_School_stabbing

for some strange reason, people tend to prefer guns.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

A was shown to be shooting in an arc, and the entire area was an open field. A ultimately hits B through the heart just as he was about to reach his brother.

Many commentators are saying "WTH did B run in a straight line?"

Because he was panicked. We as viewers are not, we can think about things with a cool head and see he should have zigzeggad. Same reason you might want to scream "get out of the house!" at your screen during a horror movie. The audience sees the right decisions better than the characters. Of course, the writers could just write very smart and level headed characters who do things the way the audience expects them to, but I'm guessing in this case they liked the look of the scene better like this. Sounds like a cool shot.

[AslanCross]

Because he was panicked. We as viewers are not, we can think about things with a cool head and see he should have zigzeggad. Same reason you might want to scream "get out of the house!" at your screen during a horror movie. The audience sees the right decisions better than the characters. Of course, the writers could just write very smart and level headed characters who do things the way the audience expects them to, but I'm guessing in this case they liked the look of the scene better like this. Sounds like a cool shot.

Of course. He was also a child, and his brother was also riding for him to meet him on the way, so I'd think "run straight for my brother" would be the appropriate in-character decision for him.

From a storywriting perspective, he was supposed to get killed off. The archer in question was a notorious psychopath who relishes in letting people run away knowing he can overtake them, so I really wasn't surprised that the whole thing was a trap, and that the runner had no chance from the get go. It was an elaborate setup to provoke the brother (the enemy commander) into a blind charge. It worked, and it was a very well done battle scene.

My question was really more on whether the zig-zag run really would raise one's chances of survival as much people say it would, assuming he had thought of it in the first place.

[Mr. Mask]

Storm: Nor does stating that a fallacy does not disprove the statement in any way prove the original statement. So back to where we were ... prove the original point without using any obvious fallacies, and everyone will concede the point.

And the whole topic was about environment, that in an environment of close quarters engagement, edged and stabbing weapons were extremely effective weapons, and that at such close ranges firearms were often difficult to deploy. At longer ranges, obviously, a weapon intended for range is preferred. How that environment is controlled is irrelevant. In most crimes, the attacker will wish to be close to the target, for purposes of controlling the victim and preventing escape. If you are seeking to arm yourself for defense against criminal attack, you must consider the possibility that the range will be controlled by the needs of the attacker. That is, unless you intend to open fire on every suspicious-looking bystander from 25 yards out.



Aslan: Even if he runs in a straight line at that range, it'd be up to luck. If they made large zigzags, or watched and dodged, it would be impossible. That would be an Olympic level shot, when you're dealing with wind and a narrower, moving target.

[Roxxy]

Italy after unification used the following scheme:

Infantry was organized into three major categories --

1. Permanent Regiments
2. Mobile Militia
3. Territorial Militia

The Permanent Regiments and the Mobile Militia were recruited and deployed as described above (recruited from two different regions stationed to a third, and occasionally moved around). The Territorial Militia served as a reserve and was made up of locally recruited soldiers.

If I remember correctly there were three different classes of conscripts. The difference was how long they spent in each of the organizations. The first class would be something like: 4 years in the permanent regiments, 7 in the mobile militia and 15 years in the territorial militia. The 2nd class would only spend six months to a year in the permanent regiment, more in the mobile before serving in the territorial. The final class went directly into the territorial militia after basic training. Or something like that.

It's a classic national service scheme common in the early 20th century -- I'm sure other nations did something similar.My nation lacks national service. It's trying for an all volunteer force, but has a minimum recruitment quota. If the quota isn't met in one year, a draft lottery is held in the following January. If it is met, there is no draft that year. More years go by without a draft than with one, but the escalating war in Chile may change that.

The military is based on a regimental system (though regiments are called legions, because if we're speaking Latin we might as well). Legions tend to identify themselves by colorful names, rather than by numbers. There are five types of legion:

Comitatenses: The most mobile legions. Marines, Air Cavalry, Mechanized Cavalry, Paratroopers, Special Forces, and such. Not formed on regional lines.

Limitanei: Garrison legions, pretty much. Formed on regional lines.

Limitanei Auxilia: National Guard. Formed on regional lines. Yes, auxiliaries are legionaries here.

Logisticae: Support units of every sort. Most of the military these days. Formed on regional lines.

Logisticae Auxilia: National Guard. Formed on regional lines.

Yes, the Comitatenses do lack reserves. Limitanei do fight overseas (many are garissoned overseas), but the Comitatenses go in first.

[Brother Oni]

Yeaaaaaah, No thanks :smalltongue: I mean insects and arachnids are cool and all, but I reach my "grossed out" threshold really quickly when looking at most insects. Even the ones I can tolerate or even might consider cute (bumblebees?), I can only tolerate when they're teeny tiny, they start to become really gross/terrifying at high resolution.

How could you say no to those eyes? :smalltongue:

http://www.houstonzoo.org/blog/media/2013/09/cute-fuzzy-phidippus-regius-spider.jpg


Is there a known maximum fire rate for a crossbow or scorpion? I'm working on a weapon concept for my campaign that's essentially a repeating crossbow/scorpion (I haven't decided on the specifics of operation yet) with a Gatling-style crank, firing continually as long as the operator is cranking. I'm having trouble putting my concern into words, but I suspect that, because there's so much more movement needed to store kinetic energy in such a weapon than is needed to harness the chemical energy of gunpowder, the fire rate will be significantly lower.

The weapon is intended to be fitted to saddles on aerial mounts, and as a ground defense weapon against flying creatures, if that makes a difference.

Short answer: About 30-40 seconds per shot for a ~1,000lb windlass spanned crossbow (I'm assuming you want something of this poundage level since you mentioned a scorpion).

Long answer: Depends on the poundage of the crossbow, spanning method and power stroke (how far does the string have to go back).
Since you're using a crank method, the mechanical advantage of the gearing becomes important and based off the above variables with the size of the gears, you can calculate how long it takes to span a shot (I can't help with this sorry; dammit Gnoman, I'm a biochemist not a engineer! :smalltongue:).

Even longer answer: Taking the actual mechanics into account, the problem is that as you want the crossbows intended for mounted use so using a side mounted crank is tricky without significantly extending the length of the weapon - typically cavalry crossbowmen used crannequins which were top mounted, thus the loading of crossbows had to be done in a quiet spot on the battlefield so they could attach and remove the device safely.

With a high poundage draw, you have to be careful of dry firing bows and crossbows as it can potentially cause damage to the limbs and with the high stresses involved, this can eventually cause catastrophic weapon failure resulting in anything from only a broken weapon to injury and death of the user. The possibility of dry firing becomes even higher with your 'automatic' weapons system, so some method of ensuring that a bolt is properly seated before firing would be ideal (this is even trickier when in motion while mounted).

The Chinese repeating crossbow (Cho ku nu) got away with the issue as it was very low poundage, but it was so low energy that they had to poison the bolts to achieve reasonable lethality and it was typically regarded as a civilian weapon.


May I sidetrack this discussion for a media-related question:

This is a Game of Thrones Episode 9 spoiler, since it seems to be coming up on a lot of commentaries on the episode. I'm keeping it in the most abstract terms, but those who have watched the episode will know who I am talking about.

Assumptions:
-Person A is a skilled military archer equipped with a composite bow.
-Person B is unarmored and is running away from Person A at full tilt over an open field. There are no obstructions.
-Person A is quite the psychopath and actually has no intentions of letting Person B out of this alive; it's really just a game to him. However, he gives Person B quite a headstart. I'd say anywhere from 150 to 200 yards.
-Person B is quite a distance away. I can't rewatch the episode right now, but from memory it seems the arrows took 2-3 seconds each to hit the ground.

Question:
Do Person B's odds of survival dramatically improve if he runs in a zig-zag way instead of in a straight line away from Person A?



200 yards is about the limit for bow effectiveness (battle lines are normally drawn up so that both sides start out of bow shot), so it is indeed a very difficult shot. While you can reach out further than 200 yards, this is generally with special flight arrows which are intended for the sole aim of achieving distance and have limited lethality in comparison to proper war arrows.
Since the target is an unarmoured child however, a flight arrow might be enough.

I haven't seen the episode, so when you say a composite bow, I assume you mean a recurve bow? Assuming a very good bow with very light arrows, you're expecting about 200fps, so 2-3 seconds flight time is about right. At that distance, it's comparatively easy to avoid the shot if the runner looked back - a zig-zag pattern would only improve evasion if they changed direction after the arrow was in flight. I can definitely see the state of mind prompting a blind panicked run straight back towards safety though.

[wobner]

Storm: Nor does stating that a fallacy does not disprove the statement in any way prove the original statement. So back to where we were ... prove the original point without using any obvious fallacies, and everyone will concede the point.

And the whole topic was about environment, that in an environment of close quarters engagement, edged and stabbing weapons were extremely effective weapons, and that at such close ranges firearms were often difficult to deploy. At longer ranges, obviously, a weapon intended for range is preferred. How that environment is controlled is irrelevant. In most crimes, the attacker will wish to be close to the target, for purposes of controlling the victim and preventing escape. If you are seeking to arm yourself for defense against criminal attack, you must consider the possibility that the range will be controlled by the needs of the attacker. That is, unless you intend to open fire on every suspicious-looking bystander from 25 yards out.



if this is your point, you are quoting the wrong statistics

You quoted statistics showing the lethality of blades to show their effectiveness against firearms where the circumstances of the attack are far more likely to affect the lethality than the actual weapon. In a traffic stop gone wrong, the suspect is not likely to stick around and empty a clip or two into the unfortunate police officer, the suspect will likely run the minute the police officer is down, or at worst, when he *beileves* the officer is dead, especially if backup is on the scene or in route. but the prisoner often has no reason not to simply keep stabbing the correctional officer.
This will have a dramatic impact on survivability, far more than whether its a knife or a gun being used. Thus you cannot compare the two statistics in my oppinion.

Further if your arguement is all about proximity, there is no mention of proximity in the statistics you quoted, just lethality. again, rendering your cited statistics meaningless.

If the whole point is to prove a knife is better than a gun in certain situations, why are you citing prison shivings? to my knowledge guards with direct interactions with prisoners, in the u.s. atleast(and you are talking FBI statistics aren't you) are not allowed to carry fire arms. There is an armory, but guns are reserved for emergency response teams and those on the watch towers, not those who are escorting prisoners around and are going to get shived. Even visiting law enforcement officers are required to check their weapons in a safe prior to entry.

http://www.correctionalofficeredu.org/training/

So again, the statistics you quoted are meaningless to this discussion. Its not a knife vs gun scenario. If your goal was to argue that knives kill in close proximities, no one said otherwise, but you are argueing knives are better than guns, and what you cited doesn't do it. cite something else.


And i really don't understand where you get this image that a gun is some unweildy contraption. A rifle sure, but a hand gun is small, hence the name. its often no more unweildy than an average knife. you point it in the direction of the target whether its 10 feet away or less than a foot, exert a few pounds of pressure with your finger on the trigger. A knife on the other hand, generally requires quite a bit more force behind it to accomplish much, an actual slash or stab that can be dodged or intercepted and redirected, and i can probably pull the trigger faster than i can stab.
If i can maneuver to stab you, i'm pretty sure i can maneuver to shoot you. Its not about the weapon anymore, but who is the better grappler.

and as to your point about shooting every suspicious person within 25 feet, unless i'm going to draw whatever weapon i have on someone within 25 feet, its a moot point, when they act, they get the drop and thats likely to be far more important than whether i have a gun or a knife.

[Mr Beer]

I'm under the impression that specialised units who perform close-range assault work clearing buildings and the like use firearms as their primary weapons even for such missions, instead of knives. I do realise that the SAS, Delta Force, SWAT units etc. don't tend to share their tactics with people like me, so maybe I'm wrong about this, but even when they are entering rooms at the kind of range where knives are allegedly better than guns, they're still using rifles. Seems odd, maybe they need to rethink this approach.

[Coidzor]

The way things are sized might end up turning a little bit wishy washy in the end, particularly when it comes to insects, or frogs...the idea of giant frogs have always struck me as extra terrifying... I can see butcher birds making for an interesting horror story. They might also be the kind of bird that would get hunted into extinction in more populace areas.

Cane toads are plenty terrifying to mice even without making them unusually large, so there's that.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm under the impression that specialised units who perform close-range assault work clearing buildings and the like use firearms as their primary weapons even for such missions, instead of knives. I do realise that the SAS, Delta Force, SWAT units etc. don't tend to share their tactics with people like me, so maybe I'm wrong about this, but even when they are entering rooms at the kind of range where knives are allegedly better than guns, they're still using rifles. Seems odd, maybe they need to rethink this approach.

I can tell you without a doubt, as related to me by people who do or did things like "house clearing" for a damn living, that using a knife for house clearing would be the worst sort of black comedy. Their lives, the lives of their teammates, and the lives of anyone they're trying to save are on the line, and they chose to use carbines and submachine guns, NOT knives.

Anyone citing prison shiving statistics to make knives sound more effective than firearms is engaged in gross intellectual dishonesty.

[Mike_G]

I can tell you without a doubt, as related to me by people who do or did things like "house clearing" for a damn living, that using a knife for house clearing would be the worst sort of black comedy. Their lives, the lives of their teammates, and the lives of anyone they're trying to save are on the line, and they chose to use carbines and submachine guns, NOT knives.


Absolutely.

Even silencing sentries, which is where you see Rambo get his knife out in the movies, is done with suppressed firearms by the special ops types who do such things.



Anyone citing prison shiving statistics to make knives sound more effective than firearms is engaged in gross intellectual dishonesty.

Yeah.

The post that started this mess was me saying a knife a bad weapon for self defense. Which is just is.

I conceded that knives are perfectly good for a concealable weapon to kill people with, if you attack them, which is pretty much the damn definition of a prison shanking. People who get jumped and successfully fight off their attackers with a knife are rare, and I think they'd have better odds with a gun or a bat or damn near anything else.

I'm not going anywhere near the "fallacy" rabbit hole. In fact, I'm just gonna ignore posts by a certain member, and if it gets much worse, I'll stop posting. I can always go argue with a brick wall down the street if I miss the feeling.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is "shank" the correct verb? Do you "shiv" someone with a "shiv", or "shank" them?
.

[AMFV]

Absolutely.

Even silencing sentries, which is where you see Rambo get his knife out in the movies, is done with suppressed firearms by the special ops types who do such things.

Actually suppressed firearms are not all that quiet, and a knife would be a lot better in that particular case. Although even then typically how spec ops folks deal with sentries is by not running into them, avoiding them if possible. Special Operations teams are not usually designed to assault objectives, they're for reconnaissance or to recover personnel, if they're assaulting a bunch of sentries, then you'd have done better just sending in an Airborne infantry unit, or something of that nature.

There is no reliable way to disable sentries quietly, after all if you shoot them with a suppressed firearm, even supposing that you manage to make that quiet enough, you have the issue of the fact that now your shot is that much slower, and it isn't very likely to kill the target as effectively as a weapon would unsuppressed, and if he screams or yells, then you're worse off than you were.

Best thing for them to do is avoid, since again, usually assaulting an objective is not what SpecOps does, after all, you can do that with regular ol' Infantry, and better too.

Edit: I should note that there have been specific Special Operations assault operations (like Bin Laden) but the key there was that the focus was speed not stealth. Generally you cannot assault a point quietly, it's just not something that technology allows yet (although that may change in the future).

[cobaltstarfire]

How could you say no to those eyes? :smalltongue:

http://www.houstonzoo.org/blog/media/2013/09/cute-fuzzy-phidippus-regius-spider.jpg


ok ok! I'll concede that jumping spiders are also rather cute!

[JustSomeGuy]

Rapid - fire catchup:

I served with the gurkas, and have no specialist knowledge or experience of stab wounds

'They' speak english, all the orders process and battle planning/tactics etc. is in english (with some comedy interpretations, such as saying jungle instead of field). Informally, of course they speak nepalese, and i even learnt a nepalese love song. I also served with numerous fijians, who instead of the regiment system integrate into normal british units, so they are more frequently encountered, but in smaller numbers. I picked up a few words, but nothing you could string together to use informally. They speak english much better though.

Also, since firearms<knives, and swords<trench shovels, then shouldn't urban assault, house clearing special forces troops basically shovel knight everything?

[Vinyadan]

I had the impression that the whole "knife not less dangerous than gun" is part of a discussion which assumes that, since knives will always be sold without special restrictions (after all, even vegans need them), guns also should.

I read of crossbows still being used when silence and concealment are a priority. Can someone confirm this? Last time I head of a crossbow stealthily killing something, it was a horse.
A problem with dead sentries is that they cannot check in. If there are reasons to be nervous, whoever is responsible for security may have them confirm the situation once in a while. It also keeps them awake.

Man, it must suck to be a sentinel.

[AMFV]

I had the impression that the whole "knife not less dangerous than gun" is part of a discussion which assumes that, since knives will always be sold without special restrictions (after all, even vegans need them), guns also should.


I think the idea has to do with the suggestion that murders would still take place regardless of weapons involved. It's a complicated issue.



I read of crossbows still being used when silence and concealment are a priority. Can someone confirm this? Last time I head of a crossbow stealthily killing something, it was a horse.
A problem with dead sentries is that they cannot check in. If there are reasons to be nervous, whoever is responsible for security may have them confirm the situation once in a while. It also keeps them awake.


I've never heard of anybody actually doing this. It sounds like a Hollywood type thing rather than an actual thing. Again, once you're actually assaulting and killing people speed and surprise is usually better than stealth, for the reasons you cited, and a few others. Typically you're looking to avoid contact most times you're moving around.



Man, it must suck to be a sentinel.

Yep.

[Max_Killjoy]

I had the impression that the whole "knife not less dangerous than gun" is part of a discussion which assumes that, since knives will always be sold without special restrictions (after all, even vegans need them), guns also should.

It started with someone asking if a knife would be a good self-defense weapon (btw, it's typically not).

It diversified and devolved into the separate questions of how effective knives are as weapons (they are in the right specific circumstances), whether knives and firearms are of comparable effectiveness (not really outside of very specific circumstances), whether most criminals have any actual training or expertise with their weapons (no, not at all, no matter what someone might post about "widespread knife traditions" here), whether knives / swords could be just as deadly in a mass attack as firearms (yes, but only if you planned very carefully and everything went right -- otherwise NO -- but then, a car or a 5-gallon can of gasoline can be supremely deadly if you do it right... we live surrounded by potentially lethal tools that no one seems to think twice about), whether this means firearms should be more regulated or restricted than they are (no, not really, the illusion of safety thereby provided is not worth the price), and so on.

[Gnoman]

Short answer: About 30-40 seconds per shot for a ~1,000lb windlass spanned crossbow (I'm assuming you want something of this poundage level since you mentioned a scorpion).

Long answer: Depends on the poundage of the crossbow, spanning method and power stroke (how far does the string have to go back).
Since you're using a crank method, the mechanical advantage of the gearing becomes important and based off the above variables with the size of the gears, you can calculate how long it takes to span a shot (I can't help with this sorry; dammit Gnoman, I'm a biochemist not a engineer! :smalltongue:).

Even longer answer: Taking the actual mechanics into account, the problem is that as you want the crossbows intended for mounted use so using a side mounted crank is tricky without significantly extending the length of the weapon - typically cavalry crossbowmen used crannequins which were top mounted, thus the loading of crossbows had to be done in a quiet spot on the battlefield so they could attach and remove the device safely.

With a high poundage draw, you have to be careful of dry firing bows and crossbows as it can potentially cause damage to the limbs and with the high stresses involved, this can eventually cause catastrophic weapon failure resulting in anything from only a broken weapon to injury and death of the user. The possibility of dry firing becomes even higher with your 'automatic' weapons system, so some method of ensuring that a bolt is properly seated before firing would be ideal (this is even trickier when in motion while mounted).

The Chinese repeating crossbow (Cho ku nu) got away with the issue as it was very low poundage, but it was so low energy that they had to poison the bolts to achieve reasonable lethality and it was typically regarded as a civilian weapon.


I'm willing to sacrifice power (and handwave some of the inherent flaws and complexity much in the same way D&D 3.5 does with the repeating crossbow - you have to do a fair bit of handwaving to get away with human-sized pilots dogfighting on giant eagles in the first place!) in order to achieve the goal of fire rate. Something comparable to a crossbow of the sort that would have been used at Agincourt would be adequate.

To put more into context what I want the weapon to accomplish:

Ground fire consisting of massed musket or rifle fire is of limited use against flying units, as it just won't reach high enough (with a load capable of hurting a large creature) to prevent scouting or dropping bombs. The "traditional" weapon to counter this is long-barreled 4-pounder volley guns mounting eight barrels. The guns are loaded with a mix of solid shot, grape, and an enlarged version of buck-and-ball (different barrels are generally loaded with varying loads to give a gunner options) and fired either in sequence at specific targets or simultaneously to get an area effect. The great problem with this is that these guns are too clumsy and slow-firing (particularly due to the long reload period) to have a good shot at targets that are flying evasively or have high apparent momentum, making them most useful against high, relatively slow moving targets.

The aerial units themselves can't carry such guns, so the only way they have to fight each other at range is to fire with musketoons, pistols, or fowling pieces that are of limited use.

The weapon in question is intended to fill those gaps, and is a military secret along the lines of the WWI interrupter gear.

[Mr Beer]

I can tell you without a doubt, as related to me by people who do or did things like "house clearing" for a damn living, that using a knife for house clearing would be the worst sort of black comedy. Their lives, the lives of their teammates, and the lives of anyone they're trying to save are on the line, and they chose to use carbines and submachine guns, NOT knives.

Hmm, so you're saying that when a group of highly trained professionals need to kill a bunch of enemies in close quarters combat, they pick firearms over knives every time? Sounds to me like firearms are deadlier than knives even at close range and not the other way around.

[Mr Beer]

Is "shank" the correct verb? Do you "shiv" someone with a "shiv", or "shank" them?
.

Either is acceptable usage. Verbally I mean...not that it's OK to go around shivving or shanking people.

[Mike_G]

Hmm, so you're saying that when a group of highly trained professionals need to kill a bunch of enemies in close quarters combat, they pick firearms over knives every time? Sounds to me like firearms are deadlier than knives even at close range and not the other way around.

Notice the lack of knives. Maybe nobody has told them about Tueller.


http://cryptome.org/info/ikmz04/pict74.jpg

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Either is acceptable usage. Verbally I mean...not that it's OK to go around shivving or shanking people.

Well, I don't know. He doesn't mention (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0771.html) shanking (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0772.html)...

[Vinyadan]

Notice the lack of knives. Maybe nobody has told them about Tueller.


http://cryptome.org/info/ikmz04/pict74.jpg

No, it's just that the Arab writing says "no knives allowed". :smalltongue:

[rrgg]

@Gnoman


It's kind of hard to see how much of an advantage that would have. Arrows are already relatively slow and low energy compared to bullets, and sacrificing even more power so that drawing rapidly doesn't exhaust the archer within 10 seconds probably isn't going to help.

What you could go for is something similar to the Giodoni air rifle. It had a magazine which stored multiple bullets and a detachable air bladder with enough pressure for about 30 shots. The bladder took around 1500 pumps to fill but you could potentially have multiple pumped up ahead of time and then replace them as they started to run low.

Pressurized air would be a bit closer to chemical firearms in that you have all your energy stored up ahead of time. Unlike a bow where you need do work putting potential energy back into the weapon after every single shot.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hmm, so you're saying that when a group of highly trained professionals need to kill a bunch of enemies in close quarters combat, they pick firearms over knives every time? Sounds to me like firearms are deadlier than knives even at close range and not the other way around.

Yes, exactly.

At the very least, knives are not so much deadlier in CQC that it's

* not worth the time to switch weapons
* not worth giving up the ability to engage at range without switching back
* not worth giving up more training time with the firearms to train with the knives extensively enough to be as proficient with the knives as they are with the firearms...
* etc and so forth

This trend applies across all forces that train for CQC. And quite often, the training they do receive is not with a knife, but rather with their entrenching tool. Many do carry some sort of knife, but as a utility tool rather than primarily as a weapon.

[Brother Oni]

I've never heard of anybody actually doing this. It sounds like a Hollywood type thing rather than an actual thing. Again, once you're actually assaulting and killing people speed and surprise is usually better than stealth, for the reasons you cited, and a few others. Typically you're looking to avoid contact most times you're moving around.

Crossbows, while quieter than a firearm, still aren't silent as string and limb vibration is an issue. That said, I have heard of special forces and commando types using compound bows or crossbows as another weapon in their toolbox:

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l189/KORNET-E/crosbow.jpg
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0d934930449ad37e9f6c587c8896bf25

During the Xinjian riots in 2009 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5780852/Xinjiang-riots-Modern-Chinese-army-displays-ancient-preference-for-crossbow.html), the Chinese riot police deployed with crossbows and it has even appeared on recruiting material:


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01439/crossbow_1439901c.jpg

http://modernnotion.com/e50-responsive/3677/750/480.jpg/

http://modernnotion.com/wp-content/uploads/article-2680927-1F62F22500000578-569_306x463.jpg

That said, I believe the last recorded casualty with a bow during war time was Lt.Col Jack Churchill who shot and killed a German NCO sentry with his longbow during WW2 (link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill)).



To put more into context what I want the weapon to accomplish:

Ground fire consisting of massed musket or rifle fire is of limited use against flying units, as it just won't reach high enough (with a load capable of hurting a large creature) to prevent scouting or dropping bombs. The "traditional" weapon to counter this is long-barreled 4-pounder volley guns mounting eight barrels. The guns are loaded with a mix of solid shot, grape, and an enlarged version of buck-and-ball (different barrels are generally loaded with varying loads to give a gunner options) and fired either in sequence at specific targets or simultaneously to get an area effect. The great problem with this is that these guns are too clumsy and slow-firing (particularly due to the long reload period) to have a good shot at targets that are flying evasively or have high apparent momentum, making them most useful against high, relatively slow moving targets.

The aerial units themselves can't carry such guns, so the only way they have to fight each other at range is to fire with musketoons, pistols, or fowling pieces that are of limited use.

The weapon in question is intended to fill those gaps, and is a military secret along the lines of the WWI interrupter gear.

I'm dubious that your repeating crossbow can achieve what massed ground fire or a cannon firing grapeshot can't already do. As rrgg, arrows and bolts are generally much slower than any sort of firearm and you're looking at a quite a high powered weapon to get a superior range over gunpowder.

Doing some digging in more upscaled weapon, Roman scorpions appeared to have a much higher rate of fire with a RoF of 3-4 shots a minute. They had ranges of ~400 metres and while they were generally crewed served, there were one man scorpio versions that I'm failing to find much information on.
I have found something called a polybolos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybolos) which is pretty much exactly what you want - a fast firing ballistae with an RoF greater than a scorpion (by 3-4 times apparently). Mythbusters also made a replica and tested it out (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVIHFSKsEic)) and aside from the mechanical issues they had, found it very effective.

The only potential issue I can see are these weapons are big and crew served, so good for AA work supplementing the cannon, not so good for giant eagles riders shooting at each other unless you got really big eagles. Dienekes may be able to provide more information as I believe he's our resident Greek and Roman classical period expert.

[Coidzor]

People keep going on about 5 gallon gasoline containers.

Is this from rendering it into an especially crude Molotov or just pouring it on someone and then dropping a match on them? Or just that with time and effort you can convert it into molotovs or various other lethal uses for a toxic, flammable substance?

[Brother Oni]

People keep going on about 5 gallon gasoline containers.

Is this from rendering it into an especially crude Molotov or just pouring it on someone and then dropping a match on them? Or just that with time and effort you can convert it into molotovs or various other lethal uses for a toxic, flammable substance?

I know you can dissolve soap in petrol to make crude napalm and I've heard that putting magnesium powder (from fireworks) into molotovs makes them burn much brighter.

*Waves to the government people who are sticking me on a watchlist*

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Guns, specifically semi-automatic guns, are more of a fire and forget weapon than most alternatives, especially in a room clearing situation. You can shoot someone, double tap a couple of times in the same second and move on to engaging the next target. By the time the guy with the gun has spotted and is shooting baddy number two someone with a crossbow will still be reloading (someone with a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun might face a similar situation, but less severe), the person with the knife will still be trying to get into position to kill the first guy and the person with the non-cross bow will still be at the practice range learning how to handle the weapon be shooting the first target a couple times more because an arrow is often not as instantly incapacitating as a bullet. One of the few things that comes close to a gun is a grenade. Toss it into the room and move on to a completely different room because this one has been taken care of. Not ideal for the room with the hostages, but in other cases much better than having to step back, reload the crossbow and reenter the room through that same door everyone is now aiming at.

For stealth situations, yeah, sure, bows can have their uses. Especially crossbows, as they allow for a stronger draw, increasing the chance the target goes down before getting a shout of. Because if they alert the rest of the guards it really isn't going to matter how silent your weapon is. For police work there might be value to it being a bit of an obscure weapon, it's (even) less easy to wrestle it away from a cop and use against them. And it's slightly better for hopefully sort of non-lethal takedowns, it leaves neater wounds that bleed less.

but mostly it's just really cool. Look at those guys, I want a crossbow. Maybe get a collapsible one, so I can carry it for self defense. [/full circle]


People keep going on about 5 gallon gasoline containers.

Is this from rendering it into an especially crude Molotov or just pouring it on someone and then dropping a match on them? Or just that with time and effort you can convert it into molotovs or various other lethal uses for a toxic, flammable substance?

I missed that discussion I think, but I figure it's mostly just a really practical instrument for setting a building on fire. Enough gas for a blazing inferno, in a small and handy package.


I've heard that putting magnesium powder (from fireworks) into molotovs makes them burn much brighter.

I don't know how high the ignition temperature of magnesium is, but I thought it was pretty low, so molotovs will probably work, especially if you don't skim on the gasoline. And no ****, that stuff makes anything burn brighter. Great material for flashbangs. Also for industrial accidents.

[Brother Oni]

And it's slightly better for hopefully sort of non-lethal takedowns, it leaves neater wounds that bleed less.

but mostly it's just really cool. Look at those guys, I want a crossbow. Maybe get a collapsible one, so I can carry it for self defense. [/full circle]

The Chinese police brought them in to use against people who were potentially wearing suicide vests as the bolts would be less likely to set off any explosives compared to a firearm. That said, I'm not sure that getting hit with a bolt from a 200+ lb modern crossbow is any less lethal than taking a 5.56mm AR round instead.

As for a concealable crossbow, small hand crossbows were a thing and here's a ballestrino or assassin's bow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se_N8CrooPY).



I don't know how high the ignition temperature of magnesium is, but I thought it was pretty low, so molotovs will probably work, especially if you don't skim on the gasoline. And no ****, that stuff makes anything burn brighter. Great material for flashbangs. Also for industrial accidents.

Magnesium autoignites at 473C while burning petrol hits about 2100C, so burning petrol is more than enough to set it off.

[Vinyadan]

but mostly it's just really cool. Look at those guys, I want a crossbow. Maybe get a collapsible one, so I can carry it for self defense. [/full circle]

If I were you, I'd carry a 5 gallon canister.

[Mr Beer]

Guns, specifically semi-automatic guns, are more of a fire and forget weapon than most alternatives, especially in a room clearing situation. You can shoot someone, double tap a couple of times in the same second and move on to engaging the next target. By the time the guy with the gun has spotted and is shooting baddy number two someone with a crossbow will still be reloading (someone with a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun might face a similar situation, but less severe), the person with the knife will still be trying to get into position to kill the first guy and the person with the non-cross bow will still be at the practice range learning how to handle the weapon be shooting the first target a couple times more because an arrow is often not as instantly incapacitating as a bullet. One of the few things that comes close to a gun is a grenade. Toss it into the room and move on to a completely different room because this one has been taken care of. Not ideal for the room with the hostages, but in other cases much better than having to step back, reload the crossbow and reenter the room through that same door everyone is now aiming at.

From my (highly amateur) reading on the topic of fighting house-to-house, grenades are a very popular weapon, not least because you can lob them round corners when sticking your head out to shoot would be a suboptimal tactical decision.

[Mr Beer]

I was thinking about blades vs. guns and the Milperra Bikie Massacre came to mind. It was a famous deadly brawl between 2 groups of rival Australia bikers, using a variety of weapons. I did a bit of checking into it to see if it sheds any light on the question, this is what I found out:

In 1984, 19 Comancheros fought 34 Bandidos face-to-face in a carpark, using guns, fists, machetes, knives and iron bars. All 7 fatalities were as a result of gunshot wounds.

"Two Comancheros had died from shotgun wounds, another two Comancheros died after being shot with a Rossi .357 Magnum rifle, two Bandidos died from shotgun wounds and a 14-year-old bystander, Leanne Walters, also died after being hit in the face by a stray .357 bullet."

Of course, this is hardly a controlled experiment, but apparently when 50+ heavily armed men try to kill each other in immediate proximity, knives and other blades, such as machetes, are a sadly ineffective second to firearms.

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

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/true-crime-scene/bikie-war-between-the-bandidos-and-comcheros-left-seven-dead-at-the-milperra-fathers-day-massacre/news-story/42c56c2894ae8ccfb682d079c6f462cc

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If I were you, I'd carry a 5 gallon canister.

Your honor, this was clearly self defense. The alleged victim made me feel very threatened, so I came back later that day and torched his house. If you're a good judge you will know this is exactly how stand your ground laws work.

On the other hand, it might make for a decent bludgeoning weapon.

[Carl]

ok ok! I'll concede that jumping spiders are also rather cute!

Don't forget this guy, i'm sort of imagining him as a family pet atm:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/3vNXb.jpg



Yeaaaaaah, No thanks :smalltongue: I mean insects and arachnids are cool and all, but I reach my "grossed out" threshold really quickly when looking at most insects. Even the ones I can tolerate or even might consider cute (bumblebees?), I can only tolerate when they're teeny tiny, they start to become really gross/terrifying at high resolution.


Oh there's worse, like these:

https://softypapa.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/img_5856.jpg?quality=80&strip=all

Now i'm going to go scrub my nose thanks. Ughhh these are creepy enough digging up. I am never going to asia.

For 12" humans these would be the equivalent of nearly a foot long in our terms with stingers an inch and a fifth long.

[Mike_G]

Too perfect.

Fantasy versus reality.

My last "knife to a gunfight" comment.

http://terminallance.com/2012/06/19/terminal-lance-207-theyll-never-get-it-right/

[Max_Killjoy]

And last comment on the "5 gallons of gasoline" thing -- just to clarity's sake.

No one is claiming that you'd use it in a fight or as a self-defense weapon... sheesh.

The point is that we're SURROUNDED by lethal implements every day, and most people never stop to think about just how dangerous all these things are, but show them a big "tactical" knife or a firearm, and they practically wet themselves in fear.

[Hoosigander]

I have a question, is there any evidence for the bagpipe being used in a martial context in continental Europe?

I am familiar with the use of the Píob Mhór in a military context Ireland and Scotland starting in the 15th and 16th century (maybe even the 14th century), which is well attested in both pictorial and written evidence. The bagpipe is known in Continental Europe even sooner than that, and it seems to me that bagpipe is well suited as a military instrument due to its volume and ability to carry over distance. I briefly tried to research this myself, but failed to turn up anything. I did find several videos with bagpipes in a marching context from European reenactments and festivals. But, of course, those aren't historical sources, and in addition one of the videos had some hilariously farby elements in it.

[snowblizz]

The aforementioned officer killing a german in ww2 with a longbow also ahd his personal bagpiper along playing when wading ashore on the Normandy beaches. IIRC, if not the bow-guy someone else, but am almsot 100% it was him. He was *that* kind of guy.

Because *that* is how you invade France. Traditions are important. Not that I think the 100YW saw a lot of English bagpipers, but someone of Waterloo vintage must'ave done it surely...

[Spiryt]

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulon_polski

Thus gouache depicts six men with bagpipes, it seems.

Context is not strictly martial as it is depicting parade organized due to marriage of polish king, but still, those are soldiers/militia...

Some of the pipers are wearing polish, some western clothes, the bagpipes themselves seem to be of some very different types.

http://kolekcja.zamek-krolewski.pl/__data/digi_images/ZKW_1528_1-39/v1_zkw_1528_34_l_001.jpg

http://kolekcja.zamek-krolewski.pl/__data/digi_images/ZKW_1528_1-39/v6_zkw_1528_39_l_001.jpg

[Mike_G]

The aforementioned officer killing a german in ww2 with a longbow also ahd his personal bagpiper along playing when wading ashore on the Normandy beaches. IIRC, if not the bow-guy someone else, but am almsot 100% it was him. He was *that* kind of guy.

Because *that* is how you invade France. Traditions are important. Not that I think the 100YW saw a lot of English bagpipers, but someone of Waterloo vintage must'ave done it surely...

Mad Jack Churchill.

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

[Hoosigander]

The aforementioned officer killing a german in ww2 with a longbow also ahd his personal bagpiper along playing when wading ashore on the Normandy beaches. IIRC, if not the bow-guy someone else, but am almsot 100% it was him. He was *that* kind of guy.


Mad Jack Churchill.


Actually, these are two separate occurrences. Lt. Col. Churchill played the bagpipes himself and played the "March of the Cameron Men" while leading an amphibious assault during a Commando Raid on occupied Norway. Lord Lovat was the Scottish nobleman who maintained a personal piper, Bill Millin, during D-Day.

Here's an interview with the two and Bill Millin plays the Pipes at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDEO0OIBD8U

Edit: I found this cool picture of a bagpiper in action during Operation Epsom in WWII
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Scotishadvanceepsom.jpg

Thank you Spiryt, that was the sort of thing I was looking for. The first set of pipes has the bell shaped chanter that I associated with Polish pipes, but with a body more akin to a South Italian type of Zampogna. The second set of pipes seems similar to the German Dudelsack/Sackpfeife.

[Vinyadan]

And last comment on the "5 gallons of gasoline" thing -- just to clarity's sake.

No one is claiming that you'd use it in a fight or as a self-defense weapon... sheesh.

The point is that we're SURROUNDED by lethal implements every day, and most people never stop to think about just how dangerous all these things are, but show them a big "tactical" knife or a firearm, and they practically wet themselves in fear.

Well, of course: those are made to kill people. Show them to someone, and it's pretty clear what you want to do to them. You totally could kill someone throwing a potted plant from a window, but that's not their function. Firearms of many kinds have no other functions: they are no keychains nor bottle openers. They kill better, faster, stronger, require small or no forethought and are easily carried in open and enclosed environments. They are a completely different class of danger, with no alternative use.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, of course: those are made to kill people. Show them to someone, and it's pretty clear what you want to do to them.

...

So showing someone a weapon, even in the most friendly and careful way, means I might want to kill them?

No wonder so few people go to weapon museums anymore, they must be afraid the tour guide is going to axe them... :smalleek:

[Mr. Mask]

Wobner: Found your earlier post. Umm... where did you hear this? Since when do prisons have only one guard? And since when do policemen go about by the dozen? Their backup normally consists of one partner, other backup being minutes away at minimum. Prisons have cameras and protocol because they're not dumb enough to go somewhere no one will hear them scream. Police have to wait a while for an ambulance, but prisons normally have medical facilities on site to rush their staff to.

Your story sounds entirely fictional, contrary to reality.


There are three reasons people prefer guns: The first is range. Being further from the threat makes it seem safer for you.

The second is psychological. The further away your target is, the less traumatic it is on you, and so, the more likely you will actually pull the trigger, and not freeze up.

The third is just the aesthetic factor. Guns make noise. They look like modern weapons. They have the feel of power. By comparison, knives are ... less cool. They require that you get close, which, for the previous reasons, is less cool.

Of course, many criminals have a different protocol ... they have to get close, to control the target. They're already sociopaths, so the traumatic element is irrelevant. And noise and excessive hardware may or may not be to their benefit. Even if they do carry firearms, they still have to get close to achieve their criminal objectives (robbery, kidnapping, whatever).

So firearms are great for what they're for: Keeping distance. Engaging a target without having to get close. But once the hostile is within arm's reach, well, using firearms becomes a much more risky proposition. Tragically for fans of carrying firearms, when it comes time to defend themselves, the chances of the target being already within arm's reach are high. And under those conditions, they would be better off going for a knife than the handgun. That point has been repeated by pretty much everybody who understands the problem, since Fairbairn.


....Umm, people said EXACTLY otherwise to knives killing in close proximity. Arguing that knives apparently can't inflict immediately debilitating wounds and that they were not comparable weapons. They were comparing them to batons and pepper spray.

The comparable firearm fatality rate is a little low for the reason you mention, they drop the target and leave. Actually, that is exactly WHY a knife attack is so effective. Unless you're talking full-auto weapons with very large drum magazines, odds are that the knife will inflict more injuries, and faster.

On the point of handguns at close range. Well, there is some truth to that. The numbers do still favor the blade. Getting the weapon pointed at a person who is holding on to you and trying to kill you, and pulling the trigger at the right time is, in fact, still harder and slower than placing a blade between you and him and sawing on whatever it touches. Plus, there are the issues of hitting parts of your own body with bullets - less of a problem with a blade, unless you drop it - and of stunning yourself with muzzle flash. Most critically, in a wrestling match (which a criminal attack will often be, as they do still need to control you), it's strangely easy to disable a handgun, intentionally or accidentally. Anything touching the end of that slide, and an automatic handgun is out of battery and cannot fire. And as for pressure ... for an even moderately sharp blade, skin cuts with less than three pounds of pressure. A three-pound trigger pull is pretty much considered hair-triggered.

Individual skill level does still play a role. A person with zero knife skill but some close-quarters shooting training would still be better off with the handgun. But likewise, a person with knife skill but zero firearms experience would be equally out of his element if trying to use the handgun. And the point of ambush was already covered earlier, you need to see a potential threat before they hit you or you're sunk.



Beer: The Fairbairn-Stykes dagger comes to mind. Issued to the Shanghai Municipal Police for the reason that he saw knives as important to close quarters combat. Even if your primary weapon is the 1928 Thompson, a devastating weapon by any standard. A weapon that can run out of ammo, and according to Fairbairn's own writing, "after which it does not even make a respectable club." His editor removed this.

SWAT tactics is another point worthy of discussion for future. I recommend you pick up Gabe Suarez's material on Tactical Advantage.



Mike: The whole concept of "self-defense weapon" is precipitated on the idea of counter-attack. That is, you see trouble coming, so you attack them as they attack you. True "defense" would be hiding behind a heavy door, and/or wearing body armor... which is not a bad idea either, but it doesn't really neutralize the problem.

And they do have knives. The USMC issues knives before they issue rifles, and no marine would go anywhere without his trusty combat knife. Regular army may not teach their use so heavily, but I promise those guys have combat knives issued, and are wearing them where they can get to them quickly.



AMFV: Thank you for that. Saved me the trouble. The average suppressor for most makes of firearm will reduce the sound by about 30 decibels. That's enough to keep it from injuring your ears when fired indoors, and it turns a very recognizable 'blam' into a noise like 'thunk' which could be mistaken for something besides gunfire, but it's surely not silent.



SomeGuy: House clearing is not entirely contact distance. A person on the other side of a room, with a table between you and him, is not in edged weapon range. It is, however, a problem when during room clearing an opponent gets close enough to grab for the firearm. It requires some very specialized tactics to minimize this risk, mostly by staying back as far as possible from corners. In those situations, they also generally have the advantage of knowing that most or all of the individuals in the building are likely hostile, and so can fire the moment they see anybody who is not obviously surrendering or cowering in a corner.

By contrast, a self-defence situation such as a mugging is going to start at much closer ranges, since to effectively rob someone, you can't give them space to escape. Unless your attacker is exceptionally incompetent, he is not going to give you warning from 15 feet away. Even if you suspect something, you would have trouble justifying use of deadly force until you have actually seen an attack. That means that, by the time you could legally, ethically use force, and can convince yourself that you should do so, you're already much too close to really take advantage of firearms.

Nobody is saying firearms don't work, or that they are a bad idea. The point is just that, at very close distances, they will likely not be the best option. If you are facing an opponent at contact distance, you might want to practice going for the knife instead of the pistol.

As for shovels, if you sharpen a basic entrenching tool, you have built a pretty efficient hand axe, for all practical purposes. It doesn't do better than a sword, unless the sword is a long saber and the setting is a narrow trench, in which any shorter weapon gives advantage over any longer one. The sharpened shovel story was simply that, once range closed to melee, even handguns were inferior to dedicated melee weapons, and in WW1, the only melee options they had were bayonets, trench knives, and sharpened shovels, because that was what they were issued.



Vinyadan: This was already covered. Criminals will often decide to use a knife, though many carry both. The ease of getting a knife does contribute to the amount of idiot knifers waving a knife and hoping they look scary (which is then labelled an attack).

...Then again, in areas where firearms are particularly easy to get, idiots waving them around is a comparable issue, but those do not normally get labeled as shootings unless someone is actually struck by a bullet.



Max: You left out a few points. Specifically that ANY weapon is only useful in specific circumstances. A firearm is only useful as a self-defence weapon IF you see the attack coming, have time to deploy the weapon, and can make your counter-attack before the opponent can get his hands on your weapon. A knife is only useful if you are close, but in a self-defence situation, it's likely that you will be. Either one, or both, are only useful if you are aware of your situation and know how to use the weapon, and are willing to do so (including knowing what conditions you consider justification for doing so, and are confident enough in that to prevent you from hesitating). If you're planning on arming yourself, it might be a good idea to carry both, and drill when you should go for one or the other. If firearms are regulated in your area, a knife is certainly a better self-defence option than just planning to hit the bad guy with your telephone or some such, and a lot easier to carry than, say, a baseball bat or an axe.



Expert: Well, no. Grenades entirely outclass guns at room clearing. There are constraints that prevent you throwing grenades into every room, such as civilians, limited grenades, desire to capture personnel alive, and sometimes considerations to the building's structure. Bolt-action rifles did surprisingly well for room clearing in recent USMC drills, which was pretty stunning to everyone.. You can be quite fast on the bolt and trigger. Crossbows, you will definitely need a backup weapon. But... you really shouldn't be standing in the open letting everyone shoot at you. Use the door frame or whatever cover you have available.



Beer: Rifles and shotguns, in an apparently open area ... that's not what you call close-quarters, or self defence. That's a battlefield. 28 wounded... their survival more a product of the effectiveness of modern medicine. But the effectiveness of shotguns and repeating rifles in a relatively open space really doesn't tell you anything about how to arm yourself for "self-defence". Unless you are operating in an area where you can openly carry a shotgun (not going to go well with the suit coat, I'm afraid).

[cobaltstarfire]

...

So showing someone a weapon, even in the most friendly and careful way, means I might want to kill them?

No wonder so few people go to weapon museums anymore, they must be afraid the tour guide is going to axe them... :smalleek:

I don't think that's quite what they mean all.


Though I can only talk from my perspective.

Guns sometimes make me uncomfortable. I don't mind seeing a gun on someones hip, I probably would enjoy getting to look at one closely but still feel some apprehension. Having a gun in my car made me very uncomfortable when a friend brought a hunting rifle for a camping trip. I always felt aware of its existence during that time and I didn't really like that it was loaded the whole time either...


At least in my case it's not feeling threatened at all, it's just knowing how damaging a gun can be even on accident. (there it is again my paranoia popping up I guess). I decline to touch or pick up guns because I don't trust myself to handle one safely.


That apprehension would probably be less if I knew how to correctly handle a gun, but maybe not. BB guns for example don't really bother me at all and I like shooting them at targets and stuff. So it could just be the sheer power of a gun gun that makes me feel uncomfortable.

[Mr Beer]

Beer: The Fairbairn-Stykes dagger comes to mind. Issued to the Shanghai Municipal Police for the reason that he saw knives as important to close quarters combat. Even if your primary weapon is the 1928 Thompson, a devastating weapon by any standard. A weapon that can run out of ammo, and according to Fairbairn's own writing, "after which it does not even make a respectable club." His editor removed this.

I'm comfortable with the notion that knives can be a good choice for a backup weapon, and don't think I've said anything that implies otherwise.



Beer: SWAT tactics is another point worthy of discussion for future. I recommend you pick up Gabe Suarez's material on Tactical Advantage.


Not really sure what you're getting at here, it sounds like you concede that SWAT teams (like soldiers) choose firearms instead of knives even when they're going to be fighting close up, but don't really want to say it.



Beer: Rifles and shotguns, in an apparently open area ... that's not what you call close-quarters, or self defence. That's a battlefield. 28 wounded... their survival more a product of the effectiveness of modern medicine. But the effectiveness of shotguns and repeating rifles in a relatively open space really doesn't tell you anything about how to arm yourself for "self-defence". Unless you are operating in an area where you can openly carry a shotgun (not going to go well with the suit coat, I'm afraid).

Well, it's not like they started 100 yards from each other and then charged. This was a confused melee with a lot of close-quarters fighting, regardless of how much room they had going on around them. Of course, I don't have a video of the event, I just think it's note worthy that 50 guys fight with a variety of weapons, including blades, and guns are what kills. It doesn't say a lot about self-defence either way though, it's not the kind of event a civilian needs to arm themselves for anyway.

[Mr. Mask]

Beer: As we both agree, that was a pitched battle, and as such, has little or nothing to do with the initial subject.

The initial subject was if edged weapons were able to cause debilitating wounds, and as such, if they were effective for self defense in urban settings. Backup weapons if you are carrying something heavier, and self-defense weapons if you are not, are basically the same thing.

Max and Mike claim that knives are not capable of inflicting rapidly debilitating wounds, unless the opponent is asleep or something. That they are completely inadequate as even backup weapons, and that any firearm, club, or rock always beats any knife under any conditions.

So which is true?

[Mr Beer]

Beer: As we both agree, that was a pitched battle, and as such, has little or nothing to do with the initial subject.

It's relevant to your contention that knives > guns when fighting in close proximity.


Beer:The initial subject was if edged weapons were able to cause debilitating wounds, and as such, if they were effective for self defense in urban settings. Backup weapons if you are carrying something heavier, and self-defense weapons if you are not, are basically the same thing.

The questions are not whether knives can be used for self-defense but whether they an ideal choice and also whether knives are axiomatically better than firearms within a given range.



Max and Mike claim that knives are not capable of inflicting rapidly debilitating wounds, unless the opponent is asleep or something. That they are completely inadequate as even backup weapons, and that any firearm, club, or rock always beats any knife under any conditions.

So which is true?

I'm not going to get into an extended discussion about what other posters are saying, since I don't want to put words into their mouths. However, I will say neither poster made that claim and that this part of your post is an outright lie.

[Mr. Mask]

So you're only willing to wrong me?


I'd go with pepper spray and some unarmed combat training. As I said, pepperspray and bare fists are better than a knife, to Mike. And Max has done nothing but agree with him.


Sound advice.

If you must have a small "melee weapon", I think some sort of baton would be better, and I've read that they work OK versus knives if you hit the attacker's hand, wrist, or forearm, doing enough damage that they can't hold effectively hold the knife -- or just crack them upside the head.


I learned how to fight with a knife, but it wouldn't be my first choice for self defense. It would be my first choice if I walked up behind a guy in the chow hall, yanked his head back, stuck it in the side of his neck and dragged it out the front, spraying his buddies to drive home the lesson. The concession I mentioned, that if your opponent was taken entirely by surprise and murdered, it would be better than your bare hands.


Is a knife dangerous? Sure. Is it better than nothing? Probably. Would I choose it for self defense? No. Knives are probably better for self defence than your bare fist, he later admitted.


If I had to defend myself against anybody, under any credible circumstances, I'd prefer a handgun over a knife. Even if we were close enough to be wearing the same pair of pants. With each foot further away he is, the argument for the gun becomes even stronger. This cannot be seen as a statement of opinion due to the previous paragraphs, which strongly argue for the superiority of the gun. The Tueller drill is scorned as entirely false, that a gun is perfectly suitable and superior to a knife even at hugging distance. Maybe Mike also considers clubs and swords and the like utterly inferior at this distance, in which case it is an entirely different problem.


The post that started this mess was me saying a knife a bad weapon for self defense. Which is just is.

I conceded that knives are perfectly good for a concealable weapon to kill people with, if you attack them, which is pretty much the damn definition of a prison shanking. People who get jumped and successfully fight off their attackers with a knife are rare, and I think they'd have better odds with a gun or a bat or damn near anything else. Mike reasserted his position that just about anything is a better weapon than a knife, unless you're murdering someone totally unaware.


Have I misrepresented these points?

[Spiryt]

Thank you Spiryt, that was the sort of thing I was looking for. The first set of pipes has the bell shaped chanter that I associated with Polish pipes, but with a body more akin to a South Italian type of Zampogna. The second set of pipes seems similar to the German Dudelsack/Sackpfeife.

Here are links to the full resolution, should have put them up in the first post:


http://kolekcja.zamek-krolewski.pl/__data/digi_images/ZKW_1528_1-39/v1_zkw_1528_34_l_001.jpg

http://kolekcja.zamek-krolewski.pl/__data/digi_images/ZKW_1528_1-39/v6_zkw_1528_39_l_001.jpg

Some guys on polish bagpipe boards had apparently found as much as 6 pipers on this painting, but I can't catch them all. Not enough HR pictures of this work of art. :smallfrown:

Also, damn, those hairy pipes of dude in polish costume are huge...

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm not going to get into an extended discussion about what other posters are saying, since I don't want to put words into their mouths. However, I will say neither poster made that claim and that this part of your post is an outright lie.

Indeed -- either an outright lie, or an absolute misunderstanding of everything I've said on the subject.

And the subject was never whether or not knives are ABLE to inflict debilitating wounds, just as the subject was never whether or not knife-fighting techniques EXIST.

[Vinyadan]

I don't think that's quite what they mean all.
If you are referring to me, I'd rather you use "he", as it is actually listed as my sex/gender/whatever. I know "they" can be used as a courtesy or in times of uncertainty or as a catch-all form, but the fact is that, used as singular, it is normally an indeterminate pronoun with the meaning of "someone, I don't precisely know who" rather than "he or she or ?, I don't know which" (a meaning which, however recent, also totally exists). Personally, in case of doubt I use passives or insert some name (the user, the poster). If you were on mobile or read what I posted through the quote, just ignore what I said, as mobile and quotes don't show male/female or transition symbols.


Though I can only talk from my perspective.

Guns sometimes make me uncomfortable. I don't mind seeing a gun on someones hip, I probably would enjoy getting to look at one closely but still feel some apprehension. Having a gun in my car made me very uncomfortable when a friend brought a hunting rifle for a camping trip. I always felt aware of its existence during that time and I didn't really like that it was loaded the whole time either...

At least in my case it's not feeling threatened at all, it's just knowing how damaging a gun can be even on accident. (there it is again my paranoia popping up I guess). I decline to touch or pick up guns because I don't trust myself to handle one safely.

That apprehension would probably be less if I knew how to correctly handle a gun, but maybe not. BB guns for example don't really bother me at all and I like shooting them at targets and stuff. So it could just be the sheer power of a gun gun that makes me feel uncomfortable.

Guns are just like toddlers :smallwink: but I can actually relate to most of these feelings. What I meant is that guns are not supposed to be handled as common items which can occasionally hurt someone, but as deadly items which can do nothing else than wound, maim, kill, or menace to wound, maim, kill, and the majority of which was built to be used against human beings. This is why people "wet themselves" when they see one, assuming "wetting themselves" is a hyperbolic form to mean "see a level of menace in such an item which is vastly greater than with other items, which may bring to fear, discomfort and a general wish to leave."


...

So showing someone a weapon, even in the most friendly and careful way, means I might want to kill them?

No wonder so few people go to weapon museums anymore, they must be afraid the tour guide is going to axe them... :smalleek:

Here I used a hyperbolic (and silly) form, but, if you want, I can illustrate a few realistic cases. I know that, if someone were to keep handling a gun or a knife, if they weren't using them for something, while I am around with them, I would be pretty pissed off to them and would ask them to stop or look for a chance to leave. One thing is use (in a legitimate environment) or maintenance, another one is ******* around with a dangerous thing for the sake of it. "Hey look, I bought myself a thing designed to kill people with minimal effort!": why the hell are you excited about it, and why are you happy to show it to me? Unless they're tools of our trade or sport, I'd rather have the hypothetical guy keep them off my face.
What I mean is that weapons are cool and efficient, but they also must be handled accordingly to the danger they present, at all levels. This is true for all things, but, being guns exceptionally and nothing else than dangerous, they must be handled with exceptional care; they only exist as risk generators.

[I have no sense of humour]As for museums, they are places where people aren't supposed to touch things, or when things are there to be seen, not to be used, which is a very distinct feel from most other places, where things are there to be used; in museum, those things are there because they have once been used, but not any more. I have actually been given a bronze Era bronze hatchet to hold in my hand once (some 2500 years old), but it had no shaft, plus it was just a working implement. If I were a museum guide, I wouldn't give visitors sharp implements. People do strange things, when they feel allowed to try (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_0).
About not many people going to weapon museums, I don't know why less people would go now than before, but they look like something difficult to make interesting. I once visited a tank museum and it was pretty cool. However, I don't think I'd visit a small arms museum, if there were a decent art gallery nearby. Aviation museums also are cool, but they really aren't about just weapons. Old weapons museums in Europe tend to be found in historical places and be part of their tourism experience, together with things like torture museums, but there aren't many which attempt to show themselves as worth visiting on their own.[/I have no sense of humour]

[Max_Killjoy]

Guns are just like toddlers :smallwink: but I can actually relate to most of these feelings. What I meant is that guns are not supposed to be handled as common items which can occasionally hurt someone, but as deadly items which can do nothing else than wound, maim, kill, or menace to wound, maim, kill, and the majority of which was built to be used against human beings. This is why people "wet themselves" when they see one, assuming "wetting themselves" is a hyperbolic form to mean "see a level of menace in such an item which is vastly greater than with other items, which may bring to fear, discomfort and a general wish to leave."

Here I used a hyperbolic (and silly) form, but, if you want, I can illustrate a few realistic cases. I know that, if someone were to keep handling a gun or a knife, if they weren't using them for something, while I am around with them, I would be pretty pissed off to them and would ask them to stop or look for a chance to leave. One thing is use (in a legitimate environment) or maintenance, another one is ******* around with a dangerous thing for the sake of it. "Hey look, I bought myself a thing designed to kill people with minimal effort!": why the hell are you excited about it, and why are you happy to show it to me? Unless they're tools of our trade or sport, I'd rather have the hypothetical guy keep them off my face.
What I mean is that weapons are cool and efficient, but they also must be handled accordingly to the danger they present, at all levels. This is true for all things, but, being guns exceptionally and nothing else than dangerous, they must be handled with exceptional care; they only exist as risk generators.


"Risk generators?"

I really am living in an alien world at this point... I grew up around firearms as implements of hobby, hunting, self-defense, etc. The proper caution and respect for the power they contain was always part of that exposure, starting from the moment my father first put a .22LR rifle in my hands and pointed me at a target.

But fear? Reverence? Neither, and not ever.

The only two times I've felt threatened by a firearm were because of the person and the situation, not because of the firearm. A knife or baseball bat would have been just as threatening in those situations.

[Mike_G]

"Risk generators?"

I really am living in an alien world at this point... I grew up around firearms as implements of hobby, hunting, self-defense, etc. The proper caution and respect for the power they contain was always part of that exposure, starting from the moment my father first put a .22LR rifle in my hands and pointed me at a target.

But fear? Reverence? Neither, and not ever.

The only two times I've felt threatened by a firearm were because of the person and the situation, not because of the firearm. A knife or baseball bat would have been just as threatening in those situations.

I think a lot of people aren't brought up to respect guns. They don't understand proper handling of them.

I look at guns like cars or power tools. They're useful, but you need to know what you're doing and to understand how to be safe with them. My son is being brought up to respect weapons and tools and vehicles.

Would you leave your power saw plugged in where the kid can play with it? If not, then how did your toddler get hold of the gun?

[Max_Killjoy]

I think a lot of people aren't brought up to respect guns. They don't understand proper handling of them.

I look at guns like cars or power tools. They're useful, but you need to know what you're doing and to understand how to be safe with them. My son is being brought up to respect weapons and tools and vehicles.

Would you leave your power saw plugged in where the kid can play with it? If not, then how did your toddler get hold of the gun?

Right -- it's a matter of rational respect and due caution, not fear. Fear generates irrational outcomes as surely as carelessness or "bravado".

Many tools can be dangerous, if you don't know how to use them or use them recklessly or wrongly.

[Mr Beer]

So you're only willing to wrong me?

Have I misrepresented these points?

Yes, when you make this statement:

"Max and Mike claim that knives are not capable of inflicting rapidly debilitating wounds, unless the opponent is asleep or something. That they are completely inadequate as even backup weapons, and that any firearm, club, or rock always beats any knife under any conditions."

you are absolutely misrepresenting their points, to the extent that you are simply lying.

[AMFV]

As I said, pepperspray and bare fists are better than a knife, to Mike. And Max has done nothing but agree with him.


Pepper-spray and bare fists are a LOT better, since a knife will wind up with a lot of very awkward questions being asked when you're in front of a Grand Jury.

As far as knife effectiveness goes... Typically the only people who are really effective at using knives are those that practice and use them regularly. Typically that involves getting into knife fights, or training. With the former being more effective than the latter. A firearm can be taught a lot easier than a knife can, and is a lot simpler to use. A knife is a complicated difficult weapon to use, so the people most likely to be good at using them, will be criminals who engage in knife fights. As such, I would try to generally avoid knife fights whenever possible, because I would not have experience.

As far as Marines. I, at least, was definitely issued a rifle before a knife. And I know of few combat units that even had bayonets, since they're really not that much more effective.

Edit: As a matter of fact I never even had a Bayonet that was "mine", we were loaned one for that bit of training in Boot Camp and had to return it. We were issued a utility knife in Fallujah, but it wasn't really intended for use in combat, I think it was mostly issued because officers thought it would be cool, which is the bane of many people's existence.

The 21-Yard rule isn't for comparing knives to firearms, it is for stating when an officer would be better off not trying to unholster his weapon. If his weapon is unholstered, there's no reason for him to drop it, and it will still be a lot more effective. But that test comes from the time it takes to unholster and ready the weapon vs. the time it takes an average person to sprint 21 yards. If I have a weapon in my hand at the ready, the time it would take for me to use it with deadly force is far less than a second, and that's makes it at least on par with a knife if not more advantageous.

Now in terms of lethality, knives have the advantage of being able to make cuts and wounds that may not appear as severe as they actually are, and they are quiet. This is why criminals tend to prefer them to firearms in most situations. But it still doesn't make them a good self-defense weapon. Because they are preferred by criminals, and tend to be principally offensive, so if you're carving somebody up with one, there will be a lot more uncomfortable questions than if you shoot them with your .38 Special.

[cobaltstarfire]

"guns make me uncomfortable" does not mean I don't respect guns, it means guns make me uncomfortable.

Yes, I didn't grow up at all around guns, I've never handled anything other than a bb gun, and like I said previously, I don't have proper training in how to handle one, so I don't feel comfortable handling one even if it is in theory "safe" at the time.

Yes, it probably is very much like power tools and other heavy machinery, which also initially made me uncomfortable, but once I learned how to use them my discomfort was replaced with awareness.




If you are referring to me, I'd rather you use "he", as it is actually listed as my sex/gender/whatever. I know "they" can be used as a courtesy or in times of uncertainty or as a catch-all form, but the fact is that, used as singular, it is normally an indeterminate pronoun with the meaning of "someone, I don't precisely know who" rather than "he or she or ?, I don't know which" (a meaning which, however recent, also totally exists). Personally, in case of doubt I use passives or insert some name (the user, the poster). If you were on mobile or read what I posted through the quote, just ignore what I said, as mobile and quotes don't show male/female or transition symbols.

I use "they" because generally speaking I can't remember who said what, and I struggle with names, and there's no way to see what gender someone identifies with while posting via mobile or otherwise. I don't know if I was referring to you or not (scrolling down it looks like it was you).

I'm not going to change how I type just because it's bad grammar. But I can try to remember that you are particular about your pronouns, and want "he" to be used for you. I'm more likely to remember because you asked, but I really can't make any promises.

[Mike_G]

Yes, when you make this statement:

"Max and Mike claim that knives are not capable of inflicting rapidly debilitating wounds, unless the opponent is asleep or something. That they are completely inadequate as even backup weapons, and that any firearm, club, or rock always beats any knife under any conditions."

you are absolutely misrepresenting their points, to the extent that you are simply lying.

Yeah, totally not what I said.

I said they're dangerous, but far inferior to guns, and knife wounds are less likely than bullets or blunt trauma to disable, even if they do kill you later on.

I said I personally would just about always prefer a gun to a knife. Because even in close quarters, if I could grapple you and knife you really well, I could probably grab you and put the gun against you and pull the trigger, or shove you away and shoot you.

I never saw this rebuttal, since I'm now ignoring Mask.

[Mr. Mask]

I quoted their posts saying exactly that. So you called them liars, and they have agreed. Contradicting themselves without blushing.

If you are so determined to make your point that you cannot even read, then there is nothing more that can be done.



I'd go with pepper spray and some unarmed combat training. As I said, pepperspray and bare fists are better than a knife, to Mike. And Max has done nothing but agree with him.


Sound advice.

If you must have a small "melee weapon", I think some sort of baton would be better, and I've read that they work OK versus knives if you hit the attacker's hand, wrist, or forearm, doing enough damage that they can't hold effectively hold the knife -- or just crack them upside the head.


I learned how to fight with a knife, but it wouldn't be my first choice for self defense. It would be my first choice if I walked up behind a guy in the chow hall, yanked his head back, stuck it in the side of his neck and dragged it out the front, spraying his buddies to drive home the lesson. The concession I mentioned, that if your opponent was taken entirely by surprise and murdered, it would be better than your bare hands.


Is a knife dangerous? Sure. Is it better than nothing? Probably. Would I choose it for self defense? No. Knives are probably better for self defence than your bare fist, he later admitted.


If I had to defend myself against anybody, under any credible circumstances, I'd prefer a handgun over a knife. Even if we were close enough to be wearing the same pair of pants. With each foot further away he is, the argument for the gun becomes even stronger. This cannot be seen as a statement of opinion due to the previous paragraphs, which strongly argue for the superiority of the gun. The Tueller drill is scorned as entirely false, that a gun is perfectly suitable and superior to a knife even at hugging distance. Maybe Mike also considers clubs and swords and the like utterly inferior at this distance, in which case it is an entirely different problem.


The post that started this mess was me saying a knife a bad weapon for self defense. Which is just is.

I conceded that knives are perfectly good for a concealable weapon to kill people with, if you attack them, which is pretty much the damn definition of a prison shanking. People who get jumped and successfully fight off their attackers with a knife are rare, and I think they'd have better odds with a gun or a bat or damn near anything else. Mike reasserted his position that just about anything is a better weapon than a knife, unless you're murdering someone totally unaware.


I have argued politely about this topic, but you have all acted like children, and now I will speak against it. Insulting me, ignoring me because I disagree with you and don't bow to your authority, insisting to fallacies, and denying what is written by yourselves. Even those who didn't do this made no objection to these things being done.

You hate me because I didn't agree with you, I made a mistake in daring to argue. There is no intellectual honesty here, like the rest of the internet... and yet, I expected better. Believe what you want.

[Mr Beer]

"hate" is a very strong word, I don't hate anyone. I just find factual inaccuracy irritating, consequently when I see someone lying, I tend to call them on it. That doesn't make me hate them though, if I got upset every time some lied on the internet, I'd have had a heart attack by now.

[AMFV]

The Tueller Drill again, doesn't deal with "Is a firearm better than a knife" It deals with: "How far away should I unholster and ready my weapon if it is holstered"? There is a certain distance where unarmed combat is better than getting tackled while fumbling with your pistol and having it taken from you. It isn't intended to talk about the superiority of one weapon system over another, it's supposed to give an officer judgement as to when he should unholster his weapon and when he should try and use hand to hand instead of fumbling with it.

[Coidzor]

Which is the most dangerous part/primary mode of attack of the halberd going by how they were conventionally used?

[Brother Oni]

Which is the most dangerous part/primary mode of attack of the halberd going by how they were conventionally used?

Depends on how much armour the opponent is wearing. If they're wearing a lot then either the spear tip or the back spike (if the halberd has it - some variants don't) would provide the most lethality as they have the most chance to penetrate the armour.
If they're lightly or unarmoured then you have a bit more variety - generally the tip or back spike would be lethal but not incapacitating, while the bladed part would be more incapacitating but not necessarily more lethal.

This is all very general though - it's perfectly possible to split someone's skull open with the bladed part/stab through the throat/spike into the cranial cavity, killing them outright, or the back spike strikes the armour at a funny angle and is deflected harmlessly away.

Edit: I just remembered that there are a number of historical manuals that describe halberd use, which is probably exactly what you're after. Unfortunately my google-fu is failing me on finding exact techniques except for references to various schools and teachers (Fiore di Liberi, Marrozo, Manciolino, Silver, etc). Perhaps Galloglaich or others better versed in European martial arts can help?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Which is the most dangerous part/primary mode of attack of the halberd going by how they were conventionally used?

The spike on top is for stopping cavalry charges and fighting in tight formations, the one on the back for tripping both men and horses and for puncturing armor, the axe is for cutting flesh.

So in military use the spear point, for an adventurer possibly the axe head.

[Spiryt]

I don't think we actually have much info about how halberd was used, and certainly not in formations - surviving manuals and stuff deal with individual combat.

So we're speculating.

In any case, things called halberd were appearing in many different shapes, certainly in Renaissance at least.

Something like this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6b/78/d1/6b78d1cf1bd45b35ae122283928667dc.jpg

would be likely very different in use compared to this:

http://www.cowanauctions.com/itemImages/eee7390.jpg

[Brother Oni]

http://www.cowanauctions.com/itemImages/eee7390.jpg

I'd say with this one, it would be almost exclusively for formation fighting or for warding off cavalry. In my opinion, the tip is long enough to be detrimental to the use of both the back spike and the axe in other than long melee range or short-hafting it and using the halberd like a big dagger/short sword.

Some of the references I found indicate that halberds often had a butt spike and this was also incorporated into duelling techniques.

The best video references I can find is this three part series on the Bolognese schools of polearms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXypGcGpBaA) (Marrozo and Manciolino, I believe) and branching it out a bit, here's a demonstration of this later era Chinese halberd (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV58xyiLg9M) (ji).

[Hoosigander]

Paulus Hector Mair has a section on Halberd: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Paulus_Hector_Mair

If you scroll down the page and click on the part that says Halberd you can see the original images with both a translation and a transcription of the original manuscripts.

This anonymous manual also has Halberd plates you can see online:
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Das_Ander_Theil_Des_Newen_K%C5%AFnstreichen_Fechtb %C5%AFches_(Cod.Guelf.83.4_Aug.8%C2%BA)

More manuals with halberd plates:

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Peter_Falkner (Under the tab labeled Pole Weapons)

There's even more material for Poleaxe, which might have applicability to the halberd. All of the above treatises cover fencing in a one-on-one context, not battlefield formations.

[Carl]

The demonstration i saw on a documentary a loong time ago emphasised the use of various features of the halberd to bind, (i believe thats the correct technical term), the opponent's weapon and then either pull it from their grasp disarming them, or force it to a specific position that placed the opponent off balance and exposed.

One drill demonstrated involved binding the sword blade between the front spike and axe and then forcing it downward so that it bent the opponent over exposing their neck for a coup de grace from the axe head. Another involved a slightly different build that ripped the sword from the opponent's hand and on the same stroke that pulled head head and bound sword away from the opponent brought the haft in to trip the opponent and the brought the but spike down on the prone opponents chestplate. There where one or two others demonstrated and i'm pretty sure one used the hammer or spike head on the opposite side, (i forget which), and i think one used the front spike. But the basics where the same in each case: Let the opponent swing -> Bind their weapon -> control -> coup de grace

[2D8HP]

I hope to get the wisdom of the experts (or just the interested) who frequent this thread, on the exchange below:

That's why there are size penalties to attack.
The only real alternative is to either redo the attack system entirely, or base it off of Dex and deal with the fact that you can stab through plate armour with a dagger as long as you move fast enough
Um..I actually think this was often how it was really done. (after the "Knight" or "Man at Arms" was still knocked prone from their horse they were then dispatched with a Dirk through gaps in their armor.


That is one way, but either you only do it to helpless opponents - in which case your dexterity doesn't matter that much, on account of them not being able to resist - or you have people with knives rushing in against fully armed and armoured war machines.
Both.
*ahem*
On the battle of Crecy, from:
"The Hundreds Years War, The English in France 1337-1453" by Desmond Seward: The slaughter was heightened by the Welsh and Cornish knifemen who 'slew and murdered many as they lay on the ground, both early, barons, knights, and squires'.
his point is, I think, that all those earls, barons, and squires had been dismounted/prone, and were immobilized by the weight of their armor, effectively gaining the Helpless condition and being vulnerable to knives even from low-dexterity enemies.Please ignore the game rules minutiae parts. How in history did it actually go down?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I hope to get the wisdom of the experts (or just the interested) who frequent this thread, on the exchange below:


Please ignore the game rules minutiae parts. How in history did it actually go down?

A lot like the game minutiae parts describe it probably.

Horses are big. When you get knocked off one your centre of gravity drops easily 2 meters. That's not high for a jump, but it is for a fall. These folks are wearing armor which obstructs their freedom of movement just enough to hamper their landing, so they might fall flat on their back and have the air knocked out of their lungs, they might twist an arm or an ankle trying to catch themselves. As soon as their own horse is done trampling them in blind panic they get rushed by several people who have not just fallen of a horse. One of them kneels down on their blade arm and two or three more start stabbing them through slits in their armor with large hunting knifes or short swords like a cutlass (also basically a hunting knife) or even start pummeling them with crude clubs. If the knight would be attacked by only one knife guy he might still be able to beat them on training, even after a fall onto the ground wearing heavy armor. If a knight would get a minute to pull himself back together before getting mobbed he might take several guys with him. But the combination of the fall and being outnumbered was probably quite lethal. They are effectively pinned with a penalty to breaking loose and several enemies ready to pin them right back down when they do manage to make that roll.

This wasn't always a problem in ye olde times. Nobles made valuable prisoners, their families would pay to see them back alive. Which is one of the reasons knights were often not coup de grace'd. Of course, not everyone plays by the same rules.

[Brother Oni]

Please ignore the game rules minutiae parts. How in history did it actually go down?

Further to Lvl 2 Expert's post, the Battle of Agincourt also ended up in much the same way where the French knights ended up mired in the mud, so the archers charged up with knives and large wooden mallets (previously used to knock their stakes and tent pegs into the ground) and killed them while they were prone and helpless.

Even use of a rondel dagger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger) (it has a long thin blade intended to get through the gaps in armour) by two armoured knights fighting each other was mostly restricted to when they were grappling or on a prone opponent, either to finish him off or convince him to surrender for later ransom.

[Max_Killjoy]

I hope to get the wisdom of the experts (or just the interested) who frequent this thread, on the exchange below:


Please ignore the game rules minutiae parts. How in history did it actually go down?


As I noted in the other thread, be aware that "immobilized by the weight of their armor" is more myth than reality.

Victorian and early-20th historians tended to look at the surviving ultra-heavy ceremonial and jousting armors, never do any hands-on research, and assume that this armor was worn in actual battlefield combat by the average "armored knight"... combined with some pop-portrayals, this idea of battlefield armor that required the night to be "winched" into the saddle and assisted in even standing up if he fell down, set in and became part of the accepted understanding.

Fast forward to today, and actual researching and testing has cleared things up, and much of this has been debunked... and yet it still infests the broader beliefs about the armor of the time.


That said, someone who had been knocked off his horse in combat by repeated blows, and fallen badly, and thus had previous injuries, and was also struggling to stand up on bad footing, would often be easy prey for a mob of men with daggers and hammers -- whether he were wearing armor or not.

[Khedrac]

As I noted in the other thread, be aware that "immobilized by the weight of their armor" is more myth than reality.
My assumption for the death of knights knocked off horses in a melee with foot soldiers is as follows:
The knight is at least winded by the fall, this stops them from reacting for a half second or so.
As soon as the knight hits the ground someone (or two) jump(s) on the knight.
Dagger through eye-slit if knight does not surrender fast enough.
- The assumption is that no matter how flexible they are with the weight of armour + a person or two sitting on them they are not going anywhere.

Does the above look at all reasonable for what may actually have happened?

[Knaight]

As I noted in the other thread, be aware that "immobilized by the weight of their armor" is more myth than reality.

"Immobilized by the weight of their armor" in the context of general use is myth. A situation more along the lines of "They just fell off a horse into deep mud a fraction of a second ago, and getting out is a long enough process for you to get in there and stab them" is a description of any number of historical situations, particularly given that we're already looking at Agincourt.

[Tiktakkat]

My assumption for the death of knights knocked off horses in a melee with foot soldiers is as follows:
The knight is at least winded by the fall, this stops them from reacting for a half second or so.
As soon as the knight hits the ground someone (or two) jump(s) on the knight.
Dagger through eye-slit if knight does not surrender fast enough.
- The assumption is that no matter how flexible they are with the weight of armour + a person or two sitting on them they are not going anywhere.

Does the above look at all reasonable for what may actually have happened?

The core of grapple/throw based unarmed self-defense is:
Knock someone off their feet so they are winded for a half second or so.
Jump on the person.
Batter them until they are incapable of fighting.

That is someone with no armor at all getting in the way, "merely" falling from knee, or perhaps hip, height to the ground, then being taken out by bare fists.
Falling from a horse then getting stabbed in the face is clearly going to be significantly worse, as Lvl 2 Expert noted. Indeed having experienced most of them from said standing falls, I expect they are going to more significant than the weight of any armor.

The biggest "issues" are thus:
1. Can you knock them from their horse?
2. Can you jump on them in time without injuring yourself?
3. Can you stab them in the face fast enough before one of their uninjured buddies hacks your head off?

[Max_Killjoy]

My assumption for the death of knights knocked off horses in a melee with foot soldiers is as follows:
The knight is at least winded by the fall, this stops them from reacting for a half second or so.
As soon as the knight hits the ground someone (or two) jump(s) on the knight.
Dagger through eye-slit if knight does not surrender fast enough.
- The assumption is that no matter how flexible they are with the weight of armour + a person or two sitting on them they are not going anywhere.

Does the above look at all reasonable for what may actually have happened?



"Immobilized by the weight of their armor" in the context of general use is myth. A situation more along the lines of "They just fell off a horse into deep mud a fraction of a second ago, and getting out is a long enough process for you to get in there and stab them" is a description of any number of historical situations, particularly given that we're already looking at Agincourt.


Yeah -- those both fall under the same general idea as "That said, someone who had been knocked off his horse in combat by repeated blows, and fallen badly, and thus had previous injuries, and was also struggling to stand up on bad footing, would often be easy prey for a mob of men with daggers and hammers -- whether he were wearing armor or not."

[Knaight]

Yeah -- those both fall under the same general idea as "That said, someone who had been knocked off his horse in combat by repeated blows, and fallen badly, and thus had previous injuries, and was also struggling to stand up on bad footing, would often be easy prey for a mob of men with daggers and hammers -- whether he were wearing armor or not."

The armor does exacerbate the issue to some extent though - it's not a good situation regardless, but the less weight you have on you when trying to extract yourself from thick mud, the better. Of course, odds are that you ended up in that mud alive because of the armor in the first place (particularly given an example where horses were getting killed by arrows pretty routinely), so it's still helping the overall situation.

[No brains]

If a regular human were to rip a sapling out of the ground to use as a club, what kind of tree would work best and how old would it need to be? Is there a kind of tree that could work as a staff, or do good woods always have branches?

[Incanur]

Now in terms of lethality, knives have the advantage of being able to make cuts and wounds that may not appear as severe as they actually are, and they are quiet. This is why criminals tend to prefer them to firearms in most situations.

I don't know that this is true. From what I've heard, the handgun is the weapon of choice for mugging and so on.


But it still doesn't make them a good self-defense weapon. Because they are preferred by criminals, and tend to be principally offensive, so if you're carving somebody up with one, there will be a lot more uncomfortable questions than if you shoot them with your .38 Special.

I don't know about this either. Again, maybe I'm in the minority, but I know a number of people who carry or have carried blades for self-defense and at least one person who's used a blade for that purpose. Carrying a knife is much more common than carrying a gun in my experience. Of course, experiences differ.


Which is the most dangerous part/primary mode of attack of the halberd going by how they were conventionally used?

This depends on the period and region. According to Sir John Smythe, the 5.5-6ft halberds with long straight edges he favored for troops fighting in formation were used to strike at the head and thrust at the face. He wrote in the late 16th century, when many halberds had lost the ability to strike effective blows and were often 8-9ft. Those long halberds with small blades were used for thrusting only, about as you'd use a spear.

For duels, various 16th-century manuals address the halberd and similar weapons. Most everybody used a combination of thrusts and cuts, though many preferred the thrust. Some masters, such as a Giacomo di Grassi, recommended holding the halberd near the middle, while others, such as Joachim Meyer, recommended holding it with the rear hand right by the butt.

[cobaltstarfire]

If a regular human were to rip a sapling out of the ground to use as a club, what kind of tree would work best and how old would it need to be? Is there a kind of tree that could work as a staff, or do good woods always have branches?


I don't think you're going to find a staff sized sapling that can be "ripped" out of the ground. A staff sized sapling could be anywhere from a year to 5 depending on the species of tree and the environment it grew in.


My gut thought on the suitability of a sapling being a good staff is that it wouldn't be, because the wood would probably be too green and springy to use very effectively.

[Mr Beer]

If a regular human were to rip a sapling out of the ground to use as a club, what kind of tree would work best and how old would it need to be? Is there a kind of tree that could work as a staff, or do good woods always have branches?

A regular human isn't ripping a suitable sapling out of the ground to use as a club. Have you ever tried to uproot a small tree by pulling on it? A quarterstaff is a 6'+ length of hardwood, I don't know but would not be surprised if simply pulling up a tree that size would be impossible for a human. If you did pull up such a tree, it's not a fighting staff because it's not of uniform thickness and probably has branches poking out of the sides.

Quickest method would probably be to saw off a section of branch between 1" and 2" thick and 2' to 4' in length to use as a club.

[warty goblin]

A regular human isn't ripping a suitable sapling out of the ground to use as a club. Have you ever tried to uproot a small tree by pulling on it? A quarterstaff is a 6'+ length of hardwood, I don't know but would not be surprised if simply pulling up a tree that size would be impossible for a human. If you did pull up such a tree, it's not a fighting staff because it's not of uniform thickness and probably has branches poking out of the sides.

Quickest method would probably be to saw off a section of branch between 1" and 2" thick and 2' to 4' in length to use as a club.

In general there's no way most people are gonna be able to pull up a sapling large enough to make a decent staff. Just try pulling a steel fence post sometime - it can stupidly hard, and it doesn't even have roots. There is one exception to this generally true statement, furnished by the common pocket gopher. The pocket gopher likes few things better than the roots of youngish oak trees, and will eat said roots off, leaving only a sort of central lump of tough wood at the base of the trunk. Uprooting the now dead sapling is quite easy, since it has no roots, and once you've lopped off a few branches you have a quite decent staff or club.

As an aside, my experience is that root wood is generally too soft to work well as a club or really anything else. You're better off sawing it at ground level, or chopping it off with a hatchet or machete. Chopping has the added benefit that you also get a point on the end - fire harden for best results - and can give your staff's end a more impact - resistant shape. A square cut end will tend to have issues with the wood fibers separating right at the corner, but if you round and taper the end, it's much more resistant to that sort of thing.

As for varieties of wood, I am generally fond of oak, since it's pretty tough and fairly heavy. A staff is basically a spear haft, so ash would be a good choice since it's quite strong and pretty light, although the ash tree is about to become extinct for all practical purposes in North America. Hickory is a traditional choice for axe hafts, as it has good impact resistance. Both of those are generally dried and cured first though, I don't know how they respond wet. Green oak remains pretty tough however, though it lacks the extreme hardness you can get with proper drying. Avoid willow, box elder, and other sorts of light, fast growing tree, they generally sturdiness1. Walnut in thicknesses that don't require substantial working is probably a bit too bendy, but could work if required. Maple is not a terrible choice either.


1 Although it must be noted that if you want to cause somebody truly howling pain, a willow branch about half an inch in diameter sharply applied to the knuckles or other bony body parts causes really astonishing discomfort. Back in the halcyion days of my youth, where we spent most weekends pounding each other into happy pulps with any stick we could lay hands on, the willow switch was outlawed by strict and mutual agreement.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

In general there's no way most people are gonna be able to pull up a sapling large enough to make a decent staff. Just try pulling a steel fence post sometime - it can stupidly hard, and it doesn't even have roots. There is one exception to this generally true statement, furnished by the common pocket gopher. The pocket gopher likes few things better than the roots of youngish oak trees, and will eat said roots off, leaving only a sort of central lump of tough wood at the base of the trunk. Uprooting the now dead sapling is quite easy, since it has no roots, and once you've lopped off a few branches you have a quite decent staff or club.

I like this post, making the infeasible possible. As an addition to that, apparently shillelaghs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shillelagh_(club)) (how you call 3 foot long clubs when they're from Ireland) are apparently often made from blacktorn bushes, with the knob that forms the business end being the point where the roots and the trunk meet. Wood is generally harder in places with knots, because there isn't a single direction in which it can be easily split, so it makes a decent amount of sense. I don't think you'd want to use any kind of thorn bush as a weapon without getting rid of all the branches and thorns first though.

[PersonMan]

What's the upper limit of the capacity man-portable weapons/ammunition to penetrate a great thickness of steel/concrete/etc.? How would a rifle-esque weapon capable of piercing even incredibly thick armor change modern warfare? Assuming that for the time being it's very expensive to produce relative to normal infantry equipment, and can't be easily scaled up for use in armored vehicles and such.

[Max_Killjoy]

What's the upper limit of the capacity man-portable weapons/ammunition to penetrate a great thickness of steel/concrete/etc.? How would a rifle-esque weapon capable of piercing even incredibly thick armor change modern warfare? Assuming that for the time being it's very expensive to produce relative to normal infantry equipment, and can't be easily scaled up for use in armored vehicles and such.

Do you mean portable by a single man, or crew-served weapons moved only by human muscle power count?

.50BMG and 20mm "anti-material" rifles will punch through a LOT of concrete or hard steel plate.

In WW2, the M3 105mm howitzer was sometimes schlepped around by airborne units with just manpower, and a 105mm round will make a very large hole.

Missed the last part of my part earlier.. oops... man-portable weapons are actually capable of penetrating large amounts of armor right now, in real life. See for example the Javelin ATGM.

[Mr Beer]

What's the upper limit of the capacity man-portable weapons/ammunition to penetrate a great thickness of steel/concrete/etc.?

Are you talking real world upper limit or plausible upper limit with near future technology or plausible upper limit with ANY technology?

Real world maybe some kind of heavy-metal sabot or shaped charge on a rocket from an RPG or LAW-type device?


How would a rifle-esque weapon capable of piercing even incredibly thick armor change modern warfare? Assuming that for the time being it's very expensive to produce relative to normal infantry equipment, and can't be easily scaled up for use in armored vehicles and such.

Not a lot because modern warfare currently doesn't involve very expensive weapons vs. main battle tanks. If you're talking some kind of US vs. equivalent tech fight, it's hard to say because there are other ways to kill tanks that don't involve infantry sniping them. I guess if the range of the weapon was good, it would make tanks pretty crappy vs. modern infantry.

EDIT

FYI, this link has penetration depths for 50 BMG ammo at various ranges on various materials.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

[Brother Oni]

Sorry to interrupt, but page 50 means new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493127-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXI&p=20944074).

[Vinyadan]

An image I found interesting:
https://s31.postimg.org/yyrnbj057/e6190bf1db4f016f2d73542fc624d000.jpg

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Sorry to interrupt, but page 50 means new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493127-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXI&p=20944074).

Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? XXI: Question Everything.

:smallwink: