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

[Berenger]

Other stuff
Why don't modern trauma plates curve like old armour? would it get in the way of the cheat rig too much, or is it just not neccessary with the threats they face/getting shot side-on is expected.

Pure guess: Ceramic trauma plates absorb and distribute an impact over a large surface and break in the process. This diminishes the protection, which is okay, because the wearer typically has access to a supply chain for replacements and also is fighting at a range which makes disengagement easier and being knocked prone for a second less of an issue. Old cuirasses can't be designed to break because, after sustaining a hit, the wearer is probably still locked in a melee and needs working armor and can't afford to be knocked down, so it's better to try and deflect a blow to the side rather than absorbing the full force of it.

[Brother Oni]

@Brother oni.
But wouldn't the links take most of the punch out for gambeson to take the hit? Like it'd go through but slow down enough that the stuff underneath could take up much of the work if it were thick enough.
Or, would a thick enough gambeson be enough on it's own given an unlucky shot?
My stats so far is that the thickest gambeson and mail would stop a bullet given a poorly angled shot, whilst a better shot would penetrate. A thinner gambeson and mail'd be defeated, but this is a system where being shot for less is almost as good as not being shot. Most people statistically survive a 9mm if I recall correctly. That said I had to run my head through trying to work out a way to get intermediate cartridges through IIIA body armour without making them more powerful to soft targets.


You're not considering how riveted mail is constructed - you break a link's rivet, the link becomes undone and can be deformed very easily. I agree it would take some of the punch out of the hit, but it's not something to rely on at close range.

If you had modern mail made out of decent armour grade steel where the links are welded closed, I can see that stopping a 9mm round combined with a decent gambeson. At a long enough distance and enough layers, I can see a non-padded gambeson stopping 9mm rounds, although I don't know enough about materials science to compare linen quality vs silk quality to crunch numbers.

With regard to making intermediate cartridges not too powerful on soft targets, I'd suggest an over-penetration mechanic of some sort which caps the damage, representing the round passing through without causing too much damage.


Other stuffWhy don't modern trauma plates curve like old armour? would it get in the way of the cheat rig too much, or is it just not neccessary with the threats they face/getting shot side-on is expected.

The protective mechanism for modern ceramic plates is very different to metal plates - they're very, very hard and are designed to absorb all the energy from the incoming round and redirect it into shattering the ceramic plate, thus protecting the wearer.
Curving the plate would diminish the protective ability, in that a glancing hit could crack the plate or slide along cracking multiple plates, thus leaving them compromised for protection against future hits, potentially without the wearer realising.

It's why modern MBTs with composite armour have very flat surfaces, compared to WW2 era tanks with sloped and angled steel RHA protection.


That said, there are steel trauma plates but since they're under Kevlar, you still want to stop the incoming round rather than deflect it off into an un-plated part of the armour and hence into the user.

Could you design and build a set of plate harness for modern firearms protection? Sure, but to make it resistant to intermediate and larger calibre rounds, the price and loss of mobility isn't cost effective.

[The Jack]

Ah, I was thinking primarily of the steel ones. I thought they were generally over kevlar (or just under a thin layer that composes the pocket they're kept in.

[Mendicant]

My trauma plates were still somewhat curved. Modern plates also don't cover as much as say, a cuirass, so even before you get into deflection vs. absorption there just isn't as much call to curve them for form-fitting purposes.

[Brother Oni]

Ah, I was thinking primarily of the steel ones. I thought they were generally over kevlar (or just under a thin layer that composes the pocket they're kept in.

The plate carriers I've seen have fairly substantial pockets, but I'll defer to the experience of anybody who has worn or owns such body armour.

[Storm Bringer]

The plate carriers I've seen have fairly substantial pockets, but I'll defer to the experience of anybody who has worn or owns such body armour.

the plates go on the outside of the Kevlar, with nothing but the weather cover of the vest between them and incoming.


this means that if you take a hit, you only need to replace the plates, not the plate and the Kevlar lining, and that the Kevlar also acts like padding for the big, heavy, hard cornered plate.


that said, a "plate carrier" isn't quite the same thing as the osprey vests I use, but are a cut down version that just holds the plates with no Kevlar backing (hence "plate carrier". look at the coverage of a plate carrier compared to osprey, or OTV of U.S. Interceptor armour, especially on the sides or over the shoulders), to save weight and increase mobility. but when both are present, the hard plate goes outside.



the plates themselves are slightly curved, but thats more to fit better to a human body than any ballistic advantage.

[Blackhawk748]

You can acclimate to it some, and proper belting/strapping helps with weight distribution, but generally I would say if your armor is comfortable to wear daily it's probably not very effective armor (absent magical/futuretech materials like mithril or 'armorweave' that can make metal armors as light and flexible as clothing or turn cloth into the equivalent of modern body armor.) For a gambeson, imagine wearing a heavy quilted blanket or thickly-stuffed winter coat. Everywhere, in all weather. You can do it, but in warm climates and strenuous activity it's not pleasant, and a gambeson built sturdily enough to serve as armor is probably even heavier and breathes less than that.

For general protection I'd look at something like maybe a coat of plate/jack of plates or chain shirt with a relatively lightweight gambeson underneath; reasonably easy to put on, doesn't make you look like you're geared up for war, solid enough protection to stand up to a fairly determined attack (unlike gambeson alone which even if it saves your life is probably going to get severely damaged in a fight with blades.)

I have a more Eastern style of Arming Gambeson (so its a bit thinner nad goes down to my knees) and its incredibly comfortable in anything under 70F. Add about 2-3 more layers and you;d havee a normal armor Gambeson, which is perfectly acceptable armor and is so much freaking lighter than wearing metal. Even a coat of plates would be fairly heavy for long periods of wear.

Seriously, I wore my Lamellar for a few hours and my shoulders were screaming. I understand I'm not fully trained in its use, but I don't see anyone being able to just wear it all the time.

Anyway, I have an actual question. Whats the minimum tech level to make a steam powered ship? To make an Ironclad? And to make a truly metal ship?

[Pauly]

Anyway, I have an actual question. Whats the minimum tech level to make a steam powered ship? To make an Ironclad? And to make a truly metal ship?

The hardest part to make, and the one most prone to catastrophic failure is the boiler.

The ability to rivet together a safe(ish) and steam tight boiler is the minimum requirement for a steam powered ship. Making an ironclad uses the same technology (riveting metal plates onto a frame) so if you can build a steam powered ship you can build an ironclad.

Metal ships were known to be theoretically possible long before they were made. I assume that advances in riveting technology brought forth by making steam boilers is what convinced engineers that it was practical to make a watertight ship.

The other issue that needs to be solved is rustproofing, which was solved by a combination of paint and galvanizing.

So minimum tech is:
- The ability to rivet metal so that it makes a steam proof or waterproof seal.
- The ability to prevent corrosion.
- The ability to make boilers that are safe enough to operate in a marine environment. (It is notable the first wide spread use of steam powered ships was on rivers).

[Martin Greywolf]

Anyway, I have an actual question. Whats the minimum tech level to make a steam powered ship? To make an Ironclad? And to make a truly metal ship?

Pauly already answered the technical details, I'll just chip in with this: just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Metal ships can be made as soon as you figure out basic steel, so about Rome at the start of common era tech. Problem is, at that tech level, you won't get good metal ships, and even if you did, there is no industrial infrastructure to churn out steel at the rate you really need to maintain the fleet. Trees are just growing all over the place. Use those, much easier to get to, work with and repair. From this point of view, full metal ships aren't really viable until you have industrial revolution tech on hand.

Ironclads have similar problem - you can make them starting with bronze age, but why should you? It's not like there are any weapons capable of really harming ship hulls around. Maybe catapults, but landing hit with those is almost impossible. And let's not forget, the heavier you make the ship, the less agile and quick it is because you're using rowers at this stage, or wind. First ironclads were made in 1820s because of those reasons.

Except they weren't. The real first ironclads were korean turtle ships, or at least their second generation, made in 1590s, at they could, according to period accounts, deflect arrows, grappling hooks and arquebus rounds, and even cannon fire. These are a very interesting case, and one that didn't happen in European naval warfare, simply because they are made for galley-style board or ram naval combat, but with gunpowder weapons added on top.

What dictates whether you see these or not is once again economics - steel is a valuable resource, so you need a very good reason to throw massive quantities of it at your ships, even if you do have the technological capability. Ironclads and other, armored warships, only become a vital necessity after large-caliber naval guns and more importantly, explosive shells are introduced.

[hymer]

The lorica hamata seems to have an additional layer of mail over the shoulders, giving it a noticeably different look than what you see in e.g. Battle of Hastings-era mail. Can anyone say something insightful about that feature?

[Kiero]

The lorica hamata seems to have an additional layer of mail over the shoulders, giving it a noticeably different look than what you see in e.g. Battle of Hastings-era mail. Can anyone say something insightful about that feature?

It provides additional protection from overhand attacks, as you'd expect. Celtic mail of the period was much the same (and was probably the source of the innovation).

[hymer]

It provides additional protection from overhand attacks, as you'd expect. Celtic mail of the period was much the same (and was probably the source of the innovation).
Any idea why it ceased to be worth the effort?

[fusilier]

Not just the jacket itself, but the shape. Modern rifle rounds use pointy spitzer bullets, which are pretty much guaranteed to concentrate the force on a smaller area, aiding penetration.

Indeed. Although even a round nose pistol bullet, will benefit from a jacket.

[Vinyadan]

The lorica hamata seems to have an additional layer of mail over the shoulders, giving it a noticeably different look than what you see in e.g. Battle of Hastings-era mail. Can anyone say something insightful about that feature?

I think it could have been a leftover of how armour was made from separate parts. Take a look at the linothorax, it has the same feature, and so the lorica segmentata. You have a front rectangle, a back rectangle, and two "strips" of armour going over the shoulders and connecting the front and the back (the additional layer). I wouldn't be too surprised if the actual innovation had been the mail sleeves.

[Berenger]

Any idea why it ceased to be worth the effort?

As far as I can gather from Wikipedia text and pictures, the flaps on the shoulders weren't for extra protection but acted as straps that were connected to the underlying armor by two buttons and to each other by a brass hook to hold the armor in place. I think hastings-era armor instead had lacing that ran along the spine of the wearer.

So I conclude the trade-off was as follows: the lorica hamata was easier to put on for the wearer, but the somewhat vulnerable-looking closing device pointed towards the enemy. The hastings-era armor didn't present this weakness and probably hat a tighter fit, but the wearer would need some help gearing up.

I have no solid idea why they changed it, though, as both eras probably had the tech for both options. Perhaps legionnaires were required to be able to dress up themselves in a hurry and for everyday duty and early knights were expected to have a helper and just dressed in armor when expecting to go into battle. But I'm not really happy with this explanation, as legionnaires would have been able to just help each other without a servant and the early medieval period being heavy in raid warfare.

[The Jack]

Why doesn't NIJ rated III/IV stuff exist for helmets (and perhaps limb protection) when there's now light weight solutions that're good at absorbing impacts? (better a concussion than a bullet through the brain)

If price and either weight and/or Blunt force trauma wasn't a concern, what would people wear? I guess steel would be the answer for both.

[Martin Greywolf]

Celtic mail of the period was much the same (and was probably the source of the innovation).

Probably not the source, ancient greek armor has very similar shoulder pieces and celts did have a presnece in the Balkans. I don't think we have enough evidence to know whether celts had mail, Romans added shoulder bits and celts copied that, or if the celts copied greek style of armor. Or even invented it independently.

Still, Romans would be very familiar with this style of armor.


It provides additional protection from overhand attacks, as you'd expect.

Does it, though? The shoulder bits on it are fairly narrow from what I've seen, so narrow they don't necessarily cover even the top of shoulder joint. Once you look at how it looks on a guy, you notice that the helmet has brims that cover almost all angles that would land on the doubled mail from above. I don't think it is very good at protecting front and top of torso at all.

As for why, there could be two reasons - first one is tradition, there are numerous examples of armies keeping a thing even after it isn't necessary. That would mean that this shoulder piece was originally from greek armor, but sa time went on people made it smaller and smaller because it offered little advantage, until it disappeared.

Second reason is that I can't help but notice that it covers the back of shoulders really well. If you imagine a unit of soldiers standing in formation several rows deep and have them be attacked from behind, all you can see of soldiers not in rearmost row (who will probably turn around real quick) is their head and back. This would be especially useful if your unit is standing in a square or circle formation and is under missile attack (assuming you can't form testudo because enemy cavalry is looking at you funny) - shields protect your front, double mail your back.

The reason why this disappears in second case is a shift in role of armored soldier from standing in formation to more of a skirmish and shock role, along with economical factors (more mail needs more materials and labor and costs more).

[Pauly]

Second reason is that I can't help but notice that it covers the back of shoulders really well. If you imagine a unit of soldiers standing in formation several rows deep and have them be attacked from behind, all you can see of soldiers not in rearmost row (who will probably turn around real quick) is their head and back. This would be especially useful if your unit is standing in a square or circle formation and is under missile attack (assuming you can't form testudo because enemy cavalry is looking at you funny) - shields protect your front, double mail your back.

The reason why this disappears in second case is a shift in role of armored soldier from standing in formation to more of a skirmish and shock role, along with economical factors (more mail needs more materials and labor and costs more).

I’ve heard it said (Matt Easton iirc) that when you get into very close range melee with large shields that reaching over the top of your shield and hacking at the neck/shoulder blades of the opponent with a short choppy sword is a very logical thing to do. Easton (if it was him) was referring to the Roman helmets having wide neck guards which protected from against this type of attack. So if the armor also gives additional protection to that area it may indicate that this was a design consideration when it was developed.

Just for completeness while the gladius is famously an effective stabber and we know the legions were trained in the use of the point it is still a very good chopper.

[hymer]

(Matt Easton iirc)
Yrc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_2-ZxaOe_o
About five and a half minutes in.

[Storm Bringer]

Why doesn't NIJ rated III/IV stuff exist for helmets (and perhaps limb protection) when there's now light weight solutions that're good at absorbing impacts? (better a concussion than a bullet through the brain)

If price and either weight and/or Blunt force trauma wasn't a concern, what would people wear? I guess steel would be the answer for both.

a couple of reasons i've been told in official, pre deployment briefings about this very subject (its obviously something of a sore point for the people expected to wear the helmet into battle)

1) weight. even with modern light weight solutions, the weight of a rifle-proof helmet is still very heavy, and it would put a lot of strain on the soldiers neck. This would both tire the user out quicker (which would make him less alert and able to avoid dangers), and encourage him to take the helmet off at any opportunity he could, and in quite a few opportunities he really shouldn't, all of which are Bad Things. As much as soldiers like protection, carrying less weight as also a major issue, again linking into fatigue and alertness, and infantry almost always push back about almost anything they are asked to carry, because they are the ones that have to lug the bloody thing 10 kilometres in 35 degrees C.

2) Flex. one problem that isn't instantly clear to amateurs or squaddies on the ground is that, even if the helmet was strong enough to stop the actual bullet form penetrating, the helmet (being a effectively a large upside down bowl) would flex under the impact to such an extent that it would inflict brain damage on the wearer form squeezing his head, and making it rigid enough to prevent this would require using much heavier materials, further exacerbating the weight problem. it wouldn't be a concussion, it would quite likely be straight death.



if your potential user did not have the normal human limits for things like weight and impact, then yes, high quality steel could be used, and made thick enough to stop the bullet, and helmets and limb guards could be made. their' d still be big gaps in places like the armpits, back of the knees, and the crotch, and it'd be extremely uncomfortable and chafing, but it'd stop the bullet.

[Max_Killjoy]

a couple of reasons i've been told in official, pre deployment briefings about this very subject (its obviously something of a sore point for the people expected to wear the helmet into battle)

1) weight. even with modern light weight solutions, the weight of a rifle-proof helmet is still very heavy, and it would put a lot of strain on the soldiers neck. This would both tire the user out quicker (which would make him less alert and able to avoid dangers), and encourage him to take the helmet off at any opportunity he could, and in quite a few opportunities he really shouldn't, all of which are Bad Things. As much as soldiers like protection, carrying less weight as also a major issue, again linking into fatigue and alertness, and infantry almost always push back about almost anything they are asked to carry, because they are the ones that have to lug the bloody thing 10 kilometres in 35 degrees C.

2) Flex. one problem that isn't instantly clear to amateurs or squaddies on the ground is that, even if the helmet was strong enough to stop the actual bullet form penetrating, the helmet (being a effectively a large upside down bowl) would flex under the impact to such an extent that it would inflict brain damage on the wearer form squeezing his head, and making it rigid enough to prevent this would require using much heavier materials, further exacerbating the weight problem. it wouldn't be a concussion, it would quite likely be straight death.



if your potential user did not have the normal human limits for things like weight and impact, then yes, high quality steel could be used, and made thick enough to stop the bullet, and helmets and limb guards could be made. their' d still be big gaps in places like the armpits, back of the knees, and the crotch, and it'd be extremely uncomfortable and chafing, but it'd stop the bullet.


Many people grossly underestimate how much metal it takes to stop a modern jacketed "conical" bullet.

(While also ironically grossly overestimating how much metal it takes to stop a big spherical lead ball from earlier firearms.)

[Blackhawk748]

So minimum tech is:
- The ability to rivet metal so that it makes a steam proof or waterproof seal.
- The ability to prevent corrosion.
- The ability to make boilers that are safe enough to operate in a marine environment. (It is notable the first wide spread use of steam powered ships was on rivers).

So it would be possible with Roman Empire era tech. Thank you.


Pauly already answered the technical details, I'll just chip in with this: just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Metal ships can be made as soon as you figure out basic steel, so about Rome at the start of common era tech. Problem is, at that tech level, you won't get good metal ships, and even if you did, there is no industrial infrastructure to churn out steel at the rate you really need to maintain the fleet. Trees are just growing all over the place. Use those, much easier to get to, work with and repair. From this point of view, full metal ships aren't really viable until you have industrial revolution tech on hand.

Ironclads have similar problem - you can make them starting with bronze age, but why should you? It's not like there are any weapons capable of really harming ship hulls around. Maybe catapults, but landing hit with those is almost impossible. And let's not forget, the heavier you make the ship, the less agile and quick it is because you're using rowers at this stage, or wind. First ironclads were made in 1820s because of those reasons.

Except they weren't. The real first ironclads were korean turtle ships, or at least their second generation, made in 1590s, at they could, according to period accounts, deflect arrows, grappling hooks and arquebus rounds, and even cannon fire. These are a very interesting case, and one that didn't happen in European naval warfare, simply because they are made for galley-style board or ram naval combat, but with gunpowder weapons added on top.

What dictates whether you see these or not is once again economics - steel is a valuable resource, so you need a very good reason to throw massive quantities of it at your ships, even if you do have the technological capability. Ironclads and other, armored warships, only become a vital necessity after large-caliber naval guns and more importantly, explosive shells are introduced.

Turtle ships are a fascinating ship design that seemed to work stupily well for their chosen role.

The reason I was asking was because I was just having a random train of thought at work about someone getting Isekai'd to a Roman Tech era fantasy world and helping a group of people rebel by bootstrapping their tech. I had the amusing idea of an old WWI era destroyer blasting apart Triremes but I now realize that you don't have to go even remotely that far. A Turtle ship would do the same job just as well for a tiny fraction of the effort.

[The Jack]

(obviously, the military'd be way more on the ball than me, I'm just a curious person)

With trauma plates, there isn't really that much backface deformation for the smaller 'conical' rounds like 5.56 unless the same spot is hit repeatedly. How would that change for head protection, or is there some other factor at play.

American NIJ ratings are kinda arbitrary (I saw somewhere that they were due an update) but why not aim for protection from 7.62x39 (or at least 5.45x39, though I'm not suggesting an opposing force with that latter round) since 5.56/7.62 are probably the most common aimed threat in a warzone? There's a huge jump between IIIA and III armour and It's really puzzling. You're jumping from big pistols to 7.62x51 and that's crazy. Is it just really easy to go from 5.56 to 7.62 nato so nobody stops at 5.56?

[Mike_G]

(obviously, the military'd be way more on the ball than me, I'm just a curious person)

With trauma plates, there isn't really that much backface deformation for the smaller 'conical' rounds like 5.56 unless the same spot is hit repeatedly. How would that change for head protection, or is there some other factor at play.

American NIJ ratings are kinda arbitrary (I saw somewhere that they were due an update) but why not aim for protection from 7.62x39 (or at least 5.45x39, though I'm not suggesting an opposing force with that latter round) since 5.56/7.62 are probably the most common aimed threat in a warzone? There's a huge jump between IIIA and III armour and It's really puzzling. You're jumping from big pistols to 7.62x51 and that's crazy. Is it just really easy to go from 5.56 to 7.62 nato so nobody stops at 5.56?

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but let me try.

5.56 x 45 (standard M 16 platform ammo, which is pretty standard NATO) is really, really good at penetrating anything a person could reasonably wear, and it's a LOT lighter than 7.62 x 39 (AK-47 type intermediate rounds) or 7.62 x 51 (full power rifle ammo, like for the M 14 or the M 60 LMG/MMG)

5.56 has plenty of range and power for antipersonnel use, roughly comparable to 7.62 x 39, so unless you are trying to snipe people at very long range, or engage light vehicles, you really don't need the 7.62 x 51 and you can carry a lot more ammo and have greatly reduced recoil and a more controlable weapon.

Armor, to be useful, has to be light enough that people will wear it and still be able to function. A trauma plate is pretty heavy, which is why they tend to be worn over only the most vital areas in conjunction with lighter Kevlar, which will not stop a rifle round, but will stop fragments from explosives. A suit of armor or even just a breastplate made up of trauma plate material would weigh a crap-ton (a common industry standard measure) I don't think you could be an effective infantryman in a trauma plate cuirass. And it couldn't be the ceramic plate, because that would be good for only one shot, so you're looking at crazy thick steel.

The pistol resistant vests that police wear are light and comfortable enough, and will stop most pistol rounds, which is the likely threat, so that's fine. The difference in penetration between say a 9mm pistol round and a 5.56 or 7.62 round is night and day.

In short, if it was easy to build body armor that would stop a rifle round and that you could wear all day and march and run and fight in and quickly move from position to position, they would have. The current solution of kevlar to stop the light stuff and plates to cover your vitals is a workable compromise

[Clistenes]

So it would be possible with Roman Empire era tech. Thank you.



Turtle ships are a fascinating ship design that seemed to work stupily well for their chosen role.

The reason I was asking was because I was just having a random train of thought at work about someone getting Isekai'd to a Roman Tech era fantasy world and helping a group of people rebel by bootstrapping their tech. I had the amusing idea of an old WWI era destroyer blasting apart Triremes but I now realize that you don't have to go even remotely that far. A Turtle ship would do the same job just as well for a tiny fraction of the effort.

You don't even need a turtle ship. Reinforce the hulls so enemy rams can't damage them, build some kind of artillery (forged iron culverins and crew-killing shot would be more than enough) and you are golden...

[Blackhawk748]

You don't even need a turtle ship. Reinforce the hulls so enemy rams can't damage them, build some kind of artillery (forged iron culverins and crew-killing shot would be more than enough) and you are golden...

Well, yes you don't need the Turtle Ship, it does make you pretty much immune to being boarded. Not like a cannon-armed ship should be terribly worried about that, but hey, lets you get much closer to make your fire that much more effective.

[Storm Bringer]

(obviously, the military'd be way more on the ball than me, I'm just a curious person)

With trauma plates, there isn't really that much backface deformation for the smaller 'conical' rounds like 5.56 unless the same spot is hit repeatedly. How would that change for head protection, or is there some other factor at play.

American NIJ ratings are kinda arbitrary (I saw somewhere that they were due an update) but why not aim for protection from 7.62x39 (or at least 5.45x39, though I'm not suggesting an opposing force with that latter round) since 5.56/7.62 are probably the most common aimed threat in a warzone? There's a huge jump between IIIA and III armour and It's really puzzling. You're jumping from big pistols to 7.62x51 and that's crazy. Is it just really easy to go from 5.56 to 7.62 nato so nobody stops at 5.56?

yes, their is another factor. namely the difference between hitting a large, flat plate (that can spread out impact force over the whole of the chest) and a hemispherical helmet (were a bullet strike with make the helmet flex, and compress the front of it down onto the wearers head).


Its not that its easy to go form 5.56 to 7.62, but that the customers of lvl III armour routinely get exposed to both, and so protecting against 5.56 but not 7.62 basically doesn't make sense, because of the prevalence of 7.62 weapons in a military context (where GPMGs, sniper rifles, and plenty of older assault rifles are all in that calibre).

[Pauly]

So it would be possible with Roman Empire era tech. Thank you.



Turtle ships are a fascinating ship design that seemed to work stupily well for their chosen role.

The reason I was asking was because I was just having a random train of thought at work about someone getting Isekai'd to a Roman Tech era fantasy world and helping a group of people rebel by bootstrapping their tech. I had the amusing idea of an old WWI era destroyer blasting apart Triremes but I now realize that you don't have to go even remotely that far. A Turtle ship would do the same job just as well for a tiny fraction of the effort.

Turtle ships are definitely within Roman tech. I don’t think their riveting technology would be up to the task of building a large steam proof boiler. The other issue which I didn’t address because I didn’t realize how far back you were going is that Roman smelting isn’t far enough advanced to make homogeneous steel or iron plates. Which means that those plates under pressure will fail because of inclusions.

[Blackhawk748]

Turtle ships are definitely within Roman tech. I don’t think their riveting technology would be up to the task of building a large steam proof boiler. The other issue which I didn’t address because I didn’t realize how far back you were going is that Roman smelting isn’t far enough advanced to make homogeneous steel or iron plates. Which means that those plates under pressure will fail because of inclusions.

Didn't the Roman's have all the various technologies required to make a basic steam boiler though? I seem to recall that they had them but just never stuck them together. Or would that one have just been too weak to be worth it?

[gkathellar]

Steam has been doable for ages. But it didn't really get to be efficient (mechanically or economically) until shortly before the industrial revolution. This was one of those weird moments of rapid technological improvement in response to a problem that was its own opportunity: there was a need for underwater coal, which could be used to run steam-powered pumps, which are great for making underwater coal accessible. This marked one of the first occasions where steam was practical or useful, simply because the fuel was just sitting around where it was needed. Dramatic improvements to the tech followed which made it practical and useful for a wider variety of things.

Could this have happened sooner? That's a solid maybe.

[Spamotron]

Primitive steam engines come up on these threads from time to time. How useful a steam engine depends on how high you can get the boiler pressure without it exploding. I think last time the consensus was that if a time-traveling steam engineer ended up in ancient Rome the best metallurgy and craftsmanship of the time could have produced an engine capable of half a horsepower's worth of work. But it would be hideously expensive to produce and the cost versus other forms of labor probably couldn't be justified.

A working steam engine could have appeared centuries before it did historically. But a probably not a cost-effective one. Before all the other innovations of the industrial revolution, one would have just been a rich man's toy.

[rrgg]

Something interesting i learned recently is that aside from Hero's steam engine in antiquity, during the renaissance Leonardo de Vinci came up with plans for a steam powered cannon which i guess technically does involve converting steam energy to mechanical energy and even did something practical. Though it still didn't really lead to anything more at the time of course.

[Pauly]

Didn't the Roman's have all the various technologies required to make a basic steam boiler though? I seem to recall that they had them but just never stuck them together. Or would that one have just been too weak to be worth it?

They had the technology and ability to build what basically amount to desk top steam engines.

One thing that is a common misconception is that all technology went backwards from Roman times into the dark ages. Whilst that is generally true for areas such as civil engineering and industrialization; metallurgy and weapons technology kept improving. Migration era (Saxon/Norse) swords, for example, are superior to their Roman counterparts (in terms of construction).

[Kiero]

Didn't the Roman's have all the various technologies required to make a basic steam boiler though? I seem to recall that they had them but just never stuck them together. Or would that one have just been too weak to be worth it?

The Greeks had rudimentary steam engines; they just never applied it to anything more useful than novelty.

[Clistenes]

The Greeks had rudimentary steam engines; they just never applied it to anything more useful than novelty.

Their steam engines were VERY inefficient. Modern steam engines owe a lot to water-powered machines and clockwork contraptions deleloped over the centuries that allowed people to refine technologies necessary for useful steam powered engines...


Something interesting i learned recently is that aside from Hero's steam engine in antiquity, during the renaissance Leonardo de Vinci came up with plans for a steam powered cannon which i guess technically does involve converting steam energy to mechanical energy and even did something practical. Though it still didn't really lead to anything more at the time of course.

Yep, and it did work fine... I basically worked as a (quite inaccurate) autocannon. But it was static, and it required a small river worth of water and tons of firewood to make it work... So generals would rather use twenty guys with heavy muskets and culverins...

[Blackhawk748]

Yep, and it did work fine... I basically worked as a (quite inaccurate) autocannon. But it was static, and it required a small river worth of water and tons of firewood to make it work... So generals would rather use twenty guys with heavy muskets and culverins...

Ok now I'm curious. Would it be possible to make this thing work with better steam tech?

[gkathellar]

Ok now I'm curious. Would it be possible to make this thing work with better steam tech?

Even if you could, it'd be essentially doing a job that gunpowder already does much better. Steam just adds more stages to the process: you have to burn the material to heat the water to create the gas, which is pressurized in the pipe to move the object. Gunpowder, on the other hand, has the material already under pressure and the gas is created as a direct product of burning it. Much simpler, and much less wasted energy.

Steam is good for performing lots of intensive work (it's so good that we still use some variation of it for most forms of power generation), but if you just need to move a projectile real fast, it's not ideal.

[Pauly]

Ok now I'm curious. Would it be possible to make this thing work with better steam tech?

The only time in history that I am aware of that a compressed gas (widening the definition to more than just steam) weapon was adopted as a military weapon was the Girandoni Air Rifle.

It’s performance was on par with or better than the black powder rifles of the time. It’s a very well documented weapon, so I won’t bore you with the details. Forgotten Weapons has a very good introduction to the weapon if you want to know more. Ultimately the Austrians discontinued it’s use doe to the inherent fragility of the system.

[Martin Greywolf]

I’ve heard it said (Matt Easton iirc) that when you get into very close range melee with large shields that reaching over the top of your shield and hacking at the neck/shoulder blades of the opponent with a short choppy sword is a very logical thing to do. Easton (if it was him) was referring to the Roman helmets having wide neck guards which protected from against this type of attack. So if the armor also gives additional protection to that area it may indicate that this was a design consideration when it was developed.

Just for completeness while the gladius is famously an effective stabber and we know the legions were trained in the use of the point it is still a very good chopper.

I didn't mention wraps because I don't think the mail there would be especially useful against them. Not that they don't hurt, but one layer of mail is all you need - no cuts get through and wraps in general are about a fifth weaker than straight blows and will maybe bruise you. An arrow or javelin from behind, on the other hand, definitely can get through a layer of mail, especially if you have something like horse archers circling you.

And as good a chopper a gladius is, it's short. You can stab down and do a pull cut of sorts, but you need a spatha for a proper wrapping blow.

Turtle ships in Rome

They are not doable with Roman tech, but once again, not because of armor. The point of a turtle ship was to close in to another ship while being immune to ranged attacks and boarding and then obliterate it with point blank cannon fire. Since Romans have no cannons, you'd be able to close in and then... do nothing useful. You can't board the other guy since your deck is closed off and cramped, therefore having less soldiers, and your ramming ability is very limited due to cramped conditions (meaning less oars and therefore less speed) and heavier weight.

Perhaps you could make rammming work with some modifications, but at that point, you need more materials and labor to make a more compicated ship than a galley, and you're less versatile than a galley. So you get less value for more money.

Our best option is to armor part of a ship while leaving the rest free for boarders and oarsmen, and at that point, we have invented a galley with a forecastle.


http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/180-1.jpg
Yeah, it's more of a midcaslte, but still.



https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/posters/venetian-galley-at-the-time-of-the-battle-of-lepanto_a-G-1873427-8880731.jpg?w=894&h=671
https://vassallohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image1.jpg


Finding good pictures of galleys on google is almost impossible, by the by.

[Clistenes]

Mmmm... it seems the steam cannon didn't really need as much water as I remember... And the design used by the Mythbusters was really powerful, 1.3 to 1.8 times the energy of a 0.50 BMG caliber bullet fired from a M2 machine gun, with a rate of fire of 2 minutes per projectile (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/steamCannon/ArchimedesSteamCannon.html)... which is quite impressive for such a simple and relatively small weapon...


barrel length: 2 feet
barrel bore: 1.5 inches
volume of water: ½ cup
projectile mass: 0.5 kg (1 pound, 1 oz)
estimated firing pressure: 3,500-4,000 PSI
estimated muzzle velocity: 280 m/s (630 mph)
estimated range: 1,200 meters, shell drag coefficient of 1.1


These stats are f*cking good for a Ancient Age/Medieval/Renaissance weapon!

But while Leonardo could have built the weapon, it is theorized he never perfected it... he had a lot of stuff going on, so he may have tried a prototype, and since it didn't work as expected he shelved the project.

Archimedes, on the other hand, may have built an effective steam cannon and kicked roman ass during the siege of Syracuse. according to Leonardo himself...

The team says the the secret to make the weapon powerful is something really simple, so simple they would rather not reveal it for fear of kids blasting each other with homemade cannons... My bet is, they rolled the bullet into some kind of cloth, and covered it with some kind of adhesive paste in order to make the bullet into some kind of plug, giving the water time enough to become steam and build up pressure before shooting the weapon...

[Pauly]

Mmmm... it seems the steam cannon didn't really need as much water as I remember... And the design used by the Mythbusters was really powerful, 1.3 to 1.8 times the energy of a 0.50 BMG caliber bullet fired from a M2 machine gun, with a rate of fire of 2 minutes per projectile (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/steamCannon/ArchimedesSteamCannon.html)... which is quite impressive for such a simple and relatively small weapon...


barrel length: 2 feet
barrel bore: 1.5 inches
volume of water: ½ cup
projectile mass: 0.5 kg (1 pound, 1 oz)
estimated firing pressure: 3,500-4,000 PSI
estimated muzzle velocity: 280 m/s (630 mph)
estimated range: 1,200 meters, shell drag coefficient of 1.1


These stats are f*cking good for a Ancient Age/Medieval/Renaissance weapon!

But while Leonardo could have built the weapon, it is theorize he never perfected it... he had a lot of stuff going on, so he may have tried a prototype, and since it didn't work as expected he shelve the project.

Archimedes, on the other hand, may have built an effective steam cannon and kicked roman ass during the siege of Syracuse. according to Leonardo himself...

The team says the the secret to make the weapon powerful is something really simple, so simple they would rather not reveal it for fear of kids blasting each other with homemade cannons... My bet is, they rolled the bullet into some kind of cloth, and covered it with some kind of adhesive paste in order to make the bullet into some kind of plug, giving the water time enough to become steam and build up pressure before shooting the weapon...

I love Mythbusters, but in that test they made their steam cannon with modern materials made in modern factories. Whilst the tested design may be feasible it may not have been feasible with period materials and manufacturing.

[Clistenes]

I love Mythbusters, but in that test they made their steam cannon with modern materials made in modern factories. Whilst the tested design may be feasible it may not have been feasible with period materials and manufacturing.

Oh, a steam cannon made with late medieval/Renaissance tech and materials would probably have thick bronze walls, and the thing would probably require more firewood, but I think the same results could be achieved...

[Brother Oni]

Archimedes, on the other hand, may have built an effective steam cannon and kicked roman ass during the siege of Syracuse. according to Leonardo himself...

Archimedes is also reputed to have built what we would call a directed energy weapon in modern terms, but whether it would have been practical with technology back then and/or workable in a combat situation, is an entirely different situation: Testing Archimedes' Burning Mirror (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html).

Essentially, take anything that far back with a pinch of salt.

[Martin Greywolf]

Oh, a steam cannon made with late medieval/Renaissance tech and materials would probably have thick bronze walls, and the thing would probably require more firewood, but I think the same results could be achieved...

How good is your bronze working? Because if it isn't excellent, the whole thing will detonate and while bronze doesn't shrapnel that much, the boiling steam will not be fun for your gun crew. Bronze cannons of the period were known to sometimes explode mid-barrel, and the solution to this was to make the thing anyway hoping for the best and then shoot it with a long fuse to see what happens. It usually worked, but some of the tested cannons had to be melted back down after the spectacular failure.

Take that inconsistency and apply it to something that has to take incredible internal pressures for long periods of time (as opposed half a second), and you have a pretty big risk. Also keep in mind that people had no way of knowing that steam power was viable - it was a bit like cold fusion of the day, theoretically maybe possible, but no one knows for sure. And experiments are risky and, what's worse for patrons, expensive - bronze isn't exactly cheap.

[Clistenes]

If you read the article, the cannon isn't mean to hold pressure for long time; it isn't any different from a regular cannon...

And nobody is arguing that such weapons were ever used in the battlefield, only that they could have been build, so concerns about the cost the bronze used during the experimentation phase or about people at the time being unable to unferstand the potential of steam power are irrelevant...

About Archimedes, all I can say is that Leonardo and others claimed that he built steam-powered artillery. Nobody really knows what Archimedes's counter-siege weaponry was like...

[snowblizz]

And nobody is arguing that such weapons were ever used in the battlefield, only that they could have been build, so concerns about the cost the bronze used during the experimentation phase or about people at the time being unable to unferstand the potential of steam power are irrelevant...

It's not irrelevant. Leonardo designed 2 bronze horse statues for the Medicis?? but there was a war on it was deemed too expensive. The idea only survived in the form of small-scale test peices, of clay IIRC.

Cost does matter.

[Pauly]

Oh, a steam cannon made with late medieval/Renaissance tech and materials would probably have thick bronze walls, and the thing would probably require more firewood, but I think the same results could be achieved...

I was thinking more about the moving parts - valves, seals and regulator. If you can build a breech that can withstand gunpowder then it is reasonable to assume it can withstand the flash steam pressure that the design uses. As Martin Greywolf says you would be required to treat it as being as likely to explode as a gunpowder cannon.

Metal working (not just bronze) was far less advanced. The big problem was getting homogeneous alloys without inclusions. It was until the Victorian era that people got good at that, and really it’s only been in the last 20 or 30 years that you can confidently order a metal ingot knowing it will be 100% correct in terms of alloy composition and being free from inclusions or casting flaws. It’s one of the reasons that quality knives have always been forged because you had to work the bad stuff out of the blade. It’s only since about the year 2000 that you cam start to find stamped knives of decent quality.

[Vinyadan]

It's not irrelevant. Leonardo designed 2 bronze horse statues for the Medicis?? but there was a war on it was deemed too expensive. The idea only survived in the form of small-scale test peices, of clay IIRC.

Cost does matter.

For the Sforza.

[Clistenes]

It's not irrelevant. Leonardo designed 2 bronze horse statues for the Medicis?? but there was a war on it was deemed too expensive. The idea only survived in the form of small-scale test peices, of clay IIRC.

Cost does matter.

Again, I am arguing just that they could be built with Renaissance tech, not that it would be practical or economically efficient.

Could USA send an expedition to the Moon? Yes of course, they did it before.

They won't do it because of the high cost of it, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to do so...

[Mendicant]

How far out ahead of the main army would pre-modern scouts usually travel? I'm mainly interested in scouts that would be attached to an army on the move and need to be in at least semiregular contact with it the whole time.

[Mike_G]

How far out ahead of the main army would pre-modern scouts usually travel? I'm mainly interested in scouts that would be attached to an army on the move and need to be in at least semiregular contact with it the whole time.

Being in contact isn't a problem today. You can have an element on the other side of the world and still have operational control over it. Recon elements and intelligence gathering units can be very far removed from your main army and still do their job. The limiting factor is how far away can they be and still rely on the main force to come to the rescue if the scout element gets involved in a fight it can't survive. The answer to that is dependent on what your main force has for mobility.

Modern armies can call in airstrikes from pretty much any distance. All you need is to have assets assigned to the task. Fighter aircraft and airmobile support and evacuation can go hundreds of miles very quickly. So the question is ow much do you have, and how vulnerable would they be. If the enemy has really good anti aircraft defense, that support becomes much less reliable.

So, there isn't a simple answer without defining a lot of variables

[hymer]

How far out ahead of the main army would pre-modern scouts usually travel? I'm mainly interested in scouts that would be attached to an army on the move and need to be in at least semiregular contact with it the whole time.
A lot is going to depend on the terrain, proximity of the enemy, and whether the scouts are mounted or on foot. And the culture's way to conduct war is surprisingly important here. Roman republican armies were notoriously lax with their reconnaissance well into the Second Punic War. One problem was that the obvious scout troops were of a higher class of citizen, since they had the money to afford a mount. Those people were not so easily ordered to do the often hard, tedious, uncomfortable, and dangerous work that scouting/patrolling was.

You would usually want your advance scouts to travel the general path the army intended to take (looking more thoroughly at nearby features than the main army would), but you would also want them to sit on any good visibility points, crossroads, etc. until the army was past. You also want every scouting party to report back at the latest when the army is encamped for the night, if possible. That could mean sending a few guys from the scouting party back while the rest of the group stays in an important place, or just wait for light enough to travel on ahead.
There may be some scouting parties sent well ahead, and not expected to report back for days, but those weren't the ones you're interested in.

So, a 'normal' day for one of several/many scouting parties (generalizing wildly and speculating mildly) would be to set off before dawn, mounted, with orders to scout something(s) specific; a route, a potential camp site, a specific enemy group, etc. As the day goes by, you may want to peel off one or two of your party now and again and send them back with news you've uncovered: That village has not seen sign of the enemy, this road has enemy scout activity, we cannot use the camp site we had intended because it's flooded, etc. If they come back to the army early enough, they may be sent out again if there is hope of finding the party, or they may be folded into a different scouting party with other messengers and relatively fresh scouts, and sent out on a new mission. Having an additional reconnaissance distance, especially when your main screen are the farthest away, would be useful. And then all scouting parties return to the new camp by the end of the day to give a full report - if they can. Scouts can sometimes be out of the loop, e.g. expecting the army to camp at site A, not knowing that this was deemed unfeasible during the march. And sometimes they just get lost. They may have to camp out for the night, which is dangerous and impractical for the commanding officer.

If you accept that scenario (and this is the sort of distance from the army you were thinking of), it means the scouts regularly in contact may be as much as a day's march for the army away, but very rarely much more than that. You will likely want to send scouts in more directions than merely ahead, especially if the enemy is close or you are moving in unpredictable or hostile areas.

[Pauly]

How far out ahead of the main army would pre-modern scouts usually travel? I'm mainly interested in scouts that would be attached to an army on the move and need to be in at least semiregular contact with it the whole time.

There’s basically 2 types of scouting, strategic and tactical.

Tactical is the easiest to deal with and is the day to day scouting of the army’s area of operations. Usually these missions would be no more than a day or two from the main army. In modern parlance this is the job of your recon platoons.

Then strategic is essentially trying to fill in the blanks on the map. Where is the enemy’s base located? Where can we cross the river? What’s on the far side of the woods? These missions are usually measured in weeks, and sometimes months. In modern parlance this is the job of SEALs, and the SAS.

From what you’ve said you’re looking at tactical scouting. The most you’d expect these troops to be in front of your main army is one, maybe two, days travel. Rarely they might be a little further out, usually if they were on horseback and the enemy is mostly infantry. One concern is that if your scouts are too far in advance you cam alert the enemy and give the time to prepare..

[Mike_G]

Ah.

I read "pre-modern" as "modern."

Feel free to ignore me.

[snowblizz]

I was thinking more about the moving parts - valves, seals and regulator. If you can build a breech that can withstand gunpowder then it is reasonable to assume it can withstand the flash steam pressure that the design uses. As Martin Greywolf says you would be required to treat it as being as likely to explode as a gunpowder cannon.

Metal working (not just bronze) was far less advanced. The big problem was getting homogeneous alloys without inclusions. It was until the Victorian era that people got good at that, and really it’s only been in the last 20 or 30 years that you can confidently order a metal ingot knowing it will be 100% correct in terms of alloy composition and being free from inclusions or casting flaws. It’s one of the reasons that quality knives have always been forged because you had to work the bad stuff out of the blade. It’s only since about the year 2000 that you cam start to find stamped knives of decent quality.

Apropos the steamcannon. When the Mythbusters built theirs the main problem was to dump water into it fast enough so it generated a quick release. At oen point they filled the chamber with copper nails to increase the surface area tha was heated.

I think this was the problem MIT solved but wouldn't tell about.

[Brother Oni]

How far out ahead of the main army would pre-modern scouts usually travel? I'm mainly interested in scouts that would be attached to an army on the move and need to be in at least semiregular contact with it the whole time.

As others have said, no more than a day or two from the main army.

Note that this is measured in terms of the main army's mobility, so highly dependent on weather and terrain; for example forested terrain would be much closer, similarly rain and other poor visibility weather would reduce the range.

As a rule of thumb, a medieval army could expected to make 15-18 miles a day at a reasonable pace, so between 15-36 miles would be a good ballpark figure for tactical scouting, unless there was a specific feature or landmark that needed checking (a ford, a village, camp site, etc).

I'm not sure how the Romans did it on their full pace marches without mounted scouts, since the army is pretty much travelling at maximum pace already (22 miles a day).


There's also screening/patrolling duties, where scouts would parallel to the army travel but a short distance away (typically no more than half a day) so that if they spot the enemy, they can report back quickly and the commander can prepare.

This all said, there's been more than one occasion where armies have either blundered right on top of each other or have completely failed to find each other and instead agree to meet up in a particular location to have their set piece battle, so scouting isn't foolproof.

[snowblizz]

I'm not sure how the Romans did it on their full pace marches without mounted scouts, since the army is pretty much travelling at maximum pace already (22 miles a day).


A Roman army at full pace would be using roman roads though? That's not cross country into the unknown?

And I think they'd be using auxilliaries, like german cavalry to perform scouting activities.



An interesting thing to note is that in the 1600s dragoons turned into troops whose speciality was to ease the march of the main armies. Ranging ahead, scouting, capturing or occupying important features like bridges and crossroads, repairing them, foraging etc etc etc. Basically a sort of "lubricant" for the 17th century army on the march. So e.g before the Battle of Lutzen the Swedish forces ran into a force of dragoons camped ina village by a ford, by chance, the reporters at the time not the dragoon comamnder was more given to venus than mars and so happened to be there. It delayed the Swedish army by about a crucial days march. Turning a surprise attach into a meeting encounter.

[Brother Oni]

A Roman army at full pace would be using roman roads though? That's not cross country into the unknown?

And I think they'd be using auxilliaries, like german cavalry to perform scouting activities.


Marching several thousand men blindly along a road without somebody checking the route is clear, sounds like a recipe for disaster even if it's in friendly territory. At the very least, checking if a ford is crossable and potential campsites is a must, not mentioning the camp building the Romans did as default.

Roman history is a bit out of my forte, so while I agree they must have started using mounted auxiliaries at some point, before then they must have relied on fast runners and very fit soldiers.



An interesting thing to note is that in the 1600s dragoons turned into troops whose speciality was to ease the march of the main armies. Ranging ahead, scouting, capturing or occupying important features like bridges and crossroads, repairing them, foraging etc etc etc. Basically a sort of "lubricant" for the 17th century army on the march. So e.g before the Battle of Lutzen the Swedish forces ran into a force of dragoons camped ina village by a ford, by chance, the reporters at the time not the dragoon comamnder was more given to venus than mars and so happened to be there. It delayed the Swedish army by about a crucial days march. Turning a surprise attach into a meeting encounter.

By the 1600s we're heading into Modern territory, although I'm not sure which period Mendicant was interested in - modern (little m), which you could stretch the definition back as far as just before WW2 with the advent of mechanised infantry, or early Modern (usually seen with a big m) which is typically dated to the widespread use of gunpowder weaponry from about the 16th to 17th Century onwards and the development of military forces from knights and their retinues to a more permanent organisational structure.

[Max_Killjoy]

Marching several thousand men blindly along a road without somebody checking the route is clear, sounds like a recipe for disaster even if it's in friendly territory. At the very least, checking if a ford is crossable and potential campsites is a must, not mentioning the camp building the Romans did as default.

Roman history is a bit out of my forte, so while I agree they must have started using mounted auxiliaries at some point, before then they must have relied on fast runners and very fit soldiers.


Ask Publius Quinctilius Varus what happened to Roman armies that didn't engage in proper scouting...

[Pauly]

Ask Publius Quinctilius Varus what happened to Roman armies that didn't engage in proper scouting...

Well he did employ some ... friendly ... locals to guide him. And they seemed such upstanding and trustworthy folk.

[Storm Bringer]

Ask Publius Quinctilius Varus what happened to Roman armies that didn't engage in proper scouting...

unfair, as the roman did make arrangements for sufficient scouts local allies.....their scouts just turned on them.


Roman history is a bit out of my forte, so while I agree they must have started using mounted auxiliaries at some point, before then they must have relied on fast runners and very fit soldiers.

The romans were using auxiliary cavalry in some format since the mid 3rd century BC, often local allies, like the Numidian cavalry that fought with them on several occasions in the punic wars, or the Celts and Gauls that Caesar used. these units were the original auxiliary cohorts, before they were standardised under the Principate as the non citizen section of the army.

[Kiero]

The Romans had allied cavalry contingents earlier even than 3rd century BC, even while they were a local Italian power they using Oscan-speaking Italics and others who were better in the saddle to provide their cavalry.

The equites extraordinarii, their elite cavalry, were recruited from the allies, not Romans.

[Mendicant]

By the 1600s we're heading into Modern territory, although I'm not sure which period Mendicant was interested in - modern (little m), which you could stretch the definition back as far as just before WW2 with the advent of mechanised infantry, or early Modern (usually seen with a big m) which is typically dated to the widespread use of gunpowder weaponry from about the 16th to 17th Century onwards and the development of military forces from knights and their retinues to a more permanent organisational structure.

Definitely little-m pre-modern, before mechanized infantry, wireless communication, aerial surveillance etc. Early modern you're still basically relying on a guy to go run out, see what's there, and then come back and tell you. I figured it'd be just a day or so out for the most part, I was just curious if there were more elaborate systems that pushed further out and maybe used relays. The fact that your scouts being too far ahead could provide advance warning for your enemies was definitely the kind of thing that seems so obvious once someone points it out to you.

[Gnoman]

Definitely little-m pre-modern, before mechanized infantry, wireless communication, aerial surveillance etc. Early modern you're still basically relying on a guy to go run out, see what's there, and then come back and tell you. I figured it'd be just a day or so out for the most part, I was just curious if there were more elaborate systems that pushed further out and maybe used relays. The fact that your scouts being too far ahead could provide advance warning for your enemies was definitely the kind of thing that seems so obvious once someone points it out to you.

It isn't just the possibility of alerting the enemy that you have to watch out for. If your scouts are too far out, you're far too likely to not get vital reports, because sending back your reports gets more tenuous the further you go, and trying to use relays with scout units falls into the "are you stupid?" category because there is essentially no way it is going to work reliably under field conditions. Equally critically, you might need to use those scouts to probe something else, and you can't use them if they're a day or two away.

Probably the best example of this is J.E.B Stuart in the American Civil War. During one of Lee's campaigns, he went haring off into the North to raise a ruckus in the Union rear areas. This deprived Lee of critical intelligence of where the Union forces were located, and caused his men to blunder into a small Union detachment. Worse still, not having Stuart prevented Lee from realizing that a large force of Union infantry was able to move to reinforce said detachment, and exactly how far away that force was.

This lead to Lee failing to either withdraw from the fight early, or else throwing his entire force into the fray and seizing the good ground before reinforcements got there. The resulting battle is rather a famous one - Gettysburg - that put an end to Lee's hail-mary invasion of the North and irrevocably turned the Confederacy's hope of winning the war from "extremely unlikely" to "not the slightest chance".

[fusilier]

Definitely little-m pre-modern, before mechanized infantry, wireless communication, aerial surveillance etc. Early modern you're still basically relying on a guy to go run out, see what's there, and then come back and tell you. I figured it'd be just a day or so out for the most part, I was just curious if there were more elaborate systems that pushed further out and maybe used relays. The fact that your scouts being too far ahead could provide advance warning for your enemies was definitely the kind of thing that seems so obvious once someone points it out to you.

For work further out they would have relied upon spies. We tend to think about spies as people ensconced well behind the enemy lines, in capitals, major cities, etc., but spies also followed armies, easily mingling in with the many camp followers. A skilled individual can slip through the lines, and travel faster than an army, to deliver intelligence.

General Longstreet had a spy on his payroll who gave him useful information in the lead up to Gettysburg. Sometimes information was gleaned from newspapers. Deserters can also provide useful information about what's going on "behind the lines," but Jomini warns against being too trusting of their reports.

Few staffs in the 19th century, however, developed a regular system of espionage, and it was typically left up to individual generals, many of whom found "spying" disdainful.

[Pauly]

Few staffs in the 19th century, however, developed a regular system of espionage, and it was typically left up to individual generals, many of whom found "spying" disdainful.

I son’t know specifically about other powers in detail, but Britain had a very elaborate and established system of spying. The “political officer” system, which is the heart of Rudyard Kipling’s “Kim” and features many times in George MacDonad Fraser’s Flashman series of novels. Kipling drew on his real life interactions and GMF drew heavily on period accounts.

I assume that the French and Russians also had highly developed systems because they were involved in expansionary colonialism in the 19th Century too.

Although spying is different to scouting. Scouting is mostly done by uniformed soldiers (at least in early Modern period when uniforms were adopted as a rule of law). The deep strategic scouting was in pre-radio days often combined with sabotage and mayhem, such as in Grierson’s raid in the ACW. Sometimes these raids were purely destructive in nature but oftentimes intelligence gathering was a primary concern. With the advent of the radio now deep penetration missions will often call in air strikes and try to avoid detection.

[snowblizz]

Definitely little-m pre-modern, before mechanized infantry, wireless communication, aerial surveillance etc. Early modern you're still basically relying on a guy to go run out, see what's there, and then come back and tell you. I figured it'd be just a day or so out for the most part, I was just curious if there were more elaborate systems that pushed further out and maybe used relays. The fact that your scouts being too far ahead could provide advance warning for your enemies was definitely the kind of thing that seems so obvious once someone points it out to you.

I don't think we should overestimate the idea of scouts warning the enemy you are about. Pre-modern armies moved slowly, and in many cases rumour outpaced them by a fair margin. You just couldn't move a large army secretly most of the time. Even knowing roughly where the enemy is isn't much of a help necessarily. You still need to find a good spot to do battle and hope the enemy in turns realise you are there and wants to attack. In many cases you will know roughly where the enemy has to go because there are only so many practicable routes to take. That's how fortifications were used too. They could hold for awhile, usually long enough that 1) you knew the route the enemy was coming and 2) you had time to reposition.

[Kiero]

I don't think we should overestimate the idea of scouts warning the enemy you are about. Pre-modern armies moved slowly, and in many cases rumour outpaced them by a fair margin. You just couldn't move a large army secretly most of the time. Even knowing roughly where the enemy is isn't much of a help necessarily. You still need to find a good spot to do battle and hope the enemy in turns realise you are there and wants to attack. In many cases you will know roughly where the enemy has to go because there are only so many practicable routes to take. That's how fortifications were used too. They could hold for awhile, usually long enough that 1) you knew the route the enemy was coming and 2) you had time to reposition.

The infantry-based armies of settled nations moved slowly. Usually. Steppe armies comprising all cavalry moved very rapidly, their scouts even moreso than their main force, and faster than any rumour could travel.

[Brother Oni]

Definitely little-m pre-modern, before mechanized infantry, wireless communication, aerial surveillance etc. Early modern you're still basically relying on a guy to go run out, see what's there, and then come back and tell you. I figured it'd be just a day or so out for the most part, I was just curious if there were more elaborate systems that pushed further out and maybe used relays. The fact that your scouts being too far ahead could provide advance warning for your enemies was definitely the kind of thing that seems so obvious once someone points it out to you.

There's an organisation difference between the two periods hence my request for clarification; pre-early Modern period scouting essentially boils down to the army commander going "Sir Ratford, send some of your men to go scout out this location", compared to pre-modern where it's more fed down the chain of command until a junior officer gets sent off with a squad or two.

Expanding a bit on Gnoman's point of tenuous information, there's also the issue that any information relayed back will be obsolete if the scouts are too far out. Knowing that a village two days away is friendly is pointless if the enemy captured it yesterday, if not dangerous if you go in unprepared and they've prepared an ambush.

[Izzyboshi]

Assuming arms and armor roughly equivalent to Western Europe around 1300, would it be more sensible for a pair of very skilled soldiers who anticipate being outnumbered in an upcoming fight to arm themselves with one-handed weapons and shields, or two-handed weapons? And would it be wiser for them to wear helmets for the extra protection, or eschew them for extra visibility?

Even if not outnumbered the 1300's mentality towards arming oneself was pretty armor heavy provided you were rich enough to turtle but Europe hadn't quite reached the apex of plate armor tech. That heft made you slower and a shield was your best option for close range combat survivablity. Two handed weapon practices were more common if you couldn't afford the armor which was pretty expensive.

Also helmets at the time came in a bunch of different styles some of which were more hat like than full head cover and left you with pretty decent visibility. Fighting styles favored overhand strikes that rained blows down on your head so a helmet would be the one bit of armour you sprung for if anything.

[fusilier]

I son’t know specifically about other powers in detail, but Britain had a very elaborate and established system of spying. The “political officer” system, which is the heart of Rudyard Kipling’s “Kim” and features many times in George MacDonad Fraser’s Flashman series of novels. Kipling drew on his real life interactions and GMF drew heavily on period accounts.

I assume that the French and Russians also had highly developed systems because they were involved in expansionary colonialism in the 19th Century too.

We are talking about different spies. There are the spies that were operated by the central civilian government or GHQ, well behind enemy lines, gaining useful strategic information. Then there were spies that followed the enemy armies and reported their movements directly to friendly armies operating in the same area. That second class of spies were operated by the staffs of the armies themselves.

Improvements in communications may have made the second class a little less necessary, but I suspect throughout much of the 19th century, they were still needed.

[Pauly]

We are talking about different spies. There are the spies that were operated by the central civilian government or GHQ, well behind enemy lines, gaining useful strategic information. Then there were spies that followed the enemy armies and reported their movements directly to friendly armies operating in the same area. That second class of spies were operated by the staffs of the armies themselves.

Improvements in communications may have made the second class a little less necessary, but I suspect throughout much of the 19th century, they were still needed.

I don’t know about other powers but with the British in India it was the same spies and the same officers running them in both situations. While they did have local agents the backbone of the network were people who could move without arousing too much suspicion like copers and other traveling merchants.

Where the system was more ad hoc was in places where the British didn’t hav time to establish the network. For example the punitive Ashanti expedition.

[fusilier]

I don’t know about other powers but with the British in India it was the same spies and the same officers running them in both situations. While they did have local agents the backbone of the network were people who could move without arousing too much suspicion like copers and other traveling merchants.

Where the system was more ad hoc was in places where the British didn’t hav time to establish the network. For example the punitive Ashanti expedition.

Well, this is my second post today that completely disappeared when I tried to submit it. I don't have the time to recreate the whole thing -- briefly:

Fair enough. I wasn't thinking about colonial fighting, as the impression I got from the OP is that the main interest was in more symmetrical war but I could be wrong.

Just the other day, I read the section in Jomini's Art of War about this very subject -- gaining intelligence as to the positions and movements of an enemy army in the field. Jomini served, mostly, as a staff officer for Napoleon. He wrote the Art of War in 1838 (so his context is earlier than Kipling, and concerned with symmetrical warfare).

Jomini writes that there were basically 4 sources of intelligence about the movement of an enemy army: 1. Reconnaissances (what we've been calling scouting) -- very useful, but can't typically see beyond the perimeter of the enemy's army. 2. Deserters and prisoners can provide information from "behind the lines", but are often very unreliable. 3. Spies within the enemy camp (literally), are better. 4. Hypotheses derived from probabilities (applying the principles of war to understand how the enemy can act). No general should ignore any source of intelligence, but they shouldn't rely upon the information completely.

Jomini and Clausewitz (a Prussian staff officer) were the two main military theorists for most of the 19th century. However, Jomini is almost completely ignored now, while Clausewitz is still studied. As a result, most of criticisms of Jomini are based upon Clausewitz's criticisms. Which are terribly confusing if you actually read Jomini, because he literally says the opposite of the criticisms at almost every opportunity. This can be explained by the fact that Clausewitz died in 1837, before Jomini's main work was published. His criticisms were directed at Jomini's earlier works, and Jomini paid attention. Jomini's work is more dated, while Clausewitz's work is more philosophical.

Here's a good article about Jomini and Clausewitz --
https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Jomini/JOMINIX.htm

[fusilier]

. . .
Jomini writes that there were basically 4 sources of intelligence about the movement of an enemy army: 1. Reconnaissances (what we've been calling scouting) -- very useful, but can't typically see beyond the perimeter of the enemy's army. 2. Deserters and prisoners can provide information from "behind the lines", but are often very unreliable. 3. Spies within the enemy camp (literally), are better. 4. Hypotheses derived from probabilities (applying the principles of war to understand how the enemy can act). No general should ignore any source of intelligence, but they shouldn't rely upon the information completely.
. . .


Jomini further states in the Art of War (again, 1838), "the use of spies has been neglected to a remarkable degree in many modern armies." He then gives some examples from the Napoleonic Wars.

I think the development of a more sophisticated system of espionage occurred during the second half of the 19th century.

[Pauly]

Jomini further states in the Art of War (again, 1838), "the use of spies has been neglected to a remarkable degree in many modern armies." He then gives some examples from the Napoleonic Wars.

I think the development of a more sophisticated system of espionage occurred during the second half of the 19th century.

I think iirc that the British in Spain had an effective spy network, but when they moved into France they weren’t able to establish an effective network. Kind of obvious when you’re talking about a friendly population where you are piggybacking onto the existing regime’s network compared going into bandit country.

The French has a much better network in the French and Indian wars (aka The Seven Year’s War - North American edition) than the British. Mainly due to their colonial policies being more Indian friendly than the British.

However one of the big differences between colonial spying and continental Europe spying was that in the Colonies war/rebellion was always expected to be just around the corner, if not an actual constant state of low intensity war. In Europe the when/where of war was more fluid which makes it harder to justify spending resources on establishing the network.

[Clistenes]

I think iirc that the British in Spain had an effective spy network, but when they moved into France they weren’t able to establish an effective network. Kind of obvious when you’re talking about a friendly population where you are piggybacking onto the existing regime’s network compared going into bandit country.

The French has a much better network in the French and Indian wars (aka The Seven Year’s War - North American edition) than the British. Mainly due to their colonial policies being more Indian friendly than the British.

However one of the big differences between colonial spying and continental Europe spying was that in the Colonies war/rebellion was always expected to be just around the corner, if not an actual constant state of low intensity war. In Europe the when/where of war was more fluid which makes it harder to justify spending resources on establishing the network.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said: The Spaniards mix with the natives, the English drive away the natives, the French go native...

There were plenty Frenchmen living among the Native Americans

[snowblizz]

As Alexis de Tocqueville said: The Spaniards mix with the natives, the English drive away the natives, the French go native...

There were plenty Frenchmen living among the Native Americans

And even when there wasn't, the French had a very lite colonial position. They wanted to trade with the natives, whereas the British (through their existing American colonists) wanted the land for themselves. It's no surprise the French position was better for native relations. When the British got rid of the lodestone of the American colonists they could make much better use of natives, who sided more with the British (unsurprisingly as the British could basically offer them whatever they wanted, whether there was any intention to fulfill them is another question).

[gkathellar]

And even when there wasn't, the French had a very lite colonial position. They wanted to trade with the natives,

*in parts of North America, because they were late arrivals

The French colonial position was not light in Senegal, or Vietnam, or the Caribbean, or really any place where they weren't actively competing with the British (and therefore had a strong incentive to display a lighter touch). Even in the Great Lakes region, the French insisted that communities they traded with have a missionary attached (which inadvertently led to the spread of disease).

[The Jack]

Do all nations wear fabrics to stop them from showing up on IR vision?

[Vinyadan]

*in parts of North America, because they were late arrivals

The French colonial position was not light in Senegal, or Vietnam, or the Caribbean, or really any place where they weren't actively competing with the British (and therefore had a strong incentive to display a lighter touch). Even in the Great Lakes region, the French insisted that communities they traded with have a missionary attached (which inadvertently led to the spread of disease).

They did put much less money on it, compared to the British.

[Gnoman]

Do all nations wear fabrics to stop them from showing up on IR vision?

Most nations have something along those lines for special forces, snipers, or stopped vehicles. As far as I know, nobody makes more extensive use than that. The only way not to show up on thermal is to avoid radiating heat, and that means you get hotter and hotter the longer you wear the stuff.

That can be tolerable (for a time) for a stationary sniper or slow-moving infiltrators, but an active infantryman would be at real risk of fatal heatstroke in a very short time.

[Storm Bringer]

Most nations have something along those lines for special forces, snipers, or stopped vehicles. As far as I know, nobody makes more extensive use than that. The only way not to show up on thermal is to avoid radiating heat, and that means you get hotter and hotter the longer you wear the stuff.

That can be tolerable (for a time) for a stationary sniper or slow-moving infiltrators, but an active infantryman would be at real risk of fatal heatstroke in a very short time.

True enough, but additionally to that, the normal issue uniform is designed to be rather dull in the part of the IR spectrum used by night vision systems, so that your troops don't appear fluorescent when viewed in night vision (as can be the case with some cheap camo stuff sold on the market )

[Pauly]

*in parts of North America, because they were late arrivals

The French colonial position was not light in Senegal, or Vietnam, or the Caribbean, or really any place where they weren't actively competing with the British (and therefore had a strong incentive to display a lighter touch). Even in the Great Lakes region, the French insisted that communities they traded with have a missionary attached (which inadvertently led to the spread of disease).

Actually the French were in the America’s for roughly as long as the British.

The difference was that the French were worried about revolution. They discouraged the emigration of women, they did not set up industries. They also made the assessment that trade for furs was more profitable than agriculture so they encouraged trade. Essentially they wanted their North American colony to be dependent on Mother France.

The effect of these policies was to act as incentives for Frenchmen in the colonies to “go native”.

It was after the more heavily populated British colonies took over the French colonies that France adopted a heavier hand with later colonies.

[Kiero]

The British used American colonisation as a release valve for societal pressures at home. Troublemakers, especially those of a religiously intolerant bent, and the Scots and Irish were encouraged to leave the British Isles.

[Vinyadan]

Troublemakers, especially those of a religiously intolerant bent, and the Scots and Irish were encouraged to leave the British Isles.

We cannot underestimate the role that shifty women wearing black velvet bands had doing the encouragement, although it tended to be limited towards Tasmania.

[hymer]

shifty women wearing black velvet bands
Tell me more! :smallbiggrin:

[Mike_G]

Tell me more! :smallbiggrin:

They're likely to fill you with whiskey and porter, until you're not able to stand, and the very next thing that you know...you're landing in Van Diemen's Land

[DerKommissar]

For the steam-engine discussion:

I think a major invention for non-exploding steam engines was the centrifugal governor, as it seals when pressure is building up, but releases overpressure, making steam engines viable:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor

[Vinyadan]

Tell me more! :smallbiggrin:


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

[HeadlessMermaid]

Van Diemen's Land is great and all, but I think the best transportation ballads take you (and Jim Jones, and Meg your own true love (https://youtu.be/D9F7DDK9InU)) to Botany Bay.


https://youtu.be/yXRYuQsg4Gw

[Vinyadan]

Van Diemen's Land is great and all, but I think the best transportation ballads take you (and Jim Jones, and Meg your own true love (https://youtu.be/D9F7DDK9InU)) to Botany Bay.


https://youtu.be/yXRYuQsg4Gw

I agree, Fields of Athenry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9InnXP64To) also has the ship waiting to depart for Botany Bay (with the alternative spelling Botney).

[fusilier]

For the steam-engine discussion:

I think a major invention for non-exploding steam engines was the centrifugal governor, as it seals when pressure is building up, but releases overpressure, making steam engines viable:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor

Overpressure isn't really the issue that a Centrifugal governor addresses (consistent engine speed is). Although, letting an engine "runaway" could be damaging to both the engine, and whatever it is connected to. Safety valves were (are) used to prevent overpressure in a boiler. Simple weight based safety valves have existed since the 17th century. Many of the early steam engines also operated with very low pressures. They weren't very efficient but they worked.

A collapsed firebox could cause a catastrophic failure of the boiler. This can happen if the water level in the boiler drops so low that it uncovers the firebox. A fusible plug is used to warn of this potential disaster -- I think they were in use pretty early in the 1800s.

Also, many early safety valves were far from tamper-proof and often times they were adjusted to allow higher pressures to get more out of an engine. Some required careful maintenance to continue operating correctly.


The Greeks had rudimentary steam engines; they just never applied it to anything more useful than novelty.

The type of steam engines they had appear to be very difficult to get useful work from --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

[Pauly]

I agree, Fields of Athenry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9InnXP64To) also has the ship waiting to depart for Botany Bay (with the alternative spelling Botney).

Some more

(We’re bound for) Botany Bay
https://youtu.be/B5L3ssIlG_I

Moreton Bay
https://youtu.be/r2SfrpfnFkw

The Wild Colonial Boy.
https://youtu.be/KpkqJVGzQUQ

[The Jack]

Are modern combat uniforms, sans the armour part, protective at all from minor damage- knife slashes, a punch, weak shrapnel.. relative to regular clothing or to thick clothing? I'm not expecting miracle protection from a grunt's trousers, more wondering if 'injury was made relevantly less severe' because of quality fabric.

Also, when it comes to the lighter kinds of fire resistant wear (IE not an entry suit) , does the fabric stop/reduce flames from reaching your skin or is the idea just about preventing your clothes from melting into your skin?

I understand this stuff has to be breathable because you don't want people dying of heat. But in a scenario where that's not a problem, what do ya do?

PS For the rich man scared of fire in a gun'n grenade fight, Would race suits be a good idea, or would they hinder movement too much in combat?

PPS-The characters in question are a little abormal, I'm aware of how crazy this would all be for normal people.

[Storm Bringer]

Are modern combat uniforms, sans the armour part, protective at all from minor damage- knife slashes, a punch, weak shrapnel.. relative to regular clothing or to thick clothing? I'm not expecting miracle protection from a grunt's trousers, more wondering if 'injury was made relevantly less severe' because of quality fabric.

Also, when it comes to the lighter kinds of fire resistant wear (IE not an entry suit) , does the fabric stop/reduce flames from reaching your skin or is the idea just about preventing your clothes from melting into your skin?

I understand this stuff has to be breathable because you don't want people dying of heat. But in a scenario where that's not a problem, what do ya do?

PS For the rich man scared of fire in a gun'n grenade fight, Would race suits be a good idea, or would they hinder movement too much in combat?

PPS-The characters in question are a little abormal, I'm aware of how crazy this would all be for normal people.


modern combat uniforms are no more protective than the average workmans clothing. being thick enough to protect the wearer would make them very hot and stuffy to try and do anything strenuous in, like fight. They do have a limited ability to protect the wearer from "flash" fires caused by ammo explosions, mainly by keeping the superhot gasses away form the skin for the spilt second they flash past in (military regs stipulate that your supposed to wear your sleeves down in a tactical situation, for this reason. doesn't always get obeyed, but the rules are their).

[Pauly]

Are modern combat uniforms, sans the armour part, protective at all from minor damage- knife slashes, a punch, weak shrapnel.. relative to regular clothing or to thick clothing? I'm not expecting miracle protection from a grunt's trousers, more wondering if 'injury was made relevantly less severe' because of quality fabric.

Also, when it comes to the lighter kinds of fire resistant wear (IE not an entry suit) , does the fabric stop/reduce flames from reaching your skin or is the idea just about preventing your clothes from melting into your skin?

I understand this stuff has to be breathable because you don't want people dying of heat. But in a scenario where that's not a problem, what do ya do?

PS For the rich man scared of fire in a gun'n grenade fight, Would race suits be a good idea, or would they hinder movement too much in combat?

PPS-The characters in question are a little abormal, I'm aware of how crazy this would all be for normal people.

My gut feeling is that late 19th Century/early 20th century uniforms were better at this. The old style uniforms were made from wool serge, which is a thicker material. I’ve worn old style uniforms and modern uniforms. While the modern ones are much lighter the old style feels more solid. FWIW denim is cotton serge.

[Mendicant]

Modern uniforms aren't any more protective than normal clothing, but Nomex flight suits have been used outside of air crews by troops who want the fire protection.

[jayem]

Are modern combat uniforms, sans the armour part, protective at all from minor damage- knife slashes, a punch, weak shrapnel.. relative to regular clothing or to thick clothing? I'm not expecting miracle protection from a grunt's trousers, more wondering if 'injury was made relevantly less severe' because of quality fabric.

Also, when it comes to the lighter kinds of fire resistant wear (IE not an entry suit) , does the fabric stop/reduce flames from reaching your skin or is the idea just about preventing your clothes from melting into your skin?
For the very light stuff.
The material shouldn't catch fire itself (too easily or fast). It shouldn't hole (again too easily or fast). It shouldn't transmit heat from outside to skin too fast.

For more advanced stuff (I'm not sure what level it cuts in) the fabric should reduce the heat from very close (but short duration) flames.

However under different conditions, totally different outcomes are possible. A slightly bigger flame or longer exposure may be enough to start a 'chain reaction'. Get enough oxygen in there and even Kevlar is going up like a candle.

[Martin Greywolf]

Are modern combat uniforms, sans the armour part, protective at all from minor damage- knife slashes, a punch, weak shrapnel.. relative to regular clothing or to thick clothing? I'm not expecting miracle protection from a grunt's trousers, more wondering if 'injury was made relevantly less severe' because of quality fabric.


Well, that's a question that has a lot of it depends answers.

First of all, which army? They use different fabrics, different styles of coats and so on and so forth, so your answer may change quite a bit, especially with punches. In general, though:

Knife is affected by tough clothing. Anything more significant than a t-shirt will make knife slashes basically pointless, unless you put a lot of weight or force into them. This is not just a military thing, jeans are thick enough to do it. Thrusts are obviously not affected at all - or more precisely, they are but the difference is incredibly minute. Knife hacks, well, with short or light-bladed knives, they are stopped much like slices, but with something like a large bowie knife, they will be more effective but reduced in impact.

Long story short, if using a knife against tough clothing, stab. It's no accident that practically all combat knives are good stabbers, even if they are made to pull double duty as utility.

Punches are not affected at all, only thing that mitigates those is clothing that can compress and take away the impact. Militaries AFAIK don't really use the feathery type of coats to make this possible, and even then, the effect is not that great. You may get a smaller bruise or no bruise instead of a small bruise, but a liver shot will still take you out.

Shrapnel, I can't say, but there's a lot of different factors to it. Shrapnel from something made to shrapnel itself and kill that way, probably no help.



PS For the rich man scared of fire in a gun'n grenade fight, Would race suits be a good idea, or would they hinder movement too much in combat?


I'm not sure what racing suit we're talking here, exactly, but motorcycle armor (https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1K4BFdcbI8KJjy1zdq6ze1VXak/Factory-Price-Motorcycle-Armor-Protection-Vest-Clothing.jpg_350x350.jpg) is a long tradition for movie stuntmen. We used it in some reenactment fights that had to be done in medieval civilian clothes (getting thrown shoulders firt on a stone or wooden floor is no picnic without a gambeson), and for what it's worth, they didn't restrict movement at all. Something like a formula 1 racing suit, though, I have no idea.

[The Jack]

What's the worlds most popular self-loadin pistol/round that fires a bigger cartridge than 9x19? I'm not asking for best, more looking for a hybrid solution of the most-typical, International and relevant to the current world.

IE, I'm not sure about using the M1911 as the archtypical example of such a pistol, I know that moves me against the gun-prophet JMB, but it's a dated pistol with unusually small capacity.


*watches half of Brent0331's extensive camo series* (i'd watch more but his editing sucks)
I'm talking from a pure hiding-effectiveness standpoint. I don't care about a uniform looking cool or lame. I'm aware that 'north texas woods' isn't representative of everywhere.

It seems evident that MTP>Multicam (that they both come from the same company, and multicam was chosen first, interests me) , even though those patterns look so similar up close. I am wondering, what are the best -generic- camo patterns? I would've thought brown-dominated patterns would be best, but his videos show some desert patterns working well in the forests and some forest patterns working well with the desert, greens and tans doing well.

Now, this is going to be something to tip toe lightly around, but is modern German camo an improvement over old Waffen SS stuff? (I realise that, in his non-44 dot SS video, Brent cycles through different SS camo and more specific patterns going to be better than more universal patterns, and you've got the 'northern texas woods' issue) Some of that stuff was seriously making me think the guy in front of me was wearing an invisibility cloak.

Does anyone have an opinion on -generic best all round pattern- that isn't tinged by nationalism (because caw, that's always a problem when this stuff's discussed) We're just discussing patterns here; not the histories or nations that use them.

[Pauly]

What's the worlds most popular self-loadin pistol/round that fires a bigger cartridge than 9x19? I'm not asking for best, more looking for a hybrid solution of the most-typical, International and relevant to the current world.

IE, I'm not sure about using the M1911 as the archtypical example of such a pistol, I know that moves me against the gun-prophet JMB, but it's a dated pistol with unusually small capacity.


*watches half of Brent0331's extensive camo series* (i'd watch more but his editing sucks)
I'm talking from a pure hiding-effectiveness standpoint. I don't care about a uniform looking cool or lame. I'm aware that 'north texas woods' isn't representative of everywhere.

It seems evident that MTP>Multicam (that they both come from the same company, and multicam was chosen first, interests me) , even though those patterns look so similar up close. I am wondering, what are the best -generic- camo patterns? I would've thought brown-dominated patterns would be best, but his videos show some desert patterns working well in the forests and some forest patterns working well with the desert, greens and tans doing well.

Now, this is going to be something to tip toe lightly around, but is modern German camo an improvement over old Waffen SS stuff? (I realise that, in his non-44 dot SS video, Brent cycles through different SS camo and more specific patterns going to be better than more universal patterns, and you've got the 'northern texas woods' issue) Some of that stuff was seriously making me think the guy in front of me was wearing an invisibility cloak.

Does anyone have an opinion on -generic best all round pattern- that isn't tinged by nationalism (because caw, that's always a problem when this stuff's discussed) We're just discussing patterns here; not the histories or nations that use them.

I”ll leave the ammo questions to others.

With regards to camo there are a variety of schools of thought.

1) Generic camo. Something that will help you match the environment generally. The British khaki is the start of this type of scheme. Pros- cheap, easy, effective. Cons - not great at anything. Can be out of place.

2) Specific matching camo. Colors and patterns designed to match a particular environment,. Pros great for specific environs. Cons expensive, becomes anti-camo if you’re in the wrong environment

3) Disruptive. The idea isn’t to hide, but to make the object not look like what it is. Often combines light and dark colors. Can be very effective, but is nullified when the target is acquired.

[Pauly]

I”ll leave the ammo questions to others.

With regards to camo there are a variety of schools of thought.

1) Generic camo. Something that will help you match the environment generally. The British khaki is the start of this type of scheme. Pros- cheap, easy, effective. Cons - not great at anything. Can be out of place.

2) Specific matching camo. Colors and patterns designed to match a particular environment,. Pros great for specific environs. Cons expensive, becomes anti-camo if you’re in the wrong environment

3) Disruptive. The idea isn’t to hide, but to make the object not look like what it is. Often combines light and dark colors. Can be very effective, but is nullified when the target is acquired.

Sorry got interrupted before I could finish.

The German WW2 camo was very effective at short to medium ranges if the wearer wasn’t moving. At long ranges the wearer became a silhouette as the pattern blurred together when it was beyond the range for the eyeball to differentiate the pattern.

Disruptive patterns are better when the wearer is moving. You can tell that something is moving, but it isn’t clearly a soldier. These patterns work best with baggy clothing that obscures the outline. Disruptive patterns are less effective at close ranges and more effective at longer ranges.

There’s also obscuring camo. Which is where everything is one dark color. Which is used not to stop people seeing you but so that people can’t tell what you’re doing. I am unaware of any personal camo schemes that use this, it has been used on ships.

[Gnoman]

What's the worlds most popular self-loadin pistol/round that fires a bigger cartridge than 9x19? I'm not asking for best, more looking for a hybrid solution of the most-typical, International and relevant to the current world.


For popular autoloaders stronger than 9x19 Parabellum, you basically have 3 choices. .45 Automatic Colt Pistol, .40 Smith and Wesson (also known as 10mm FBI), and 10mm Auto. Everything else (in autoloaders) is a special purpose round with niche application.

Of these, the most popular by far is .45ACP, followed by .40 S&W. 10mm has never gotten entrenched as a service round, because it (and the gun needed to fire it) is right at the edge of "reasonable for most people." .40 is somewhat popular with police for various reasons, but most are switching back to 9mm.

[Mike_G]

Just found this video of spadroon vs bayonet sparring. It's pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

[Kiero]

Just found this video of spadroon vs bayonet sparring. It's pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

As the old maxim goes, "point beats edge". Though why you'd even bother trying to cut with a blade as light as a spadroon, I don't know.

Why do they need so much body padding for weapons as light as those? Also if you're inside the tip of the bayonet, why wouldn't you just grab the musket barrel?

[Mike_G]

As the old maxim goes, "point beats edge". Though why you'd even bother trying to cut with a blade as light as a spadroon, I don't know.

Why do they need so much body padding for weapons as light as those? Also if you're inside the tip of the bayonet, why wouldn't you just grab the musket barrel?

They do grab the musket. A lot. Not sure how far you watched. And a spadroon was a cut a nd thrust sword. It replaced the smallsword specifically so that officers would have a sword that could cut. It's not a great chopping weapon, but it can cut, the manuals all include cuts as well and thrusts, and cuts to, say, the hand or the head would not need to be very heavy to give a good wound

The nylon HEMA weapons hit harder than you think. The weights are fairly realistic and the plastic is pretty rigid, so the padding is quite reasonable

[Kiero]

They do grab the musket. A lot. Not sure how far you watched. And a spadroon was a cut a nd thrust sword. It replaced the smallsword specifically so that officers would have a sword that could cut. It's not a great chopping weapon, but it can cut, the manuals all include cuts as well and thrusts, and cuts to, say, the hand or the head would not need to be very heavy to give a good wound

The nylon HEMA weapons hit harder than you think. The weights are fairly realistic and the plastic is pretty rigid, so the padding is quite reasonable

I was posting as I was watching, and did indeed note a lot more barrel-grabbing later on. One of the guys is better than the other, with either weapon. I can see why frontline officers in the Napoleonic era preferred sabres, I wouldn't want to be facing enemy infantry with something as flimsy as a spadroon.

The padding seems to severely inhibit their movement and general level of activity. I don't imagine they're very comfortable, and they must be pouring with sweat underneath.

[Mike_G]

I was posting as I was watching, and did indeed note a lot more barrel-grabbing later on. One of the guys is better than the other, with either weapon. I can see why frontline officers in the Napoleonic era preferred sabres, I wouldn't want to be facing enemy infantry with something as flimsy as a spadroon.

The padding seems to severely inhibit their movement and general level of activity. I don't imagine they're very comfortable, and they must be pouring with sweat underneath.

The padding isn't restrictive or uncomfortable in any meaningful way. It is hot as hell though.

I have gotten significant bruises and people have had fingers broken in HEMA sparring, so it's absolutley necessary.

It is hard to parry a bayonet thrust with a sword that light, just because of the mass of the musket, so as you say, the sabre was the first choice of many officers.

[Kiero]

The padding isn't restrictive or uncomfortable in any meaningful way. It is hot as hell though.

I have gotten significant bruises and people have had fingers broken in HEMA sparring, so it's absolutley necessary.

It is hard to parry a bayonet thrust with a sword that light, just because of the mass of the musket, so as you say, the sabre was the first choice of many officers.

"Hot as hell" is definitionally uncomfortable. :smalltongue:

I can see the point in gloves and helmets, maybe even kneepads. But I'd rather be comfortable than lose all the ability to vent heat from my core.

[Brother Oni]

"Hot as hell" is definitionally uncomfortable. :smalltongue:

I can see the point in gloves and helmets, maybe even kneepads. But I'd rather be comfortable than lose all the ability to vent heat from my core.

Two things: 1) with thrusting weapons, you want more padding than you think, else you're going to be covered in bruises (all that force is concentrated on a small area) and 2) a H&S requirement so that they're covered by their club's personal injury insurance.

[Pauly]

It is hard to parry a bayonet thrust with a sword that light, just because of the mass of the musket, so as you say, the sabre was the first choice of many officers.

There’s a reason why the sabre was a cavalry troopers weapon and the spadroon was an officer’s sidearm.

At a certain point you don’t want an officer’s arms to be too effective. You want the officer to be thinking about C3I, not rushing off to chop up random enemies.

[Kiero]

Two things: 1) with thrusting weapons, you want more padding than you think, else you're going to be covered in bruises (all that force is concentrated on a small area) and 2) a H&S requirement so that they're covered by their club's personal injury insurance.

Fair enough; ultimately armed combat has never appealed to me as much as unarmed. I carry my limbs around with me all the time, I can't carry weapons outside of the training context.


There’s a reason why the sabre was a cavalry troopers weapon and the spadroon was an officer’s sidearm.

At a certain point you don’t want an officer’s arms to be too effective. You want the officer to be thinking about C3I, not rushing off to chop up random enemies.

The point was that many serving infantry officers dispensed with the standard issue spadroon in favour of a cavalry sabre. Rifle officers, for example, were issued the light cavalry sabre, rather than a spadroon, because it was expected they would get mixed up in melee, rather than be walking up and down the line shouting orders.

[Mike_G]

There’s a reason why the sabre was a cavalry troopers weapon and the spadroon was an officer’s sidearm.

At a certain point you don’t want an officer’s arms to be too effective. You want the officer to be thinking about C3I, not rushing off to chop up random enemies.

The infantry officer sword was redesigned often to make it more effective. There was never a desire to give them a sword that would discourage them from using it. The spadroon was supposed to be a weapon more suited to fighting than the smallsword many were carrying, as it was heavier and shaped to cut as well as thrust. That took away some of the stiffness that made it a good thrusting sword, so it might not have been a good trade off, but the intent was to issue a better sword, not a worse one

They generally didn't carry a musket, because they were supposed to command their men rather than worry about shooting the enemy, but once you get to melee, there's not a lot of command and control you can do. You want the weapon that will give you the best chance to survive.

AS Kiero has aid, during the Napoleonic wars, many officers did choose a sabre instead, and the "flank officers sword" was adopted by light infantry and grenadier officers, as well as rifle officers. It was a basically slightly shorter and lighter 1796 cavalry sabre, which is a better weapon for battlefield use.

[Mike_G]

"Hot as hell" is definitionally uncomfortable. :smalltongue:

I can see the point in gloves and helmets, maybe even kneepads. But I'd rather be comfortable than lose all the ability to vent heat from my core.

Taking a thrust with the stiff-ish synthetic swords is something like being jabbed with a pool cue. After five minutes, you'd want the jacket. Cuts that don't land on a bony spot just sting and leave bruises, but thrusts will fold you up and take the wind out of you.

And the other thing is that these guys also do steel sword sparring and use sabres and longswords and a variety of HEMA stuff. The spadroon is probably the lightest thing they use, so that gear is just what they wear when sparring. If they only did spadroon, they could maybe use a lighter jacket, like a foil jacket

You get used to it. I've fenced for decades, and you move fine, you just sweat like a pig. But the only thing worse than fencing in a sweaty jacket is fencing without a jacket.

[jintoya]

How should a siege weapon be generally classified for game usage?

In the middle of an Asian themed campaign of 3.5 and the hwacha came up, but neither of us has any parallels to draw from.
It's not launching projectiles larger than what a person could reasonably throw... It's kinda like a mass javelin shooter... So, is it a siege weapon, or some odd mid-ground?

[Brother Oni]

How should a siege weapon be generally classified for game usage?

In the middle of an Asian themed campaign of 3.5 and the hwacha came up, but neither of us has any parallels to draw from.
It's not launching projectiles larger than what a person could reasonably throw... It's kinda like a mass javelin shooter... So, is it a siege weapon, or some odd mid-ground?

A hwacha is a crew served weapon, so I'd say it counts as a siege weapon.

While the individual projectiles aren't that large, they are being chucked to a range further than a person can throw without assistance - the hwacha has a range of 100-450m depending on weather/elevation and javelins have a range of 15-70m depending on the exact type of javelin. You'd need an atlatl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower) or some other mechanical aid to match an hwacha's lower estimated range.

In game terms, I'd possibly use something like a ballista as a basis, reducing the power of the attack but giving it an AOE effect. Depending on your game world, you may or may not want to remove the explosive charge from the fire arrows.

[GM_3826]

What is the difference between a "chain shirt" and "chain mail," in practical terms? I can't find a whole lot of information on chain mail that isn't a chain shirt (i.e. hauberk)

[The Jack]

What is the difference between a "chain shirt" and "chain mail," in practical terms? I can't find a whole lot of information on chain mail that isn't a chain shirt (i.e. hauberk)

They're both chain, or mail.

What the book is trying to say is that the 'chain shirt' is T-shirt levels of protection, whilst the 'chain mail' covers your arms and you've got chain leggings and your suit might include mittens and foot protection. It's not a onesie, but it's close in protection.

These games are head-protection agnostic usually.

[GM_3826]

They're both chain, or mail.

What the book is trying to say is that the 'chain shirt' is T-shirt levels of protection, whilst the 'chain mail' covers your arms and you've got chain leggings and your suit might include mittens and foot protection. It's not a onesie, but it's close in protection.

These games are head-protection agnostic usually.

Thank you for your help.

[Pauly]

The infantry officer sword was redesigned often to make it more effective. There was never a desire to give them a sword that would discourage them from using it. The spadroon was supposed to be a weapon more suited to fighting than the smallsword many were carrying, as it was heavier and shaped to cut as well as thrust. That took away some of the stiffness that made it a good thrusting sword, so it might not have been a good trade off, but the intent was to issue a better sword, not a worse one

They generally didn't carry a musket, because they were supposed to command their men rather than worry about shooting the enemy, but once you get to melee, there's not a lot of command and control you can do. You want the weapon that will give you the best chance to survive.

AS Kiero has aid, during the Napoleonic wars, many officers did choose a sabre instead, and the "flank officers sword" was adopted by light infantry and grenadier officers, as well as rifle officers. It was a basically slightly shorter and lighter 1796 cavalry sabre, which is a better weapon for battlefield use.

I wasn’t suggesting that there was a deliberate intention to give officers an ineffective sword. More that an officer’s arms are designed as personal defense weapons, not weapons to attack the enemy.

Throughout many historical periods officers who were inclined to get into close quarters actions upgraded their arms to be over and above those that were issued. The basic point is that armies from about the 1600s onwards have been giving officers arms designed for personal defense and a subset of officers have deemed this ordnance issued set to be inadequate and sought to upgrade.

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

[fusilier]

Just found this video of spadroon vs bayonet sparring. It's pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

Thank you for sharing. I wonder what bayonet manual they were using? Some of it seems familiar to me, but there's a lot missing. The musket was definitely much lighter than a real one. ;-)

[fusilier]

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

My assumption is that a carbine or musketoon is easier to carry on the back without it getting in the way of those other things they were supposed to be doing. It's more handy when you are digging a sap, or constructing a bridge, where a full length musket would either have to be left behind, or if carried would be constantly getting snagged on things. If you really wanted to discourage your engineers from getting into a firefight, you wouldn't give them firearms at all. I think they primarily relied upon their training and professionalism to prevent them from engaging in combat.

[Pauly]

My assumption is that a carbine or musketoon is easier to carry on the back without it getting in the way of those other things they were supposed to be doing. It's more handy when you are digging a sap, or constructing a bridge, where a full length musket would either have to be left behind, or if carried would be constantly getting snagged on things. If you really wanted to discourage your engineers from getting into a firefight, you wouldn't give them firearms at all. I think they primarily relied upon their training and professionalism to prevent them from engaging in combat.

That’s basically what the British did in WW2, with a few exceptions such as with the Airborne Divisions.

[Vinyadan]

I have read that the second issue of the British spadroon (1796) was actually a remarkably bad weapon. It was too flexible to thrust, too light to cut, its handle was built like a smallsword's, making cutting even harder, the hand protection was too flimsy and would be easily bashed in, and the guard was sometimes hinged, so that it broke or closed when struck and left the hand exposed.

Cavalié Mercer, who was an artillery officer at Waterloo and would later become a general, wrote that people rather went with a dirk instead.

[Mike_G]

Thank you for sharing. I wonder what bayonet manual they were using? Some of it seems familiar to me, but there's a lot missing. The musket was definitely much lighter than a real one. ;-)

I looked up the Black Fencer musket and bayonet. It weighs about 5 pounds, so yeah, probably half what a real one did, but I think that's reasonable as a safety measure. I wouldn't want to get hit with a ten pound weapon, blunt or not. The fact that even the trainer is more than twice the weight of the sword still makes it hard to parry.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wasn’t suggesting that there was a deliberate intention to give officers an ineffective sword. More that an officer’s arms are designed as personal defense weapons, not weapons to attack the enemy.

Throughout many historical periods officers who were inclined to get into close quarters actions upgraded their arms to be over and above those that were issued. The basic point is that armies from about the 1600s onwards have been giving officers arms designed for personal defense and a subset of officers have deemed this ordnance issued set to be inadequate and sought to upgrade.

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

I thought it was so that engineers would be armed to defend themselves, but not have to carry a large weapon on top of everything else, have it get in their way all the time, etc.

(Reminds me of playing the original Company of Heroes, and ending up with an US engineer team looting and using a dropped MG42 because all my other units in that mission had an add-on already... you could almost see the shock on the little enemies' faces when the AI saw "engineer team" and charged, only to find them armed with the "buzzsaw".)

[Kiero]

I'm reading a story set in the Thirty Years War, so mid-17th century, which mentions several characters having "sleeve knives". As in concealed knives attached to a wrist sheath. Was that really a thing?

I know there's the old saw about the practise of hand-shaking/grasping wrists being a way to demonstrate you aren't hiding any weapons up there. But did people actually do it?

In a similar vein, were boot knives a real thing? As in outside of Hollywood, was it a regular practise for people to carry small knives inside a boot? I can see the potential value in having concealed backup weapons, but there's a definite ergonomic issue with some of those locations.

[jintoya]

A hwacha is a crew served weapon, so I'd say it counts as a siege weapon.

While the individual projectiles aren't that large, they are being chucked to a range further than a person can throw without assistance - the hwacha has a range of 100-450m depending on weather/elevation and javelins have a range of 15-70m depending on the exact type of javelin. You'd need an atlatl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower) or some other mechanical aid to match an hwacha's lower estimated range.

In game terms, I'd possibly use something like a ballista as a basis, reducing the power of the attack but giving it an AOE effect. Depending on your game world, you may or may not want to remove the explosive charge from the fire arrows.
That was the direction we were leaning with it too, thank you for confirming what we suspected.

[Brother Oni]

I know there's the old saw about the practise of hand-shaking/grasping wrists being a way to demonstrate you aren't hiding any weapons up there. But did people actually do it?

The way I heard this one, it was for checking that the person you were meeting wasn't wearing mail under their clothes. While carrying a weapon is commonplace, wearing armour generally means you're expecting trouble (either causing it or expecting it to happen), for example, the still-in-force Statute of 1313 making it illegal to wear armour inside the Houses of Parliament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_forbidding_Bearing_of_Armour).


That was the direction we were leaning with it too, thank you for confirming what we suspected.

No worries. Always happy to help people kill stuff in the most effective and efficient way possible. :smalltongue:

[Storm Bringer]

I wasn’t suggesting that there was a deliberate intention to give officers an ineffective sword. More that an officer’s arms are designed as personal defense weapons, not weapons to attack the enemy.

Throughout many historical periods officers who were inclined to get into close quarters actions upgraded their arms to be over and above those that were issued. The basic point is that armies from about the 1600s onwards have been giving officers arms designed for personal defense and a subset of officers have deemed this ordnance issued set to be inadequate and sought to upgrade.

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

A few stories I have heard told (though I cant remember where I heard it):

during this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj6sbcyVsqw) in the flim a bridge too far, we see a boat-based assault to force a river crossing. The major commanding the assault is seen getting stuck in, throwing grenades, shooting germans and generally fighting. I am told that the man who lead the historical assault did not fire his weapon during the engagement, as he was far too busy commanding the unit and trying to keep the assault moving and under control to waste time shooting for himself.

Also During Operation MARKET GARDEN, Lt. General Browning, commander of the British 1 Airborne Corps, became separated form his HQ during the drop and had to spend several hours in the initial stages creeping across the Netherlands avoiding german patrols and trying to link up with his own forces. at one point he was discovered by a german infantryman and he shot the german with his pistol, and became the highest ranking soldier, on either side, to have killed an enemy in combat with his service pistol.

In the band of brothers miniseries, during the advance into germany in spring 1945, Maj. Winters, while brooding over having shot a very young german during an attack, realised that he'd not shot his rifle in combat for months, and had in fact managed to make it though the entire of the siege of Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge and not use his rifle once.


the point of these stories is that an officers weapon isn't the gun or sword in his hand. The main weapon of an officer is the troops under his command, and that is the weapon he should be wielding to win the battle. his personal weapon is just to get him out of surprise situations.

[Pauly]

In a similar vein, were boot knives a real thing? As in outside of Hollywood, was it a regular practise for people to carry small knives inside a boot? I can see the potential value in having concealed backup weapons, but there's a definite ergonomic issue with some of those locations.

Boot knives were definitely made and sold in fairly substantial numbers. They’re very collectible now. As for usage, that seems to be less well documented. Maybe it’s like a subcompact “purse” pistol nowadays, something that many people carry but few actually use.

“Sleeve” knives have always been in fiction. However reconstructions have always seemed impractical to me. Carrying a dagger tucked into your belt under your shirt seems to me to to be faster access to a more useful sized blade.

[snowblizz]

I'm reading a story set in the Thirty Years War, so mid-17th century, which mentions several characters having "sleeve knives". As in concealed knives attached to a wrist sheath. Was that really a thing?

I know there's the old saw about the practise of hand-shaking/grasping wrists being a way to demonstrate you aren't hiding any weapons up there. But did people actually do it?

In a similar vein, were boot knives a real thing? As in outside of Hollywood, was it a regular practise for people to carry small knives inside a boot? I can see the potential value in having concealed backup weapons, but there's a definite ergonomic issue with some of those locations.

It all probably existed somewhere on someone, but I have a hard time seeing what it would accomplish that your belt knife/dagger couldn't. Or your sidearm rapier/smallsword/what have you.

I'd be almost positive by the time you manage to access the knife up your sleeve someone has ran you through with their sidearm.


With a boot knife I'm kinda thinking along the same lines as the little knife thingy you could have incorporated in your samurai sword panopaly. It was a "hidden weapon", but for utility not surprise attack. There's just no non-awkward way to grab a knife from your boot that's not telegraphing your actions to the guy who, just like you, has a proper sidearm.

[Kiero]

What it could accomplish is the same as any other concealed weapon - the surprise value of being able to produce it when people assume you are unarmed. A belted weapon is pretty obvious, and going for it is a move that telegraphs your intent. Flicking a wrist-sheathed blade into your hand isn't necessarily what would be expected, gaining you those moments before your opponent realises they are under attack.

[Man_Over_Game]

Say you can, magically, instantly heat metal to the point where it is red hot, and then end the spell so that it safely returns to room temperature.

How does this change your blacksmith technique?

[Brother Oni]

Say you can, magically, instantly heat metal to the point where it is red hot, and then end the spell so that it safely returns to room temperature.

How does this change your blacksmith technique?

If the spell only heated the metal once or kept the metal hot until the spell was cancelled, it would speed up the smithying process, but no real change.

If the metal instantly cooled to room temperature when the spell was ended, you'd get a nice homogeneous piece of metal. Whether this is a good thing is dependent on what you're making: swords are complex alloys and the blade smithying process involved various techniques like quenching so that different parts of the blade have different properties (eg the edges are harder but more brittle, while the core is softer but more resistant to shock), which your spell will interfere with - if it instantly cooled on dispelling, then you can't quench it and if the blade stays hot until the spell is stopped, then you can't quench it.

[Khedrac]

Say you can, magically, instantly heat metal to the point where it is red hot, and then end the spell so that it safely returns to room temperature.

How does this change your blacksmith technique?
Also, tempering metal (iron and steel especially) depends on heating the correct part to the correct temperature before quenching, and quite often it is nowhere near 'red hot'.

So, this ability would be useful during the basic forging process - heat the metal until it starts to soften, then hammer into shape. Once the basic forging has been done and the smith is on to the delicate parts, then as described it would become useless and the smith would revert to existing techniques (actually, they might use this technique on the furnace, then they can still control the temperature of the item being smithed). For the ability to make a significant change to technique a finer control over temperature is required.

[Man_Over_Game]

If the spell only heated the metal once or kept the metal hot until the spell was cancelled, it would speed up the smithying process, but no real change.

If the metal instantly cooled to room temperature when the spell was ended, you'd get a nice homogeneous piece of metal. Whether this is a good thing is dependent on what you're making: swords are complex alloys and the blade smithying process involved various techniques like quenching so that different parts of the blade have different properties (eg the edges are harder but more brittle, while the core is softer but more resistant to shock), which your spell will interfere with - if it instantly cooled on dispelling, then you can't quench it and if the blade stays hot until the spell is stopped, then you can't quench it.

I was thinking the exact same thing:

"Faster, but you can't quench, which can be important."

I wasn't sure if quenching was strictly to cool the item down quickly (which can be duplicated by dispelling the magic), or what impacts it made on the weapon. Your answer sums up my concerns perfectly. Thank you.

[InvisibleBison]

To what extent is a soldier's physical size an advantage or disadvantage in modern warfare? Would it make sense to prioritize recruiting big people or small people, either in general or for any specific tasks?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To what extent is a soldier's physical size an advantage or disadvantage in modern warfare? Would it make sense to prioritize recruiting big people or small people, either in general or for any specific tasks?

I've been told that submariners are (were?) chosen to be small, at least by some armies. Same with tank personnel. But I'd rather have bigger (assuming proportional strength) line infantry--that gear is not light and strength generally scales with size.

[Pauly]

To what extent is a soldier's physical size an advantage or disadvantage in modern warfare? Would it make sense to prioritize recruiting big people or small people, either in general or for any specific tasks?

Apart from jobs that required smaller soldiers for working in cramped spaces, the ones I know of:

- Grenadiers/Guardsmen were selected for size. Whether this was for psychology or for physical prowess I cannot say. I would suggest it was a mix of both.

- Successful fighter pilots in WW1 and WW2 were often short, and it was noteworthy if a successful fighter pilot was over about 6 feet. The speculation was that smaller bodies lead to quicker reflexes but I don’t know of any studies to back that up.

[Max_Killjoy]

Apart from jobs that required smaller soldiers for working in cramped spaces, the ones I know of:

- Grenadiers/Guardsmen were selected for size. Whether this was for psychology or for physical prowess I cannot say. I would suggest it was a mix of both.

- Successful fighter pilots in WW1 and WW2 were often short, and it was noteworthy if a successful fighter pilot was over about 6 feet. The speculation was that smaller bodies lead to quicker reflexes but I don’t know of any studies to back that up.

The earliest fighters needed every pound of power to weight ratio and lift to weight ratio they could get... a pilot 50 lbs heavier might actually have been a significant difference.

[Mendicant]

Size is kind of secondary in importance anymore, IME. Military police benefit from size for obvious reasons, but for the most part, the benefits or disadvantages from size are very minor compared to the benefits of intelligence, general fitness, decipline etc. Once you've got firearms and trucks and the whole modern panapoly, raw strength and size just don't contribute what they once did.

Being small seems like it could be a benefit in the vehicles already mentioned, but I'm not experienced with any of them so I couldn't really say for sure.

[Spamotron]

Size is kind of secondary in importance anymore, IME. Military police benefit from size for obvious reasons, but for the most part, the benefits or disadvantages from size are very minor compared to the benefits of intelligence, general fitness, decipline etc. Once you've got firearms and trucks and the whole modern panapoly, raw strength and size just don't contribute what they once did.

Being small seems like it could be a benefit in the vehicles already mentioned, but I'm not experienced with any of them so I couldn't really say for sure.

Ironically technology might be making size and strength relevant again. Every year there's one more bit of gear a soldier is expected to carry into the field. From a few articles, I've read no matter how hard the U.S. military tries it struggles to get the minimum carried load below 100 lbs. and squads carrying over 200 lbs. each into battle is becoming more and more common. With two equally strong and fit guys its a simple fact that the bigger one can carry more, more easily if for no other reason that they can distribute the weight over more of their body.

[The Jack]

Why are modern combat boots so often black when it sucks for camo? Just tradition? Isnt tradition for dress uniforms?Sure some nations go for the natural colours, but black is so common. Intimidation is out of place with a lot of the scenarios these soldiers find themselves in. Not all of them, but in modern war when you're trying to present yourselves as the good guys and fighting is largely a game of hide and seek with guns and airstrikes, surely black would be the exception over the norm.

[fusilier]

Why are modern combat boots so often black when it sucks for camo? Just tradition? Isnt tradition for dress uniforms?Sure some nations go for the natural colours, but black is so common. Intimidation is out of place with a lot of the scenarios these soldiers find themselves in. Not all of them, but in modern war when you're trying to present yourselves as the good guys and fighting is largely a game of hide and seek with guns and airstrikes, surely black would be the exception over the norm.

Consider, for a moment, the kind of terrain a soldier might be in when seeking cover, and how visible their boots would be to the enemy. And the relative size of the boots. Rarely do soldiers camouflage their faces or hands (although snipers and special forces sometimes do it). Likewise, rifles are rarely camouflaged.

Black has some benefits, in that it's probably easy to keep clean -- lighter colors can show stains -- so when not on maneuvers, it is easier to present a smart appearance.

Brown boots have been used on and off, by different nationalities for centuries. I think in some cases it was a cost saving measure -- issue the boots in natural leather, they will darken as the soldiers oil, wax and polish them. Some surviving old brown boots I've seen from WW1 look almost black.

I think the current US Army boot is a dull brown color, and I've heard many veterans grumble about it. Although that may just be old-timers giving the new soldiers guff for not having to polish their boots. ;-)

[Vinyadan]

To what extent is a soldier's physical size an advantage or disadvantage in modern warfare? Would it make sense to prioritize recruiting big people or small people, either in general or for any specific tasks?

Taken from this (http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/infantry_Napoleon.html)website about the Napoleonic army:

Average height of infantryman:
LINE
grenadiers - 170.25 cm
fusiliers - 164.66 cm
voltigeurs - 159.40 cm
(Average height taken from 3.503 recruits)
LIGHT
carabinier - 168.25 cm
chasseur - 162.98 cm
voltigeur - 158.1 cm
(Average height taken from 900 recruits)

About being taller being better for carrying loads, I am really not sure. Taller people have lots of back problems, compared to shorter ones. When you carry a backpack, most of the weight goes on the shoulders and on the waist (assuming you have a strap at that height). Having a longer back shouldn't change that.

Nowadays, a soldier is required a mix of strength (which is helped by being taller) and, very importantly, endurance (which is helped by being shorter). But I think it's all stuff that can be achieved by training, assuming you start out in good health. About strength, hand-to-hand combat may be an infrequent eventuality, but I also remember images of Marines doing a lot of loading and unloading crates and sacks, not always machine-assisted (for example, loading trucks with grains for relief efforts or agricultural stimulus).

If size influences other important parameters, like reaction time, then it would be better to measure those parameters, instead of size.

[Pauly]

Why are modern combat boots so often black when it sucks for camo? Just tradition? Isnt tradition for dress uniforms?Sure some nations go for the natural colours, but black is so common. Intimidation is out of place with a lot of the scenarios these soldiers find themselves in. Not all of them, but in modern war when you're trying to present yourselves as the good guys and fighting is largely a game of hide and seek with guns and airstrikes, surely black would be the exception over the norm.

Black, in the right context, makes an effective camo. The brain treats black color as shadow and disregards it. So if something that is expected to be in shadow is painted black then there is no disadvantage.

For example the British “Mickey mouse” camo pattern used large black patches. Which was intended to fool the eye into thinking that there were several objects separated by shadows, not a tank shaped object.

I’ve read accounts of big game hunters and they all say that it’s much harder to spot a tiger than a lion, and a tiger’s natural camo is black and orange.

Getting back to boots, in an urban or forested environment where there are a lot of dark shadows then black boots won’t be a problem. The Australian Army which has a semi-arid camo as it’s base uses light brown boots.

[Kiero]

The other consideration with black boots - aren't most actions fought at night nowadays?

[Willie the Duck]

Why are modern combat boots so often black when it sucks for camo?


Black, in the right context, makes an effective camo. The brain treats black color as shadow and disregards it. So if something that is expected to be in shadow is painted black then there is no disadvantage.


The other consideration with black boots - aren't most actions fought at night nowadays?

Pauly has the right of it. A complete human figure in solid black (i.e. what a ninja or cat burgler would wear in a tv show or the like) is indeed bad camouflage. This is because you are most likely the only thing in the area that looks like that (reflecting no light), and thus you stand out next to the much more mixed light-reflecting everything-else. Just the boots being solid black is not that bad a camouflage situation, as patches of no-light-reflected are completely common in many-to-most situations where said boots might be used.

[gkathellar]

- Successful fighter pilots in WW1 and WW2 were often short, and it was noteworthy if a successful fighter pilot was over about 6 feet. The speculation was that smaller bodies lead to quicker reflexes but I don’t know of any studies to back that up.

Anecdotally, I've heard it suggested that small people sometimes handle g-forces better, since there's less space for the blood to be in the wrong part of. Possibly of import.

[hymer]

Anecdotally, I've heard it suggested that small people sometimes handle g-forces better, since there's less space for the blood to be in the wrong part of. Possibly of import.
A thought: Weighing less (which short people on average do compared to tall people) could give you a tiny edge in your kite's performance. But the edge could apply in all manner of things, from acceleration, over reactivity, to fuel consumption.

[Pauly]

Anecdotally, I've heard it suggested that small people sometimes handle g-forces better, since there's less space for the blood to be in the wrong part of. Possibly of import.

The RAF by WW2 had worked out well developed legs were important for fighter pilots and countering G-forces. I’m not sure as to the biol-mechanics of why this is so. An awful lot of the physical training regime for pilots was cross country running and hill climbing.

[Kiero]

The RAF by WW2 had worked out well developed legs were important for fighter pilots and countering G-forces. I’m not sure as to the biol-mechanics of why this is so. An awful lot of the physical training regime for pilots was cross country running and hill climbing.

Didn't WW2-era planes also have mechanical pedals for some of the controls?

[AdAstra]

Didn't WW2-era planes also have mechanical pedals for some of the controls?

Pretty sure nearly ALL flight controls were mechanical. The only exceptions I'm aware of are electrically-powered turrets, landing gear, and automatic flaps, the last only on some rare late-war designs

[Kiero]

Pretty sure nearly ALL flight controls were mechanical. The only exceptions I'm aware of are electrically-powered turrets, landing gear, and automatic flaps, the last only on some rare late-war designs

Specifically, I mean you needed to apply an amount of physical force to operate them, thus it was a workout for your legs controlling the plane.

[Brother Oni]

The RAF by WW2 had worked out well developed legs were important for fighter pilots and countering G-forces. I’m not sure as to the biol-mechanics of why this is so. An awful lot of the physical training regime for pilots was cross country running and hill climbing.

Improving your cardiocascular fitness makes your heart and lungs work more efficiently, thus useful for fighter pilots who are in high stress situations and can potentially operate at lower oxygen environments (even with oxygen supplementation). It also reduces your blood pressure, thus giving you more capacity to withstand negative g-forces pushing your blood into parts of your body where you don't want it to linger (eg red outs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redout)).

Finally, having strong leg muscles give you more scope to flex your legs, thus assisting the return of blood back to your heart - this can be important in high positive g situations since the blood can be pooled down into your legs and away from your brain/heart, which contributes to grey outs and black outs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC). Modern fighter pilots wear g-suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-suit) which are very tightly fitting around the legs to help this and there is also a straining technique to help compensate shorts bursts of high g.

[Mike_G]

The RAF by WW2 had worked out well developed legs were important for fighter pilots and countering G-forces. I’m not sure as to the biol-mechanics of why this is so. An awful lot of the physical training regime for pilots was cross country running and hill climbing.

Didn't the RAF have a legless ace?

[gkathellar]

Specifically, I mean you needed to apply an amount of physical force to operate them, thus it was a workout for your legs controlling the plane.

Douglas Bader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bader) was able to fly combat with a pair of artificial legs.

It's suggested that his condition may have even worked to his advantage - real legs, according to this reasoning, are basically just space into which a person's blood can be diverted by gravity. That would fit with the leg-strengthening for able-bodied pilots as well: trained legs have better blood flow and are usually accompanied by a strong cardiovascular system. Again, I don't know how accurate all this is, but there's an appreciable logic behind it.

EDIT: Ninja'd in greater detail by Brother Oni

[Mr Beer]

Maybe smaller people just work better in a cramped cockpit? I'm only guessing here, but I believe that was a reason for Soviet tankers to be small guys, it was already ridiculous enough working in a tiny noisy smelly oven without having to double over as well. Of course, tankers have to move around more than fighter pilots.

[AdAstra]

Specifically, I mean you needed to apply an amount of physical force to operate them, thus it was a workout for your legs controlling the plane.

This depends heavily on the plane. Some prospective military craft were considered very dangerous, sometimes nearly unflyable due to how stiff (or unstable) the controls were in certain conditions, typically stalls or steep dives. Not exactly an ideal time to be unable to move the stick. On the other hand, many of the top-performing combat aircraft were praised for the lightness and responsiveness of their controls (the FW-190 comes to mind, and it did not have any kind of active mechanical assistance aside from elevator trim as far as I'm aware), so the amount of strength required to operate the controls is probably down largely to design. Going back to the FW-190, that plane was designed to only require about 8 pounds of force (roughly how much force a man's wrist can exert) at the most to move the ailerons, and it seems this bore out in practice considering how glowingly the Focke-Wulf's handling was described by both axis and allied pilots

[Archpaladin Zousha]

What kinds of armor and weaponry would be best-suited for a person who does most of their fighting in dark tunnels and cramped pipes?

I got the inspiration to create a drow "warrior-plumber," and I want to figure out what equipment would be most efficient for them in the quite likely event of needing to kill monsters who have infested the city's sewer systems or assassins traversing them who decide to attack him so he can't tell anyone he encountered them or get out of traps laid for him because he unclogged someone's pipes without a 27B-6.

[gkathellar]

What kinds of armor and weaponry would be best-suited for a person who does most of their fighting in dark tunnels and cramped pipes?

I got the inspiration to create a drow "warrior-plumber," and I want to figure out what equipment would be most efficient for them in the quite likely event of needing to kill monsters who have infested the city's sewer systems or assassins traversing them who decide to attack him so he can't tell anyone he encountered them or get out of traps laid for him because he unclogged someone's pipes without a 27B-6.

Off the cuff, probably a shield, with the spear as a primary weapon and a short sword for a sidearm. Assuming there's not a ton of space to swing a weapon, thrusting is going to rein supreme. Armor is going to be a compromise - heavier is obviously better for close-quarters fighting, but if the environs lack breathing room and have lots of moisture, it's going to be as uncomfortable as anything. Shield size will similarly be subject to the limits of how big these tunnels and pipes are.

Lacking additional details, I'd say a small shield, a short spear (i.e. less than two meters), a short sword, and a partial suit of plate (helm, curais, arm and hand protection, maybe a skirt) would probably approximate something resembling a sensible kit.

[The Jack]

Flood the pipes with gas.

A custom shield (Small like a buckler but deployable like a pavise) and a stabby-weapon that could slash would do him well.

[AdAstra]

What kinds of armor and weaponry would be best-suited for a person who does most of their fighting in dark tunnels and cramped pipes?

I got the inspiration to create a drow "warrior-plumber," and I want to figure out what equipment would be most efficient for them in the quite likely event of needing to kill monsters who have infested the city's sewer systems or assassins traversing them who decide to attack him so he can't tell anyone he encountered them or get out of traps laid for him because he unclogged someone's pipes without a 27B-6.
(Note my experience with dnd is confined to 5e, so my evaluation is going to focus on equipment from that game)
As said before, thrusting's probably the way to go, but depending on just how small these tunnels and pipes are, shields and spears may be too cumbersome. If we're talking tunnel-rat levels of smallness, the only practical weapons are probably knives, shortswords, bucklers, maybe hand-crossbows if there are plenty of corridors. Nothing longer than a meter-ish is probably preferred. Anything equal or greater than your height is just asking to get stuck at the worst moment. Ball bearings and caltrops may be useful to buy time for occasional retreats.

If we're talking about the colossal sewers common in fantasy, then probably corridor-filling phalanxes of rectangular shields, spears, shortswords as mentioned by previous posters, perhaps backed up by crossbows behind.

Also a potential consideration, a light source that doesn't emit a flame, to avoid setting off any dangerous concentrations of sewer gases. Since he's a drow, he can certainly go without, but for plumbing work he could use something that emits dim light, which would be as good as bright light with his darkvision. Perhaps even a Gem of Brightness, for some limited blinding capability against certain foes.

[The Jack]

-Armour very well looked after or protected from rusting (not necessarily light armour), goggles, a face mask.
- A snorkel, chisel and other -I really need to escape- equipment.
-If you're drow, you've got cantrips and superior darkvision, but otherwise a heatless flame, like the 50gp ones you'd get from that level 2 ritual, would be essential.
- Large buckler or targe, An arming sword.
- A dagger and spare.
- Hand crossbow.

Plumbing equipment. Fire making equipment. A buddy. Seriously, I'm not doing that stuff alone!

But seriously, I'd rather invest in science or magic. Use the cramped space to rob enemies of air; Build blocks to entrances and exits and then flood the place with poisonous fumes. Blow stuff up. Exploit physics. The magic stuff's outside the scope of this thread, but I'd really go for arcane stuff if I could.

[Pauly]

What kinds of armor and weaponry would be best-suited for a person who does most of their fighting in dark tunnels and cramped pipes?

I got the inspiration to create a drow "warrior-plumber," and I want to figure out what equipment would be most efficient for them in the quite likely event of needing to kill monsters who have infested the city's sewer systems or assassins traversing them who decide to attack him so he can't tell anyone he encountered them or get out of traps laid for him because he unclogged someone's pipes without a 27B-6.


Assuming realistic tunnels and sewers, not fantasy underground highway type tunnels.
Important things needed:
- Flexibility, ability to go around very tight corners and small holes.
- Weapons that do not need lots of arm movement.
- A light source that does not need your hands to use. Preferably ly one that does not use fire (methane goes boom) and one that can be shuttered to create a dark lantern so as to not give away your position.
- Mining survival equipment - ropes, a small pickhammer, crampons, carabiners, pulleys, belay and rappel devices, possibly a climbing harness or equivalent.
- muffled equipment so you don’t give your position away by sound.

For armor I would go for chain with a stout silk covering. Thin, flexible and quiet.

For weapons. A short spear, no more than 5 feet long but one with a broad bladed head. Maybe with Drow technology it could be possible to have a 2 or 3 part extendable/clip together shaft. A dagger. A small crossbow is possible too. The pickaxe could be balanced to make it useable as a backup weapon.

Shields are problematic because of their lack of flexibility and tendency to clang. A leather covered buckler is more general purpose, but a small round shield could be carried in situations where the plumber knows he/she is going into combat.

Mining equipment I would set to hang from a climbing harness, but have it set up so it could be quick release. If plumbing tools are needed you could set them on a broad belt, but with plumber’s tools carried on the back while the mining equipment is at the front/sides.

Light source is best to be magical or fantasy bio-luminescence. Set in a detachable box with lanyard that clips onto the helmet or shoulders. If the plumber needs to extinguish the light quickly they can close the lid and drop the box onto their back. PS in the dark you want the light source to be shielded from your own eyes, you never want to hold an open flame in front of you the way it is usually depicted in fantasy.

[fusilier]

Didn't WW2-era planes also have mechanical pedals for some of the controls?

The rudder is traditionally controlled by foot pedal or bar.

[Kiero]

Shields are problematic because of their lack of flexibility and tendency to clang. A leather covered buckler is more general purpose, but a small round shield could be carried in situations where the plumber knows he/she is going into combat.


What about reinforced bracer(s) as an alternative to shields? Several strips of metal along the forearm attached to a backing of thick leather is better than nothing.

[Brother Oni]

This might interest some folks:

https://i.redd.it/xii0fvk6bl031.jpg
German SEK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Deployment_Commando)* with mail, intended to make arrests against knife armed individuals; they typically work in threes, two with large concave riot shields, with the third in mail to make contact and slap the handcuffs on.

I'm not a fan of the apparent lack of padding around the body (the head would be covered by the helmet, which presumably has built in padding), but it interesting to see that body armour has started to come full circle again. There was some commentary on the forum that I found it on, that this was purely for show rather than for practical use (based on the fitting and other things), but some checking indicates that this has been in use by SEK since at least 2016, for example, this incident in Minden on 16 Sep 2016 where they were trying to arrest an individual who was running around with a pruning saw (https://www.mt.de/lokales/minden/20918740_Grosseinsatzin-Minden.html).

*Spezialeinsatzkommandos - state level special operations police officer, as opposed to the GSG9 who are federal level (sort of like US State SWAT and FBI HRT as I understand it).

[Pauly]

What about reinforced bracer(s) as an alternative to shields? Several strips of metal along the forearm attached to a backing of thick leather is better than nothing.

I”m not an armor expert, so take my comments with a grain of salt or two.

- I don’t see bracers over mail as offering significant improvement over well made mail. But they do add weight and it more thickness of forearms, and in moving in tight spaces reducing thickness is a concern.
- The advantage of the buckler is that the blow is received indirectly from the body. The play of the buckler in the hand will absorb some of the energy. Energy that in a bracer would be transferred to the bones of the forearm.

Bracers are better than nothing. In my book they seem inferior to mail extending to the wrist and/or a buckler/targe.

[Mr Beer]

Gloves and padding on knees and elbows. Crawling along sewers, you really don't want to get abrasions on contact points.

Spare clothing in a waterproof bag.

[AdAstra]

Oh, and one very important thing! Waterproof garments, especially boots. This might be a given to most, but the importance of not stomping around in gear soaked with sewer-water can't be understated. At the very minimum, knee-high well-waxed or even pitch covered boots, and probably a minimum of absorbent fabric at all.

[Pauly]

Oh, and one very important thing! Waterproof garments, especially boots. This might be a given to most, but the importance of not stomping around in gear soaked with sewer-water can't be understated. At the very minimum, knee-high well-waxed or even pitch covered boots, and probably a minimum of absorbent fabric at all.

Very fair point. However it does highlight the tension between muffled/silenced equipment for not giving yourself away by sound and the sewer environment

[Mabn]

How does the false edge of a sword work? I assume it was intended to allow you to strike with the other side of a one handed sword, but it doesn't seem like you could put much strength behind it, and if I was moving a sword back in position after trying to strike, I think I'd rather just angle it slightly to stab with the tip or cut with the proper edge. So what kinds of things were people doing with it? And does having it impair the rigidity of the sword (presumably making it worse at it's other functions), or allow the tip to have a better profile for thrusting (since it makes a single edged sword have an end more like double edged swords that tended to be more thrust-centric)?

[Kiero]

I”m not an armor expert, so take my comments with a grain of salt or two.

- I don’t see bracers over mail as offering significant improvement over well made mail. But they do add weight and it more thickness of forearms, and in moving in tight spaces reducing thickness is a concern.
- The advantage of the buckler is that the blow is received indirectly from the body. The play of the buckler in the hand will absorb some of the energy. Energy that in a bracer would be transferred to the bones of the forearm.

Bracers are better than nothing. In my book they seem inferior to mail extending to the wrist and/or a buckler/targe.

You've overlooked an important element of an armoured bracer - rigidity. Mail is flexible, even if it stops the a cut, it doesn't stop the kinetic force of the blow.

[gkathellar]

How does the false edge of a sword work? I assume it was intended to allow you to strike with the other side of a one handed sword, but it doesn't seem like you could put much strength behind it, and if I was moving a sword back in position after trying to strike, I think I'd rather just angle it slightly to stab with the tip or cut with the proper edge. So what kinds of things were people doing with it? And does having it impair the rigidity of the sword (presumably making it worse at it's other functions), or allow the tip to have a better profile for thrusting (since it makes a single edged sword have an end more like double edged swords that tended to be more thrust-centric)?

A wide variety of flicking cuts, especially from inside of the bind, are possible with the rear edge of any double-edged sword; frequently, it enables strikes from angles that are otherwise difficult to move from. And yes, having two edges nearly always improves thrusting power, although exactly how much will vary depending on sword shape and thrust angle.

[comicshorse]

OK I saw John Wick 3 recently ( don't worry this involves only the most minor of spoilers) and he has a fight with a bunch of guys in a store room of weapons. In this he grabs a load of throwing knives and uses them on the bad guys and, quite frankly, they seem rubbish.
This seems an ideal situation for throwing knives. The opponents are only a few feet from each other and the store provides a load of them in easy grabbing range and they still seem pretty terrible in that it takes four or five to put a guy down permanently.
So : are throwing knives really this poor a weapon ?
If so were they ever really used by a serious group or force or are they just one of those things that people think may have been used and so turn up in books and films but where never really used by anyone who knew what they were doing ?

[Khedrac]

One of the twists with throwing knives is that the way you usually see people throw knives - spinning with the top moving forwards and down as the knife leaves the hand - may be relatively accurate, but it is a terrible way for the knife to damage a human!
For a start the ribs will simply block any knife strike to the chest (need to come up from below) and the head is a mass of bone, so though scalp wounds are messy you need to hit an eye to disable; this leaves strikes to the limbs - and a thrown knife will have limited momentum and ability to penetrate and do damage.
I am told that the way to throw a knife in combat is underarm, blade first - so not spinning, and has a chace to penetrate the rib cage, but I expect most of the problems with limited momentum remain.

[Max_Killjoy]

OK I saw John Wick 3 recently ( don't worry this involves only the most minor of spoilers) and he has a fight with a bunch of guys in a store room of weapons. In this he grabs a load of throwing knives and uses them on the bad guys and, quite frankly, they seem rubbish.
This seems an ideal situation for throwing knives. The opponents are only a few feet from each other and the store provides a load of them in easy grabbing range and they still seem pretty terrible in that it takes four or five to put a guy down permanently.
So : are throwing knives really this poor a weapon ?
If so were they ever really used by a serious group or force or are they just one of those things that people think may have been used and so turn up in books and films but where never really used by anyone who knew what they were doing ?

That's less-ridiculous depiction than normally shown in fiction -- the instantly-lethal throwing knife is largely fantasy. See also "shuriken".

But they can injure someone, enough hits to the right spots can be debilitating or lethal, and if nothing else they're useful for surprise and deterrence.

[Lapak]

Throwing knives are pretty poor as far as instantly-disabling weapons go - note that even stabbing someone directly with a knife, where you can put your body weight into it, often fails to kill OR incapacitate in one go.

But you have also touched on something I like about the fight choreography in those movies - you'll notice he also tends to shoot people four or five times (or a couple of times in the head) even when they are already down, unless there is another immediate threat to deal with. And no one is claiming that guns are bad weapons. He is just a killer who knows that people can survive and even fight with horrible wounds, so he makes really, REALLY sure that people he kills are dead.

[tyckspoon]

This seems an ideal situation for throwing knives. The opponents are only a few feet from each other and the store provides a load of them in easy grabbing range and they still seem pretty terrible in that it takes four or five to put a guy down permanently.
So : are throwing knives really this poor a weapon ?

I can't speak to any historical use, but yeah, throwing knives/shuriken/darts (generally, small/light weapons that are unlikely to inflict lethal damage) aren't great weapons. What they are are light, compact, quiet, and nearly impossible to damage (being basically a sharpened bit of metal with no secondary parts - no need to worry about waterproofing a bow string or keeping grit out of the sensitive worky-bits of a gun, etc) and if you're in a situation where most of your opponents won't have ranged weapons than any ranged capacity is better than none. So your hypothetical use case is infiltrations, mostly, with maybe some application as back-up or emergency hold-out weapons in poor environments. If your throwing knives also have a sharpened edge they can do double duty as a melee weapon (again, not a great primary weapon, but better than nothing) and tool for all the various things you might want a cutting edge for.

[Grim Portent]

They can also be contaminated with various substances to make even small wounds more likely to turn septic. An actual toxin can't really be applied by them, but rubbing one in faeces enabled people to introduce some pretty dangerous bacteria in the past.

Can't get close enough to actually stab your desired kill and can't sneak a bow near them? Throw a bunch of bits of sharp metal covered in poo at them and book it. If you're lucky they'll get infected cuts and scratches and die.

Same method works with any weapon, but they're the easiest to sneak in.

[Clistenes]

You've overlooked an important element of an armoured bracer - rigidity. Mail is flexible, even if it stops the a cut, it doesn't stop the kinetic force of the blow.

Samurai sometimes used bracers made of leather or mail with steel bars inserted inside to protect their forearms against kinetic energy...

[AdAstra]

Very fair point. However it does highlight the tension between muffled/silenced equipment for not giving yourself away by sound and the sewer environment

I think one issue is that it may not really be possible to be quiet in a sewer. No matter what clothes you wear, water's gonna splash, and you're gonna get a lot of echoing in those enclosed tunnels. It's possible the best you can do is obfuscate your movements to the point that enemies can't quite tell where exactly you're going. Though maybe some Slippers of Spider Climb, in addition to being a godsend in any environment with a lot of verticality, could give someone expecting panicked sloshing a nasty surprise...

EDIT: also, in regard to the throwing knife/shuriken issue, I do remember them being described by others as reasonably effective distraction weapons. Usually your first instinct when a sharp piece of metal flies at you is to either try to dodge it or keep it from hitting your face or neck. That has a good chance of stopping a foe in their tracks and throwing off their guard, potentially giving you a head start to run away, or a good opening to stab them somewhere nasty.

[The Jack]

This might interest some folks:

https://i.redd.it/xii0fvk6bl031.jpg
German SEK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Deployment_Commando)* with mail, intended to make arrests against knife armed individuals; they typically work in threes, two with large concave riot shields, with the third in mail to make contact and slap the handcuffs on.

I'm not a fan of the apparent lack of padding around the body (the head would be covered by the helmet, which presumably has built in padding), but it interesting to see that body armour has started to come full circle again. There was some commentary on the forum that I found it on, that this was purely for show rather than for practical use (based on the fitting and other things), but some checking indicates that this has been in use by SEK since at least 2016, for example, this incident in Minden on 16 Sep 2016 where they were trying to arrest an individual who was running around with a pruning saw (https://www.mt.de/lokales/minden/20918740_Grosseinsatzin-Minden.html).

*Spezialeinsatzkommandos - state level special operations police officer, as opposed to the GSG9 who are federal level (sort of like US State SWAT and FBI HRT as I understand it).
I forgot to adress it, but yeah this is interesting. Have any idea on how it's effectiveness would compare to historical examples?

[Vinyadan]

This might interest some folks:

https://i.redd.it/xii0fvk6bl031.jpg
German SEK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Deployment_Commando)* with mail, intended to make arrests against knife armed individuals; they typically work in threes, two with large concave riot shields, with the third in mail to make contact and slap the handcuffs on.

I'm not a fan of the apparent lack of padding around the body (the head would be covered by the helmet, which presumably has built in padding), but it interesting to see that body armour has started to come full circle again. There was some commentary on the forum that I found it on, that this was purely for show rather than for practical use (based on the fitting and other things), but some checking indicates that this has been in use by SEK since at least 2016, for example, this incident in Minden on 16 Sep 2016 where they were trying to arrest an individual who was running around with a pruning saw (https://www.mt.de/lokales/minden/20918740_Grosseinsatzin-Minden.html).

*Spezialeinsatzkommandos - state level special operations police officer, as opposed to the GSG9 who are federal level (sort of like US State SWAT and FBI HRT as I understand it).

Apparently, it goes back to at least 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU4lId86VdE

And they also use bos (sticks) if needed to keep the knifeman away, or to hit him. https://mobil.express.de/image/15254594/2x1/600/300/e1ac95b7ce8ebf23914bcaf34e053f18/db/exp-71-22562657-jpg.jpg

[Kiero]

Samurai sometimes used bracers made of leather or mail with steel bars inserted inside to protect their forearms against kinetic energy...

Yep, I had something like that in mind.

[Willie the Duck]

OK I saw John Wick 3 recently ( don't worry this involves only the most minor of spoilers) and he has a fight with a bunch of guys in a store room of weapons. In this he grabs a load of throwing knives and uses them on the bad guys and, quite frankly, they seem rubbish.
This seems an ideal situation for throwing knives. The opponents are only a few feet from each other and the store provides a load of them in easy grabbing range and they still seem pretty terrible in that it takes four or five to put a guy down permanently.
So : are throwing knives really this poor a weapon ?
If so were they ever really used by a serious group or force or are they just one of those things that people think may have been used and so turn up in books and films but where never really used by anyone who knew what they were doing ?

I think when you get to the 'ever really used by a serious group or force' level, you have to consider the issue of competing options. Against opponents whom a throwing knife might reasonably be used, a javelin is also a pretty good option, has a number of advantages over the throwing knife (momentum and effective range being two easily seen ones), and there just aren't enough advantages that the knives have over the javelin to have them see common use. I think it seems like you could carry a whole lot more throwing knives than javelins, but probably not as many as it seems (walking around with a whole slew of knives strapped to you, particularly while also having them readily accessible, is not nearly as easy as fantasy art makes it seem). The JW3 example is a place where they make sense -- they are right there in a store room (easy access right at hand).

[Brother Oni]

I forgot to adress it, but yeah this is interesting. Have any idea on how it's effectiveness would compare to historical examples?

All commercial modern mail I've seen are a 4-in-1 European weave using a mixture of punched (ie single piece of metal) and welded split links made out of stainless steel, so fairly hard but brittle, corrosion proof steel that's intended for accidental cuts and incidental shark attacks, rather than combat.

I would say that this sort of mail used by the police would likely be of a more suitable grade steel, so assuming a similar construction, they would be on par or even better than historical examples. They may even be better at resisting small arms fire as per your previous question, but personally I'd wear it over normal clothing and under the flak jacket/kevlar vest rather than over the kevlar from Vinyadan's video.


And they also use bos (sticks) if needed to keep the knifeman away, or to hit him. https://mobil.express.de/image/15254594/2x1/600/300/e1ac95b7ce8ebf23914bcaf34e053f18/db/exp-71-22562657-jpg.jpg

Derivatives of the sasumata man catcher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasumata) are used in the Far East to non-lethally apprehend (typically knife wielding) individuals by police and civilians (very common in schools):

Thai police arresting a knife armed individual (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqtny9yj8u8).
Sasumata demonstration by Japanese school staff on an intruder (https://youtu.be/OUkA8BlfSNY?t=150).
Knife wielding man restrained by civilians in China (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4z-gzkb6s4).

[Pauly]

Samurai sometimes used bracers made of leather or mail with steel bars inserted inside to protect their forearms against kinetic energy...

But Samurai are armored archers, not armored melee fighters. Their armor is designed to allow freedom of use of the arms and hands to a higher degree than a Western European knight’s panoply. Metatron has some good videos about the compromises to protection made to samurai armor to allow for better archery.

[The Jack]

But Samurai are armored archers

Only fought one way.
Warriors for the millennium
War Stays the Same


(I can't Haiku)

[Vinyadan]

Only fought one way.
Warriors for the millennium
War Stays the Same


(I can't Haiku)

war never changes
big studio achievement
an old new franchise

[DrewID]

I think when you get to the 'ever really used by a serious group or force' level, you have to consider the issue of competing options. Against opponents whom a throwing knife might reasonably be used, a javelin is also a pretty good option, has a number of advantages over the throwing knife (momentum and effective range being two easily seen ones), and there just aren't enough advantages that the knives have over the javelin to have them see common use. I think it seems like you could carry a whole lot more throwing knives than javelins, but probably not as many as it seems (walking around with a whole slew of knives strapped to you, particularly while also having them readily accessible, is not nearly as easy as fantasy art makes it seem). The JW3 example is a place where they make sense -- they are right there in a store room (easy access right at hand).

While I agree with the general statement "The javelin is superior to the throwing knife as a weapon of war", I will raise two points:

All of your arguments against the throwing knife apply to a somewhat lesser degree if we were discussing javelin vs. throwing axe, and yet the Franks made extensive use of the francisca.

One probable advantage of the throwing knife over the javelin is carrying it in extremely cramped quarters. Like a tunnel, say?

The primary advantage for throwing knives, though, has always been Rule of Cool, not anything tactical.

DrewID

[Mr Beer]

All of your arguments against the throwing knife apply to a somewhat lesser degree if we were discussing javelin vs. throwing axe, and yet the Franks made extensive use of the francisca.

Axes are heavier than knives though. I think that the lethality problem with a throwing knife relates to lack of mass, I would guess a 'throwing machete' is probably as good as an axe though.

[The Jack]

You could just split the difference and throw minature spears/pointy weights.

[Vinyadan]

You could just split the difference and throw minature spears/pointy weights.

Already done, the Romans did it (plumbata) and so do children (lawn darts).

[Kiero]

But Samurai are armored archers, not armored melee fighters. Their armor is designed to allow freedom of use of the arms and hands to a higher degree than a Western European knight’s panoply. Metatron has some good videos about the compromises to protection made to samurai armor to allow for better archery.

What does that have to do with the viability or otherwise of a specific piece of equipment?

[The Jack]

What does that have to do with the viability or otherwise of a specific piece of equipment?

Shhh, I'm already trying not to get mad at him.
Everybody knows samurai used guns.

[gkathellar]

But Samurai are armored archers, not armored melee fighters. Their armor is designed to allow freedom of use of the arms and hands to a higher degree than a Western European knight’s panoply. Metatron has some good videos about the compromises to protection made to samurai armor to allow for better archery.

Samurai is a term for a social and economic class that varied tremendously over centuries of use.

[Willie the Duck]

While I agree with the general statement "The javelin is superior to the throwing knife as a weapon of war", I will raise two points:

All of your arguments against the throwing knife apply to a somewhat lesser degree if we were discussing javelin vs. throwing axe, and yet the Franks made extensive use of the francisca.

There are a series of videos on the francisca (google "lindybeige francisca" and you get most of them) that talk about (yes, mostly speculate) on exactly what the franscisca was for and how it might have been used. I'm not sure what I believe about it, other than 1) it seems like something of an open question, and 2) I'm confident enough that the differences brought up do in fact make it distinct enough from other thrown weapons to have its' own purpose on the battlefield (even if there is some dispute over what exactly that was).


One probable advantage of the throwing knife over the javelin is carrying it in extremely cramped quarters. Like a tunnel, say?

Are you throwing the knife in these cramped quarters? That seems like a pretty unusual set of circumstances. One that runs afoul of trying to wriggle through tunnels so cramped that a spear or javelin is no longer a good idea with a bunch of knives strapped to you. If you aren't throwing the knife, than this seems like an argument for knives in general, rather than throwing knives. And I'm pretty sure that no one is denying that knives had a significant battlefield role. I just speculate that the set of circumstances sufficient to justify enough (specifically crafted to be throwable, including whatever tradeoffs that involves) knives on one soldier to make them comfortable tactically disarming themselves is exceedingly rare.


Axes are heavier than knives though. I think that the lethality problem with a throwing knife relates to lack of mass, I would guess a 'throwing machete' is probably as good as an axe though.

And this is what I mean about the tradeoffs for making a knife throwable. I honestly don't know how you make a massive knife a good throwing weapon. The lever that an axe has is an inherent advantage towards sending something relatively heavy a good distance. Perhaps some kind of knife atlatl, and making the knife more aerodynamic... and I've just reinvented the spear, dammit!:smalltongue:.

[Mike_G]

Thrown knives are generally a poor weapon, if you are comparing them to just about anything you'd carry into battle.

What they are good for is concealment and ease of carry.

A javelin or any kind of bow is going to be much more effective than a thrown knife, but there are a lot of places you can't just carry one.

If you look at the thrown dagger like a pocket pistol, a derringer or similar weapon, that's a good analogy. If you're going into battle, obviously a rifle is a better choice than a derringer. If you want something to tuck in you pocket in case you get mugged on the way to the opera, the rifle is going to raise some eyebrows.

[Vinyadan]

If you want something to tuck in you pocket in case you get mugged on the way to the opera, the rifle is going to raise some eyebrows.

Especially from the poor singers...

[Willie the Duck]

If you want something to tuck in you pocket in case you get mugged on the way to the opera, the rifle is going to raise some eyebrows.


Especially from the poor singers...

'If you say in the first chapteract that there is a rifle hanging on the wallaudience, in the second or third chapteract it absolutely must go off.' -Chekhov, paraphrased.

[snowblizz]

Axes are heavier than knives though. I think that the lethality problem with a throwing knife relates to lack of mass, I would guess a 'throwing machete' is probably as good as an axe though.

Reminds me of the "African throwing knifes", multipointed/bladed things whose claim to be knives may be more due to not really fitting into any category and may not have been thrown at all.

[Clistenes]

But Samurai are armored archers, not armored melee fighters. Their armor is designed to allow freedom of use of the arms and hands to a higher degree than a Western European knight’s panoply. Metatron has some good videos about the compromises to protection made to samurai armor to allow for better archery.

But the point is, they judged chainmail was not protective enough and added steel strips or bars to protect their forearms, so adding vambraces to a hauberk makes sense... plus I am quite sure I have seen historical european armor with that kind of set up...

[KineticDiplomat]

There is, indeed, historical evidence for using strips of iron as extra protection. Particularly when sewn into boots during the Viking era. It follows that you could presumably see them into a gambeson or leather bracer. However:

1) This is not a shield to block with, it is extra protection against light slashes and errant steel. The iron is reasonably free floating and unconnected to other armor, and unlike a full vambrace, has a relatively narrow cross section that force will be transmitted through.

So, stop a few ounces of knife from cutting, catch an already weak slash from a sword, prevent your arm from being sliced by your own friends spear as he draws it back at the wrong time? Sure.

But consider that a Major League Baseball bat is about 2 lbs. Most medieval one handed swords were about 2-3 lbs, with the odd heavier blade going higher. As much as slicing, they were clubs of sharpened iron (or early steel). Meaning that trying to catch a full hearted swing on your forearms with iron strips may stop the blade from sinking deep, but will still end with anything from deep bruising to broken bones.

And trying to stop a hefty two handed swing? Odds are your arm will just be knocked out of the way, but if you really were to keep it static, you’re losing use of the arm.

2) It would not be that good at catching thrusts. For the obvious reasons, you can’t just stick the outside of your arm precisely in the way of a thrust. Well, you can...but to do it in a way that somehow avoided being stabbed in the arm and at the same time actually let you sword fight rather than box would be preternaturally difficult.

So you’d be left parrying thrusts with your arm. Not impossible, but far harder than with a weapon, and far, far harder than just leaving a block of wood in front of you.

3) All of this requires a degree of freedom of mobility and good vision, plus focus on the task at hand. Already hunched over in a tunnel, possibly fighting at headbutt and biting distance, stabbing madly along a single axis, you have none of the above.

[Tobtor]

There is, indeed, historical evidence for using strips of iron as extra protection. Particularly when sewn into boots during the Viking era. It follows that you could presumably see them into a gambeson or leather bracer.

I am not quite sure what you are describing. Can you give references to the sources? I have never heard about Viking era boots with metal before.

[KineticDiplomat]

Boots being a bit of misnomer in the modern sense. More that in a tall boot or leg wrappings you would sew in strips of iron above the ankle and below the knee. A preview to what you would think of as the splinted tass. Something like this (though this set is buckled on, the idea is a few long strips of scrap iron):

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/3098/6414/products/3c1f9e24519a79cab046785b04c6c93f_1024x1024.jpg?v=1 524861335


The bayeaux tapestry has several depictions of gray striped boots along the lower leg similarly.

[Vinyadan]

Boots being a bit of misnomer in the modern sense. More that in a tall boot or leg wrappings you would sew in strips of iron above the ankle and below the knee. A preview to what you would think of as the splinted tass. Something like this (though this set is buckled on, the idea is a few long strips of scrap iron):

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/3098/6414/products/3c1f9e24519a79cab046785b04c6c93f_1024x1024.jpg?v=1 524861335


The bayeaux tapestry has several depictions of gray striped boots along the lower leg similarly.

Gaiters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaiters

[Tobtor]

Boots being a bit of misnomer in the modern sense. More that in a tall boot or leg wrappings you would sew in strips of iron above the ankle and below the knee. A preview to what you would think of as the splinted tass. Something like this (though this set is buckled on, the idea is a few long strips of scrap iron):

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/3098/6414/products/3c1f9e24519a79cab046785b04c6c93f_1024x1024.jpg?v=1 524861335


The bayeaux tapestry has several depictions of gray striped boots along the lower leg similarly.

I am still not sure I believe you. Have you any references to any scholarly works or sources?

The picture you have shows something that is vertical metal strips, but all I can see on the bayeaux tapestry is people who horizontal bands (or cross bands) on the lower legs.

Suppose you mean something like the ones in the lower part of this picture?
https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2018/04/BT-section-2-f3182df.jpg?quality=90&resize=620,413

I have always interpreted those as a kind of gaiters (as Vinyada mentions). That this is cloth around the lower legs, not metal. Alternatively it could just be bands around the leg. Both straps of cloth around the legs and pieces of cloth tied to the legs are pieces of clothing we know exist. It is noteworthy that also people not wearing armour seem to have the horizontal stripes on the lower legs.

See this example
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bayeux_tapestry/c1BT7.jpg

But perhaps they did wore metal stripes on the legs, I just never see any examples. My understanding was that not before around 12th century you see leg guards reappear in northern Europe (ignoring for a moment and ancient Roman/Greek use for the moment).

But I would really to be educated on the subject. Is there any finds of such armour?

[KineticDiplomat]

The Valsgärde graves included a 7th century set of armor with 21 iron splints . This is probably the best known archaeological find. Originally in the 1930s they tried to piece them together as a chest and skirt set, but more modern interpretations have generally concluded they were a sword arm vambrace (debatable) and and two sets of greaves (much more certain).

There is severe debate about the commonality (very few examples have been found, to which others counter that very few mail shirts have been found in Viking graves as well...) and if they were really “Viking” armor or an import from the proto-Germans. Others insist that they were used by the Varangian Guard, but almost all of the refer back to the handful of Scandinavian finds, of which Valsgärde is the most complete.

Finds of smaller groups of splints with apparent holes, combined with the well recorded Saga tendency for warriors to sew things into clothes, points it the idea that these were sewn or wrapped into boots or boot wraps. The arguments rage on that interpretation as well.

William Short wrote a pretty good book on the era, where he concedes that this type of armor isn’t fantasy, but also believes there is little evidence that it was used extensively.

————

Anyhow, there is evidence they existed, and worked, so that is more than sufficient for some D&D applications. (It is also, incidentally, sufficient for Bernard Cornwell to keep writing the iron boot strips into Uthred’s kit)

[Mike_G]

————

Anyhow, there is evidence they existed, and worked, so that is more than sufficient for some D&D applications. (It is also, incidentally, sufficient for Bernard Cornwell to keep writing the iron boot strips into Uthred’s kit)

I wouldn't trust Cornwell. His riflemen in the Sharpe series load their weapons by biting off the end of the paper cartridge (valid) pouring the powder down the barrel, then spitting the ball into the muzzle of the charged rifle, which necessitates putting one's favorite head directly in front of the muzzle of a (for all practical purposes) loaded rifle, which may well still have hot embers in the barrel. This is what we who are acquainted with firearms refer to as "really stupid" and not something any soldier, particularly an expert marksman would do.

So take Cornwell with a big ol' grain of salt.

I mean, he doesn't even know that you have to kill Sean Bean in everything.

[Storm Bringer]

I wouldn't trust Cornwell. His riflemen in the Sharpe series load their weapons by biting off the end of the paper cartridge (valid) pouring the powder down the barrel, then spitting the ball into the muzzle of the charged rifle, which necessitates putting one's favorite head directly in front of the muzzle of a (for all practical purposes) loaded rifle, which may well still have hot embers in the barrel. This is what we who are acquainted with firearms refer to as "really stupid" and not something any soldier, particularly an expert marksman would do.

So take Cornwell with a big ol' grain of salt.

I mean, he doesn't even know that you have to kill Sean Bean in everything.


you're missing the point:

Sharpe is so badass, he can survive being played by Sean Bean.



that said, you can YouTube videos of reenactors who show that the spit-loading/tap loading technique does work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvc86ggLUY4), and doesn't achieve horrendous results (and the people doing it felt it was safe enough to do repeatedly, and safe enough for a battlefield expedient).

on the list of "stupid things a soldier has done in a combat situation where he should really know better", this is still only middle of the pack.

[Tobtor]

The Valsgärde graves included a 7th century set of armor with 21 iron splints . This is probably the best known archaeological find. Originally in the 1930s they tried to piece them together as a chest and skirt set, but more modern interpretations have generally concluded they were a sword arm vambrace (debatable) and and two sets of greaves (much more certain).

There is severe debate about the commonality (very few examples have been found, to which others counter that very few mail shirts have been found in Viking graves as well...) and if they were really “Viking” armor or an import from the proto-Germans. Others insist that they were used by the Varangian Guard, but almost all of the refer back to the handful of Scandinavian finds, of which Valsgärde is the most complete.

Finds of smaller groups of splints with apparent holes, combined with the well recorded Saga tendency for warriors to sew things into clothes, points it the idea that these were sewn or wrapped into boots or boot wraps. The arguments rage on that interpretation as well.

William Short wrote a pretty good book on the era, where he concedes that this type of armor isn’t fantasy, but also believes there is little evidence that it was used extensively.

————

Anyhow, there is evidence they existed, and worked, so that is more than sufficient for some D&D applications. (It is also, incidentally, sufficient for Bernard Cornwell to keep writing the iron boot strips into Uthred’s kit)

Thank you for the reference to the book by Short. Thanks gives me something too look for.

Though it should be mentioned that: the reconstruction is uncertain! Is well before the Viking age (around 600-650 AD). And far as I know the Valsgärde find is unique.
http://hurstwic.com/ I can find the following statement (written by William Short)

Some believe that Viking fighters used splinted armor, armor made from metal strips attached to leather straps fastened around legs and arms to prevent edged weapons from biting. Remains of this type of armor are found from the Viking age outside of Viking lands, and in some Viking trading centers. Additionally, the armor is found in Scandinavia, but from before the Viking era, such as the 7th century metal splints found at Valsgärde in Sweden shown to the left. I do not find the evidence convincing for the use of this kind of armor in Viking lands.
(my emphasis)

But perhaps Short has changes his views.

I can find tome texts on the internet that discuss the that the reconstruction:
https://www.sippe-guntursson.de/en-reenactorisms-the-varangian-legguard.html
http://thethegns.blogspot.com/2011/12/splinted-armour.html

One issue is that we have is that the "armour" is placeds in a box, and not on the person, so we do not know how it was used. They might even be horse armour for all we know. Or an unfinished product of so kind (see pictures below, the neck protection looks similar to the strips, and they are from helmets for the period). They were found together with various tools. But, yes perhaps it is arm and leg protection, thought they are of of a kind (in northwestern Europe).

http://tgorod.ru/contentimage/vendel/ultuna_left.jpg


Some of the strips have "dragon"-heads at the end, and doesn't look like the things many reproduction's show.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/The_Vikings_Begin_45_-_body_armor_in_metal_and_leather%2C_Valsg%C3%A4rde _boat_grave_8%2C_7th_century.jpg

So, we have one, maybe, example of arm guards and leg guardss for from the migration period. It is ok for using as RPG, yes. But not not something to the describe as "viking era" armour.

[Pauly]

Thank you for the reference to the book by Short. Thanks gives me something too look for.

Though it should be mentioned that: the reconstruction is uncertain! Is well before the Viking age (around 600-650 AD). And far as I know the Valsgärde find is unique.
http://hurstwic.com/ I can find the following statement (written by William Short)

(my emphasis)

But perhaps Short has changes his views.

I can find tome texts on the internet that discuss the that the reconstruction:
https://www.sippe-guntursson.de/en-reenactorisms-the-varangian-legguard.html
http://thethegns.blogspot.com/2011/12/splinted-armour.html

One issue is that we have is that the "armour" is placeds in a box, and not on the person, so we do not know how it was used. They might even be horse armour for all we know. Or an unfinished product of so kind (see pictures below, the neck protection looks similar to the strips, and they are from helmets for the period). They were found together with various tools. But, yes perhaps it is arm and leg protection, thought they are of of a kind (in northwestern Europe).

http://tgorod.ru/contentimage/vendel/ultuna_left.jpg


Some of the strips have "dragon"-heads at the end, and doesn't look like the things many reproduction's show.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/The_Vikings_Begin_45_-_body_armor_in_metal_and_leather%2C_Valsg%C3%A4rde _boat_grave_8%2C_7th_century.jpg

So, we have one, maybe, example of arm guards and leg guardss for from the migration period. It is ok for using as RPG, yes. But not not something to the describe as "viking era" armour.

One thing I remember reading is that battlefield burial sites from the Viking era feature an awful lot of catastrophic lower leg injuries. Shinbones cleaved in two apparently were common to find. It’s almost as if the mail + round shield + helmet combo favored in this era left a specific vulnerability to hacks at the legs. Big choppy swords and axes were also the dominant sidearms.
It certainly makes splinted greaves something the well dressed Viking might consider quite the fashion accessory.

[Tobtor]

One thing I remember reading is that battlefield burial sites from the Viking era feature an awful lot of catastrophic lower leg injuries. Shinbones cleaved in two apparently were common to find. It’s almost as if the mail + round shield + helmet combo favored in this era left a specific vulnerability to hacks at the legs. Big choppy swords and axes were also the dominant sidearms.
It certainly makes splinted greaves something the well dressed Viking might consider quite the fashion accessory.

Are you perhaps think of Visby? It was in 1361 so a medieval period battle rather than a Viking era one. But yes, especially cuts to the legs have completely severed the leg bone (thus likely putting the enemy out of the fight permanently). Similar wounds, I believe, have been seen at Towton. Legs wounds (and wounds to the head) was the most common. Likely do to the shields.

Sure greaves might be something we could imagine a wealthy Viking could consider, but I still think we lack evidence for it.

[KineticDiplomat]

No, his book basically echoes his Hurstwic page. “It exists, it was found in Scandinavia, and is a greave set, but I highly doubt they were extensively used”. (Paraphrased)

The key there is extensively. So, no they would not be common sights on the Viking battlefield, but they also could and would exist. From that point on it becomes an academic debatewith little evidence and lots of learned conjecture by more educated men than I on both sides. There are few splints in graves, but there is little armor in Viking graves to begin with. There is no direct mention in the sagas of splints, but there is of gauntlets and seeing protection in to clothes. Leg wounds were common (who was it who named their sword legbiter?) which either indicates no one wore greaves or that any sane warrior who could afford it would wear greaves. And so forth.

Anyhow, there is evidence they exist and were used at least some time, so I think for the original question he can safely assume such a thing is doable and some degree of practical.

[Tobtor]

No, his book basically echoes his Hurstwic page. “It exists, it was found in Scandinavia, and is a greave set, but I highly doubt they were extensively used”. (Paraphrased)

The key there is extensively. So, no they would not be common sights on the Viking battlefield, but they also could and would exist. From that point on it becomes an academic debatewith little evidence and lots of learned conjecture by more educated men than I on both sides. There are few splints in graves, but there is little armor in Viking graves to begin with. There is no direct mention in the sagas of splints, but there is of gauntlets and seeing protection in to clothes. Leg wounds were common (who was it who named their sword legbiter?) which either indicates no one wore greaves or that any sane warrior who could afford it would wear greaves. And so forth.

Anyhow, there is evidence they exist and were used at least some time, so I think for the original question he can safely assume such a thing is doable and some degree of practical.

There perhaps is something that might be (and I must stress this: an uncertain interpretation, not a fact) a set of greaves (and a vambrace). there is something that points in that direction, but not "evidence". However, they are not Viking age.

To add to that: I is true we don't have that much armour in the graves from the VIKING era. The same is true of the helmets (only one exist!). However, neither the possible greaves nor the Vendel and Valsgärde helmets are from the Viking age. None of the other Vendel and Valsgärde graves, nor the contemporary Sutton Hoo grave have anything similar to the greaves. So even if we accept it is greaves (I am still doubtful), the is is not something that was common, not even among the elite warriors.

Greaves exist, I am sure. We have both classical and medieval examples. However, I am still not really sure using one example of something that was put in a box, and not displayed like the other equipment, qualify a evidence for a type of armour that is generally not in use before much later (in the this region...).

[Mike_G]

you're missing the point:

Sharpe is so badass, he can survive being played by Sean Bean.



that said, you can YouTube videos of reenactors who show that the spit-loading/tap loading technique does work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvc86ggLUY4), and doesn't achieve horrendous results (and the people doing it felt it was safe enough to do repeatedly, and safe enough for a battlefield expedient).

on the list of "stupid things a soldier has done in a combat situation where he should really know better", this is still only middle of the pack.

I just don’t think putting your own face in front of the muzzle of a gun is justified by the second you save

I would toss anyone who pointed a musket at his (admittedly underutilized) head out of my event

[Storm Bringer]

I just don’t think putting your own face in front of the muzzle of a gun is justified by the second you save

I would toss anyone who pointed a musket at his (admittedly underutilized) head out of my event

like I said, its not the stupidest thing I have been told soldiers have done (that would be taking the Kevlar lining out of their body lining to make it lighter and replacing it with foam matting to bulk it back out again)


also, this was an expedient form a time and place where it wasn't unknown for the third rank of firers to accidently shoot the front rank in the back of the head, or for officers under sniper fire to just walk about quite unconcerned by the rounds pinging around them. Or, indeed, a time when people would stand in massed ranks 50 feet apart and take turns firing volleys into each other.

The past is a different land, and what seems insane to us might have just seemed another acceptable risk to them.

(I can almost imagine the internet geeks of 500 years into the future arguing about people using internal combustion engine cars, because surely no sane person would lock themselves into a metal box with a big tank of highly flammable liquid, and a built in ignition source, and then hurtle around the place at 70 miles an hour, with no computer assistance, surrounded by other vehicles all full of highly flammable liquid, all also without computer assistance, and do this as often as twice a day, most days of the week. its insane!)

[Max_Killjoy]

like I said, its not the stupidest thing I have been told soldiers have done (that would be taking the Kevlar lining out of their body lining to make it lighter and replacing it with foam matting to bulk it back out again)


also, this was an expedient form a time and place where it wasn't unknown for the third rank of firers to accidently shoot the front rank in the back of the head, or for officers under sniper fire to just walk about quite unconcerned by the rounds pinging around them. Or, indeed, a time when people would stand in massed ranks 50 feet apart and take turns firing volleys into each other.

The past is a different land, and what seems insane to us might have just seemed another acceptable risk to them.

(I can almost imagine the internet geeks of 500 years into the future arguing about people using internal combustion engine cars, because surely no sane person would lock themselves into a metal box with a big tank of highly flammable liquid, and a built in ignition source, and then hurtle around the place at 70 miles an hour, with no computer assistance, surrounded by other vehicles all full of highly flammable liquid, all also without computer assistance, and do this as often as twice a day, most days of the week. its insane!)

I've been looked at by someone in their early 20s as if I were insane for having traveled without navigation system or cell phone, just a paper map and whatever payphones happened to be along the route -- and just for the fun of it, no less!

[Mike_G]

like I said, its not the stupidest thing I have been told soldiers have done (that would be taking the Kevlar lining out of their body lining to make it lighter and replacing it with foam matting to bulk it back out again)


also, this was an expedient form a time and place where it wasn't unknown for the third rank of firers to accidently shoot the front rank in the back of the head, or for officers under sniper fire to just walk about quite unconcerned by the rounds pinging around them. Or, indeed, a time when people would stand in massed ranks 50 feet apart and take turns firing volleys into each other.

The past is a different land, and what seems insane to us might have just seemed another acceptable risk to them.

(I can almost imagine the internet geeks of 500 years into the future arguing about people using internal combustion engine cars, because surely no sane person would lock themselves into a metal box with a big tank of highly flammable liquid, and a built in ignition source, and then hurtle around the place at 70 miles an hour, with no computer assistance, surrounded by other vehicles all full of highly flammable liquid, all also without computer assistance, and do this as often as twice a day, most days of the week. its insane!)

It’s not an acceptable risk for reenactors in the present day.

And Sharpe is the first time I heard of spit loading. Tap loading maybe. But until I see a better source, I just don’t believe it. Especially for the Rifles, who should have been more concerned with accuracy than rate of fire, and should have demonstrated better weapon handling

“Don’t point it at your face” is pretty much rule one, not some overly cautious nagging

[Brother Oni]

Page 50, so new thread is up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?589405-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVIII).