Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Gideon Falcon]

Don't misunderstand me, tactics can change the outcome of a war in some cases. But to pick a classical and a modern example Neither Hannibal vs the Romans nor Japan vs the US ever had any hope of winning, the strategic factors where so stacked against them that they could win every battle yet never hope to win the war.

Obviously they're extreme's, and if two sides in a war are fairly close in other respects, tactics are suddenly going to make a big difference, and there absolutely can be times when a good tactical decision can have lasting consequences on things like a wars duration and the political fallout. Also if one side has weak political will then a lot of phytic wins can give one side the edge by getting the enemy to quit, but a great many wars have been fought between opponents where the outcome was decided by strategic factors, (even if no one could see it at the time), long before the first shot was fired. In that situation god tactics will absolutely help the troops come home alive, but they won't affect the final strategic outcome.

This is, again, very problematic for a storytelling perspective. If the war comes down to strategic factors decided from the beginning rather than any actual decisions on the part of the protagonists, then the entire things becomes anticlimactic.

Anyway, it seems that the general consensus is that the question is too specific to answer. Thanks anyway.

[Vinyadan]

About tactics, you can capture people for ransom. Depending on who you capture and how huge the ransom is, this can collapse the enemy country or suddenly make you far richer.

Also keep in mind that logistics matter, but, if they are generally bad, winning the battle becomes immensely relevant. The early middle ages were a mess because of how hard it was to recruit an army. This meant that a lost battle could cost you half or more of your kingdom, and a won battle could conclusively stop an invasion.

Anyway, a question. The Combat of the Thirty was a deadly tournament that was held in 1351 between a total of 60 French, English, and Breton knights to solve a dynastic dispute.

I was wondering, how historically accurate is this representation from the XIX century? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Le_Combat_des_Trente_%281857%29.jpg Do you see anything out of place?

I personally am in love with this illumination of the same subject: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Combat_des_Trente_%28Le_Baud%29.jpg I think it's from around 1500.

[Carl]

This is, again, very problematic for a storytelling perspective. If the war comes down to strategic factors decided from the beginning rather than any actual decisions on the part of the protagonists, then the entire things becomes anticlimactic.

Anyway, it seems that the general consensus is that the question is too specific to answer. Thanks anyway.

Bear in mind you do not have to make the logistics factor super obvious. The reason we bring it up is it's important to understand whats important from the PoV of the war as a whole vs what someone at the lowest rungs sees. Many of the historical examples where not obvious at the time, they only became obvious long afterwards. And just because someone can't singlehandedly decide the outcome of the war doesn't make things anticlimactic. Being involved and present and being characters who readers care about and worry about makes the story relevant even if the characters aren't all singing all dancing war winners. Stories aren't just about where the story ends up, but also the journey to get there.

I'd point at the honour harrington series as a great example, whilst arguably the events of the first book and the second and fourth battles of Grayson turned into war deciding events, only the first is obvious at the time. And ultimate victory, (such as it was), came because of a combination of strategic factors, (including technological advancements in warfare), yet countless characters spread across countless books not involved in those events are still able to have meaningful, complex and enjoyable stories in spite of that.

[Dienekes]

This is, again, very problematic for a storytelling perspective. If the war comes down to strategic factors decided from the beginning rather than any actual decisions on the part of the protagonists, then the entire things becomes anticlimactic.

Anyway, it seems that the general consensus is that the question is too specific to answer. Thanks anyway.

Eh, there are some things to point out at a tactical level that could be used to denote some tactical genius. Being able to read the terrain to know how it will effect the battle is pretty key. Knowing where and how to set up defenses. And being knowledgeable of strange quirks to pull off something insane an unexpected. Or being able to just see what happens, not panicking, and changing your plans should it needs be.

For example, Admiral Yi Sun-Sin is a pretty key figure whose capabilities were just as much a part of his tactics as they were his strategy. He realized that if he needed to pin the enemy ships he needed a type of ship to act as an anvil to the rest of his fleets hammer, so he developed the Turtle ship and created an entirely new tactic of messing up the enemy's fleet formation with the turtle ships and using the rest to barrage the enemy fleet.

And where that tactic was impossible (after a less tactically skilled admiral lost all those turtle ships) he looked over the maps until he found a straight that had a weird environmental quirk he could plan around and built a tactic around that.

Another interesting figure to look at would be Julius Caesar. Go read the accounts of him dealing with Gaul. Vercingetorix had Caesar strategically beaten. He had more men, he had Caesar pinned in and surrounded when another army was coming from the rear to flank Caesar's forces. And he had food while Caesar did not. By all reasonable measures Vercingetorix should have had Caesar beaten. But Caesar won Alesia, because he literally had his soldiers build two walls to turn the battle into a double-sided siege. Cut off information between the two opposing forces. And when they attacked, he was able to read where and how best to defend each section of the walls to make certain they didn't break.

If you want your character to be the next tactical genius there isn't really any one size fits all method. There is just a way to think. Have your character think about every scrap of advantage he can squeeze out of any given situation. Have him be able to read the flow of battle to figure out which points are weak and where he needs to strike and when. Have him being able to take any seeming disadvantage and figure out just how to adapt for his force to succeed.

He no longer has his turtle ships to pin the enemy down? Then he figures out a position on the map for the water to pin the enemy for him.

He is about to be surrounded and cut off? Then he'll find a way to defend both sides of the attack in a way his opponents have never even thought possible.

[Mike_G]

This is, again, very problematic for a storytelling perspective. If the war comes down to strategic factors decided from the beginning rather than any actual decisions on the part of the protagonists, then the entire things becomes anticlimactic.

Anyway, it seems that the general consensus is that the question is too specific to answer. Thanks anyway.

It doesn't all come down to strategic and logistic factors, and decisions of commanders in the field are not irrelevant.

Mead could have lost at Gettysburg and left Lee an open road to Washington if he'd not positioned his troops well on good ground and made use of interior lines.

America might still be a British colony if John Stark hadn't blinded Burgoyne's army with his victory at Bennington that laid the groundwork for the victory at Saratoga that brought the French into the war.

We might still have lost if Morgan hadn't all but wiped out Tarleton's force at Cowpens by a brilliant feigned retreat and double envelopment, putting Cornwallis in a bind in the Southern theater and leading to his surrender at Yorktown.

If Wellington didn't have an eye for good ground, Napoleon might well have shattered the Alliance and reestablished the Empire

Tactics win battles and winning battles matters.

Not saying logistics and strategy don't matter, but sometimes the man on the spot can decide the fate of a nation.

[Squire Doodad]

Eh, there are some things to point out at a tactical level that could be used to denote some tactical genius. Being able to read the terrain to know how it will effect the battle is pretty key. Knowing where and how to set up defenses. And being knowledgeable of strange quirks to pull off something insane an unexpected. Or being able to

Not being able to read terrain has its own problems.
*coughAgincourtcough*

[Dienekes]

Not being able to read terrain has its own problems.
*coughAgincourtcough*

There is another good one. I mean, yeah read that campaign. If we go by any purely strategic metric Henry should have lost that battle. But he picked his positioning well, set up his forces damn near perfectly, and set up picks to negate some of the best advantage of their enemy. They very likely could not have withstood a direct charge from the French knights. So the entire tactical set up was to make that as difficult as possible to pull off.

[Lapak]

I agree with the recent posters that strategic concerns can override tactical concerns, but they don't always. And sometimes the obvious-in-retrospect strategic advantages were not as clear cut in the moment. Carthage v. Rome is a good example of this, actually; Hannibal was hoping to pull some of Rome's allies/subject cities in Italy loose by rolling around and showing them to be weak. He didn't, but it wasn't an impossible dream and had they started to peel off Rome's material and manpower advantages would have been severely compromised. That it failed often means we treat it as a strategic inevitability, but it isn't necessarily so.

Similarly, tactics played a key role in the final battles of the Punic Wars. Roman armies facing Carthaginian forces had been defeated in the past when they allowed Carthage to use elephants to break their lines; Scipio knew this and arranged for countermeasures. (Essentially just 'open up lanes to drive them through, have forces prepared and equipped to do that,' but the prep mattered.) Nullifying that tactical advantage with tactics of his own helped avoid Rome losing another army in a scrap with Carthage - and while it seems obvious NOW that Rome had the reserves to keep piling on for as long as necessary, another military disaster could have substantially dulled the Roman appetite for more. Political will matters even when you have a massive strategic advantage, and if fighting Carthage came to be seen as a pointless quagmire capable of absorbing entire legions that will might have broken. Battles aren't the war, but battles matter, and sometimes tactics are key to winning those battles.

[jjordan]

There is another good one. I mean, yeah read that campaign. If we go by any purely strategic metric Henry should have lost that battle. But he picked his positioning well, set up his forces damn near perfectly, and set up picks to negate some of the best advantage of their enemy. They very likely could not have withstood a direct charge from the French knights. So the entire tactical set up was to make that as difficult as possible to pull off.Agincourt was a strategic loss. The French didn't have to fight. All they had to do was prevent the English from reaching Calais. As soon as they showed up Henry went on the defensive. He had to. They outnumbered him and had superior mobility. Instead of being patient and starving the English into surrender the French insisted on attacking. The tactical failure was the result of strategic failures (organization, discipline, ideology).

[Mike_G]

Agincourt was a strategic loss. The French didn't have to fight. All they had to do was prevent the English from reaching Calais. As soon as they showed up Henry went on the defensive. He had to. They outnumbered him and had superior mobility. Instead of being patient and starving the English into surrender the French insisted on attacking. The tactical failure was the result of strategic failures (organization, discipline, ideology).

That doesn't make tactics irrelevant. Had Henry chosen worse ground or the French co-ordinated their cavalry, infantry and crossbowmen better, they could have won.

Strategy and logistics set you up for success, but tactics deliver. Then strategy takes advantage of the victory in battle to win the war.

[Storm Bringer]

This is, again, very problematic for a storytelling perspective. If the war comes down to strategic factors decided from the beginning rather than any actual decisions on the part of the protagonists, then the entire things becomes anticlimactic.

Anyway, it seems that the general consensus is that the question is too specific to answer. Thanks anyway.

one option is to have the character always thinking about how his current tactical situation can be turned to his long term advantage, even when hes currently at a short term disadvantage. I.E., he's playing the "long game", not so much thinking about how to win the battle in front of him, but whether the battle is even worth fighting. a willingness to concede minor losses to preserve his forces, a unwillingness to fight on his enemies terms, ect.

things like bypassing a small fort that he could storm, but it would cost him too many causalities or take too much time to be worth it, so he goes around it and leaves a small screening force to keep the fort bottled up. Or pulling back form a skirmish thats inconclusive, because the forces needed to win it would be better used elsewhere on some other task. things like that, with all his fights working towards a clear, long term goal and helping him get their or at least preventing the enemy form stopping him. Hell, he could "lose" most of the battles in the campaign but still win the war because he made his victories count (the Lannisters in the GOT lost most of their actual battles against Rob Stark, but were able to win the war by playing these sort of long games.

[Dienekes]

Agincourt was a strategic loss. The French didn't have to fight. All they had to do was prevent the English from reaching Calais. As soon as they showed up Henry went on the defensive. He had to. They outnumbered him and had superior mobility. Instead of being patient and starving the English into surrender the French insisted on attacking. The tactical failure was the result of strategic failures (organization, discipline, ideology).

May I ask what definitions of tactics and strategy are you using? Because unless I'm misunderstanding your post your placing the actions of the commander during the battle are being placed as part of strategy, which would just make everything strategy and thus make the division between strategy and tactic pointless.

Here's what I mean, so you get where I'm coming from.

Strategy is the design for which the theater of war is constructed. Picking out the design of the war, which are the points of interest, and why those points are important.

Preventing the English from reaching Calais was a strategy. And a pretty good one. Getting a mass of knights that can theoretically storm over the majority of the English troops was made possible through strategy.

On the other hand the details through which an objective is directly contested, that is the realm of tactics. Choosing to starve the English out or to just charge them is a tactical decision. Choosing to have your knights charge over poor terrain into the spike line the English set up was a tactical decision. Choosing to completely waste your archers and crossbowmen was a tactical decision. All of which Constable d'Albret chose poorly.

That is why I see Agincourt as a tactical failure.

Sure, certainly, there were outside pressures that influenced everyone's decision making. And many of those pressure were because of strategic realities. But the decisions that resulted in the failure were on a tactical level.

[gkathellar]

Agincourt, like plenty of real-world battles, is one of those cases where we're going to start arguing about definitions, because strategy and tactics are not completely discrete. There's a necessary ambiguity between what counts as tactical and what counts as strategic near the intersection of the concepts.

Without strategy, you don't have the opportunity to win fights. But without tactics, you can't seize that opportunity. Hence why such a big part of logistics is making sure that proper tactics are likely to be used once the fighting starts and everything goes sideways.

[jjordan]

May I ask what definitions of tactics and strategy are you using? Because unless I'm misunderstanding your post your placing the actions of the commander during the battle are being placed as part of strategy, which would just make everything strategy and thus make the division between strategy and tactic pointless.In the case of Agincourt I consider the decision to attack to be a strategic decision. It was necessary because the French were outraged by the raid (and it was a chevauchee on a large scale), believed in the myth of the cavalry charge, and were eager to capture the accumulated loot of the raid and take prisoners for ransom. The logistical system that produced the French army and the weak leadership system made it impossible for the French commander to do anything but attack. That was a bad decision. It might have been forgivable if the tactical decisions made subsequently were not worse. But they were worse. Much worse. And they were made because of the same factors that dictated the French strategic decision.

[Storm Bringer]

May I ask what definitions of tactics and strategy are you using? Because unless I'm misunderstanding your post your placing the actions of the commander during the battle are being placed as part of strategy, which would just make everything strategy and thus make the division between strategy and tactic pointless.

Here's what I mean, so you get where I'm coming from.

Strategy is the design for which the theater of war is constructed. Picking out the design of the war, which are the points of interest, and why those points are important.

Preventing the English from reaching Calais was a strategy. And a pretty good one. Getting a mass of knights that can theoretically storm over the majority of the English troops was made possible through strategy.

On the other hand the details through which an objective is directly contested, that is the realm of tactics. Choosing to starve the English out or to just charge them is a tactical decision. Choosing to have your knights charge over poor terrain into the spike line the English set up was a tactical decision. Choosing to completely waste your archers and crossbowmen was a tactical decision. All of which Constable d'Albret chose poorly.

That is why I see Agincourt as a tactical failure.

Sure, certainly, there were outside pressures that influenced everyone's decision making. And many of those pressure were because of strategic realities. But the decisions that resulted in the failure were on a tactical level.

his point was that, strategically, the French didn't need to fight, just to keep the English away form resupply at Calais. they fought at Agincourt because the French commanders couldn't or wouldn't restrain themselves or their soldiers form a "easy victory". They didn't use their archers/crossbowmen properly because many of the knights didn't see any value in them. While their failings were tactical, they stemmed form failings at the strategic level, like not disciplining the troops to follow orders against their will, or to make combined arms warfare the default and intended approach to any battle.

[Carl]

Strategy and logistics set you up for success, but tactics deliver. Then strategy takes advantage of the victory in battle to win the war.

This was more or less the point i was trying to make. Your never going to win a war the strategic factors are set against, but your never going to win a war if you lose every battle ethier. That said a strong strategic position relative to your enemy can allow you to win battles with less efficient tactics, to sustain multiple defeats for each victory and still come out ahead, or so on and so forth. A strong strategic element, (be it logistics, control of key pieces of real estate, technology, or so on and so forth), is much more beneficial than good tactics, but like any part of an equation you need a value above a certain value in each parameter to get a positive number out the other side.

Also as others have said the key strategic or tactical factors are not often self evident at the time. Ultimately though a lot of this stuff is sop situationally dependent it's hard to fill in the specifics for you because it's dependent on so many variables.

[KineticDiplomat]

Who was it that said "Strategy without tactics is the slowest way to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat?" I feel like that sounds very Sun Tzu-esque. Probably not dead Karl, doesn't seem his style.

Anyhow, I tend to agree with Boyd. Success at a higher level of war trumps success at a lower one. But you can't ignore the lower ones, because A) you never know when you might tie higher, and B) they make it easier to be successful at the higher ones. So in a war like the 100 years war, you can spend a century getting mowed down by longbows in the big battles provided you slowly but surely contract the English freedom of movement when they come big, and pick them off one strongpoint at a time the rest of the time. And then one day you wake up and the English own Calais, but have lost all of northern France.

Back to the OPs question: if you are really looking for a guy to model tactical genius on, perhaps use Gustavus. He was responsible for sweeping tactical reforms that made a low population country that was barely post-feudal into a European powerhouse. His battles are generally good battlefield tactics, but what made him brilliant was creating the system of tactics that built his army - how to properly align musket, pike, artillery, and use cavalry as more than pistolers on the gunpowder battlefield. Maybe you could do something similar, where the character is pretty good at fighting battles, but a generational light in how battles are fought.

And, as a nod to the strategists, you can still have a war that is strategically ambiguous in it's results.

[Dienekes]

his point was that, strategically, the French didn't need to fight, just to keep the English away form resupply at Calais. they fought at Agincourt because the French commanders couldn't or wouldn't restrain themselves or their soldiers form a "easy victory". They didn't use their archers/crossbowmen properly because many of the knights didn't see any value in them. While their failings were tactical, they stemmed form failings at the strategic level, like not disciplining the troops to follow orders against their will, or to make combined arms warfare the default and intended approach to any battle.

Were we discussing Crecy I would agree with you. But that's not how Agincourt went. We actually have the tactical plans for Agincourt from the higher French lords in really good detail. The French decided to spend the day and eat in front of the starving English forces as a way to decrease moral. They had an entire plan set up in detail of how to pick the English apart.

Only Henry was the one who had his archers rush forward in a mock assault and pepper the French with arrows, which caused a panic and the charge was ordered as a response to the English provocation.

The French knights weren't chopping at the bit to charge at the seemingly easy victory. There didn't seem to be some great pressure from the French knight class to prove their honor as their had been at Crecy. They had learned their lesson. They were even going to have the crossbowmen soften the English up first. Only because of the whole provocation by charge thing the crossbowmen got sent in without their pavisses and were torn to shreds. Followed by the ordering of the infamous charge, because the commanders kept trying to play by the battle plan they had thought to perform in perfect conditions rather than realize that they were heading into disaster.

[jjordan]

Were we discussing Crecy I would agree with you. But that's not how Agincourt went. We actually have the tactical plans for Agincourt from the higher French lords in really good detail. The French decided to spend the day and eat in front of the starving English forces as a way to decrease moral. They had an entire plan set up in detail of how to pick the English apart. Hmmm, I'll have to look at that. Everything I've read says that the French were waiting for more forces to arrive before attacking but there were nearly mutinous demands from the French lords that they be allowed to be in the first rank of the charge. My point is that they didn't need to fight. With the English unable to reach Calais or send out foraging parties they had two days, tops, before they would have been forced to negotiate. A strategic decision on the part of the French allowed the English to demonstrate tactical brilliance. And I'd argue that some of the tactical brilliance was based on a knowledge of strategy/logistics (Henry knew the character of the French knights).

[Gideon Falcon]

Eh, there are some things to point out at a tactical level that could be used to denote some tactical genius. Being able to read the terrain to know how it will effect the battle is pretty key. Knowing where and how to set up defenses. And being knowledgeable of strange quirks to pull off something insane an unexpected. Or being able to just see what happens, not panicking, and changing your plans should it needs be.

-snip-

He no longer has his turtle ships to pin the enemy down? Then he figures out a position on the map for the water to pin the enemy for him.

He is about to be surrounded and cut off? Then he'll find a way to defend both sides of the attack in a way his opponents have never even thought possible.

It doesn't all come down to strategic and logistic factors, and decisions of commanders in the field are not irrelevant.
-snip-

Not saying logistics and strategy don't matter, but sometimes the man on the spot can decide the fate of a nation.

-snip-
Similarly, tactics played a key role in the final battles of the Punic Wars. Roman armies facing Carthaginian forces had been defeated in the past when they allowed Carthage to use elephants to break their lines; Scipio knew this and arranged for countermeasures. (Essentially just 'open up lanes to drive them through, have forces prepared and equipped to do that,' but the prep mattered.) Nullifying that tactical advantage with tactics of his own helped avoid Rome losing another army in a scrap with Carthage -snip-
Wow, a ton of great input now. Thank you, those examples should be a really good help moving forward... once I figure out exactly what he's fighting... heh...



-snip- ...he's playing the "long game", not so much thinking about how to win the battle in front of him, but whether the battle is even worth fighting. a willingness to concede minor losses to preserve his forces, a unwillingness to fight on his enemies terms, ect.
-snip-
Hmm, parts of this could actually play into his established character- he's basically a very high functioning autistic, so he's used to not playing the same game as everyone else; not on purpose, but just because he thinks differently. In social situations he fumbles without noticing because he simply isn't playing the roles and games we expect of each other, and that unabashed practical thinking can be shown to contribute to his ability to look past to the 'long game' instead of falling into the traps of lesser tacticians. At the same time, removing the social context from his interactions with an enemy also removes his handicaps, as the cues and tells of an army are much less esoteric to his mindset and let him grasp how to really pull one over on them.


-snip-
Back to the OPs question: if you are really looking for a guy to model tactical genius on, perhaps use Gustavus. He was responsible for sweeping tactical reforms that made a low population country that was barely post-feudal into a European powerhouse. His battles are generally good battlefield tactics, but what made him brilliant was creating the system of tactics that built his army - how to properly align musket, pike, artillery, and use cavalry as more than pistolers on the gunpowder battlefield. Maybe you could do something similar, where the character is pretty good at fighting battles, but a generational light in how battles are fought.

And, as a nod to the strategists, you can still have a war that is strategically ambiguous in it's results.

Awesome, I'll look him up.

Thanks a ton, guys, I now definitely have some directions to look to, and even ways to show his personality through his tactics (which is huge, since the personalities are why I like my characters). That'll give me much more to work with going forward.

[Gnoman]

Wow, a ton of great input now. Thank you, those examples should be a really good help moving forward... once I figure out exactly what he's fighting... heh...

Awesome, I'll look him up.


There's a lot of bad info about Gustavus Adolphus out there, so you have to be careful with what you read.




I'd point at the honour harrington series as a great example, whilst arguably the events of the first book and the second and fourth battles of Grayson turned into war deciding events, only the first is obvious at the time. And ultimate victory, (such as it was), came because of a combination of strategic factors, (including technological advancements in warfare), yet countless characters spread across countless books not involved in those events are still able to have meaningful, complex and enjoyable stories in spite of that.

No u.


I'd be interested to hear your logic on this. Either you're misnumbering the battles (Second Yeltsin was the off-screen battle where Parnell somehow managed to get half his ships out of a trap that White Haven thought was escape-proof), or you're making an interpretation that I'm not seeing.

[Dienekes]

Hmmm, I'll have to look at that. Everything I've read says that the French were waiting for more forces to arrive before attacking but there were nearly mutinous demands from the French lords that they be allowed to be in the first rank of the charge. My point is that they didn't need to fight. With the English unable to reach Calais or send out foraging parties they had two days, tops, before they would have been forced to negotiate. A strategic decision on the part of the French allowed the English to demonstrate tactical brilliance. And I'd argue that some of the tactical brilliance was based on a knowledge of strategy/logistics (Henry knew the character of the French knights).

You’re reading the English accounts. The English version of the battle took great pains to present the French nobility as incompetent, war hungry, fools. A version that was spread over to France post-Revolution. You can understand why the new order would have a reason to portray the defeats of their past on what constitutes as the representative of the old order they just overthrew. It makes a very compelling narrative, and as I mentioned isn’t unbelievable, since something similar did happen at Crecy (though even there the French incompetence gets played up more than is probably deserved).

But the French accounts don’t really justify that reading. While there were knights asking to lead the charge, that was pretty standard. It’s useful to have your warriors willing to do the most dangerous jobs. But the near mutinous pressure to commit to an immediate attack isn’t presented at all. They seemed happy to gloat about what good food they had in front of the English.

[snowblizz]

There's a lot of bad info about Gustavus Adolphus out there, so you have to be careful with what you read.

A lot of it created by his very self (and his staff). Zealously promoted by his, I want to say predominantly, English and Scandinavian admirers.

Think it was attributed Napoleon who said basically he envied the man who got a his reputation at the cheap cost of a battle won, a battle lost and a battle drawn.

The author of an Osprey book on the subject of the army of Gustav II Adolf, makes a rather good case that the only really revolutionary aspect was in fact his reputation as a revolutionary commander which was largely constructed by himself.

He was probably not the genius he has been built up to, but he was able to take ideas that were floating around and roll it all into a very neat package. And he keenly understood the import of inspirational leadership.

[Brother Oni]

Hmm, parts of this could actually play into his established character- he's basically a very high functioning autistic, so he's used to not playing the same game as everyone else; not on purpose, but just because he thinks differently. In social situations he fumbles without noticing because he simply isn't playing the roles and games we expect of each other, and that unabashed practical thinking can be shown to contribute to his ability to look past to the 'long game' instead of falling into the traps of lesser tacticians. At the same time, removing the social context from his interactions with an enemy also removes his handicaps, as the cues and tells of an army are much less esoteric to his mindset and let him grasp how to really pull one over on them.

I'd be very careful about this. Depending on where exactly on the spectrum they fall, they'll have a stronger tendency to fall into particular lines of thinking and at the strategic level, knowing the psychology of your opponent is very important.

If your character can't do the same and adapt for his opponent's way of thinking (either because he can't or is unwilling), then he's little more than an tactical RPG AI - once his opponent has him pegged, he's not going to do very well.

In my opinion, a better way to show different thinking is to use tactics and strategy that isn't in the 'proper' way of warfare, due to ignorance (wilful or accidental) of cultural or societal norms - a modern example would be not following the Geneva Protocols, a medieval example would be launching an attack on a holy day.

If you don't want to have him that severe on the spectrum, then have him more focused on deception and being super sneaky. Try reading up on modern disinformation campaigns for how elaborate they can be (Operation Mincemeat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat) is a modern example, the Thirty-Six Stratagems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems) for something less high tech), which can be only compounded with D&D magic and undead.

[Gnoman]

A lot of it created by his very self (and his staff). Zealously promoted by his, I want to say predominantly, English and Scandinavian admirers.

Think it was attributed Napoleon who said basically he envied the man who got a his reputation at the cheap cost of a battle won, a battle lost and a battle drawn.

The author of an Osprey book on the subject of the army of Gustav II Adolf, makes a rather good case that the only really revolutionary aspect was in fact his reputation as a revolutionary commander which was largely constructed by himself.

He was probably not the genius he has been built up to, but he was able to take ideas that were floating around and roll it all into a very neat package. And he keenly understood the import of inspirational leadership.

I wouldn't go that far (and it probably wasn't Napoleon that came up with that quote - Napoleon was a huge fan), and it was later historians that came up with a lot of the garbage (make the pike shorter, robbing it of all utility as a weapon? GENIUS!) rather than him. I wasn't casting aspersions so much as pointing out that Gustav II Adolf is an enormously mythologized figure, and that comes with a lot of garbage attached.

[Max_Killjoy]

For a fantasy setting, roughly late medieval, without widespread magical communication or firepower.

If you were a military commander, at say the level of a "legion" sized force, and you had access to one non-replaceable agent who could teleport up to a mile or so safely, and was also something of an unstoppable killer in close quarters against "normal" people... how would you use that agent?

[Lapak]

For a fantasy setting, roughly late medieval, without widespread magical communication or firepower.

If you were a military commander, at say the level of a "legion" sized force, and you had access to one non-replaceable agent who could teleport up to a mile or so safely, and was also something of an unstoppable killer in close quarters against "normal" people... how would you use that agent?Well, in a word, assassination. Clearly. But it depends on how often and how reliably he can teleport - in the middle of a fight? Twice in close succession?

When a battle is imminent, have him teleport directly to the enemy commander, kill him, and teleport out. Unless your enemies are more prepared than the typical late-medieval force, this was cause enough havoc to give you a major advantage.

If you can't do that - the target is hidden or too well guarded - what you can do is use him to fill the communication gap: use him as a runner to carry orders and receive updates from your own commanders. With instantaneous travel he's not quite a radio link but he's darn close.

If you have sufficient warning, have him teleport past the enemy's sentries the night before a battle to:

poison or taint their supplies (drinking water in particular)
disrupt a major strategic resource (maim/kill/release horses in a cavalry-heavy army, set a fuse burning in their gunpowder storage and teleport out, etc.)
kidnap the commander or another key figure as hostage


If you have more lead time, the possibilities are nearly endless; reliable teleportation is one of the most useful possibilities imaginable at that tech level.

[Gnoman]

There's a much better use for such an agent - discovering and altering the enemy's plans. You assassinate a general, they promote his lieutenant. Wreck a few supplies, they just guard them better next time.


Find out exactly what roads the other guy is using, then set up an ambush, or "somehow" know where the supply wagons are and hit them with raiding parties - they curse your luck. Do it over and over again, and they start tearing themselves apart looking for the spy.

Alter orders to send a unit to a slightly wrong place, they curse the incompetence of the commander. Do it over and over again, they start freaking out.


In an ideal situation, that one agent could lead you to a decisive victory without the enemy ever knowing he exists.

[Max_Killjoy]

I was also thinking that during an actual battle, just relaying messages could make a huge difference... the ability to coordinate the flanks in detail, send unambiguous orders and get unambiguous reports...

[Brother Oni]

I was also thinking that during an actual battle, just relaying messages could make a huge difference... the ability to coordinate the flanks in detail, send unambiguous orders and get unambiguous reports...

While true, it's a bit of a last ditch use of such a powerful agent, much like using an officer like a rifleman.

One of Sun Tzu's more useful quotes can be translated as "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." (是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。) - in order words, use them like Gnoman's suggestions.

Having your entire enemy force lose their trust and cohesion from paranoia because they busy worrying about being seen for a spy or hunting for a spy is an excellent suggestion, especially with non-instant communication - was that relief force late because they were honestly delayed or were they deliberately slow because they're working for the enemy? Better kill/imprison the entire leadership just in case.

This concept can be applied at the strategic level as well: from the 36 Stratagems, "Kill with a borrowed knife." (借刀殺人).

During the Spring and Autumn period (8th - 5th Century BC), the Duke of Zheng wanted to conquer the minor state of Kuai. On his orders, his advisors gathered a list of all outstanding generals and public officials in Kuai and the Duke made a proclamation in his court that these people would help him conquer Kuai, and they would be rewarded with high posts and land.
To seal the deal, he had a tall sacrificial tower build with the name list buried underneath it and held a grand ceremony with animal sacrifices.

News of these soon leaked back to Kuai, and the ruler quickly had the named officials and general arrested and executed as traitors.

Obviously when Zheng attacked shortly after, Kuai had no capable generals or officials to resist and was quickly conquered.

[Clistenes]

You’re reading the English accounts. The English version of the battle took great pains to present the French nobility as incompetent, war hungry, fools. A version that was spread over to France post-Revolution. You can understand why the new order would have a reason to portray the defeats of their past on what constitutes as the representative of the old order they just overthrew. It makes a very compelling narrative, and as I mentioned isn’t unbelievable, since something similar did happen at Crecy (though even there the French incompetence gets played up more than is probably deserved).

But the French accounts don’t really justify that reading. While there were knights asking to lead the charge, that was pretty standard. It’s useful to have your warriors willing to do the most dangerous jobs. But the near mutinous pressure to commit to an immediate attack isn’t presented at all. They seemed happy to gloat about what good food they had in front of the English.

All countries do it to some extent, but the British have always been masters of political propaganda...

Their external policies tend to be ruthlessly pragmatist and shamelessly amoral, but they manage to rewrite history as to come as harbingers of civilization...

[Kiero]

There's a much better use for such an agent - discovering and altering the enemy's plans. You assassinate a general, they promote his lieutenant. Wreck a few supplies, they just guard them better next time.

You're assuming any general is easily replaced, that might not be the case. There may not be an equally-capable lieutenant able to step up. Or worse, it could set off infighting over the succession to command of the army. Not to mention the morale impact of losing a potentially famous and well-loved general.

Or for that matter, if the general is also the head of state, that might trigger wider political problems beyond just the command of the army.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If the agent in question can carry enough of it, steal their gold and hire their mercenaries.

[Squire Doodad]

What would be the closest modern-day analogy to sabatons? Like if I have something that specifically refers to sabatons (or whatever else would equate to them) but I want to use it in an industrial-revolution or modern setting, what would I call them to distinguish them from general shoes? Or is "combat boots" the only thing that works?

[Vinyadan]

Safety shoes? But do you require protection, grip, or what?

[Pauly]

I was also thinking that during an actual battle, just relaying messages could make a huge difference... the ability to coordinate the flanks in detail, send unambiguous orders and get unambiguous reports...

Well the order can still be unambiguous yet still end up in disaster.

Like the Charge of the Light Brigade at the battle of Balaclava. In a nutshell the Raglan sent a message saying to charge the guns. When Lord Cardigan got the message the guns he could see were different to the guns that Raglan could see. With much hilarity ensuing (if you are a Russian).

[Max_Killjoy]

Well the order can still be unambiguous yet still end up in disaster.

Like the Charge of the Light Brigade at the battle of Balaclava. In a nutshell the Raglan sent a message saying to charge the guns. When Lord Cardigan got the message the guns he could see were different to the guns that Raglan could see. With much hilarity ensuing (if you are a Russian).

Depends on how tactically savvy the agent is... if they have the understanding and wits to realize that the guns visible from X are not the same guns visible from A, and make that clear to the subordinate officer a X, and get them pointed at the guns visible from A...

[deuterio12]

You're assuming any general is easily replaced, that might not be the case. There may not be an equally-capable lieutenant able to step up. Or worse, it could set off infighting over the succession to command of the army. Not to mention the morale impact of losing a potentially famous and well-loved general.

Or for that matter, if the general is also the head of state, that might trigger wider political problems beyond just the command of the army.

Case in point the Rome against Viriathus. The lusitanian commander kept kicking the roman's asses, until eventually the romans managed to bribe some of Viriathus closest advisors who were working as diplomats in between.

Did the romans use their new agents to spy in Viriathus, seeking strategic advantages?

No, the romans used them to assassinate Viriathus himself, and the lusitanian resistance quickly crumbled afterwards because Viriathus charisma and military genius had been critical in taking the roman legions head on, there was nobody that could replace him (and the assassins got executed by the romans themselves for their trouble. Rome may not pay traitors, but had no trouble using them).

[KineticDiplomat]

No one has those wits. The sheer effort, the constant expenditure of willpower and alertness, it takes to keep a body of organized men moving in its own right is far, far greater than most people imagine. Even having the mental power for “simple” tactics becomes straining. With many bodies of troops, you’d be happy just to get them pointed the right way and in the right line.

It’s not as if men throughout history were unaware that it would be better to attack someone in a flank. Or that being on a hill was a better place to be. Yet the infinite chaos and friction of warfare makes these difficult.

The simplest act you take for granted in a board or computer game can exhaust the leaders trying to make it all happen. Take a very simple “game” move: move this column of men down the road. A left click or miniatures moved some inches. No need to think of more and they arrive where you wanted.

In reality? The man leading the column can barely see past that wheat fields, and the hedge on his right. Stragglers are falling back, being herded by sergeants (if such a thing exists), creating a cloud of men impeding the neat movement of the men behind. There’s a divot in the road - easy enough for a man or cart to swing around, but shoulder to shoulder men try to sway onwards, jostling their fellows into the hedge on the right, or they try to step over it, step in it and turn an ankle or stumble. The men behind them, choking on dust, run into them and grow bad tempered and impatient.

All the while the front of the column keeps moving oblivious. As each row of men crosses the divot - really, no more than a large wagon rut - it sees the row in front of it pulling away and races to catch up. A giant slinky ensues. More yelling.

Meanwhile, the guy at the front of the column doesn’t actually k ow where to stop them. He doesn’t have GPS or a computer display, and may not even have a map - which might be inaccurate anyhow. “Deploy on the far side of the wheat fields”. Great. So...do I keep going past the fields and half a mile up those hills? Hills are good terrain, right? But I’m pretty sure I’m supposed to be forming a line with units to my left and right - what if they stop at the edge of the field and I match my men off alone? And right on the edge, or should I leave space behind me for more units? And what do you mean half of my men are still struggling up the bloody road?

And then a messenger arrives telling you to take the guns, that left who knows how long ago from a headquarter located at who knows where, carried by a young man who is excited and a little it lost. Honestly, who’s to say exactly where you are? Did he expect you to be at the edge of the field, on those hills, or did the message get sent half an hour ago, urging you to immediate action that is now a mile and a half out of date?

[Kiero]

Case in point the Rome against Viriathus. The lusitanian commander kept kicking the roman's asses, until eventually the romans managed to bribe some of Viriathus closest advisors who were working as diplomats in between.

Did the romans use their new agents to spy in Viriathus, seeking strategic advantages?

No, the romans used them to assassinate Viriathus himself, and the lusitanian resistance quickly crumbled afterwards because Viriathus charisma and military genius had been critical in taking the roman legions head on, there was nobody that could replace him (and the assassins got executed by the romans themselves for their trouble. Rome may not pay traitors, but had no trouble using them).

Must be a theme with the Romans in Iberia, because they did the same to Roman rebel Quintus Sertorius. He defeated their armies repeatedly (one Gnaeus Pompeius was defeated in many different ways), so they got a disaffected rebel, Perpena, to kill him. Once he was gone, the native forces he'd been leading were swiftly rolled up and Hispania was theirs.

[Vinyadan]

Well the order can still be unambiguous yet still end up in disaster.

Like the Charge of the Light Brigade at the battle of Balaclava. In a nutshell the Raglan sent a message saying to charge the guns. When Lord Cardigan got the message the guns he could see were different to the guns that Raglan could see. With much hilarity ensuing (if you are a Russian).

This would have been even better, if the commander had meant for them to charge their own guns, as in, to load them.

[hymer]

Must be a theme with the Romans in Iberia, because they did the same to Roman rebel Quintus Sertorius. He defeated their armies repeatedly (one Gnaeus Pompeius was defeated in many different ways), so they got a disaffected rebel, Perpena, to kill him. Once he was gone, the native forces he'd been leading were swiftly rolled up and Hispania was theirs.
This has a lot to do with the Iberian culture at the time. A charismatic and successful leader could gather the loyalty of a lot of otherwise disparate individuals and groups. Many of Hannibal's best troops were from the area, and loyal to him for these reasons.
Sometimes an heir could step in when such a leader died (as indeed Hannibal did). But these coalitions tended to crumble, being dependent on personal loyalty rather than shared political aims. Sertorius tried to avert this collapse by starting Roman style senates and schools in the areas and towns he controlled. You have to wonder what would have happened if he had been around for another twenty or thirty years, maybe having made peace with Rome somehow.

[Storm Bringer]

This would have been even better, if the commander had meant for them to charge their own guns, as in, to load them.

thing is, the order, as intended, was to charge (with drawn swords) their own guns. specifically, they were to retake several redoubts that had been taken by the russains on the high ground to the "right" of the Light Brigade's eventual advance (the british general believed the russains were attempting to remove the guns form the rebouts, and the loss of cannon had long been used as a measure of defeat).

those cannon they were supposed to be attacking were theirfore in a perfect place to pour flanking fire onto the Brigade when it advanced.



Well the order can still be unambiguous yet still end up in disaster.

Like the Charge of the Light Brigade at the battle of Balaclava. In a nutshell the Raglan sent a message saying to charge the guns. When Lord Cardigan got the message the guns he could see were different to the guns that Raglan could see. With much hilarity ensuing (if you are a Russian).

point of order: your thinking of Lord Lucan, the commander of the British cavalry in general. Capt Nolan (the messenger) delivered his written orders (and verbal clarification*) to Lord Lucan, who then gave the verbal orders to Lord Cardigan, commanding the Light Brigade. It didn't help that Lords Lucan and Cardigan, who happened to be brothers in law, were Not On Speaking Terms, due to a personal dispute (involving the wife/sister in law, but I forget who she was married to).

Lord Cardigan, when given the clearly suicidal order, did in fact protest that it was suicidal, but Lucan reiterated it must happen regardless. Short of a full on refusal to follow orders in the face of the enemy (a capital offence), he didn't have much choice but to launch the attack. (when questioned about it later, he explained he assumed that he and his command were being sacrificed to prevent some catastrophe that he wasn't aware of, and that he followed the orders trusting his commanders knew what they were doing. considering the track record of his commanders up to that point, he was being rather trusting, frankly.)


*when Nolan arrived with his (actually quite vague, see below) order to "attack the guns", Lord Lucan asked him for clarification as to which guns, as Capt Nolan was actually present when Lord Raglan gave the order and thus should have been able to provide the missing context and explain which guns the orders referred too. Capt Nolan, who was something of a firebrand and biting at the bit to get the cavalry into action, threw his hand out wide towards the Russian and said something like "THEM, SIR! THOSE GUNS!" however, instead of pointing towards the redoubts (not visable form the where the cavalry was waiting, but known to be in Russian hands), His wide sweep took in the russain guns at the far end of the valley. Having received clarification form the man who knew what the order was supposed to read, Lord Lucan went to carry out the orders he thought he;d been given.

text of the written order:

Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Troop of horse-artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Immediate.

[Max_Killjoy]

No one has those wits. The sheer effort, the constant expenditure of willpower and alertness, it takes to keep a body of organized men moving in its own right is far, far greater than most people imagine. Even having the mental power for “simple” tactics becomes straining. With many bodies of troops, you’d be happy just to get them pointed the right way and in the right line.

It’s not as if men throughout history were unaware that it would be better to attack someone in a flank. Or that being on a hill was a better place to be. Yet the infinite chaos and friction of warfare makes these difficult.

The simplest act you take for granted in a board or computer game can exhaust the leaders trying to make it all happen. Take a very simple “game” move: move this column of men down the road. A left click or miniatures moved some inches. No need to think of more and they arrive where you wanted.

In reality? The man leading the column can barely see past that wheat fields, and the hedge on his right. Stragglers are falling back, being herded by sergeants (if such a thing exists), creating a cloud of men impeding the neat movement of the men behind. There’s a divot in the road - easy enough for a man or cart to swing around, but shoulder to shoulder men try to sway onwards, jostling their fellows into the hedge on the right, or they try to step over it, step in it and turn an ankle or stumble. The men behind them, choking on dust, run into them and grow bad tempered and impatient.

All the while the front of the column keeps moving oblivious. As each row of men crosses the divot - really, no more than a large wagon rut - it sees the row in front of it pulling away and races to catch up. A giant slinky ensues. More yelling.

Meanwhile, the guy at the front of the column doesn’t actually k ow where to stop them. He doesn’t have GPS or a computer display, and may not even have a map - which might be inaccurate anyhow. “Deploy on the far side of the wheat fields”. Great. So...do I keep going past the fields and half a mile up those hills? Hills are good terrain, right? But I’m pretty sure I’m supposed to be forming a line with units to my left and right - what if they stop at the edge of the field and I match my men off alone? And right on the edge, or should I leave space behind me for more units? And what do you mean half of my men are still struggling up the bloody road?

And then a messenger arrives telling you to take the guns, that left who knows how long ago from a headquarter located at who knows where, carried by a young man who is excited and a little it lost. Honestly, who’s to say exactly where you are? Did he expect you to be at the edge of the field, on those hills, or did the message get sent half an hour ago, urging you to immediate action that is now a mile and a half out of date?

I won't say you're wrong about that, any of it. Prior to modern radio communication, no older that WW2 really, any sort of coordination was difficult, and getting subordinate units into the right place and knowing they'd arrived there and how their fight was going was at times simply impossible. It often went as you described.

But, I think you missed the context from the ongoing question I'd asked --

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?589405-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVIII/page10&p=24056598#post24056598

-- the messenger in question isn't an excited young squire or staffer who ran or rode at breakneck speed, breathlessly repeating a rote statement while secretly hoping he really did find the right officer to delivery it to. Rather, she's just stepped out of the shadow of a tree nearby, having stepped into the shadow of a tent near the general's command post way over there on that hill less than an instant beforehand... she's completely composed... and anyone who knows who she is knows her completely overblown and ridiculous reputation... and she's saying in that matter-of-fact voice that no, the guns the general wants attacked are not the guns you can see from here, the guns the general wants your unit to attack are on the other side of that rise in the terrain over there.

[Beleriphon]

-- the messenger in question isn't an excited young squire or staffer who ran or rode at breakneck speed, breathlessly repeating a rote statement while secretly hoping he really did find the right officer to delivery it to. Rather, she's just stepped out of the shadow of a tree nearby, having stepped into the shadow of a tent near the general's command post way over there on that hill less than an instant beforehand... she's completely composed... and anyone who knows who she is knows her completely overblown and ridiculous reputation... and she's saying in that matter-of-fact voice that no, the guns the general wants attacked are not the guns you can see from here, the guns the general wants your unit to attack are on the other side of that rise in the terrain over there.

It's more or less instantaneous communication. I'd compare it to something like telegraph, rather than radio since its not full two-instant communication. WWII actions and battles with radios still had miscommunication because troops could get lost, or the radio operate was killed, or they just couldn't figure out what the order was in the chaos of battle. Without GPS and time to really use a map one hill in Belgium looks a lot like another.

You can't stop units from getting lost, or not doing the right thing, but it means that a commander can instantly give troops new orders, at least if they aren't actively fighting.

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, instantaneous communications would certainly help things. Assuming you knew where to look for the recipient...but we'll imagine our agent does. If we're at a limited-use-per-time-period either because of physical and mental strain, limited power or mana, or an arcane "you only get three shadow-steps a day because I say so", what would be interesting is how the commander would elect to use his limited number of instant communications. Who is deemed worthy of an instant-order, and under what circumstances. how often do you use it to regain awareness of the situation - and are these better spent on tactical moves, where at least you could expect a messenger to get something done in half an hour, or for talking to bodies of men that are on separate lines of operations?

[deuterio12]

This has a lot to do with the Iberian culture at the time. A charismatic and successful leader could gather the loyalty of a lot of otherwise disparate individuals and groups. Many of Hannibal's best troops were from the area, and loyal to him for these reasons.
Sometimes an heir could step in when such a leader died (as indeed Hannibal did). But these coalitions tended to crumble, being dependent on personal loyalty rather than shared political aims. Sertorius tried to avert this collapse by starting Roman style senates and schools in the areas and towns he controlled. You have to wonder what would have happened if he had been around for another twenty or thirty years, maybe having made peace with Rome somehow.

Viriathus technically did sign a peace with Rome, but the roman senate quickly went "lol nope just jking" and resumed hostilities. Rome was aiming at full control of the Mediterranean and thus the only "peace" they were willing to accept was vassalage where you paid them taxes and sent them hostages (when they didn't just fully wipe you off the map and salted the earth, cough Carthage cough).

But yeah, there was really no such thing as national identity in most of the world, just lots of tribes with temporary alliances that only hold under a charismatic leader.


It's more or less instantaneous communication. I'd compare it to something like telegraph, rather than radio since its not full two-instant communication. WWII actions and battles with radios still had miscommunication because troops could get lost, or the radio operate was killed, or they just couldn't figure out what the order was in the chaos of battle. Without GPS and time to really use a map one hill in Belgium looks a lot like another.


Even with modern tech problems still happen.

In particular when you consider the huge range of lots of modern weapons. Often you can even barely see what you're firing at (or you're firiing blindly at some distant coordinates that you can only hope are correct).

[Beleriphon]

Even with modern tech problems still happen.

In particular when you consider the huge range of lots of modern weapons. Often you can even barely see what you're firing at (or you're firiing blindly at some distant coordinates that you can only hope are correct).

Oh yeah, anything that operates beyond LOS is a huge problem. Close support from artillery is dicey at best, but when it works it works great. When it doesn't work... well acceptable loses are a thing.

[Kiero]

Oh yeah, anything that operates beyond LOS is a huge problem. Close support from artillery is dicey at best, but when it works it works great. When it doesn't work... well acceptable loses are a thing.

"Danger close" exists for a reason.

[Mike_G]

Oh yeah, anything that operates beyond LOS is a huge problem. Close support from artillery is dicey at best, but when it works it works great. When it doesn't work... well acceptable loses are a thing.

Said no infantryman ever.

[Brother Oni]

Said no infantryman ever.

At least not those awarded a posthumous medal afterwards.

[Pauly]

"Danger close" exists for a reason.

Speaking of which, that is the title of a new movie about the battle of Long Tan in the Viet Nam “Fire on my co-ordinates” is not something you radio in just for the giggles.

[rs2excelsior]

Question: when it comes to modern armored vehicles, are tracks or wheels more resistant to battle damage? On first glance it strikes me that a track would be harder to damage, but once a vehicle loses one track the vehicle is immobile. With run-flat tires and multi-wheeled vehicles like the Stryker series, it seems like you could afford to lose one or two wheels at least and retain some degree of mobility. Is that true? Or would a (say) 8-wheeled vehicle with run-flat tires only be able to move a short distance if it lost a tire before losing mobility?

[Max_Killjoy]

Question: when it comes to modern armored vehicles, are tracks or wheels more resistant to battle damage? On first glance it strikes me that a track would be harder to damage, but once a vehicle loses one track the vehicle is immobile. With run-flat tires and multi-wheeled vehicles like the Stryker series, it seems like you could afford to lose one or two wheels at least and retain some degree of mobility. Is that true? Or would a (say) 8-wheeled vehicle with run-flat tires only be able to move a short distance if it lost a tire before losing mobility?

Due to being built to operate in heavily mined areas, the South African Rooikat has somewhat ridiculous "run flat" capability. All 8 individual wheels can run completely flat, and it can reportedly retain mobility after actually losing up to 4 wheels in certain combinations (to land mines, for example).

[KineticDiplomat]

The reality is that anything that would blow off a track is going to do a lot more than puncture a tire.

Small arms and even heavy machineguns are going to have virtually no effect on a track. They will absolutely punch through a tire.

Light HE/Frag (grenades, 60s, that sort of thing) will have an almost impossible time blowing a track off. I mean, theoretically possible under a set of lab conditions, but the battlefield physics involved in would be improbable to say the least. Landing near a tire may result in fragmentation puncturing it. Modern tanks have literally run over secondary made of such IEDs and not had to worry about it.

As we go up the HE scale, blast based AT mines tend to carry 10+ lbs of HE to knock a track off, which is generally enough to sheet a wheel off an axle. The same would apply for jury rigging artillery. 150mm+ shells would be the preferred minimum. Tanks can and have run over AP mines and lighter rigged shells to no effect while Humvees have had axles broken or wheels knocked out of alignment. And by the time you're knocking a track off, there's a good chance you're killing or wounding the TC or driver of a wheeled vehicle.

Then we start getting into the range of HEAT, APHE, and kinetic armor piercing weapons.

At smaller calibers like DPICM bomblets or light cannon rounds (think a 25mm or 30mm), the angle and point of impact is the thing. It might crack a link, it might just knock off a pad, it might cause non-critical damage that will none the less eventually cause the track to throw, it might punch through a roadwheel. Generally for a wheeled vehicle, there's a pretty good chance that a direct hit will end that wheel, not just the tire. A near miss or weird angle might just pierce the tire...but they would do nothing to a track.

As we get up into larger ranges, you can pretty conceivably get a mobility kill on any vehicle you strike. A 125mm main gun round will definitely knock a track off if it hits. It'll also knock a wheel right off an axle, and probably snap the axle to boot. Which would still be lucky for the vehicle, because the alternative would be a K-Kill as the round entered the engine block or crew compartment.

--------------------

There is an advantage, however, in that you can absolutely throw track in bad terrain or by grinding things into the track by mistake, whereas you are unlikely to get a wheeled vehicle more than simply stuck - you'll just get stuck a lot earlier.

----------

As for your theoretical Stryker with tires being shot up, you could keep it going for a bit, particularly if you limped it along. Several miles, easily. Then again, in a situation where you're wondering how many miles you can get out of the tires, chances are you are fine with running them down to the rims. As a side note, sometimes tires catch fire and keep burning...

But if you really knocked a wheel off, besides the fact that you probably have some WIA inside, chances are the rest if the chassis and wheel related items like axles are in bad shape too. It's not impossible that you'd be going anywhere, but the odds would be well against you.

[snowblizz]

I wouldn't go that far (and it probably wasn't Napoleon that came up with that quote - Napoleon was a huge fan), and it was later historians that came up with a lot of the garbage (make the pike shorter, robbing it of all utility as a weapon? GENIUS!) rather than him. I wasn't casting aspersions so much as pointing out that Gustav II Adolf is an enormously mythologized figure, and that comes with a lot of garbage attached.

Should trust me ;) I'm always right. Napoleon to Gaspar Gourgaud 1818: Consider the great Gustavus Adolphus! In eighteen months he won one battle, lost a second, and was killed in a third. His fame was won at bargain price!".

I'm also agreeing with you actually. I was just expanding that partly the myth was crafted by the man himself at the time. And to further warn, especially, English accounts are largely based on information from people who fought with Gustav II Adolf so despite eyewitnesses they have a tend to overstate. Effectively, since Britain didn't much participate in the 30YW "Gustavus Adolphus" has essentially been inducted as honorary Brit. It tends to colour the English sources.

The whole inspirational leader thing is quite interesting in fact, insofar as it sorta backfired after Lützen. He had built himself up to such a degree his death almost caused it all the come crashing down.

[Vinyadan]

And to further warn, especially, English accounts are largely based on information from people who fought with Gustav II Adolf so despite eyewitnesses they have a tend to overstate.

Concerning the King, as word hath it, He is as large as four cats, and disposeth of a leg retractable, by which He jumpeth the better upon His quarry. At night He casteth light, and He owneth four ears, a pair for listening, the other as reserve and provision. Some of these ears are inside His head, and His yawns resemble the acclaimed William Barksted, when he did the Epicene. His face is bare and white, except on Saturdays, when his eyebrows sprout and grow most marvellously. He hath claws, whose size you would best compare to a drinking-cup; yet, in spite of their ferociousness, one thing He feareth beyond reason, and that is the hand stamps which one often seeth used to frank mailed goods. One attendant told me that He hath a tail woven with lodestones, by which He attaches himself to all that is wrought of metal, and, in place of a mouth, He hath four arses.

[Thrawn4]

Hey, does someone know anything about aerial combat aka dog fights?
I've been thinking... obviously, having better equipment and the element of surprise is a huge benefit, but there are many stories about ace pilots who are just very good, but... well I guess I have no information about what makes a pilot good. What can a good pilot do that gives him an edge in combat?

[Andy 7t1]

What would be the closest modern-day analogy to sabatons? Like if I have something that specifically refers to sabatons (or whatever else would equate to them) but I want to use it in an industrial-revolution or modern setting, what would I call them to distinguish them from general shoes? Or is "combat boots" the only thing that works?

Combat boots aren't called that because they are protecting the feet from combat. There called that because they are just "ordinary" boots worn in combat providing the normal ankle support, weather protection etc that boots provide. They generally have less protection than safety footwear.

If you have a modern version of sabatons for hi-tech soldiers to wear why not just call them sabatons? The military are great believers in tradition, and it sounds far more interesting than "armoured boots"

[Beleriphon]

Hey, does someone know anything about aerial combat aka dog fights?
I've been thinking... obviously, having better equipment and the element of surprise is a huge benefit, but there are many stories about ace pilots who are just very good, but... well I guess I have no information about what makes a pilot good. What can a good pilot do that gives him an edge in combat?

The Red Baron. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Richthofen) Training is a big one, but a natural ability to withstand high G maneuvers is a good start. Excellent eye sight, faster than average reaction times, ability to quickly adapt to new situations. Point on Richthofen for most of his career the planes he flew we inferior to the British and French, and he typically flew against numerically superior forces.

Other example Erich Hartmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann), the most successful aerial combat ace ever. He had 352 confirmed kills, and much of it is credited to his style of flying: "See–Decide–Attack–Reverse". In effect he would observe his targets, pick the most vulnerable, attack from surprise, and then peel off to start the process again.

[KineticDiplomat]

Concerning dogfights: there are a few most common skills:

-It is far better to be an aerial assassin and kill the unwary from behind them when they didn’t even know you were there than it is to get into all sorts of swirly-twirly fighter maneuvering. So those who either have a natural instinct for hunting, or have the time, dedication, and understanding to pick the best corridors to “hunt” are going to have an advantage.

-Situational awareness. “Lose sight, lose the fight”. Most kills in the pre-missile era could be evaded so long as you could keep track of what was going on. It is surprisingly hard to hit a plane that is maneuvering when you only have twenty one seconds of ammunition, and you need to land two to three seconds of hits...so so long as the defender can keep track of his aggressor, he has a chance to get out or reverse the tables.

On the basic side, of you know instinctively how to operate your radiators, trim wheels, engine RPM (for planes without “automatic”) and everything else. If you are spending mental concentration on how to close your radiators for a bit less drag, and then more on wondering if you’re about to blow your engine, that’s less mental energy for keeping track of everything else. If you only have five hours flying the airframe, you’re likely to be so busy keeping it straight and airborne that you never see the guy who kills you.

For the more advanced, the ability to keep track of more than the target/aggressor you are immediately dealing with. Target
fixation means you never see the guy who kills you, or you miss a chance for an easy kill because you’re chasing a guy pulling split-s’s. Or you blow out of the fight low on altitude and fifteen km away from all your friends. Where did they go anyhow?

-Energy Fighting: E-fighting requires discipline and a gentle stick combined with good systems management. Essentially you want to start the fight in a position of superior energy (almost always meaning you have more altitude than him, but more speed is also possible), and retain the energy advantage throughout. Big honking turns and rolls and sexy things dump energy, so you don’t do them. You use extensions, dives, displacement rolls and Yo-Yos. Gentle arcs and fast boom-and-zoom attacks. Pilots who are good at this style of fighting tend to be implacable, disciplined, experts in engine management, and have a few good maneuvers they know how to perform with extreme energy efficiency.

-Angle fighting: This is more akin to what you think of when you think dogfight. The art of getting getting into a good position by cutting off the circle (sphere) better than your opponent. Immelmans, well timed break turns, knowing how to use an entire arsenal of moves good enough but with impeccable timing and feel. These are the reflex jocks, the guys who can almost preternaturally see what the next move is going to be, the guys with the physical ability to slam one arm into the trim wheel, haul a stick with their other hand, and keep from blacking out all while making split second calls.

[DrewID]

So I received as a gift something marketed as a "Celtic Pocket Knife", but I haven't been able to find online anything similar in historic sources, and I'm wondering if any similar knives were ever made. The blade is single edged and short, and the "grip" isn't a full grip, but a loop formed of a tang extending from the back edge and just large enough to fit your finger. You put your index finger through the loop, place your thumb against the back of the blade, and let the knob at the end of the tang press against your middle finger. I've seen vaguely similar tang/grip on Viking knives, but instead of forming a loop, they doubled back to form a U-shaped hilt. I can't find any pictures to link to that aren't from the manufacturer and I don't want to come across as advertising something, but if you want to google it, the company name is Toferner.

DrewID

[Clistenes]

So I received as a gift something marketed as a "Celtic Pocket Knife", but I haven't been able to find online anything similar in historic sources, and I'm wondering if any similar knives were ever made. The blade is single edged and short, and the "grip" isn't a full grip, but a loop formed of a tang extending from the back edge and just large enough to fit your finger. You put your index finger through the loop, place your thumb against the back of the blade, and let the knob at the end of the tang press against your middle finger. I've seen vaguely similar tang/grip on Viking knives, but instead of forming a loop, they doubled back to form a U-shaped hilt. I can't find any pictures to link to that aren't from the manufacturer and I don't want to come across as advertising something, but if you want to google it, the company name is Toferner.

DrewID

Google "La Tène knife". You will find iron knives that are kinda similar style, but none is exactly the same.

I think the manufacturer took inspiration on those knives, but tried to make it look more exotic...

[Grim Portent]

So I received as a gift something marketed as a "Celtic Pocket Knife", but I haven't been able to find online anything similar in historic sources, and I'm wondering if any similar knives were ever made. The blade is single edged and short, and the "grip" isn't a full grip, but a loop formed of a tang extending from the back edge and just large enough to fit your finger. You put your index finger through the loop, place your thumb against the back of the blade, and let the knob at the end of the tang press against your middle finger. I've seen vaguely similar tang/grip on Viking knives, but instead of forming a loop, they doubled back to form a U-shaped hilt. I can't find any pictures to link to that aren't from the manufacturer and I don't want to come across as advertising something, but if you want to google it, the company name is Toferner.

DrewID

I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think I've ever seen a knife like that in any of the historical collections I've seen here in Scotland. Based on the other products they have I'd guess it's more of a 'historically inspired' thing than based on an actual knife.

I think I've found the knife in question and it looks like it's a fanciful take on a U-hilted knife shrunk down to a tiny size and put in a pouch with a celtic symbol on it.

[Thrawn4]

That's been rather insightful, thanks.
Would you mind answering some follow-up questions?


Concerning dogfights: there are a few most common skills:

-It is far better to be an aerial assassin and kill the unwary from behind them when they didn’t even know you were there than it is to get into all sorts of swirly-twirly fighter maneuvering. So those who either have a natural instinct for hunting, or have the time, dedication, and understanding to pick the best corridors to “hunt” are going to have an advantage.

So what's a corridor? I assume it's somehow related to airstreams?




-Energy Fighting: E-fighting requires discipline and a gentle stick combined with good systems management. Essentially you want to start the fight in a position of superior energy (almost always meaning you have more altitude than him, but more speed is also possible), and retain the energy advantage throughout.

Because... it means you are more mobile than the enemy?
Wouldn't this also mean that the pilots try to fly as high as possible?

[KineticDiplomat]

A corridor is just a stretch of air that aircraft travel in. But you can imagine that if you know where, say, enemy airfields are and where they are executing most of their missions (bombing cities, patrolling over invasion ships, reconning for artillery, whatever), you can identify their most likely ways to get there. In which case they may not be as mentally alert - "I'm still sixty miles from the dangerous areas" - and may not have as much altitude built up unless they circle their airfield gaining altitude before heading out. On top of which, you know to look there, you can try to put the sun behind you when you approach, and basically plan an attack on that line that will have you start above and behind them, rather than just bumble around and hope you find the enemy with only luck determining who will start with the better position.

In terms of altitude, generally speaking, yes - you want to be higher than the other guy. Particularly pre-missiles, because it also means you're more likely to be above accurate AA and radars for the time are limited to big ground installations. The counter is that at some point, you actually need to accomplish something and so do your enemies. If you are patrolling at 30k feet and they're 300 feet off the deck machinegunning your ground forces, chances are you won't even see them. If the bombers are coming in at 18k, well then its going to be hard to affect them if you're at 30k. Even if you did dive in, in most WII-esque planes diving more than 7-8k in a power dive is a sure way to risk ripping your wings off. If you do come in with a screaming 6k dive and don't damage the plane, you'll still build up a ton of speed and airframe vibration - which means you have a short and bumpy window to actually aim your guns/nose of your plane and then fire enough rounds to do significant damage before you blow by.

There also comes a point where the thinner air, while having less resistance, essentially starts to choke the engine and you actually end up going slower and having a net energy loss. Still, being 3-5k feet higher than your enemy is a great place to be. So there can be layers upon layers of thought into what altitude you should be at.

In terms of energy, you need energy to control the fight. Imagine two equal planes, one 3k off the ground, the other 10k off the ground. If the low plane happens to be at a good angle, he still needs to climb 7k feet to get in gun range. In that time he is slower than the other plane, and is basically maxed out on acceleration - he is spending all the energy his engine can give him just getting up there. If the high plane doesn't want to fight, he simply flies away. If he's in a bad position, he has plenty of time to gently turn towards the enemy and prepare his attack. If he's in a good position like on the low plane's six, he can change out his altitude for speed - just point down - which means the low plane can't escape the fight even if it wants to. Every choice about how to start the fight is in his hands. Which means the man with the energy advantage never needs to take a fight he doesn't like, or even an equal fight. he can simply set up fights where he is in a position to curbstomp the enemy when it's nothing like fair. early WWI is possibly the only exception because the aircraft were so underpowered and flimsy that you couldn't really make big changes in position vertically or horizontally. In the era of late missiles, the ability for a missile to offset some of the speed advantage means it can't be so completely exploited.

Once the fight begins, energy can be used to control the distance, pull maneuvers, and gain altitude. A good bounce for an E-fighter basically looks like this:

1) Start higher than the enemy. Find a fight where you start with an angle advantage.

2) Dive in on the enemy.

2a) If he does a big turn or something to try and dodge your attack, simply climb back up and convert your airspeed back to altitude. Now he is going slow because he had a big energy expending turn in there, and you're still above him. He's in a worse position than when he started, speed wise, but you can still choose when to come down to him form your perch and you'll have a lot more speed than he does when you do.

2b)If he doesn't pull a big move, shoot him.

2c)If you need to finish this right now, use your superior energy to allow you to pull moves he can't pull without stalling out his plane because he has less speed, then shoot him. Of course, no system is perfect, so you can screw this up.

3) Once you made your kill or the fight is looking a little too even - who wants to gamble their life on a 50/50 fight - fly away using your superior speed, or gather the superior speed needed by diving.


And that's before we account for things like planes with superior acceleration, climb rates, max speed, turning circles, etc.

[Pauly]

Hey, does someone know anything about aerial combat aka dog fights?
I've been thinking... obviously, having better equipment and the element of surprise is a huge benefit, but there are many stories about ace pilots who are just very good, but... well I guess I have no information about what makes a pilot good. What can a good pilot do that gives him an edge in combat?

Dikta Boelcke was the first real fighting instructions given, and modern fighter pilots still follow it today. Technology has changed about how to implement some of the ideas, but the main ideas still hold true.

It depends a lot on the era. WW1 and early WW2 had relatively high levels of turn combat, but by the end of WW2 and into the jet age energy fighting has become more predominant.

The Biggles series of stories about WW1 aerial combat are very good. I set them as a reading assignment for a Japanese jet fighter pilot I was teaching English to. He said that they described air combat very accurately. The versions available for sale on the apple store are the original versions, not the later bowdlerized for kids versions most commonly found.

Saburo Sakai’s memoir “Samurai” is a very good book, especially about the training required to become an elite pilot (pre war Japanese fighter pilots are widely considered the best trained pilots of WW2). The description of the aerial combat suffers in how Japanese gets mangled when translated into English.

“The Right Stuff” by Tom Wolffe is about the Mercury program astronauts. However, all the Mercury astronauts were very high level test pilots, and there is a lot in the book about the mentality it takes to be one of the best pilots in the world.

[KineticDiplomat]

There are a couple of Boelcke's points that radios and post WWI technology rendered into poor advice:

"6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught, but fly to meet it."

Increases in airspeed and the ability of aircraft to sustain deeper and faster dives meant that a climbing turn towards a an aggressor is likely to hang the plane out as a stationary target. A head on climb might work, but can still leave you stranded when the one or two circle fight comes out of the lead turns. There is a translation that basically makes it "turn to meet your enemy", which is more of a "don't forget to be aggressive" piece of advice than an actual move.

"8. For the Staffel (squadron): Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats, take care that several do not go for the same opponent."

For WWI, the lack of communications and the physical demands of flying what was basically winged manual transmission meant that many going for one target essentially left them all open to be killed from unseen quarters. More modern (WWII and beyond) tactics call for using two on one fights via Double-Attack or Loose-Deuce set ups. The point is to create a few unfair local fights rather than many fair fights between pilots.

[DrewID]

Google "La Tène knife". You will find iron knives that are kinda similar style, but none is exactly the same.

I think the manufacturer took inspiration on those knives, but tried to make it look more exotic...


I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think I've ever seen a knife like that in any of the historical collections I've seen here in Scotland. Based on the other products they have I'd guess it's more of a 'historically inspired' thing than based on an actual knife.

I think I've found the knife in question and it looks like it's a fanciful take on a U-hilted knife shrunk down to a tiny size and put in a pouch with a celtic symbol on it.

Looking at both examples (thanks, both of you), it looks like mine is almost a cross between U-hilted viking knife and the La Tène ring-hilted knife, where the ring that forms the butt of the hilt on the La Tène knife is the entire hilt, like on the U-hilted knife. So maybe they saw one in a collection somewhere, or maybe they made up the idea on their own. In any event, it does not appear to be common, whatever else it is.

thanks,
DrewID

[Pauly]

There are a couple of Boelcke's points that radios and post WWI technology rendered into poor advice:

"6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught, but fly to meet it."

Increases in airspeed and the ability of aircraft to sustain deeper and faster dives meant that a climbing turn towards a an aggressor is likely to hang the plane out as a stationary target. A head on climb might work, but can still leave you stranded when the one or two circle fight comes out of the lead turns. There is a translation that basically makes it "turn to meet your enemy", which is more of a "don't forget to be aggressive" piece of advice than an actual move.

"8. For the Staffel (squadron): Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats, take care that several do not go for the same opponent."

For WWI, the lack of communications and the physical demands of flying what was basically winged manual transmission meant that many going for one target essentially left them all open to be killed from unseen quarters. More modern (WWII and beyond) tactics call for using two on one fights via Double-Attack or Loose-Deuce set ups. The point is to create a few unfair local fights rather than many fair fights between pilots.

Wikipedia doesn’t have the full paphlet, which I read some years ago. Boelcke gives more explanations.

With respect 6 he explained that staying and fighting was less dangerous than trying to run from someone who had an energy advantage over you.

Regarding 8 he was more worried about overconcentration on one target and leaving unengaged enemies. If you had a 6 on 3 fight (Boelcke liked dirty fights with the odds stacked in his favor) it was better for it to break into three 2 on 1 fights than one 4 on 1 and two 1 on one fights, or even worse one 6 on 1 fight with 2 unengaged enemy aircraft ready to take advantage. Radios make the job of avoiding this problem a lot easier..

[KineticDiplomat]

Can’t say I’ve ever seen the pamphlet - at best a description of the Dikta in a WWI museum. So I’ll happily concede that you have better information. And that rule six makes much more sense with that added.

[Carl]

There's a lot of bad info about Gustavus Adolphus out there, so you have to be careful with what you read.




No u.


I'd be interested to hear your logic on this. Either you're misnumbering the battles (Second Yeltsin was the off-screen battle where Parnell somehow managed to get half his ships out of a trap that White Haven thought was escape-proof), or you're making an interpretation that I'm not seeing.

Your making the same mistake i made for a long time, took a lot of re-reads to spot the threads and line it up right.

1st Yeltsin was the fight with Madrigal.

2nd Yeltsin was the fight at the end of book 2.

3rd Yeltsin was the ambush of Parnell.

4th Yeltsin was the battle at the end of book 5.

2nd and 4th yeltsin where key to the Grayson's entering the alliance and maintaining their industrial base, factors that became very important on several occasions as Grayson ships played numerous key roles in the war. Most notably their reinforcements at Sidemore and Trevor's star in War of Honor.


Concerning dogfights: there are a few most common skills:

-It is far better to be an aerial assassin and kill the unwary from behind them when they didn’t even know you were there than it is to get into all sorts of swirly-twirly fighter maneuvering. So those who either have a natural instinct for hunting, or have the time, dedication, and understanding to pick the best corridors to “hunt” are going to have an advantage.

-Situational awareness. “Lose sight, lose the fight”. Most kills in the pre-missile era could be evaded so long as you could keep track of what was going on. It is surprisingly hard to hit a plane that is maneuvering when you only have twenty one seconds of ammunition, and you need to land two to three seconds of hits...so so long as the defender can keep track of his aggressor, he has a chance to get out or reverse the tables.

On the basic side, of you know instinctively how to operate your radiators, trim wheels, engine RPM (for planes without “automatic”) and everything else. If you are spending mental concentration on how to close your radiators for a bit less drag, and then more on wondering if you’re about to blow your engine, that’s less mental energy for keeping track of everything else. If you only have five hours flying the airframe, you’re likely to be so busy keeping it straight and airborne that you never see the guy who kills you.

For the more advanced, the ability to keep track of more than the target/aggressor you are immediately dealing with. Target
fixation means you never see the guy who kills you, or you miss a chance for an easy kill because you’re chasing a guy pulling split-s’s. Or you blow out of the fight low on altitude and fifteen km away from all your friends. Where did they go anyhow?

-Energy Fighting: E-fighting requires discipline and a gentle stick combined with good systems management. Essentially you want to start the fight in a position of superior energy (almost always meaning you have more altitude than him, but more speed is also possible), and retain the energy advantage throughout. Big honking turns and rolls and sexy things dump energy, so you don’t do them. You use extensions, dives, displacement rolls and Yo-Yos. Gentle arcs and fast boom-and-zoom attacks. Pilots who are good at this style of fighting tend to be implacable, disciplined, experts in engine management, and have a few good maneuvers they know how to perform with extreme energy efficiency.

-Angle fighting: This is more akin to what you think of when you think dogfight. The art of getting getting into a good position by cutting off the circle (sphere) better than your opponent. Immelmans, well timed break turns, knowing how to use an entire arsenal of moves good enough but with impeccable timing and feel. These are the reflex jocks, the guys who can almost preternaturally see what the next move is going to be, the guys with the physical ability to slam one arm into the trim wheel, haul a stick with their other hand, and keep from blacking out all while making split second calls.

1-2 seconds of fire is probably generous if talking cannon, but it's also important to remember that where the rounds hit was a big determining factor in getting kills. Hence the reports at various times of bombers from both sides limping home after taking truly hideous amounts of damage. Generally you had to kill the crew, break the links between the cockpit and the flight surfaces, or start a fuel fire, (which with self sealing fuel tanks was harder than it sounded). Despite what various games and media would have you believe aircraft didn't generally get sawed in half or have wings blown clean off, (though ground fire from large caliber AA could and did do this if it hit the right part of the aircraft), so even the best piloti going to have perfect attacks fail to down or seriously hurt his opponent because the natural dispersion of the rounds and various other factors result in none hitting anything vital.

As an example of this isn action the luftwaffe estimated it took 20 20mm cannon hits on average in a diving from behind attack to kill a B-17, but only 4 from in front. However with an average hit rate of just 2% an attacking aircraft needed to fire off around 1000 rounds of 20mm ammunition to get those 20 hits.

[KineticDiplomat]

I was using US pilots - who were mostly machine gun armed - as the source of “three seconds” being a killing burst. “Three seconds of hits” was also poor wording on my part, and I likely should have referred to it as the burst - pretty self evidently not every round fired from four to eight converging machine guns (or two cannons on wing mounts) actually hits.

I don’t know what the exact hit rate is, even for an “on target” burst, but I’m betting it’s not that high even with rapid and comparatively flat firing machine guns. Slower firing cannon with more arced ballistics would be harder.

We know a 20mm cannon firing ~600 RPM would put 18 rounds in the air in three seconds. A single centerline cannon with more accuracy, two wing mounted cannon with more volume. Vague recollection says that the Germans concluded you needed 4-6 cannon hits to reliably bring down a spitfire in all but a head on pass.

So while one second of “perfect hits” would scrap a single engine fighter, chances are that the low hit rates probably nesecitated longer “on target” firing periods.

[Max_Killjoy]

In contrast, crew of the P61 Black Widow, armed with 4x50cal and 4x20mm, and attacking often unsuspecting targets at night, reported that short bursts from all 8 guns often did appear to disassemble targets in mid air (my phrasing).

[Carl]

No worries, and yeah 3 second burst with not all hitting sounds perfectly reasonable.

Also @Max_Killjoy: Not saying it never happened, but the number of hits needed to make it happen is pretty high with most aircraft, (doubly so against any kind of multi-engined aircraft since they're so much larger), and getting those under any normal set of circumstance is highly unlikely. But various media, (i'm thinking of one game coughWar Thundercough in particular), would have you believe it was the main way aircraft died.

[Max_Killjoy]

No worries, and yeah 3 second burst with not all hitting sounds perfectly reasonable.

Also @Max_Killjoy: Not saying it never happened, but the number of hits needed to make it happen is pretty high with most aircraft, (doubly so against any kind of multi-engined aircraft since they're so much larger), and getting those under any normal set of circumstance is highly unlikely. But various media, (i'm thinking of one game coughWar Thundercough in particular), would have you believe it was the main way aircraft died.

The Black Widow was pretty much a flying set of unlikely circumstances:

armed to the teeth (seriously, how many fighters mounted 4x20mm and 4x.50?)
early form of radar assisted aim, directed at
targets often didn't know they were about to be attacked, so they were flying level and steady
additionally, what targets they had in the Pacific were often-underbuilt Japanese aircraft without self-sealing tanks or redundant anything

[Willie the Duck]

The Black Widow was pretty much a flying set of unlikely circumstances:

armed to the teeth (seriously, how many fighters mounted 4x20mm and 4x.50?)


And with 3040 rounds of ammo, to boot.
As night-fighters, they very well might not have engaged the enemy at all (or certainly seen the enemies they got go down) unless they were right up in their business. It would surprise me if the nature of their kill scenario was unusual compared to the overall norm.

[Storm Bringer]

So what's a corridor? I assume it's somehow related to airstreams?

in this sense, he means "corridor" in the sense of a clear pathway. you go in, make your attack run on your chosen target, then get out. properly executed, the target isn't aware of your presence until you've already done fatal damage to his plane. the key point is that your not going to hang around, but make good your escape.




Originally Posted by KineticDiplomat
-Energy Fighting: E-fighting requires discipline and a gentle stick combined with good systems management. Essentially you want to start the fight in a position of superior energy (almost always meaning you have more altitude than him, but more speed is also possible), and retain the energy advantage throughout.
Because... it means you are more mobile than the enemy?
Wouldn't this also mean that the pilots try to fly as high as possible?


yes, your more mobile. the basic theory is that:


Speed= energy, that you can convert to altitude by climbing (which costs speed)
Altitude= Potential energy, with you can convert to speed by diving (which costs altitude)
therefore: Speed=Altitude.

You can trade one for the other.

Generally, yes, a higher altitude is an advantage. because you can convert that height into speed, then the speed back into height ("zoom and boom", as its called). However, your flight altitude might be constrained by factors beyond your control, such as:

aircraft ceiling: quite simply, sometime your plane just cant go higher.

climb rates and warning time: if your launched in response to an enemy incursion (say the RAF scrambles to stop German bombers attacking London), then their is a finite amount of time you have in order to get your plane airborne and up to altitude. climbing takes time, particularly for WW2 and earlier jet fighters, so if your don't have enough warning, you simply might not be able to get higher than the enemy in the time you have (during the Cold War, this was a critical driver of the design of long range radar networks, and high performance interceptors that could get to high altitude, fast, in order to deal with nuke bombers)

operational constraints: if your a ground attack aircraft, then your going to be spending a lot of time at low altitude. If your escorting a ground attack flight that Is sat at (say) 6,000 feet, then theirs not much point you being up at 40,000 feet because your to far away to help them. you'd sit yourself at something like 7,000 to 8,000 feet, just above them, and be able to drop onto anyone lining up on the tails of the ground attack flight.




"6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught, but fly to meet it."

Increases in airspeed and the ability of aircraft to sustain deeper and faster dives meant that a climbing turn towards a an aggressor is likely to hang the plane out as a stationary target. A head on climb might work, but can still leave you stranded when the one or two circle fight comes out of the lead turns. There is a translation that basically makes it "turn to meet your enemy", which is more of a "don't forget to be aggressive" piece of advice than an actual move.



point 6 was intended to convey that "if you run, your dead". By fleeing, all your doing is presenting your most vulnerable aspect to attacker, while almost lengthening his window to attack you by slowing the closing rate. By turning into the attacker aggressively, your not only shortening his window to attack you, hes now got to avoid your attack, and the evasions he pulls doing that might force him to miss his window and overshoot.

[Carl]

The Black Widow was pretty much a flying set of unlikely circumstances:

armed to the teeth (seriously, how many fighters mounted 4x20mm and 4x.50?)
early form of radar assisted aim, directed at
targets often didn't know they were about to be attacked, so they were flying level and steady
additionally, what targets they had in the Pacific were often-underbuilt Japanese aircraft without self-sealing tanks or redundant anything


True enough. Although the armament isn't quite as unusual as you might think. most of the various twin engined fighters of the war had the quad 20mm's. Some had even more than that and some german fighters used for anti-bomber duty routinely carried gunpods giving them even more guns than that.

But they didn't usually get that kind of edge in aiming their fire or in the type of target they where shooting at.

[Beleriphon]

1-2 seconds of fire is probably generous if talking cannon, but it's also important to remember that where the rounds hit was a big determining factor in getting kills. Hence the reports at various times of bombers from both sides limping home after taking truly hideous amounts of damage. Generally you had to kill the crew, break the links between the cockpit and the flight surfaces, or start a fuel fire, (which with self sealing fuel tanks was harder than it sounded). Despite what various games and media would have you believe aircraft didn't generally get sawed in half or have wings blown clean off, (though ground fire from large caliber AA could and did do this if it hit the right part of the aircraft), so even the best piloti going to have perfect attacks fail to down or seriously hurt his opponent because the natural dispersion of the rounds and various other factors result in none hitting anything vital.

For WW1 Manfred von Richtofen's advice for new recruits was aim for the gunner, than the pilot because your bullets would kill a man, but just put holes in his plane. This obviously applies less to faster and more powerful aircraft, and makes no different for missiles which don't even have to hit a plane they just have to get close enough to let shrapnel shred it to bits.

[Martin Greywolf]

So I received as a gift something marketed as a "Celtic Pocket Knife", but I haven't been able to find online anything similar in historic sources, and I'm wondering if any similar knives were ever made. The blade is single edged and short, and the "grip" isn't a full grip, but a loop formed of a tang extending from the back edge and just large enough to fit your finger. You put your index finger through the loop, place your thumb against the back of the blade, and let the knob at the end of the tang press against your middle finger. I've seen vaguely similar tang/grip on Viking knives, but instead of forming a loop, they doubled back to form a U-shaped hilt. I can't find any pictures to link to that aren't from the manufacturer and I don't want to come across as advertising something, but if you want to google it, the company name is Toferner.

DrewID

I have good news for you, that knife is, indeed a real thing. There is no one find that is an exact dead ringer for it, there almost never is with handforged goods, but the style is found in la tenne, gallic and halstatt sites, mostly in northern France, southern Germany area for this specific type - but that may well be down to what research is and is not widely published. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a ton of Russian finds that just aren't available to public.


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/40/63/1c/40631cf9fc8e60341302ecc10ecb9827.jpg



https://uhrforum.de/data/attachments/329/329040-e98d9ad72f170681c1f23e83f53b129a.jpg



https://i.pinimg.com/564x/08/0c/9c/080c9c5acf8eb72932a73747d1926c29.jpg

[DrewID]

I have good news for you, that knife is, indeed a real thing. There is no one find that is an exact dead ringer for it, there almost never is with handforged goods, but the style is found in la tenne, gallic and halstatt sites, mostly in northern France, southern Germany area for this specific type - but that may well be down to what research is and is not widely published. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a ton of Russian finds that just aren't available to public.


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/40/63/1c/40631cf9fc8e60341302ecc10ecb9827.jpg



https://uhrforum.de/data/attachments/329/329040-e98d9ad72f170681c1f23e83f53b129a.jpg



https://i.pinimg.com/564x/08/0c/9c/080c9c5acf8eb72932a73747d1926c29.jpg

Pretty close, thank you.

DrewID

[Vinyadan]

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/40/63/1c/40631cf9fc8e60341302ecc10ecb9827.jpg

The lowest of these, with the crescent shape, is an arbelos. It's a knife that was used to cut leather, e.g. by cobblers. It's also where the name of the geometrical shape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbelos) comes from.

[Kraynic]

The lowest of these, with the crescent shape, is an arbelos. It's a knife that was used to cut leather, e.g. by cobblers.

And if you wanted one today, you might easier find it labeled as a "head knife".

[TripleD]

What kind of armor would have been worn by warriors on a pre-gunpowder ship? I realize that’s a very vague question, but I’ve received a bunch of conflicting information on armor and swimming ability, and was wondering if there are any examples of people eschewing, or continuing to wear, full body armor in ship-to-ship combat.

[Pauly]

What kind of armor would have been worn by warriors on a pre-gunpowder ship? I realize that’s a very vague question, but I’ve received a bunch of conflicting information on armor and swimming ability, and was wondering if there are any examples of people eschewing, or continuing to wear, full body armor in ship-to-ship combat.

It depends on era and ship design.

In eras where boarding actions are common, expected and ships are designed for it armor could be common. For e ample Roman legionnaires serving as marines wore their full armor. It important to note that the Romans used a corvus, a boarding plank designed to drop and impale itself onto the deck of an enemy ship.

In the age of sail where boarding was much more difficult because ships sides were bowed inwards armor was not used AFAIK.

It is not a subject I have done much reading in, but my expectation is that ships designed for coastal or work on enclosed seas, would be better suited to armored combat than vessels designed to work on the open ocean.

[Kiero]

What kind of armor would have been worn by warriors on a pre-gunpowder ship? I realize that’s a very vague question, but I’ve received a bunch of conflicting information on armor and swimming ability, and was wondering if there are any examples of people eschewing, or continuing to wear, full body armor in ship-to-ship combat.

In antiquity, for a while the standard for marines was either hoplite (heavy armour, big shield, long spear) or archer (little or no armour and composite bow). Into the Hellenistic era, the archetype shifted as marines were often composed of coastal peoples from southern Anatolia. That meant textile tube and yoke armour at the heaviest for the body with small shields, slings/bows/javelins and swords. In the Roman era, marines were often legionaries, armed the same as their land-based equivalents.

Either way the calculation was the same: if you go overboard, chances are you will drown. The trade off was simple - armour increases your likelihood of surviving boarding actions, even if it means you'll probably die if you go into the drink. A shield is an easier calculation, since you can just let go of it.

[Storm Bringer]

its worth pointing out that a significant majority of people in those days couldn't swim, so going in the drink was a death sentence in short order anyway. Obviously, that's a breathtakingly broad statement that isn't true for all times and places, but its true enough to be a factor in this question. Also, I know that during the Napoleonic wars (later than your asking about, but maybe relevant) their was a feeling in some sailor circles that all that learning to swim would do if you went overboard is trade a quick death by drowning to a slow death by exhaustion, then drowning, so why bother?.

that, and swimming, even in quite thin clothes is actually really, really tiring and difficult, because the clothes add a significant amount of drag to every single movement you make.

I've done it as part of my army basic training, and even swimming a few lengths in fairly form-fitting clothes (mechanics coveralls, in this case) was easily more tiring than trying to sprint over a similar length. it was like trying to sprint while holding my breath. I was damm nearly unable to climb out of the pool after only about 200M of own-pace swimming, and I sounded like I'd just run a marathon.

and that was in nice, warm pool water. Fall into the North Sea during the winter, and your life expectancy is going to be measured in minutes.

but, basically, as the others have said, soldiers on ships wore armour for boarding actions for the entirety of the pre-gunpowder period, and well into the gunpowder era (it was very common on the men who fought the Spanish Armada campaign, in the 1580s, for example). it basically stopped being used about the same time that armour stopped being standard issue on land (i'd ballpark it somewhere around the back end of the 17th century, ie the 1680s or so).

[snowblizz]

but, basically, as the others have said, soldiers on ships wore armour for boarding actions for the entirety of the pre-gunpowder period, and well into the gunpowder era (it was very common on the men who fought the Spanish Armada campaign, in the 1580s, for example). it basically stopped being used about the same time that armour stopped being standard issue on land (i'd ballpark it somewhere around the back end of the 17th century, ie the 1680s or so).

I would add that armour stopped being used in conjunction with boarding no longer being the dominant way you fought sea battles. Which is about the time you note. It's around this time shipbuilding has progressed enough that you can start to build ships as workable gun platforms for masses of heavy guns. It's quite logical, when you expect to be shooting up the enemy armour is not very useful anymore. Especially since gunpowder is pushing away armour on land too. The amount of marines compared to sailors changes too over time.

[Beleriphon]

I would add that armour stopped being used in conjunction with boarding no longer being the dominant way you fought sea battles. Which is about the time you note. It's around this time shipbuilding has progressed enough that you can start to build ships as workable gun platforms for masses of heavy guns. It's quite logical, when you expect to be shooting up the enemy armour is not very useful anymore. Especially since gunpowder is pushing away armour on land too. The amount of marines compared to sailors changes too over time.

Yep, got to agree on the armour bit with cannon becoming common. When you don't have to worry so much about stabbing another dude, but instead have to worry about 20 pound cannon balls flying at you at around 800 ft/second armour becomes less relevant.

[TripleD]

Huge thank you to everyone who answered! This question has bugged me for a long time and it’s nice to have some context.

[comicshorse]

Idle curiosity but I remember reading once in a thriller that if you rubbed a bullet with wire wool (or similar) you could create enough superficial scratches on it to make it impossible (or at least harder) to identify the rifling marks left by the gun. True or not ?

[Brother Oni]

Idle curiosity but I remember reading once in a thriller that if you rubbed a bullet with wire wool (or similar) you could create enough superficial scratches on it to make it impossible (or at least harder) to identify the rifling marks left by the gun. True or not ?

Depends exactly on what the forensics examiner is looking for and the depth of the wire wool scoring.

If the examiner is just checking the rifiling grooves, then the wire wool scoring would have to be fairly deep - for a 9mm pistol round, the rifiling marks are generally around 1.4mm wide by 3mm deep, so any scoring to distort those would have to be at least that deep. Such deep marks can potentially affect the bullet aerodynamics as the ability of the rifiling grooves to bite into the bullet as it travels down the barrel is affected.

There's also no way of altering the number, angle or direction (right or left) of rifiling marks, aside from using a different barrel.

Checking for other microscopic markings could be distorted by fairly superficial marking though, depending on what they are. If the shooter fails to police their brass afterwards, then the discarded casings could also be a clue - for example Glocks have a rectangular firing pin hole on their breech face, which leaves a distinctive shear mark on the cartridge case primer. Obviously attempting to score a live cartridge case primer with wire wool is highly unrecommended.

This website has a fair bit of information that might be of interest: link (http://www.firearmsid.com/A_bulletIDrifling2.htm).

[Pauly]

Idle curiosity but I remember reading once in a thriller that if you rubbed a bullet with wire wool (or similar) you could create enough superficial scratches on it to make it impossible (or at least harder) to identify the rifling marks left by the gun. True or not ?

Most of the rifling checks are done on the base of the bullet. That’s wehere the forces pushing the soft lead into the hardened steel barrel are greatest. That’s also the part of the bullet that the brass case is crimped onto, which you wouldn’t be able to scratch with wire wool, unless you are hand-loading

If you do take off enough metal that the rifling doesn’t show on the spent bullet, well that means you’ve turned your modern gun into a smoothbore. Not the brightest idea in my book.

All in all there are other more effective ways to try to confuse forensics. For example it is sometimes possible to switch barrels between different makers. Which may be baffling for the forensics if the brass says Glock but the rifling says FN, but puts you totally in the frame if you are found with that weapon in your possession.

[Storm Bringer]

I would add that armour stopped being used in conjunction with boarding no longer being the dominant way you fought sea battles. Which is about the time you note. It's around this time shipbuilding has progressed enough that you can start to build ships as workable gun platforms for masses of heavy guns. It's quite logical, when you expect to be shooting up the enemy armour is not very useful anymore. Especially since gunpowder is pushing away armour on land too. The amount of marines compared to sailors changes too over time.

well, its not so much as cannon being common (their were cannon present at the battle of Crécy in 1346, for pete's sake!), as cannon and gunpowder tech in general reaching the point where it became practical to shift to using firepower as the primary armament of the line infantry, as opposed to the skirmisher/light troops weapon it was before. Armies were able to arm more and more of their troops with muskets without loosing the ability to hold off determined melee attackers, and once the bayonet was perfected in the early 1700s then the musket became pretty much the only weapon infantry carried.

on the naval side, the big change was the combination of two things:

1)a shift form the big, slow "mobile fortress" type ships that charactised the Spanish Armada, with high sides and a few heavy cannon, to a more nimble, cannon focused style of warship like used by the English fighting the Armada. this was made possible by:

2) improvements in cannon technology and a effort to properly integrate them into the ship design as opposed to just strapping a few guns borrowed form the army onto the deck and calling it a day. these new cannon were faster firing, given trained, dedicated naval gun crews (as opposed to army gunners borrowed alongside the guns), mounted in carriages intended for naval use, and of standardised, uniform calibre.

some of these things seem like common sense, but the Spanish armada warships often had a motely collection of different calibre guns, some of them still on field carriages, with army crews who weren't really trained or equipped for naval work, and they tended to just fire a salvo while closing to board and then worry about reloading after the boarding action was over.

In short, it be became possible for a ship to stand off and sink a enemy, as opposed to having to board and close.


as these improvements became commonplace, and cannons, and cannon based tactics (ie line astern, broadside fire style tactics of Nelson) became the default, the need for armour disappeared as you weren't facing threats that needed it anymore, so crews stopped wearing it.

[Yora]

Random thought that just came to me and I want to have checked:

Did some early firearms have funnel shaped muzzles to aid with loading? And if so, why did it went away? It probably helps with loading, but must have had some disadvantage if it was discontinued.

[Willie the Duck]

Random thought that just came to me and I want to have checked:

Did some early firearms have funnel shaped muzzles to aid with loading? And if so, why did it went away? It probably helps with loading, but must have had some disadvantage if it was discontinued.

A quick search on blunderbuss images seems to indicate that the flared-end ones I was thinking of came from the time period where they would have been decorative curios, so I don't know of any historical examples. Logically, you tend not to want to add weight to the end of your barrel (making a longarm harder to aim) unless it serves a vital purpose (like, being part of the functional barrel). I agree that loading a weapon with powder is something of a challenge. However, given the bore size of most muzzle-loading weapons, and that powder horns (so, the funnel built into the powder-source) became something of a norm, I'm guessing that the benefit gained by a funnel-esque muzzle wouldn't have been so good an idea that it would offset the inherent negative traits.

This is all unsourced speculation, so take it with all the requisite grains of salt.

[Gnoman]

Blunderbusses were loaded with shot rather than ball. The muzzle flare was to make it easier to pour shot (which is not as fine and easy flowing as powder, but is much more of a hassle than one or two balls) into the muzzle. Most guns did not have a flare because they were used with ball, and that's easy enough to drop down. You see the same thing on some musketoons (a smaller musket that is more useable on horseback), as it was not uncommon to load musketoons with shot as well.


I've seen claims that the flare made the shot spread more, but this is dubious.

[Willie the Duck]

I've seen claims that the flare made the shot spread more, but this is dubious.

Well, it would do so by nature of being, effectively, a shorter barrel (the flared part not really acting 'as a barrel' in this regard).

[Gnoman]

Well, it would do so by nature of being, effectively, a shorter barrel (the flared part not really acting 'as a barrel' in this regard).

Shorter barrels don't have much effect on shotgun spread. In modern shotguns, the spread is controlled by a device called the "choke", which compresses the muzzle at the very end to tighten the pattern. No choke is the widest such pattern. Other than that, the only difference between a short-barreled shotgun and a long barreled one is the sight radius - the distance between the rear sight and the front one. A gun with a larger sight radius has to be aligned more precisely to bring the two together, and is thus easier to shoot accurately.

[Willie the Duck]

Shorter barrels don't have much effect on shotgun spread. In modern shotguns, the spread is controlled by a device called the "choke", which compresses the muzzle at the very end to tighten the pattern. No choke is the widest such pattern. Other than that, the only difference between a short-barreled shotgun and a long barreled one is the sight radius - the distance between the rear sight and the front one. A gun with a larger sight radius has to be aligned more precisely to bring the two together, and is thus easier to shoot accurately.

Learn something new every day. So sawed-off shotguns are wildly inaccurate because the choke is gone, not some innate quality of removing 1/2 the barrel length?

[Gnoman]

Learn something new every day. So sawed-off shotguns are wildly inaccurate because the choke is gone, not some innate quality of removing 1/2 the barrel length?

You do get some additional spread with enough of the barrel gone (due mostly to the fact that you start losing velocity if you drop the barrel to a few inches or less), but not much - that part is just the missing choke. Other than that, sawed-off shotguns are not as inaccurate or wide-spreading as their reputation suggests. The main reason to shorten a shotgun is to make it concealable, although there is some police or military utility for maneuverability in close quarters. The reputation of sawed-off shotguns is mostly because any shotgun is incredibly nasty at point-blank range, which is the range most sawed-offs are used at.

[Willie the Duck]

The reputation of sawed-off shotguns is mostly because any shotgun is incredibly nasty at point-blank range, which is the range most sawed-offs are used at.

Given that you've almost undoubtedly removed the sights, one would hope so. However, I had always thought that the barrel, simply by existing, did something to increase accuracy along with provide velocity. Is that less so for shot-weapons, or am I imagining an entire value of rifles/long-barrel weapons in general that never really existed?

[Kraynic]

One thing about the flared bore is that it is a lot easier to load it with rocks, rocksalt and nails, or whatever once you run out of lead shot.

[Storm Bringer]

Given that you've almost undoubtedly removed the sights, one would hope so. However, I had always thought that the barrel, simply by existing, did something to increase accuracy along with provide velocity. Is that less so for shot-weapons, or am I imagining an entire value of rifles/long-barrel weapons in general that never really existed?

yes, it does, but the effect isn't massive, and is often overshadowed by other factors. quite simply, most people don't shoot well enough for the extra accuracy to matter.

its only when you start getting to professional target shooters or military snipers that the shooter is able to place shots consistently enough that barrel length really starts coming into play. Farmer Joe down the shootin' range or private tommy atkins normally isn't shooting at a level where the addition or subtraction of 6 inches of barrel affects his shooting.

honestly, removing the sights has much more effect. Also, they very commonly take the stock off as well, to cut it down even further, so they are carrying a shotgun with heavy kick, no way to brace and no proper sights. even with a good spread of shot, your still not hitting much at much more than 20 yards, if that.




Did some early firearms have funnel shaped muzzles to aid with loading? And if so, why did it went away? It probably helps with loading, but must have had some disadvantage if it was discontinued.

as others have said, yes, they did, namely the blunderbuss type early shotgun. they often were intended for use by the guards on coaches (hence why the passenger by the driver is "riding shotgun"), so the bell mouth was to aid loading the thing while sat on a large, bouncy coach travelling at speed while under attack form highwaymen.

I cant say for certain when they fell out of use, but they seem to have been used up until the early 19th century in some capacity (the Lewis and Clarke Expedition over America carried a fair few of them). its quite possible they carried on in use until repeating weapons like revolvers and lever actions weapons replaced them.

[Beleriphon]

honestly, removing the sights has much more effect. Also, they very commonly take the stock off as well, to cut it down even further, so they are carrying a shotgun with heavy kick, no way to brace and no proper sights. even with a good spread of shot, your still not hitting much at much more than 20 yards, if that.

Given the type of person who is chopping down a shotgun, the idea of using it at more than 20 or 30 feet is probably a non-factor.

[Storm Bringer]

Given the type of person who is chopping down a shotgun, the idea of using it at more than 20 or 30 feet is probably a non-factor.

well, yhea, is most definitely for pulling out form under the trenchcoat and shoving right in the face of whoever your trying to intimidate. I must emphasise the word intimidate, as if you just want them dead thiers better weapons to use, like the shotgun you chopped up to get the swan-off.

[Gnoman]

Given that you've almost undoubtedly removed the sights, one would hope so. However, I had always thought that the barrel, simply by existing, did something to increase accuracy along with provide velocity. Is that less so for shot-weapons, or am I imagining an entire value of rifles/long-barrel weapons in general that never really existed?

The extra velocity from the longer barrel* does boost accuracy a bit, but the main boost is from sight radius. Benchrest tests (where the gun is bolted in place) show no significant accuracy differences from barrel length.







*Assuming that you're not using a barrel so long that you start losing velocity, that is. Barrel length improves velocity because you get pushed by the still-burning powder longer. If the barrel is long enough that the powder burns completely away, friction will start to slow the bullet down. This is also why pistols use a different powder than rifles do (and why reloaders never, ever charge rifle cartridges with pistol powder). Since pistols use shorter barrels, they need a much faster burning powder.

[Carl]

Actually a blunderbuss might have had a wider pattern as a result of the fact that as the barrel starts to widen there's no longer a barrel confining the shot column but there's still not enough space for the gas pressure behind the shot to fully dissipated off the the sides so the shot still has significant force, (less so than in the barrel more so than in say a full bore choke shotgun), acting on it. But thats just a theory, you'd have to actually test it, and the effect certainly wouldn't be extreme.


As far as shotgun barrel lengths go, i've read that shotguns mostly hit peak velocity in the first few inches of the barrel, thats what would make barrel length affect spread as it's the momentum from the muzzle velocity that acts as a limiting factor on rate of spread for the most part.

[Lilapop]

The extra velocity from the longer barrel does boost accuracy a bit
It does at extreme ranges, where getting further before you go transsonic (bullet starting to get kicked in the donkey by its own sound wave) is a relevant concern. However, a longer barrel made with the same processes and the same QA standards has a higher chance of being less precise, as there is more canvas to make & miss flaws on.

[Pauly]

well, yhea, is most definitely for pulling out form under the trenchcoat and shoving right in the face of whoever your trying to intimidate. I must emphasise the word intimidate, as if you just want them dead thiers better weapons to use, like the shotgun you chopped up to get the swan-off.

I have read in memoirs of sawn off shotguns being used in trench raids in WW1 to great effect. Also said weapon being confiscated fairly quickly when the other side complained of its use. Shotguns are not actually a violation of the Hague convention, but the Germans believed they were.

[Mike_G]

I have read in memoirs of sawn off shotguns being used in trench raids in WW1 to great effect. Also said weapon being confiscated fairly quickly when the other side complained of its use. Shotguns are not actually a violation of the Hague convention, but the Germans believed they were.

When the side that pioneered the use of mustard gas wants to cry about the Hague Convention, I'm tempted to fail to give much of a damn.

[Brother Oni]

When the side that pioneered the use of mustard gas wants to cry about the Hague Convention, I'm tempted to fail to give much of a damn.

They also complained about your lot using a 155mm SPG to direct fire snipe fortifications during the Battle of Aachen, although I'm more willing to concede that as 'maintaining the letter of the law while trampling all over its spirit'.

[Mike_G]

They also complained about your lot using a 155mm SPG to direct fire snipe fortifications during the Battle of Aachen, although I'm more willing to concede that as 'maintaining the letter of the law while trampling all over its spirit'.

I sit firmly in the camp of "the Axis powers have forfeited any right to bitch about how the Allies fought them."

It's somehow wrong to fire a really big gun at a military target, but putting ten million people in death camps is OK. I can't wrap my head around that kind of argument.

Well, I can, but I think it's utter BS.

[Storm Bringer]

They also complained about your lot using a 155mm SPG to direct fire snipe fortifications during the Battle of Aachen, although I'm more willing to concede that as 'maintaining the letter of the law while trampling all over its spirit'.

but is it?

my understanding of the Hague and other pre Geneva convention aggreements was that they were intended to reduce unnecessary suffering by outlawing weapons and tactics that cause extra suffering but no real military benefit, things like small calibre explosive bullets (that wouldn't have a worthwhile blast radius, but really mess up the one guy they hit).

once useful military benefits to many of these weapon were discovered (like using explosive rounds against airplanes), the logic of why it was banned no longer apply.

a lot of these "thats banned" complaints (like the DF use of arty on forts) seems to come down to, more or less, to a "thats not fair!" reaction. The Germans that fought the allies in the Western Front campaigns of 44 and 45 often mention the (to them) profligate use of firepower as a substitute for bravery or manpower. the Americans and (especially) the Brits would throw vast amounts of HE at suspected or known German positions, then follow up with a probing attack. in many cases, if that attack met resitance they fell back and threw even more HE at the germans, and repeated this until they germans either gave up, fell back or were killed. most of the damage to the smaller towns of western Europe in ww2 was caused by the "liberating" armies as they passed through. the bigger german cities were already rubble form the allied bombing campaign, but thats another story,

[Gnoman]

but is it?

my understanding of the Hague and other pre Geneva convention aggreements was that they were intended to reduce unnecessary suffering by outlawing weapons and tactics that cause extra suffering but no real military benefit, things like small calibre explosive bullets (that wouldn't have a worthwhile blast radius, but really mess up the one guy they hit).

once useful military benefits to many of these weapon were discovered (like using explosive rounds against airplanes), the logic of why it was banned no longer apply.


The explosive rounds used against aircraft have a powerful enough charge that the conventions no longer apply. That particular clause was against very, very small charges in rifle-caliber ordinance. There is no prohibition whatsoever about using direct-fire artillery against any military target.


Likewise, the oft-stated "You can't use a .50 on personnel!" myth was almost certainly a memetic misunderstanding of procedures involving one of the US Recoilless rifles. That particular 106mm weapon had a special .50 spotting rifle firing special tracer rounds designed to follow the exact same path as the RCL's rounds. There were strict prohibitions against using this weapon against enemy personnel - because the RCL was intended to be used against tanks and fortifications, and allowing the team to give away their position to pot one guy would be tactically stupid.

[Pauly]

They also complained about your lot using a 155mm SPG to direct fire snipe fortifications during the Battle of Aachen, although I'm more willing to concede that as 'maintaining the letter of the law while trampling all over its spirit'.

Consider that the Germans were used the 150mm armed Hummel, sIG 33, Brummbar in direct fire roles well before the Americans used the M12 GMC in a direct fire role.

[Pauly]

I sit firmly in the camp of "the Axis powers have forfeited any right to bitch about how the Allies fought them."

It's somehow wrong to fire a really big gun at a military target, but putting ten million people in death camps is OK. I can't wrap my head around that kind of argument.

Well, I can, but I think it's utter BS.

When Germans (and other relatavists) complain about the bombing of Dresden I start my reply with the Luftwaffe’s bombings of Weilun and Frampol in the Polish campaign. Then move onto the firebombing of Coventry and Stalingrad which were as bad or worse as the RAF firebombing, and again pre-dates the use of firebombing by the allies on Germany.

[fusilier]

I have read in memoirs of sawn off shotguns being used in trench raids in WW1 to great effect. Also said weapon being confiscated fairly quickly when the other side complained of its use. Shotguns are not actually a violation of the Hague convention, but the Germans believed they were.

I haven't heard about sawn off shotguns being used, but I know the Americans used shotguns during WW1 -- the M1897 Winchester. The Germans protested, but I don't think it had any effect.

[fusilier]

as others have said, yes, they did, namely the blunderbuss type early shotgun. they often were intended for use by the guards on coaches (hence why the passenger by the driver is "riding shotgun"), so the bell mouth was to aid loading the thing while sat on a large, bouncy coach travelling at speed while under attack form highwaymen.

I cant say for certain when they fell out of use, but they seem to have been used up until the early 19th century in some capacity (the Lewis and Clarke Expedition over America carried a fair few of them). its quite possible they carried on in use until repeating weapons like revolvers and lever actions weapons replaced them.

This fits pretty well with what I've heard, i.e. the bell shaped end was to facilitate loading while riding on the top of a bouncing stage coach. I've seen them used into the middle of the 19th century, but not much later. I suspect the introduction of breechloading shotguns, that were even easier to load in such conditions, replaced them. The early pinfire cartridge system was used on shotguns, and the timing is suggestive.

[Lilapop]

This talk about firebombing makes me realize again how crazy the differences in technology are. Today we have bombs and artillery shells with shaped charges, because they are guaranteed to get a direct hit on a tank from 2+ klicks up or 10+ klicks away. Back then, your bombers would count themselves lucky if their ordnance ended up in the correct city district. So to reliably achieve the desired effect of heavily reduced military production capabilities, you couldn't go for the factory buildings - you pretty much had to attack the workforce in their homes.

And with both sides trying to get the concept of "total war" (or rather, living your life for the war effort) accepted in society, that jump might not have been as far as it would be for us today.


On trench shotguns: I heard (think it was in a C&Rsenal video) that they weren't as widespread or well liked as nostalgia would have us believe. Probably because neither pump action nor heavily rimmed shells are all that conducive to reliable operation. We should have switched to semiauto magfed guns firing rimless 19mm decades ago.

[snowblizz]

When Germans (and other relatavists) complain about the bombing of Dresden I start my reply with the Luftwaffe’s bombings of Weilun and Frampol in the Polish campaign. Then move onto the firebombing of Coventry and Stalingrad which were as bad or worse as the RAF firebombing, and again pre-dates the use of firebombing by the allies on Germany.

And completely and utterly fail to see the main point. Timing. Bombing of Dresden achieved absolutely nothing in february 1945 except killing an additional extra of people. It was done despite knowing it won't suddenly shatter the morale of N-Germany or somehow shorten the war. If anything it was done to prove a point to the Soviets what the Allies could do so best stop at the agreed upon line of demarkation.

The Dresden bombings were an act of unnecessity, a cruel, callous act of revenge I guess some would say. In so far we can distinguish various slaughter of civilians.

Also the Allies were supposed to be better than N-word Germany? You're standard of acceptable behaviour appears to be "whatever the N-words did". I would like to think those who went to war claiming moral superiority woulda stuck to it.



This talk about firebombing makes me realize again how crazy the differences in technology are. Today we have bombs and artillery shells with shaped charges, because they are guaranteed to get a direct hit on a tank from 2+ klicks up or 10+ klicks away. Back then, your bombers would count themselves lucky if their ordnance ended up in the correct city district. So to reliably achieve the desired effect of heavily reduced military production capabilities, you couldn't go for the factory buildings - you pretty much had to attack the workforce in their homes.

Isn't there somekind of statistic that they dropped more bombbs in a motnh on Vietnam than the entireity of WW2 on Germany. Something like that.

[Carl]

This talk about firebombing makes me realize again how crazy the differences in technology are. Today we have bombs and artillery shells with shaped charges, because they are guaranteed to get a direct hit on a tank from 2+ klicks up or 10+ klicks away. Back then, your bombers would count themselves lucky if their ordnance ended up in the correct city district. So to reliably achieve the desired effect of heavily reduced military production capabilities, you couldn't go for the factory buildings - you pretty much had to attack the workforce in their homes.

And with both sides trying to get the concept of "total war" (or rather, living your life for the war effort) accepted in society, that jump might not have been as far as it would be for us today.


On trench shotguns: I heard (think it was in a C&Rsenal video) that they weren't as widespread or well liked as nostalgia would have us believe. Probably because neither pump action nor heavily rimmed shells are all that conducive to reliable operation. We should have switched to semiauto magfed guns firing rimless 19mm decades ago.

Actually the issue was that they where still using cardboard shells of some kind which expanded and jammed in the trenches. From what i've read.

[Pauly]

And completely and utterly fail to see the main point. Timing. Bombing of Dresden achieved absolutely nothing in february 1945 except killing an additional extra of people. It was done despite knowing it won't suddenly shatter the morale of N-Germany or somehow shorten the war. If anything it was done to prove a point to the Soviets what the Allies could do so best stop at the agreed upon line of demarkation.

The Dresden bombings were an act of unnecessity, a cruel, callous act of revenge I guess some would say. In so far we can distinguish various slaughter of civilians.

Also the Allies were supposed to be better than N-word Germany? You're standard of acceptable behaviour appears to be "whatever the N-words did". I would like to think those who went to war claiming moral superiority woulda stuck to it.
.

Dresden was the only undamaged major north-South railway yard left in Germany at the time. Dresden also was a manufacturer of precision equipment such as torpedo detonators. It was, according to the lights of the time, a legitimate bombing target.

Frampol on the other hand was a town with no military or industrial targets. It did however have a convenient grid layout of the streets which allowed the Luftwaffe to do a live bombing practice to test the efficacy of their bombing formations on Polish civilians.

[Gnoman]

Actually the issue was that they where still using cardboard shells of some kind which expanded and jammed in the trenches. From what i've read.

Initially, this was the case, and the reason France/Britain/Germany didn't adopt shotguns - they didn't consider development of brass shotgun shells to be a worthwhile use of limited resources. The US, running into the problem after shotguns had been standardized and issued, pretty much had to bite the bullet and tool up for brass shells. This was in progress when the war ended, and only a limited number made it to the front.

[redwizard007]

And completely and utterly fail to see the main point. Timing. Bombing of Dresden achieved absolutely nothing in february 1945 except killing an additional extra of people. It was done despite knowing it won't suddenly shatter the morale of N-Germany or somehow shorten the war. If anything it was done to prove a point to the Soviets what the Allies could do so best stop at the agreed upon line of demarkation.

The Dresden bombings were an act of unnecessity, a cruel, callous act of revenge I guess some would say. In so far we can distinguish various slaughter of civilians.

Also the Allies were supposed to be better than N-word Germany? You're standard of acceptable behaviour appears to be "whatever the N-words did". I would like to think those who went to war claiming moral superiority woulda stuck to it.



Isn't there somekind of statistic that they dropped more bombbs in a motnh on Vietnam than the entireity of WW2 on Germany. Something like that.

I'm sorry, N-word Germany? Is the implication here that we can speak of horrific war crimes, mass murder, genocide, etc but we cant dare spell out the name of a particular political party that was active and in power in one of the countries involved in the second global conflict on a planet that is third from the star sol? That seems particularly tedious.

[Kiero]

I'm sorry, N-word Germany? Is the implication here that we can speak of horrific war crimes, mass murder, genocide, etc but we cant dare spell out the name of a particular political party that was active and in power in one of the countries involved in the second global conflict on a planet that is third from the star sol? That seems particularly tedious.

I'm guessing it's a banned word.

[DrewID]

I'm guessing it's a banned word.

Or they're trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).

DrewID

[Mike_G]

Dresden is different than Aachen.

You can debate the legitimacy of Dresden as a target. It was a major railway junction, and it had factories, so it wasn't not a target, but it was chock full of civilians, and it wasn't all that significant militarily.

That's different than blowing up forts full of enemy soldiers with a 155 howitzer. Those German soldiers were legitimate targets, and it would have been fine to bombard the area with indirect fire, so moaning about how the Allies "unfairly" used a howitzer as a direct fire weapon is ludicrous.

It would have been acceptable to bombard those forts with indirect, or to assault them with grenades and flamethrowers and satchel charges, and to bayonet the defenders, but OMG they used a really big gun on a military target! The horror! This is like saying it's fine to strangle the enemy with your hands, but not with a rope.

Here's an idea: If you don't want to get blown up by superior American firepower, maybe don't invade Poland, overrun Europe, put 10 million civilians in death camps and blitz London.

Don't start a fight if you can't take a punch.

[snowblizz]

I'm sorry, N-word Germany? Is the implication here that we can speak of horrific war crimes, mass murder, genocide, etc but we cant dare spell out the name of a particular political party that was active and in power in one of the countries involved in the second global conflict on a planet that is third from the star sol? That seems particularly tedious.
I think Nazi is a filtered word (I'm testing that now. EDIT: apparently not, how quaint. I can't write out the name of historian **** Harrison but Nazi is a-okay. Americans are weird.). I'm used to it from so many places I routinely cut it out, but I also want to make sure I accurately define what I'm talking about. "Germany created concentration camps" is a very wrong thing to say IMO.


Dresden is different than Aachen.

You can debate the legitimacy of Dresden as a target. It was a major railway junction, and it had factories, so it wasn't not a target, but it was chock full of civilians, and it wasn't all that significant militarily.
And when you try to do that it ends up like this:



Here's an idea: If you don't want to get blown up by superior American firepower, maybe don't invade Poland, overrun Europe, put 10 million civilians in death camps and blitz London.

Don't start a fight if you can't take a punch.
Which is horrendous argument to make because essentially what you are saying "might makes right" and "anything we do is justified because they started it/look differently/were weaker". Usually a response, even in self defence, needs to be measured. In the instance of Dresden, arguably it was well past the mark regardless of what had happened before (what a sniper, regardless of origin, thinks about something, frankly I don't give a damn about). Basically if you start dehumanizing people, even if "they did it" you are on a slippery slope.

IIRC in the movie Monument's Men they sorta bring that up. What kinda of destruction is actually necessary, what kind of personal cost can be borne to save something else of value.


Also, it is possible to endorse/condemn one action without endorsing/condemning all similar actions. I'm fully capable of saying bombing Dresden was wrong without in anyway having any sympthay or agreement with someone who doens't want to be blown up in a bunker by overhwelmign firepower. The two situations are not equal.

Dropping atomic bombs on Japan does to me seem to have been "worth it". But had Japan not surrendered and had America had more atomic bombs we could be discussing the next step. Do you bomb one more, maybe bigger more industrailly important, city and see what happens. Or do you drop 50 nukes all over the largest cities of Japan? Because they totally deserved it for starting the war. I'm betting the latter option is going to be the more controversial and considered morally questionable.

[Brother Oni]

Dropping atomic bombs on Japan does to me seem to have been "worth it". But had Japan not surrendered and had America had more atomic bombs we could be discussing the next step. Do you bomb one more, maybe bigger more industrailly important, city and see what happens. Or do you drop 50 nukes all over the largest cities of Japan? Because they totally deserved it for starting the war. I'm betting the latter option is going to be the more controversial and considered morally questionable.

That's what the second bomb on Nagasaki was for - to prove to the Japanese command that the first bomb wasn't a fluke and that the Americans could potentially glass all potential resistance. Looking at Wikipedia, they were scheduling another bomb ready in August and a further 3 in September and another 3 in October.

Whether the second bomb was actually necessary is a very contentious issue and I suspect that discussion of it falls under verboten topics here.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's what the second bomb on Nagasaki was for - to prove to the Japanese command that the first bomb wasn't a fluke and that the Americans could potentially glass all potential resistance. Looking at Wikipedia, they were scheduling another bomb ready in August and a further 3 in September and another 3 in October.

Whether the second bomb was actually necessary is a very contentious issue and I suspect that discussion of it falls under verboten topics here.

Yeah. I think all I can say is that given this fact -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident -- I know what my answer is. Others' mileage may vary.

[Mr Beer]

It's probably best not to kick off absolutely insane world-spanning wars of aggression if you have an aversion to that coming back to bite you in the arse.

[Pauly]

I think Nazi is a filtered word (I'm testing that now. EDIT: apparently not, how quaint. I can't write out the name of historian **** Harrison but Nazi is a-okay. Americans are weird.). I'm used to it from so many places I routinely cut it out, but I also want to make sure I accurately define what I'm talking about. "Germany created concentration camps" is a very wrong thing to say IMO.


And when you try to do that it ends up like this:


Which is horrendous argument to make because essentially what you are saying "might makes right" and "anything we do is justified because they started it/look differently/were weaker". Usually a response, even in self defence, needs to be measured. In the instance of Dresden, arguably it was well past the mark regardless of what had happened before (what a sniper, regardless of origin, thinks about something, frankly I don't give a damn about). Basically if you start dehumanizing people, even if "they did it" you are on a slippery slope.
.

Dresden was in no way unprecedented or past the mark, unless you want to treat David Irving’s (yes that David Irving) “The Destruction of Dresden” as a credible history.

As for the alleged “might makes right” argument, I will let George Orwell respond more eloquently than I can.

http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19440519.html

[PersonMan]

I think Nazi is a filtered word (I'm testing that now. EDIT: apparently not, how quaint. I can't write out the name of historian **** Harrison but Nazi is a-okay. Americans are weird.). I'm used to it from so many places I routinely cut it out, but I also want to make sure I accurately define what I'm talking about. "Germany created concentration camps" is a very wrong thing to say IMO.

There are workarounds to the filter, which are acceptable if you're using it to spell out a name like "**** Harrison", just FYI. And I don't think it's an especially American thing to say "talking about XYZ topics are no-go, so let's filter out the words that are generally used in that context", myself. :smalltongue:

I'd also say that "NS Germany" is a better term than "N-word Germany", because in American English, "N-word" generally has a very specific meaning, so using it elsewhere gets weird, as it's immediately associated with the racial slur rather than the term you actually mean it as a stand-in for.


As for the alleged “might makes right” argument, I will let George Orwell respond more eloquently than I can.

http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19440519.html

I don't think that really applies here - the point Orwell is making seems to against the criticism of mass bombing in general, and basically lays the groundwork for an argument that bombing cities is justified by bringing the war closer to its end. That's an argument that doesn't really work if the opposing position is "this specific bombing did not help end the war"; I would say that unnecessary bombing would take the same place as killing children does - "Obviously one must not [do that] if it is in any way avoidable" - because it represents worse-than-necessary barbarity without the counterweight of "we will end the war sooner this way".

From what I understand, the argument is that bombing Dresden was pointless. Even if it isn't unprecedented levels of destruction, it's still killing people without purpose; a fitting analogy would be the murder of POWs absent any kind of excuse - if you allow Orwell's point about strategic bombing to be expanded to everything else, surely there's nothing wrong with that, right?

(To clarify - I'm not trying to insinuate you'd agree with this, or doing so myself. The point is to point out what I see as an unfortunate implication of a misuse of an argument with a different intended target.)

[Vinyadan]

The problem with Dresden was that it was a city everyone loved, like bombing Paris or Florence. Nobody cares about e.g. the destruction of Cologne and its churches, because Europeans didn't love Cologne as much as Dresden.

Then there is the timing. It was captured at the beginning of May 1945. It had been bombed out in February.

In general, I don't think the Allied strategic bombing campaigns managed to achieve anything of note outside of Japan. Nor did Axis bombings, as far as I am aware.

About Orwell, his words boil down to "let's do anything we can get away with", "others have done worse", and "the safety of civilians makes wars possible", so I think it flows into one form of "might makes right", albeit a situational and conditional one: "might makes right, because that's how war works, and war is disgusting, but currently unavoidable."

His ironic hint at Fuller (a British general controversial as a Fascist supporter) and Franco, however, opens up an implicit reference to the bombing of Guernica, which had also been extremely controversial, and carried out against an open city, to boot.

BTW, this article is from the 19th of May; on the 29th of June, a V1 damaged Orwell's home, and he had to use a shovel to look for the manuscript of Animal Farm, and a wheelbarrow to carry away his book collection. He tried to publish Animal Farm later that year, only to be stopped by a certain Peter Smollett from the British Ministry of Information, who afterwards turned out to be a Soviet NKVD agent.



Here's an idea: If you don't want to get blown up by superior American firepower, maybe don't invade Poland, overrun Europe, put 10 million civilians in death camps and blitz London.


I think it's more "maybe don't let your ally fly to Hawaii". Before that, even Superman fought people who wanted to embroil America in European turmoil. But then, maybe America would have come to Europe anyway.

[Mabn]

I don't think that really applies here - the point Orwell is making seems to against the criticism of mass bombing in general, and basically lays the groundwork for an argument that bombing cities is justified by bringing the war closer to its end. That's an argument that doesn't really work if the opposing position is "this specific bombing did not help end the war"; I would say that unnecessary bombing would take the same place as killing children does - "Obviously one must not [do that] if it is in any way avoidable" - because it represents worse-than-necessary barbarity without the counterweight of "we will end the war sooner this way".

From what I understand, the argument is that bombing Dresden was pointless. Even if it isn't unprecedented levels of destruction, it's still killing people without purpose; a fitting analogy would be the murder of POWs absent any kind of excuse - if you allow Orwell's point about strategic bombing to be expanded to everything else, surely there's nothing wrong with that, right?

(To clarify - I'm not trying to insinuate you'd agree with this, or doing so myself. The point is to point out what I see as an unfortunate implication of a misuse of an argument with a different intended target.)


The problem with Dresden was that it was a city everyone loved, like bombing Paris or Florence. Nobody cares about e.g. the destruction of Cologne and its churches, because Europeans didn't love Cologne as much as Dresden.

Then there is the timing. It was captured at the beginning of May 1945. It had been bombed out in February.

In general, I don't think the Allied strategic bombing campaigns managed to achieve anything of note outside of Japan. Nor did Axis bombings, as far as I am aware.

About Orwell, his words boil down to "let's do anything we can get away with", "others have done worse", and "the safety of civilians makes wars possible", so I think it flows into one form of "might makes right", albeit a situational and conditional one: "might makes right, because that's how war works, and war is disgusting, but currently unavoidable."

His ironic hint at Fuller (a British general controversial as a Fascist supporter) and Franco, however, opens up an implicit reference to the bombing of Guernica, which had also been extremely controversial, and carried out against an open city, to boot.

BTW, this article is from the 19th of May; on the 29th of June, a V1 damaged Orwell's home, and he had to use a shovel to look for the manuscript of Animal Farm, and a wheelbarrow to carry away his book collection. He tried to publish Animal Farm later that year, only to be stopped by a certain Peter Smollett from the British Ministry of Information, who afterwards turned out to be a Soviet NKVD agent.



I think it's more "maybe don't let your ally fly to Hawaii". Before that, even Superman fought people who wanted to embroil America in European turmoil. But then, maybe America would have come to Europe anyway.

When I read Orwell's words, the brunt of his point to me is not that mass bombing is fine because war's bad and you might as well do whatever. To me, he seems to be arguing that mass bombing is more moral than conventional warfare because it tends to take out the middle aged. A group which has much more to do with beginning and ending wars than whatever 18 year olds got drafted. His points about wars being conducted by whatever manner was deemed most efficient strike me more as bringing up contrasting examples of behavior that the people lobbying against bombing had no problems with (ie gassing people in nations that can't gas them back). The outcry against Dresden could be seen in a similar light. People object to it being damaged because it was one of the good places filled with the right sort of people and should never have been subjected to the vulgarity of war's... tactile details. Orwell came back from India horrified and disgusted by the atrocities his societies leadership was willing to inflict on people it didn't particularly value and never expected to actually run into, as well as the callous way they left their soldiers to deal with the messes their ideas left. His writing here strikes me as a natural continuation of that disgust.

[Shepsquared]

Okay, this is entirely orthogonal to the current discussion: having recently been playing Fire Emblem: 3 Houses, I'm trying to figure out how flying cavalry like Fire Emblem games have would work.

Now I'm fairly certain that the pegasus from the games wouldn't be used much in the fighting p[art of a battle - they're depicted as being fast but fragile with a preference for female riders. I assume that the preference for female riders is because women are on average lighter than men more than any magical reason. Given this I assume that pegasus riders will be used as all but untouchable scouts and couriers, flying high above opposing forces and only being vulnerable to other fliers. If you have enough of them you could use them as flankers, but I'm not entirely certain what the best weapons to use from atop a pegasus would be - probably bows, and I think cavalry sabres or spears, javelins and lances?

Fire Emblerm also has wyverns as flying mounts - big lizards with four legs and wings that are slower and more durable than pegasi with no preference for either gender. I assume they're also stronger than a pegasus in terms of how much weight they can carry and a bit more dangerous when it comes to the mount joining in the battle - but I feel like they'd have endurance issues compared to pegasi, being unsuited to long-distance message delivery because of this, but that isn't based on anything but my own assumptions. Given this I'm fairly certain wyverns would be great for transporting elite troops to precisely where they're needed on the battlefield and maybe even capable of lifting up boulders or other heavy objects to drop on enemy formations. They probably wouldn't be great at aerial interception as the pegasus is faster and probably more maneuverable, but I imagine they're better at fighting on the ground. Again I'm not certain what weapons a wyvern rider would use - probably not the axes of fire emblem. I assume bows and polearms would be good choices, maybe sabres like with actual cavalry, but I'm not sure.

Am I making good assumptions here, or am I entirely off base in how flying mounts would be used in a real military context?

[Mr Beer]

Flyers is a game changer, imagine if only one side had them in a war:

1. Scouting.

2. Strategic missions (deep rapid unpredictable strikes into enemy territory).

3. Battlefield command & control.

4. Kill enemy command.

5. Negate fortifications.

Given the above options I think flying cavalry in the traditional sense might be a waste of resources. Imagine sending in your wyverns to attack infantry, yes you may rout an enemy formation but it's hardly worth it if you lose your ability to trivially take a key fortress.

Now if both sides have them, then a lot of the time they are going to be used against each other to prevent each side employing said options. So I think there will be a lot of dogfighting action.

[AdAstra]

For one thing, at least compared to ground forces, speed is highly unlikely to be an issue for either wyverns or pegasi. Using birds as a benchmark, even the slowest fliers are liable to easily outpace cavalry, assuming they have enough power to fly while carrying a human and armor in the first place. The difference between slow-flying and fast-flying cavalry is likely only going to matter when compared against each other, since both are almost certainly going to outpace anything on the ground.

Due to the nature of gravity, ranged combat is an excellent option, as enemy projectiles need to ascend to reach you, while your own have gravity assisting them. Lances with breakaway tips are also viable for devastating hit-and-run melee against enemies with no means of reaching you, like say, a wall of shields and swords, and would likely be terrifying enough to scatter most troops. Both of these would also likely be good choices for air-to-air combat, since otherwise a head-on collision is almost certainly fatal for both parties, and tail-chasing and dogfighting might be too drawn out to serve as anything but a distraction. One thing's for sure, if your fliers are just slugging it out, either with each other or with ground-bound soldiers, it's not a good use of resources, unless the mounts are themselves combat powerhouses.

However, as very astutely mentioned by earlier posters, the most groundbreaking uses are likely to be in areas other than attacking frontline troops. Command, artillery, logistics (including peasants/farms). Even if your enemy has appropriate countermeasures (such as pike squares, ranged units with enough power to take out the mounts, etc.), they'll be stuck with the unenviable prospect of either spreading those units out among every target you could strike at (which is a lot, considering your relative speed and range), or choosing which stuff is worth protecting at all. After all, if they concentrate their pikemen and ballista-equivalents near their command and artillery, you could always streak off toward their baggage train. After all, it's not like they can chase you. One major, often overlooked benefit of speed is that it makes concentration of force compared to your enemy extremely easy.

Then come the noncombat uses, again as noted earlier, which are probably the most influential of all. A bird's-eye view is excellent for both scouting and command, as well as both long and short-distance communication. Storming or relieving a castle, kidnapping the princess, terrorizing the countryside faster, there are a lot of options.

In terms of historical progression, how flying cavalry would develop as a military idea, you can look at real-world military aviation for many things (except for technological advancement, which is likely to have less or even negative effect on the effectiveness of biological aircav). Of course, it's also entirely possible that people could look at the similarity between air and ground cavalry, giving you a far different progression, but we'll stick with this one for now.
First you have scouting, looking at enemy positions (also communication since you probably don't have fantasy telegrams), maybe a commander hitches a ride to get a different perspective. Then one well-armed scout decides he's gonna try to kill that other scout over there, or a spy brings word of a forward-thinking commander that needs to be dealt with, and you've now got the first air combat.
So now your scouts need better ways of defending themselves, so you figure out good ways to arm them, probably have them travel in small groups for safety in numbers. Maybe the air conflict won't escalate, and you'll have a certain unsteady, unspoken agreement between fellow denizens of the sky. More likely, you will not, and your scouts will start to be joined by interceptor flights and dedicated escorts, in ever-increasing numbers.
Eventually, someone will realize that with so many men and women in the air, why should their interaction with the ground be limited to looking? Probably starting with archers or firebomb carriers, maybe even just dropped rocks. If you assume people draw inspiration from ground-bound cavalry quickly, this increase in numbers and goals is probably where you'll start seeing large units of say, pegasus archers or wyvern lancers being raised. Pretty safe assumption, but if not, or if flying mounts are too rare to recruit units of sufficient size, you may see different things develop. Maybe flying cavalry remains rare enough that only scouting, commanding, communications, or special operations-esque actions can be feasibly done.
Or maybe you've got wyverns in every household. Maybe some societies have lots of fliers and others don't. Maybe you've got raiding steppes tribes but with wings. If so, the rest of the world is in for a not-great time of it. There's ways you could go about this, most of which would be extremely interesting and could probably pass a common-sense test, if not a detailed investigation.

[Shepsquared]

Okay, I guess my only other question is this - in an aerial dog fight, even if a pegasus is something like 2x as fast and agile as a wyvern, there's basically no reason to use a sword or axe instead of a polearm with it's extended right?

[gkathellar]

I'm not convinced that aerial mounts of similar size could safely get close enough to each other to fight, much less allow riders to engage with melee weapons. Any attempt at an airborne melee seems likely to end in a tangle of wings and a swift plummet. When you look at the few animals that actually catch prey in midair, they do so with a significant advantage in size, strength, and speed.

I also suspect that archery would be completely unreliable at the speeds involved with flight, and with the powerful winds you encounter once you get above the ground.

What I'm saying is that wyvern-on-pegasus combat seems a touch implausible. There's a reason that dogfighting requires guns.

[Brother Oni]

Further to the above:


If you have enough of them you could use them as flankers, but I'm not entirely certain what the best weapons to use from atop a pegasus would be - probably bows, and I think cavalry sabres or spears, javelins and lances?

Given the wingspan of a pegasus (SRD20 says it's 20ft), I'd say that would interfere with anything shorter than a lance or a long spear when fighting mounted. It's important to remember that with fliers, taking out the wings for a mobility kill is essentially the same as a catastrophic kill, so pegasi may be too fragile to risk in a direct combat role.

Bombing runs (note that the number of rocks they can carry is limited, so explosive/incindiary devices would be better) and pegasi allowing their riders to fight as mounted infantry (ie they get into position then dismount to fight), would be a better option. Alternately, given their superior mobility, mounted crossbowmen would also be a good alternative - crossbows over horsebows to reduce rider fatigue since they're at minimal risk from ground forces while reloading. With careful flying, a pegasus could potentially stay 'on station' for hours if it concentrated on gliding with the right thermals.


They probably wouldn't be great at aerial interception as the pegasus is faster and probably more maneuverable, but I imagine they're better at fighting on the ground. Again I'm not certain what weapons a wyvern rider would use - probably not the axes of fire emblem. I assume bows and polearms would be good choices, maybe sabres like with actual cavalry, but I'm not sure.

Looking at the wiki pictures, they're too big for short weapons like sabres as a primary weapon, so I'd say polearms at the very least. The 4 legged ones in FE10 would probably operate much like the pegasi, although with more effective close combat skills.
The 'traditional' two legged wyverns are more interesting as a slight modification to their feet could make them frightening heavy cavalry as they could dive on the their target from the sky, much like a bird of prey and either carry off the target or continue to fight on the ground. Given unrestricted control of the airspace, they can also do this from any angle on enemy formations, necessitating skirmishers/archers/anti-wyvern pikes on the enemy side in any battle facing them.


Okay, I guess my only other question is this - in an aerial dog fight, even if a pegasus is something like 2x as fast and agile as a wyvern, there's basically no reason to use a sword or axe instead of a polearm with it's extended right?

The typical depiction of ground cavalry vs cavalry close combat have both sides fairly static, trying to stab each other while side or diagonally facing the other rider - this would not be possible in the air due to the wings interfering, so long weapons and essentially jousting/ride by attacks would be the order of the day. That said, diving attacks would also be possible - being hit by the iron shod hooves of a diving pegasus' would be just as lethal to a human as being crushed/bitten by a large lizard.

Moving away from FE depictions, I'd give the edge to two-legged wyverns. Suppose they adopted the streamlined pose that swimming lizards do, it would give them an edge in aerial mobility, although the rider would have to be strapped into the saddle to avoid falling off while manoeuvring. As an example of how I envision it, see how Toothless and Hiccup fly in How to Train your Dragon: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRFLrlNtiY).

[Pauly]

If we want to talk about the real world limitation of pegasi and other mythical creatures there are several issues that need to be considered.

First is the square-cube law. In the real world this means that the largest creatures able to sustain flight in Earth like conditions were the pterosaurs, the largest of which the Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx top out at about 10 meter wingspans and an estimated body weight of 200 to 250 kg. For comparison the Connemara pony, one of the smallest breeds of horse to carry adults weighs around 300 to 350 kg, and does that without flying. With Connemaras it is recommended that the weight of the rider and equipment be less than 100kg.

Second is the power to weight ratio needed to sustain flight. Real world experience shows that large birds often find it difficult to get airborne from the ground. If you put a small female (~50 kg) that would almost certainly be too much weight to allow the largest possible flyer to lift off. An armored warrior (~100kg) would definitely be too much added mass to allow flight. Any armor for the critter, natural or manufactured, in addition to the rider is impossible.

Third is that creatures that fly have hollow bones, which reduces their mass while increasing their volume. What this means is that any combat hit would almost certainly break their bones and cripple them. There is a very good reason that birds that attack prey whilst flying use hit and run tactics. Any grappling/sustained combat can easily lead to a crippling injury.

Next is flight surfaces and flight control surfaces (feathers, wing membrane etc). In an environment where magic missiles and fireballs exist, in addition to arrows and other projectiles, it will be very easy to damage the flight surfaces of a flying critter. If there is any sort of payload on the creature the creature will be overloaded, leading to catastrophic loss of control when the flight surfaces are damaged.

So the real world answer to pegasi et al is:
They cannot exist as depicted.
A realistically redesigned creature would be unable to carry warriors
A realistic creature would be too fragile to use in battle.

Their uses would be limited to
Messenger work with very light riders - small hobbits or gnomes.
Being trained to attack stragglers/isolated individuals the way Hawkers and Falconers train their birds to attack small prey. i.e. without a rider.

[AdAstra]

I think that we're operating off of FE's example where the mounts very clearly can fly with riders and armor. To even discuss the idea of flying cavalry at all, we need to assume that these creatures are able to take off under their own power and carry a reasonable load. It's not totally ludicrous, Quetzalcoatlus is generally considered (according to wikipedia) to have a wingspan of 10-11m, with a body size large enough for a human to mount, and an estimated weight of 200-250 kg (though these vary widely). Would they necessarily have enough power for humans to ride? Maybe not, but it's plausible.

(In case you were wondering why pterosaurs could get so big when the biggest flying birds come nowhere close, pterosaurs had a quadrupedal stance on the ground. This allowed them to have (comparatively) light back legs and use their obviously jacked flying limbs to catapult themselves into the air. Birds have to use their legs for that initial jump, and those legs are basically dead weight in the air)

The idea of having fireballs and magic missiles immediately skewers any idea of scientific plausibility anyhow, and kinda stinks of a certain guy at a certain gym. Regardless, it could be well possible to fly out of range of such attacks, depending on the relative ranges of the weapons involved. If we use DnD as an example, Fireball and Magic Missile have a range of 150 feet, while a Longbow has a long range of 600. Feathers are likely to be extremely flammable, wing membranes substantially less so. On the other hand the feathers are liable to receive less damage from arrows and other projectiles. Of course, this assumes that you can even hit the target. For a DnD Fireball, you've got a 20 foot radius sphere, likely large enough to make aiming more trivial. For an archer, or someone hurling small bolts of magic? likely a lot more challenging. A flying mount is moving at high speed in three dimensions, and while hits are likely, one could take advantage of terrain features to screen their approach. In fact, while broken or uneven terrain is usually an issue for cavalry, it's actually an advantage for aircav, breaking up ground formations and providing dips and valleys to screen your approach.

[Pauly]

I think that we're operating off of FE's example where the mounts very clearly can fly with riders and armor. To even discuss the idea of flying cavalry at all, we need to assume that these creatures are able to take off under their own power and carry a reasonable load. It's not totally ludicrous, Quetzalcoatlus is generally considered (according to wikipedia) to have a wingspan of 10-11m, with a body size large enough for a human to mount, and an estimated weight of 200-250 kg (though these vary widely). Would they necessarily have enough power for humans to ride? Maybe not, but it's plausible.


If we take horses, the most efficient land based animals for carrying loads.
Ponies for children are generally about 300kg
Small horses, such as Mongolian steppe horses are usually in the 400 to 500kg range
Normal riding horses are about 600 to 700 kg
Percherons, the closest we have to a medieval warhorse, are usually about 1000kg

So 250kg is too light to be useful for anything other than carrying children as a land based animal. Add in the requirement to fly and the square cubed law and fantasy winged creatures cannot fly using real world physics, let alone carry a rider.

[AdAstra]

If we take horses, the most efficient lanf based animals for carrying loads.
Ponies for children are generally about 300kg
Small horses, such as Mongolian steppe horses are usually in the 400 to 500kg range
Normal riding horses are about 600 to 700 kg
Perbherons, the closest we have to a medieval warhorse, are usually about 1000kg

So 250kg is too light to be useful for anything other than carrying children as a land based animal. Add in the requirement to fly and the square cubed law and fantasy winged creatures cannot fly using real world physics, let alone carry a rider.

Your average horse can carry a lot more than one human. Obviously a Quetzalcoatlus isn't likely to be rideable, but with a higher strength to weight ratio than a horse, adult humanoids that can weigh only 40 pounds (in a fantasy land), and the need to only carry one of those plus some equipment, it's not blatantly impossible.

Plus any discussion on the rideability of the quetzalcoatlus is kinda besides the point, I just brought it up as an example of a flying creature of extreme size that might have been rideable, to show such a creature is not totally ridiculous. Again, we're assuming that creatures of requisite capabilities exist, since they would need to be in order to make this fun conversation on what to do with them possible. Real-world physics makes a person throwing a fireball, much less creating one in the first place with only their hands and some magic words, even more ludicrous. If you're willing to accept a total paradigm shift in the fundamental properties of the world, then not accepting that a big creature can fly is completely nonsensical.

All it would take for there to be larger flying creatures is higher air density, lower gravity, and/or higher atmospheric oxygen content, plus sufficient evolutionary development and an actual niche to fill in that space. It could be alternate history or science fiction rather than pure fantasy. That by itself makes it far more realistic than most standard fantasy elements.

[KineticDiplomat]

A lot of this depends on what else the fantasy world has in it, and how "realistic" those effects are. It starts spiraling rapidly from there...what sort of level of magic availability are we talking, and in what quantity can you reliably get trained flyers with or without "pilots?", and what is the production rate on those pilots?

[Shepsquared]

Further to the above:



Given the wingspan of a pegasus (SRD20 says it's 20ft), I'd say that would interfere with anything shorter than a lance or a long spear when fighting mounted. It's important to remember that with fliers, taking out the wings for a mobility kill is essentially the same as a catastrophic kill, so pegasi may be too fragile to risk in a direct combat role.

Bombing runs (note that the number of rocks they can carry is limited, so explosive/incindiary devices would be better) and pegasi allowing their riders to fight as mounted infantry (ie they get into position then dismount to fight), would be a better option. Alternately, given their superior mobility, mounted crossbowmen would also be a good alternative - crossbows over horsebows to reduce rider fatigue since they're at minimal risk from ground forces while reloading. With careful flying, a pegasus could potentially stay 'on station' for hours if it concentrated on gliding with the right thermals.



Looking at the wiki pictures, they're too big for short weapons like sabres as a primary weapon, so I'd say polearms at the very least. The 4 legged ones in FE10 would probably operate much like the pegasi, although with more effective close combat skills.
The 'traditional' two legged wyverns are more interesting as a slight modification to their feet could make them frightening heavy cavalry as they could dive on the their target from the sky, much like a bird of prey and either carry off the target or continue to fight on the ground. Given unrestricted control of the airspace, they can also do this from any angle on enemy formations, necessitating skirmishers/archers/anti-wyvern pikes on the enemy side in any battle facing them.



The typical depiction of ground cavalry vs cavalry close combat have both sides fairly static, trying to stab each other while side or diagonally facing the other rider - this would not be possible in the air due to the wings interfering, so long weapons and essentially jousting/ride by attacks would be the order of the day. That said, diving attacks would also be possible - being hit by the iron shod hooves of a diving pegasus' would be just as lethal to a human as being crushed/bitten by a large lizard.

Moving away from FE depictions, I'd give the edge to two-legged wyverns. Suppose they adopted the streamlined pose that swimming lizards do, it would give them an edge in aerial mobility, although the rider would have to be strapped into the saddle to avoid falling off while manoeuvring. As an example of how I envision it, see how Toothless and Hiccup fly in How to Train your Dragon: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRFLrlNtiY).
Good points about the polearms and bows - I also hadn't thought about two-legged wyverns as mounts at all. compared to quadrupeds, rider placement would seem to be difficult.


If we want to talk about the real world limitation of pegasi and other mythical creatures there are several issues that need to be considered.

First is the square-cube law. In the real world this means that the largest creatures able to sustain flight in Earth like conditions were the pterosaurs, the largest of which the Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx top out at about 10 meter wingspans and an estimated body weight of 200 to 250 kg. For comparison the Connemara pony, one of the smallest breeds of horse to carry adults weighs around 300 to 350 kg, and does that without flying. With Connemaras it is recommended that the weight of the rider and equipment be less than 100kg.

Second is the power to weight ratio needed to sustain flight. Real world experience shows that large birds often find it difficult to get airborne from the ground. If you put a small female (~50 kg) that would almost certainly be too much weight to allow the largest possible flyer to lift off. An armored warrior (~100kg) would definitely be too much added mass to allow flight. Any armor for the critter, natural or manufactured, in addition to the rider is impossible.

Third is that creatures that fly have hollow bones, which reduces their mass while increasing their volume. What this means is that any combat hit would almost certainly break their bones and cripple them. There is a very good reason that birds that attack prey whilst flying use hit and run tactics. Any grappling/sustained combat can easily lead to a crippling injury.

Next is flight surfaces and flight control surfaces (feathers, wing membrane etc). In an environment where magic missiles and fireballs exist, in addition to arrows and other projectiles, it will be very easy to damage the flight surfaces of a flying critter. If there is any sort of payload on the creature the creature will be overloaded, leading to catastrophic loss of control when the flight surfaces are damaged.

So the real world answer to pegasi et al is:
They cannot exist as depicted.
A realistically redesigned creature would be unable to carry warriors
A realistic creature would be too fragile to use in battle.

Their uses would be limited to
Messenger work with very light riders - small hobbits or gnomes.
Being trained to attack stragglers/isolated individuals the way Hawkers and Falconers train their birds to attack small prey. i.e. without a rider.
Well yes, you're entirely right. But I was trying ask 'how would flying cavalry operate, given that flying cavalry is at all possible', not the slightly less interesting question of 'what are all the reasons it wouldn't work'. But that's still a lot of things to keep in mind, thanks.


A lot of this depends on what else the fantasy world has in it, and how "realistic" those effects are. It starts spiraling rapidly from there...what sort of level of magic availability are we talking, and in what quantity can you reliably get trained flyers with or without "pilots?", and what is the production rate on those pilots?

Well, if we still go off of how Fire Emblem does it - no idea how hard it is to get trained 'pilots', but in most games there's one kingdom renowned for their elite flying knights - sometimes two, with the 'good guy' kingdom fielding pegasi and the 'bad guy' kingdom fielding wyverns.

We also have no idea how quickly pegasi or wyverns breed & grow, which would be just as important. I wouldn't be surprised if pegasi age like horses do and are tamer than wyverns, but for wyverns all I can do is guess - 30 year lifespan like komodo dragons & apparently tyrannosaurs?

[Pauly]

Well yes, you're entirely right. But I was trying ask 'how would flying cavalry operate, given that flying cavalry is at all possible', not the slightly less interesting question of 'what are all the reasons it wouldn't work'. But that's still a lot of things to keep in mind, thanks.


I understand, which is why I didn’t start with the premises that they are aerodynamically incapable of flight unless you strap a Saturn V engine onto them to start with.

It’s more to do with how realistic do you want your realism?

Once you know what assumptions you are making and what things you’re hand waving with “it works because it’s a well established thing in a fantasy world” then you can work out how much realistic detail you want to put in.

For example you might only want to keep the flyers are overloaded and a vulnerable to control surface damage, yet hand wave the hollow bones and power to weight issues.

[Myth27]

possibly off topic, on average how many silver coin was a gold coin worth in history, like the order of magnitude, is the ten times difference of dnd somewhat realistic compared to earth?

[Brother Oni]

possibly off topic, on average how many silver coin was a gold coin worth in history, like the order of magnitude, is the ten times difference of dnd somewhat realistic compared to earth?

Where and when? Economics and inflation is a thing, not to mention the switch from coins being worth their weight and purity of material to coins being worth the value stamped on them by an issuing authority.

I'm only familiar with the Japanese using a mixed copper/silver/gold coinage system during the Edo period (link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17849113&postcount=38)). The Chinese used a copper/silver/paper system and the majority of other civilisations used the gold standard.


A point of note from my earlier work is that the standard silver coins (monme) was also a unit of weight of 3.75g, thus a 5 monme (coin) was equivalent to 5 monme (18.75g) of fine silver.

This lead to an issue later on when the Shogunate switched to a nominal value of monme and debased the coinage from ~80% silver to ~20% silver, resulting in a fourfold increase of imported goods as foreign traders wanted payment in fine silver (e.g. goods costing 100 monme of 80% silver now cost 400 monme of 20% silver).
As highlighted, metal purity was also of importance prior to standardisation - during the Sengoku, Takeda ryo (koban equivalent) were worth more as the gold mines in their territory produced purer gold, thus their coinage were better. I believe the Oda ryo were worth the least.

Edit: Listing the coinage, 1 Oban (gold) = 10 Koban (gold) = 600 Monme (silver) = 40 Bu (silver) = 160 Shu (silver) = 40,000 Mon (copper)
For simplicity, 1 gold = 60 silver = 4000 copper.

I still haven't worked out why gold Bu and Shu are equivalent to silver Bu and Shu; I can't find any reference to them being units of weight like the monme.

[rrgg]

Okay, I guess my only other question is this - in an aerial dog fight, even if a pegasus is something like 2x as fast and agile as a wyvern, there's basically no reason to use a sword or axe instead of a polearm with it's extended right?

Sticking with the comparison to horse cavalry, I think it would still depend on the individual rider's skill training and how well they are able to rapidly ride, fight, change direction, etc. without losing their balance or falling off, all of which tends to be made much more tricky by carrying a long lance.

[Vinyadan]

possibly off topic, on average how many silver coin was a gold coin worth in history, like the order of magnitude, is the ten times difference of dnd somewhat realistic compared to earth?

Napoleon introduced a system with a gold and silver franc coins. The value of the coins was bound to the value of the metal, and 1 gram of gold was worth 15.5 grams of silver. This was in 1803.

In 1865, France, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium created the Latin Monetary union, which followed the same standard. The problem was that the values of gold and silver fluctuated, and the value of silver on the market went down, which allowed e.g. German merchants to export silver to these countries, have it minted into coins, and then exchange the coins for more gold than the silver was worth.

You can take a look at the Wikipedia page "Bimetallism". For the ancient age, it lists the Croeseid, minted by King Croesus of Lydia (1 gold = 10 silver, but the gold coin is lighter than the silver ones) and the Daric, minted by king Darius I of Persia (1 gold daric = 20 silver sigloi, with a weight rate of 1:13)

[fusilier]

possibly off topic, on average how many silver coin was a gold coin worth in history, like the order of magnitude, is the ten times difference of dnd somewhat realistic compared to earth?

In 1837 the United States government set the official ratio of silver to gold at 16 to 1. This was slightly off which lead to some problems, but is a convenient guide. The smallest coin the United States ever minted was a one dollar gold coin: it is enlightening to put it next to a silver dollar.

I'm not sure what the ratio of silver to copper though.

[Jeivar]

Just to be clear: There is no way a whip would make a viable weapon, right? I mean, could someone actually reliably use it to disarm an enemy, or strike at exposed skin? Isn't it always going to be wiser to have a shield in the off-hand?

[Pauly]

Just to be clear: There is no way a whip would make a viable weapon, right? I mean, could someone actually reliably use it to disarm an enemy, or strike at exposed skin? Isn't it always going to be wiser to have a shield in the off-hand?

It’s about as viable as a straight razor. It’s really good for intimidating unarmed and unprepared non-fighters, but as a weapon in a fight against someone who knows what they’re doing it is slightly better than nothing.

[Kiero]

possibly off topic, on average how many silver coin was a gold coin worth in history, like the order of magnitude, is the ten times difference of dnd somewhat realistic compared to earth?

In classical antiquity, gold was worth 27 times it's weight in silver. After Alexander the Great looted the treasuries of Persia, the gold devalued to 10 times it's weight in silver.

[Willie the Duck]

Just to be clear: There is no way a whip would make a viable weapon, right? I mean, could someone actually reliably use it to disarm an enemy, or strike at exposed skin? Isn't it always going to be wiser to have a shield in the off-hand?

The idea that whips and flails are great disarm-your-foe weapons seems to be something game's and cinema came up with. Sure, one might be able to consistently wrap your weapon around theirs, but then you are just playing tug of war with someone who still has partial control of their weapon while yours is literally wrapped up. A leverageable weapon with some places to catch a weapon (obviously a weapon like a 3-pronged dagger or a basket-hilted sword will work better than a normal mace or the like), over which you have maximum control is probably best for that.


In classical antiquity, gold was worth 27 times it's weight in silver. After Alexander the Great looted the treasuries of Persia, the gold devalued to 10 times it's weight in silver.

And before classical antiquity, localized rarity would play a huge factor. I recall that silver was fairly rare in ancient Egypt, and as such would have been more valuable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So...late medieval recon in force into hostile territory. What kind of force would be sent? Rough numbers (100? 50? 500?) would be great, as well as basic types of forces and associated logistics. Assume plate and heavy cavalry are things, along with organized/standardized infantry blocks, but gunpowder isn't. Magic exists, but not tons of it (so the logistics are mostly mundane). There might be a few healers or low-level wizards/alchemists along, but they're more support than primary power, and there will be like 3-4 of them max.

The area they're being sent is a huge[1] extinct caldera/valley high in the mountains and covered in (perpetual) snow and ice. Basically tundra or glacier, with patches of exposed soil. Opponents historically in this region have involved unorganized bands of raiders (goblins), smaller forces of organized humanoids with a few giants, and semi-controlled beasts. Usually these forces raid through the only (local) pass every winter, but this winter they haven't raided nearly at all. It's late spring, so the pass is clear but the terrain behind it is perpetually icy (due to magic).

The objective is to determine whether there are forces being built up for a major push, and if not, find a good target for a full-scale military push later in the season. Expected duration might be a week or two, a month at most.



[1] I mean [I]huge. Several hundred miles across, roughly circular, and lowest elevation of 6-7k feet. Ringed by much taller mountains on 80% of the circumference, with only one major outlet (in a different direction) and a couple small passes. There is no intent to explore the whole thing, just one little area near one smaller pass.

[Mr Beer]

Sounds like crappy terrain for a heavy force to enter. I would think a small force of scouts or multiple small scout groups on either fast horses or sturdy mountain friendly ponies, carrying light weapons and supplies would be sent to recon. You're not going to pure recon with heavy cavalry and infantry squares and if you send in that kind of firepower because you say, want to force a decisive battle, you're still going to have the scouts going ahead.

I'm assuming flyers and scryers aren't available because those would be the first choices.

[redwizard007]

Sounds like crappy terrain for a heavy force to enter. I would think a small force of scouts or multiple small scout groups on either fast horses or sturdy mountain friendly ponies, carrying light weapons and supplies would be sent to recon. You're not going to pure recon with heavy cavalry and infantry squares and if you send in that kind of firepower because you say, want to force a decisive battle, you're still going to have the scouts going ahead.

I'm assuming flyers and scryers aren't available because those would be the first choices.

All that for general reconnaissance.

Recon in force is more about testing the strength of an enemy by forcing an engagement. Think, Romans moving enmasse into a barbarian land. That is recon in force. If that was your intention then you need to give me more details. Essentially, you want enough force to overwhelm the expected enemy. How much force would your commander think that would take? That's how much he brings.

[Mike_G]

Hi guys,

This is the most meticulous longbow vs plate tests I've seen. Really painstaking work on the bow, the arrow and the armor, using measurements from historical artifacts, a real professional archer shooting a bow based on the Mary Rose bows with a well researched arrow at a good reproduction breastplate on a decent simulated target, not substituting materials like so many other tests.

It's like half an hour, but it's the most realistic test I've seen.

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

[Max_Killjoy]

Hi guys,

This is the most meticulous longbow vs plate tests I've seen. Really painstaking work on the bow, the arrow and the armor, using measurements from historical artifacts, a real professional archer shooting a bow based on the Mary Rose bows with a well researched arrow at a good reproduction breastplate on a decent simulated target, not substituting materials like so many other tests.

It's like half an hour, but it's the most realistic test I've seen.

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

Thanks for posting that.

Certainly puts some RPG tropes int a new light.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sounds like crappy terrain for a heavy force to enter. I would think a small force of scouts or multiple small scout groups on either fast horses or sturdy mountain friendly ponies, carrying light weapons and supplies would be sent to recon. You're not going to pure recon with heavy cavalry and infantry squares and if you send in that kind of firepower because you say, want to force a decisive battle, you're still going to have the scouts going ahead.

I'm assuming flyers and scryers aren't available because those would be the first choices.

Clarification--that mention of heavy forces wasn't what's being sent, merely an idea of the tech level.


All that for general reconnaissance.

Recon in force is more about testing the strength of an enemy by forcing an engagement. Think, Romans moving enmasse into a barbarian land. That is recon in force. If that was your intention then you need to give me more details. Essentially, you want enough force to overwhelm the expected enemy. How much force would your commander think that would take? That's how much he brings.

Well, the political situation is a little odd there--basically three factions with enough pull to skew things.

Hawks see the lull in Frost activity as a chance to strike. Left up to them, they'd mobilize everything and go for the throat. Forget recon--we know where the leaders are. Go kill them.
Doves believe that the lull means that the driving force behind the Frost is absent/gone (and so the Frost isn't really a threat anymore). They want at most minor recon, but nothing that would cause a reaction.
Paranoiacs believe that the Frost is up to something bad. They want a serious recon to figure out what and to know where to strike, but feel that a full commitment would be throwing forces away.

Currently the third group is in power. The hawks have enough power that they have to do something, but the doves also have enough pull (especially with the masses who are tired of war) that they can't overcommit. Combine this with the fact that some of the hawk groups are...disliked...by the commanders for being loose cannons, as well as the presence of a heavy mercenary group in the area, and you get their proposal.

Proposal: Send the Dragonslayers[1] and the White Hand mercenary company[2], along with some Sanctioned Adventurers as attached special forces[3] into the area. Do this pretty openly (ie not much stealth). Use other means to watch them from afar. Basically, they're a tripwire/expendable probe force (without actually telling them that). The mercs will figure it out quick, but it's basically what they came over here to do, so no big deal (although they will have contingency plans). The Dragonslayers are, and will be clueless unless someone tells them. They see it as their big chance.

If they encounter no organized resistance and/or discover evidence that the Frost is leaderless, find a good location for a FOB and hunker down. This appeases the doves while getting those troublesome forces out of the way.

If they get smacked hard, it confirms the paranoiacs' suspicions and only costs them those annoying people anyway.

And hey, if they can keep driving inward and kill the leadership, it's worth a shot.

[1] The name is aspirational. A group of hotheads, of indeterminate (for now) size. Thinking max 200. Definitely not elite troops, but well armed and good individual warriors. Led by a sorcerer (~5th level) and with some other arcane support.
[2] A band of orcs, about 100 effectives. Very well organized and cohesive heavy infantry. Well trained/experienced in high-mountain warfare. No significant political connections, so expendable if necessary. Have some clerical/shamanistic support.
[3] the party of PCs. Right now 2nd level. Wouldn't be under the direct command of the recon force, but would be expected to provide scouting, diplomatic, magical, and other support.

[KineticDiplomat]

So, pushing in to a mountain pass...which empties into a caldera the size of West Germany. Can we be more specific with what they're looking for and the rough timeline?Right now all a reocn-in-force into one pass will prove is whether, at the time of arrival, the pass is contested. Given the nature of medieval armies, you could have 15,000 men a few days march beyond the pass and not know it, or the local tribes/cities/states/feudal webs might be able to mobilize an army in the tens of thousands by later in the campaign season. Lets look at what that force could find:

1) Holy ****. There's an army here. Besides the fact that foragers and outriders would likely give the recon a kicking, mobilization timelines mean the army would be coming to play shortly. No one can afford to quarter a large force in the barren mountains for long.

2) We ran into some small contact. Regardless of the source, all this tells us is that some smaller fighting elements are here. They could be screening (deliberately or not) unknown entities just out of reach.

3) We ran into nothing but peasants/tribesmen/whatever. This means nothing strategically...medieval armies could go for weeks without knowing where their opponents were, and you could hardly trust the north Swiss to be able to tell you what the Medicis were up to.

4) We ran into nothing. Like nothing nothing. Just windswept rock.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, pushing in to a mountain pass...which empties into a caldera the size of West Germany. Can we be more specific with what they're looking for and the rough timeline?Right now all a reocn-in-force into one pass will prove is whether, at the time of arrival, the pass is contested. Given the nature of medieval armies, you could have 15,000 men a few days march beyond the pass and not know it, or the local tribes/cities/states/feudal webs might be able to mobilize an army in the tens of thousands by later in the campaign season. Lets look at what that force could find:

1) Holy ****. There's an army here. Besides the fact that foragers and outriders would likely give the recon a kicking, mobilization timelines mean the army would be coming to play shortly. No one can afford to quarter a large force in the barren mountains for long.

2) We ran into some small contact. Regardless of the source, all this tells us is that some smaller fighting elements are here. They could be screening (deliberately or not) unknown entities just out of reach.

3) We ran into nothing but peasants/tribesmen/whatever. This means nothing strategically...medieval armies could go for weeks without knowing where their opponents were, and you could hardly trust the north Swiss to be able to tell you what the Medicis were up to.

4) We ran into nothing. Like nothing nothing. Just windswept rock.

They're supposed to scout the immediate vicinity (a few days travel from the mouth) of the pass, looking for things like fortifications, smoke from fires, etc. Additionally, they're looking for fortifiable locations for expansion, assuming there's no major forces. The nation has good engineers/logistic capability and can raise fortifications pretty fast, so finding a good location for outposts is important. A tertiary goal is to see if the way is clear to the old capital (which was up in that area 90 years ago). Hopefully, the goals would coincide and they'd be able to find bits of the old city still usable as the core for fortifications. That, or they'd find forces gathered in those old ruins. At least when they retreated 90 years ago, the old capital was in a strategic location due to local geography--they were only pushed out because the attack took them pretty much entirely by surprise.

As a note, the caldera is old and flat. It housed a grand civilization about 200 years ago, before the world had a cataclysmic set of natural disasters. Even after that, the nation involved lived there in one small section until the Frost came. The Frost is relatively new (only about 90 years) and is there artificially. The climate shouldn't support it. It used to be rolling grasslands/farmlands until bad things happened.

I think that I'm going to play up the idea that sending the recon group is more of a political move than a military one--the powers that be don't expect them to do anything useful except
a) appease the firebrands who demand action
b) possibly get troublesome elements killed in glorious action </sarcasm>
c) maybe, just maybe find something useful. Maybe recover some lost treasures (if any haven't been looted) from the old capital.

So the group needs to be serious enough to look substantive, but doesn't actually need to be fully functional and can even have been undercut. Which provides some extra drama for the players to unravel--when they find out that the supplies aren't what they really need or such.

[KineticDiplomat]

So, I think it would look something like this:

1) Send aerial recon in an overflight (do Pegasi have sufficient lift to operate at 7500’ ASL? Who knows) to pick up the outlines and contours of the pass, as well as identify any major known fortifications, towns, and roads. You might still have thinner alpine trees and scrub at that height though, so there’d be large chunks of unknown areas under tree cover, and spotting of things that need verification.

Combine this with any spies, travelers, and so forth to build up a basic political and human picture, as well as provide initial information on the pass. Possibly contract for local guides.

2) Using the contours of what was learned in #1, there are going to be some points of specific interest. Maybe they’re bridges, chokepoints, tribal villages, reports of what look like old border forts from the previous civilization that the flyers couldn’t tell the status of. Perhaps one or two shoot downs that leave blank spots of interest. So someone says “I want you to go look at this stuff, specifically”.

3) From there it is terrain and forage dependent. If you are traveling in mountainous entries to the caldera, the premium would be on light infantry, missile troops, and skirmishers surrounding a core of heavy infantry if you need to force a position. Can’t charge heavy horse up the Rockies, no matter how badly you want to. Bands that can move quickly in the rough terrain and take advantage of the inability for large shock based formations to move or close would be optimal.

If it’s just big and flat, your optimum load would be an outer shell of light horse and skirmish style missile troops, with a shock and mass fire based main body for fighting in the lowlands. What that means is up to you...late medieval could span from “the mounted knight kicks all but a few asses” to “blocks of pike and missile troops have reinstated infantry as the premier arm”.

3a.) Force design in a medieval, or even antiquity, army was hardly a matter of specific capability assignment so much as it was “this is the type of fighting force we can/do build on principle, so that’s what we’re using.” Which can basically be the excuse for whatever force mix you want. Surely the Romans wished they had an answer to Parthian horse archers...but they didn’t for a while. And surely the same moorish armies that swept North Africa wished they had a good tactical answer to fighting Spanish heavy infantry and Frankish knights on their home ground...but they didn’t, even when the same basic for e composition would outplay the crusaders most of the time in the desert.

In short “whatever we usually have, that’s what you get, the end”.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, alternate question based on the feedback (showing that my campaign idea wouldn't really work plausibly).

What kind of resources/manpower would you need to build a fortified hardpoint (less than a castle but more than a roman camp) within say 6 months? Doesn't have to be large, just large enough for a forward outpost and mustering site.

There are available quarries within 50 miles and the culture has high expertise in combat-focused engineering and has (limited) construct labor to provide a tireless workforce. Wood is scarcer, however.

My new idea is to have the PCs be attached to a group that's being sent onto this caldera/plateau area to build a forward operating base. As a note, the pass is completely under their control, it's the caldera-side that's not. They'd be most of a day's walk from the next fortifications (a giant wall that seals the narrow part of the pass on the caldera side) and serve as a tripwire/scouting base.

This camp/construction site would serve as the PC's home base and they'd be sent out to scout things, deal with local tribes that may not be immediately hostile, delve into ruins, etc.

[Brother Oni]

Ok, alternate question based on the feedback (showing that my campaign idea wouldn't really work plausibly).

What kind of resources/manpower would you need to build a fortified hardpoint (less than a castle but more than a roman camp) within say 6 months? Doesn't have to be large, just large enough for a forward outpost and mustering site.

There are available quarries within 50 miles and the culture has high expertise in combat-focused engineering and has (limited) construct labor to provide a tireless workforce. Wood is scarcer, however.


Depends on the travel times and safety of routes to and from the quarries. 50 miles would be between a 2-3 day journey one way, assuming reasonably flat land or easy route.

Rule of thumb is that the time taken to build a fortification results in a durability of one order of magnitude less (minutes to build to last seconds, hours to build to last minutes, etc). At a 6 month build time, you're looking at something intended to last a couple weeks at best.

I'm thinking something resembling a motte and bailey castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle) - a simple wooden logs enclosed courtyard around a small wooden keep could be done in around 1,000 man-days of work, whereas a more elaborate stone keep on a separate hill to the courtyard could take 24,000 man-days (e.g. Thetford Castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetford_Castle)), especially if you need to build the motte as well.

Given wood is scarce, it looks like stone walls all the way, so you're looking at something resembling ringworks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringwork). Assuming that stone is freely available, you could throw up a rough stone wall around your camp in a couple days - bear in mind that some of your men might refuse to stoop to manual labour; good luck in convincing nobility to pick up a spade and pitch in.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depends on the travel times and safety of routes to and from the quarries. 50 miles would be between a 2-3 day journey one way, assuming reasonably flat land or easy route.

Rule of thumb is that the time taken to build a fortification results in a durability of one order of magnitude less (minutes to build to last seconds, hours to build to last minutes, etc). At a 6 month build time, you're looking at something intended to last a couple weeks at best.

I'm thinking something resembling a motte and bailey castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle) - a simple wooden logs enclosed courtyard around a small wooden keep could be done in around 1,000 man-days of work, whereas a more elaborate stone keep on a separate hill to the courtyard could take 24,000 man-days (e.g. Thetford Castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetford_Castle)), especially if you need to build the motte as well.

Given wood is scarce, it looks like stone walls all the way, so you're looking at something resembling ringworks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringwork). Assuming that stone is freely available, you could throw up a rough stone wall around your camp in a couple days - bear in mind that some of your men might refuse to stoop to manual labour; good luck in convincing nobility to pick up a spade and pitch in.

Fortunately it's a war economy and a lot of the labor can be done by constructs, fanatics, and very experienced construction cadres. They finished a serious fortress wall closing off the pass (a long undertaking because it was under attack every winter) about 3 years ago and so have been idle.

Can you speed things up by throwing manpower at it? Or is it like software engineering/giving birth (where 9 women can't produce a baby in 1 month)?

I'm thinking a rough stone wall as initial fortifications that then gets expanded out, with priority being "something defensible against immediate attack" and then getting protected supply lines back to the wall.

[Storm Bringer]

Fortunately it's a war economy and a lot of the labor can be done by constructs, fanatics, and very experienced construction cadres. They finished a serious fortress wall closing off the pass (a long undertaking because it was under attack every winter) about 3 years ago and so have been idle.

Can you speed things up by throwing manpower at it? Or is it like software engineering/giving birth (where 9 women can't produce a baby in 1 month)?

I'm thinking a rough stone wall as initial fortifications that then gets expanded out, with priority being "something defensible against immediate attack" and then getting protected supply lines back to the wall.

to a degree, yes, you can just throw manpower at something like this. obviously, its not infinitely scalable, but doubling the manpower will not get you done in exactly half the time (their comes a point where you just cant get more workers into the site, and adding more slows everyone down as they keep getting in each others way, the required secondary staff eat up the extra manpower, etc). constructed mounds also need some time for the earth to "settle" and compact before you build on them, or else you'll find your structure being torn apart by subsidence

for a "quick, lets throw something up and improve it later", a simple ditch backed by a mound will do a pretty good job. It'll kill the momentum of any charge, break up the formation of that attack and generally turn a even fight into a very uneven one. Once that is out, you can start adding stone walls inside the ditch, then expand the defended area by enclosing some more land in ditches. this way, you can have a small, easy to defend core, with a larger, defendable outer area that can be used to hold a "surge" or troops staging though the base.

bear in mind, though, the fort needs to be small enough that it can be defended by the permeant garrison.

I know local wood is rare, but is it rare back at the parties home area? is would it be possible to just cart some over in order to throw up a palisade? something like the palisade stakes the romans carried with them, to use as spikes in the ditch or to make what we call toady Czech hedgehogs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudis_(stake)#/media/File:Pilum_murale_1.jpg) or a cheval de frise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheval_de_frise#/media/File:Cheval_de_frise_petersburg_civil_war_02598.jp g).

[KineticDiplomat]

Your good news is that pre-industrial age, “supply lines” matter less. You don’t need a massed and constant flow of stuff meant to keep the machine running or to keep obscene numbers of people at combat readiness 24/7. Food and fodder are your big bulk requirements, and depending on the state of civilization in the area, may be quite capable of hosting a few hundred fighting men with nothing more than some burdensome grain taxes.

————

Assuming you are using a Roman border fort as an example, if the force in question travels with its own hasty palisade on backs and carts, you can have a thin palisade and a ditch within a few hours if you have drilled it.

Stone will be another matter entirely. I’ll let other talk build time, let’s look at the logistics of getting it there: Ox teams with carts travel about ten miles a day. A working ox team with prime fodder eats 50 pounds of grain a day, or nearly 200 pounds of roughage. Depending on grazing in the Caldera, you need up to half a ton of food per one way trip from the quarry - unless other carts are hauling in food from large farms.

The weight won’t matter that much...they’re strong beasts...but eventually you’re going to cube out the carts. The classic “western movie rugged guy throws a bale of hay into his truck” hay bale is about 3x1.5x1.5 feet and feeds one team for one day. If it’s green roughage, 4 bales a day.

Cart sizes may vary, but the bed of a modern F-150 is 5.5 x 5.5 feet. If you’re using green roughage for fodder, you’re getting to the point where an ox team can only feed itself by 50 miles unless there’s grazing and other logistics supporting them. If you’re importing grain to feed the oxen (and that will have a burn to utilize rate before it even gets to the quarry) you’re looking at losing half your carrying capacity per cartload.

Which means this is going to be a long project or very expensive project if you want quarry stone. If you’re ok with just roughing it...well, soil dependent, you could dig out a ditch and turn the spoil into a rampart using only manpower. Fairly quickly as well. Top that with a man carried palisade, then bring in “engineers” using nothing but mortar and local stones to throw up rough walls...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your good news is that pre-industrial age, “supply lines” matter less. You don’t need a massed and constant flow of stuff meant to keep the machine running or to keep obscene numbers of people at combat readiness 24/7. Food and fodder are your big bulk requirements, and depending on the state of civilization in the area, may be quite capable of hosting a few hundred fighting men with nothing more than some burdensome grain taxes.

————

Assuming you are using a Roman border fort as an example, if the force in question travels with its own hasty palisade on backs and carts, you can have a thin palisade and a ditch within a few hours if you have drilled it.

Stone will be another matter entirely. I’ll let other talk build time, let’s look at the logistics of getting it there: Ox teams with carts travel about ten miles a day. A working ox team with prime fodder eats 50 pounds of grain a day, or nearly 200 pounds of roughage. Depending on grazing in the Caldera, you need up to half a ton of food per one way trip from the quarry - unless other carts are hauling in food from large farms.

The weight won’t matter that much...they’re strong beasts...but eventually you’re going to cube out the carts. The classic “western movie rugged guy throws a bale of hay into his truck” hay bale is about 3x1.5x1.5 feet and feeds one team for one day. If it’s green roughage, 4 bales a day.

Cart sizes may vary, but the bed of a modern F-150 is 5.5 x 5.5 feet. If you’re using green roughage for fodder, you’re getting to the point where an ox team can only feed itself by 50 miles unless there’s grazing and other logistics supporting them. If you’re importing grain to feed the oxen (and that will have a burn to utilize rate before it even gets to the quarry) you’re looking at losing half your carrying capacity per cartload.

Which means this is going to be a long project or very expensive project if you want quarry stone. If you’re ok with just roughing it...well, soil dependent, you could dig out a ditch and turn the spoil into a rampart using only manpower. Fairly quickly as well. Top that with a man carried palisade, then bring in “engineers” using nothing but mortar and local stones to throw up rough walls...

So what I'm reading is that transport is the key bottleneck here. If you replaced the oxen with constructs that didn't need to eat (but otherwise were equivalent to oxen), something that this nation could do for smaller projects and shorter time-scales (due to maintenance needs over the long run), that should dramatically ease that burden, right?

I could easily see them pre-positioning enough wood and supplies for at least an initial fort at the Wall, about a day away. In fact, they could pull from the Wall's reserve[1] to throw something up pretty fast.

[1] this reserve is normally drained by repairs during the winter when transport is difficult and the Frost is constantly attacking...but this year the Frost didn't attack in any significant quantity. So it's basically full and they have the whole summer to replenish it. And there's enough there, including construct laborers to build a bunch of small forts because the Wall is massive (15-20 miles long by TALL and THICK, with internal living areas and fortresses). The benefit, I supposed of having only one pass out and having a few years with low activity to complete the thing (which was started more than 50 years ago).

[KineticDiplomat]

Yes. If you can replace draft animals with constructs, you solve one of the three major logistical problems of the world pre-combustion engine. If you ever talk with David Weber about safehold, he specifically invented the “Draft Dragon” as the only way that Charissa’s armies could move around the way they do. Otherwise all the cool”we have rifles while you have pikes parts” never happen because the armies can’t show up in any real force.

Of course, that capability would also drastically alter the face of...everything. So we’re starting to veer into “how fantasy do you want your fantasy.” It might be easier to hand-wave reality than try to create new capabilities realistically. Are your players really going to complain if you don’t do the ox math right?

[Storm Bringer]

So what I'm reading is that transport is the key bottleneck here. If you replaced the oxen with constructs that didn't need to eat (but otherwise were equivalent to oxen), something that this nation could do for smaller projects and shorter time-scales (due to maintenance needs over the long run), that should dramatically ease that burden, right?

I could easily see them pre-positioning enough wood and supplies for at least an initial fort at the Wall, about a day away. In fact, they could pull from the Wall's reserve[1] to throw something up pretty fast.

[1] this reserve is normally drained by repairs during the winter when transport is difficult and the Frost is constantly attacking...but this year the Frost didn't attack in any significant quantity. So it's basically full and they have the whole summer to replenish it. And there's enough there, including construct laborers to build a bunch of small forts because the Wall is massive (15-20 miles long by TALL and THICK, with internal living areas and fortresses). The benefit, I supposed of having only one pass out and having a few years with low activity to complete the thing (which was started more than 50 years ago).

if the land is snow-blown tundra, then yes, logistics and food supply (and also liquid water, if its permanently cold) are major bottlenecks on expansion into the area. however, making and holding a fort a days ride out from the Wall isn't going to be a massive issue for a civilisation that built a Game of Thrones style border wall. the location of the fort might be determined by the fact it needs to be at or very close to a water source (like a river, or spring)


the point about logistics is that their comes a point where your oxen are eating their own carry weight in fodder to move that stone the distance required (ie, the oxen needs to devote all its cargo hauling space to fodder to travel that far). A single days ride isn't that point, but depending on how far back form the Wall the fodder is coming form, you might not have that much ability to "project" forward of the wall because most of your logistical effort is being spent bringing supplies TO the wall.

looking at a real, historical example, namely Hadrian's Wall (the one that inspired the Game of Thrones Wall), its important to understand how that worked, and that it wasn't the first line of defence that the romans never crossed. they had a mix of obsovation towers and cavalry patrols ranging out in front of it to keep an eye on the land for trouble, and they had extensive trade and diplomatic links with the Pictish tribes in southern Scotland, which often gave them advanced warning of major raids. minor raids of a dozen or two people could often get over the wall (its difficult to patrol a wall 73 miles long well enough that they couldn't), but it was very difficult for them to take much worth stealing and get back over unopposed (most raiders would be after portable wealth, and farm animals were a favourite. and their is no way your going to convince a cow to climb a wall)




argueably, what the Players are going to want in a home base is something like a small valley with very steep, unclimbable cliffs on both sides, with one way in at the bottom and a way out at the top onto the higher area. a small stream runs though it, which gives you a water supply. the enemy can only really attack you form two sides, and if their isn't another path up to the highland he might have only one path, so you don't have to fortify anywhere near as much. hell, it might even be preferable to not fortify, but rely on stealth to hide you form any scouts. you don't build anything fancy, nothing that you can't replace easily. then, if your found, you bug out and find a new site and repeat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

if the land is snow-blown tundra, then yes, logistics and food supply (and also liquid water, if its permanently cold) are major bottlenecks on expansion into the area. however, making and holding a fort a days ride out from the Wall isn't going to be a massive issue for a civilisation that built a Game of Thrones style border wall. the location of the fort might be determined by the fact it needs to be at or very close to a water source (like a river, or spring)


the point about logistics is that their comes a point where your oxen are eating their own carry weight in fodder to move that stone the distance required (ie, the oxen needs to devote all its cargo hauling space to fodder to travel that far). A single days ride isn't that point, but depending on how far back form the Wall the fodder is coming form, you might not have that much ability to "project" forward of the wall because most of your logistical effort is being spent bringing supplies TO the wall.

looking at a real, historical example, namely Hadrian's Wall (the one that inspired the Game of Thrones Wall), its important to understand how that worked, and that it wasn't the first line of defence that the romans never crossed. they had a mix of obsovation towers and cavalry patrols ranging out in front of it to keep an eye on the land for trouble, and they had extensive trade and diplomatic links with the Pictish tribes in southern Scotland, which often gave them advanced warning of major raids. minor raids of a dozen or two people could often get over the wall (its difficult to patrol a wall 73 miles long well enough that they couldn't), but it was very difficult for them to take much worth stealing and get back over unopposed (most raiders would be after portable wealth, and farm animals were a favourite. and their is no way your going to convince a cow to climb a wall)




argueably, what the Players are going to want in a home base is something like a small valley with very steep, unclimbable cliffs on both sides, with one way in at the bottom and a way out at the top onto the higher area. a small stream runs though it, which gives you a water supply. the enemy can only really attack you form two sides, and if their isn't another path up to the highland he might have only one path, so you don't have to fortify anywhere near as much. hell, it might even be preferable to not fortify, but rely on stealth to hide you form any scouts. you don't build anything fancy, nothing that you can't replace easily. then, if your found, you bug out and find a new site and repeat.

Thanks. I'll have to look at my map of the area at a higher resolution and figure out a good place that's already naturally fortified to some degree. I'd figure that they'd have very light scouts already out in the country relying on stealth (or familiars flying over with the wizards looking through their eyes or something), so they'd know the general layout within a short distance of the Wall.

The actual fortification part is going to be a minimal part of the overall campaign--just a home base and a place for there to be some complications (maybe having to help defend it, etc). The party will spend most of their time out looking for other things/sifting through ruins/talking to non-hostile tribes. Their personal, primary goal will be to find out why the Frost has been attacking. Because no one knows. They just attacked out of nowhere 90 years ago, seemingly bent on the total destruction of this nation. There seem to be "allied" tribes of goblins in the area who only fight when they're coerced--these might be able to be swayed or at least bribed into giving information; there is also the ruins of the original capital not too far away.

[Max_Killjoy]

Expeditions are like space lauches -- every pound of fuel you take with you also requires fuel to move, and that fuel needs fuel, and more stuff to carry that added fuel also means more fuel needed.

[Pauly]

For fortifications in that environment a wall may not be the best option.

If you look at real life fortifications in the Andes, for example at Ollantaytambo or Pisac.
The Incas built a fort extending up a hillside at a bottleneck in the valley. The stone terracing acting as an unbreakable wall and allows crops to be grown. (The stone walls retain heat from the sun and then radiate that heat at nighttime creating warmer microclimates for crops).
Any intruder cannot bypass the fortification because no supplies can pass or booty be returned. Every single terrace has to be fought over and won with the attackers being constantly harassed by enfilading fire from higher positions.

[Telok]

Depending on how close that old capital was it may be useful to send a handful of scouts with a string of remounts to do a fast check. Historically using old buildings and fortifications as the materials for new ones was very popular since your building materials were already quarried and on site. Then you just need to push a batch of supplies through to the site and begin hardening the supply route while the fortification at the end in being thrown up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depending on how close that old capital was it may be useful to send a handful of scouts with a string of remounts to do a fast check. Historically using old buildings and fortifications as the materials for new ones was very popular since your building materials were already quarried and on site. Then you just need to push a batch of supplies through to the site and begin hardening the supply route while the fortification at the end in being thrown up.

The old capital is unavailable for a few reasons. One big one is that its infested with undead. Not even the Frost go there. This is partly for story reasons (I have plans for that).


For fortifications in that environment a wall may not be the best option.

If you look at real life fortifications in the Andes, for example at Ollantaytambo or Pisac.
The Incas built a fort extending up a hillside at a bottleneck in the valley. The stone terracing acting as an unbreakable wall and allows crops to be grown. (The stone walls retain heat from the sun and then radiate that heat at nighttime creating warmer microclimates for crops).
Any intruder cannot bypass the fortification because no supplies can pass or booty be returned. Every single terrace has to be fought over and won with the attackers being constantly harassed by enfilading fire from higher positions.

In this case, I went with the more trope-y "big wall" more for aesthetics than for anything. That was settled a while ago and can't really change. But it's a good idea. The next fort (described below) might use something on that style.

On the broader topic, I've settled on the map/terrain for the next fort. The scale is 2 miles per hex, or about 1 hour's movement in rough terrain (by game rules).

https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/maps/Old_Dragonborn_Kingdom.png

There's a natural formation that was the kingdom's previous line of defense after the old capital fell. Two pillar-like mountains with stairs leading to watchtowers on either side of a narrow valley, with chasms (partially natural, partially artificial decades ago) between the pillars and the sheer mountain wall to north and south. It's about 15 miles from the wall and neatly protects an area of hills. Looking at the map, they can pull lumber from the near side of the pass behind the wall.

For game purposes, this also gives the party a natural place to overlook the rest of the play area, as well as a "sheltered" training area should they so choose. I've planned a bunch of points of interest in this lower valley they can hit before heading to the more contested areas to the west/further into the caldera.

Now I just need to get a good simple model for how far the naked eye can resolve objects of various sizes so I know how far they can see from the watchtowers (horizons aren't an issue due to the height)...but that's just trig. And trig is easy.

[AdAstra]

From my knowledge, the distance at which you can actually recognize what you see is highly dependent on what you're looking at/for. It's far from just comparing size and distance: something as simple as a person looking towards or away from you could change whether you notice them at all (people are really good at recognizing faces, and really human shapes in general). Is the object moving in relation to the background? What color is it? Does it have a clear silhouette? How does the visual "noise" in their vicinity compare to that of the object (i.e. cluttered terrain makes solid colors stand out and vice-versa)? These things are far more likely to shift the likelihood of perception than just distance, and should at least give advantage/disadvantage if enough of them are stacked up at once. One thing's for sure, don't just make an equation where say, size/distance x n = DC and call it a day, and the same would go for maximum distances.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From my knowledge, the distance at which you can actually recognize what you see is highly dependent on what you're looking at/for. It's far from just comparing size and distance: something as simple as a person looking towards or away from you could change whether you notice them at all (people are really good at recognizing faces, and really human shapes in general). Is the object moving in relation to the background? What color is it? Does it have a clear silhouette? How does the visual "noise" in their vicinity compare to that of the object (i.e. cluttered terrain makes solid colors stand out and vice-versa)? These things are far more likely to shift the likelihood of perception than just distance, and should at least give advantage/disadvantage if enough of them are stacked up at once. One thing's for sure, don't just make an equation where say, size/distance x n = DC and call it a day, and the same would go for maximum distances.

I'm keeping it simple because I'm really concerned with how the party finds interesting things to investigate. Since I only really care about groups of people (including things like camp fires) and structures, my plan is to say that

At ground level, you can generally see evidence (but not details) about band-size groups of people or most structures in any adjoining hex (~2 miles), assuming clear weather and actually having line of sight (so less in super hilly terrain or forests, for example).

At significant relative elevation (climbing a watch tower or one of the pillars, for example), you can see groups of people within 2 hexes[1] and structures within 5 hexes. These increase to 5 hexes and 10 hexes if you have a spyglass or telescope. These numbers come from a very rough trig calculation using the angular resolution of the eye, rounded to 2-mile increments.

None of these require a check, because they're long-term things and no one's trying to hide. People actively trying to hide or hidden structures can't be seen outside your own hex.

Edit: you can't see details about anything outside your hex, unless you're at the edge and they're nearby. So you'd see a big group of upright figures, or the dust cloud of a migrating group, etc. but you couldn't tell if they're a tribal family group moving or a war band until they got closer. Something like an ordered block of troops would be easier to discern, because they're marching in some sort of formation vs just a big clump.

[1] but campfires count as structures for this purpose, so you can see camps from much further away assuming they're not trying to hide.

[AdAstra]

Makes sense. I will point out that fires are definitely going to increase detection distance substantially. In general, if you have line of sight on a fire at night, you will see it, no matter how far away it is. Thick smoke could also be visible from a great distance during the day as well. Deliberate smoke signals could reach hundreds of miles. From an in-game perspective, I would treat any outdoor fire as visible to everything with LOS at night.

Might even be able to work this into part of the fort infrastructure. A line of watchtowers, hill forts, or mountain camps between the two main forts, using a variety of means to transmit limited information between them, as well as provide quick reinforcement to anyone ambushed while travelling between, or reduce the odds of getting cut off, etc. Maybe that's something that's still being actively established, and the players can participate in their construction and defense? Could also serve as a weakpoint, the first thing a hostile force would likely attack, giving players a chance to cut their teeth on say, a small band of goblins that took over a watchtower.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Makes sense. I will point out that fires are definitely going to increase detection distance substantially. In general, if you have line of sight on a fire at night, you will see it, no matter how far away it is. Thick smoke could also be visible from a great distance during the day as well. Deliberate smoke signals could reach hundreds of miles. From an in-game perspective, I would treat any outdoor fire as visible to everything with LOS at night.


Good to know. How hard is it to localize a fire at night though? I mean you can see it, probably get a rough bearing on it, but as far as ranging?



Might even be able to work this into part of the fort infrastructure. A line of watchtowers, hill forts, or mountain camps between the two main forts, using a variety of means to transmit limited information between them, as well as provide quick reinforcement to anyone ambushed while travelling between, or reduce the odds of getting cut off, etc. Maybe that's something that's still being actively established, and the players can participate in their construction and defense? Could also serve as a weakpoint, the first thing a hostile force would likely attack, giving players a chance to cut their teeth on say, a small band of goblins that took over a watchtower.

My current (after changes) idea is as follows.

The "ideal" site for a fort is already fortified by a band of the enemy, but not particularly well due to the inherent disorganization of their forces. The Dragonslayers (being hot-heads) jumped the gun on a planned operation to liberate and rebuild it. Because they're hot-heads lacking any sense of tactics, they managed to take the fort with significant losses.

That was a day or so before the party sets out from the Wall, accompanying the mercenary group (who were supposed to take the fort and would have done so much more deliberately and with fewer losses, but...) and a group of engineers/supplies to rebuild the fort properly. The main fort will be relatively secure, but there's lots of wild territory between the fort and the Wall (and even more on the other side), and none of the groups there are really suited for small-unit independent operation. That's where the party comes in. There are abandoned mines, ruins, and beast lairs on the "safe" side, as well as a couple old kingdom watchtowers near-by on the "wild" side that are juicy targets for liberation. If they choose to retake those, the main fort becomes basically secure and they'll have good intel on what's going on out around them. If they don't, the NPCs will...eventually. And with losses. My world puts the normal cap on capabilities at about the level 3-ish range for humanoids (with a fat tail though), so most of the NPCs are weaker than that. I spent some time yesterday creating rough outlines and locations for 30-ish points of interest in the area--some friendly, some neutral, and some decidedly hostile.

[AdAstra]

Good to know. How hard is it to localize a fire at night though? I mean you can see it, probably get a rough bearing on it, but as far as ranging?

Ranging's tough, but at those kinds of distances it'll always be a bit of a crapshoot. You know they're in line of sight at least, and you know exactly which direction they're in. Even in the worst cases you could draw a line in the dirt pointing toward it, then in the morning look that way again. After all, the characters don't understand trig, they're always going to be relying on estimations and gut-feeling, so this isn't really that much worse. Perhaps back then people were more used to thinking of such distances in terms of how long it would take to get there, like a three hour-ish walk. Exact distance is definitely more of a game contrivance than a thing the characters would be expected to keep track of.



My current (after changes) idea is as follows.

The "ideal" site for a fort is already fortified by a band of the enemy, but not particularly well due to the inherent disorganization of their forces. The Dragonslayers (being hot-heads) jumped the gun on a planned operation to liberate and rebuild it. Because they're hot-heads lacking any sense of tactics, they managed to take the fort with significant losses.

That was a day or so before the party sets out from the Wall, accompanying the mercenary group (who were supposed to take the fort and would have done so much more deliberately and with fewer losses, but...) and a group of engineers/supplies to rebuild the fort properly. The main fort will be relatively secure, but there's lots of wild territory between the fort and the Wall (and even more on the other side), and none of the groups there are really suited for small-unit independent operation. That's where the party comes in. There are abandoned mines, ruins, and beast lairs on the "safe" side, as well as a couple old kingdom watchtowers near-by on the "wild" side that are juicy targets for liberation. If they choose to retake those, the main fort becomes basically secure and they'll have good intel on what's going on out around them. If they don't, the NPCs will...eventually. And with losses. My world puts the normal cap on capabilities at about the level 3-ish range for humanoids (with a fat tail though), so most of the NPCs are weaker than that. I spent some time yesterday creating rough outlines and locations for 30-ish points of interest in the area--some friendly, some neutral, and some decidedly hostile.

Interesting and coherent. Definitely establishes the Dragonslayers characterization. If you haven't accounted for it already, I would recommend ensuring that you tell and show the players why someone, with the PCs being best suited to handle it, needs to do these tasks in the short and long term, and then show the changes their actions create. The fort needs lumber, so clearing that cave of beasties in the forest is pretty helpful, the fort needs a lookout near this easy ambush point, so taking the watchtower is imperative... and as the players do this, they're also gradually accomplishing the broad-scale objectives, like securing the fort's supporting infrastructure, and allowing the two forts to easily communicate and send troops/supplies to each other, plus seeing how their actions are contributing to the effectiveness of the expedition. Don't lead them about by the ear, but make their actions feel appreciated/effectual.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ranging's tough, but at those kinds of distances it'll always be a bit of a crapshoot. You know they're in line of sight at least, and you know exactly which direction they're in. Even in the worst cases you could draw a line in the dirt pointing toward it, then in the morning look that way again. After all, the characters don't understand trig, they're always going to be relying on estimations and gut-feeling, so this isn't really that much worse. Perhaps back then people were more used to thinking of such distances in terms of how long it would take to get there, like a three hour-ish walk. Exact distance is definitely more of a game contrivance than a thing the characters would be expected to keep track of.


Thanks!



Interesting and coherent. Definitely establishes the Dragonslayers characterization. If you haven't accounted for it already, I would recommend ensuring that you tell and show the players why someone, with the PCs being best suited to handle it, needs to do these tasks in the short and long term, and then show the changes their actions create. The fort needs lumber, so clearing that cave of beasties in the forest is pretty helpful, the fort needs a lookout near this easy ambush point, so taking the watchtower is imperative... and as the players do this, they're also gradually accomplishing the broad-scale objectives, like securing the fort's supporting infrastructure, and allowing the two forts to easily communicate and send troops/supplies to each other, plus seeing how their actions are contributing to the effectiveness of the expedition. Don't lead them about by the ear, but make their actions feel appreciated/effectual.

That was my basic plan. They'll have a primary mission of figuring out why the Frost is attacking and gaining allies (if possible), but having those "support the base" side missions be organically present will help as well.

[Storm Bringer]

one minor point, but on clear or clear-ish nights, with a decent moon, its actually quite easy to see long distances in the dark, espically if your not next to a light source yourself thats screwing with your night vision. If they know the area (and if their looking out form a watchtower, they should know the area), then they might be able to localise the fire pretty well ("thats near Humber's ford. they must be waiting for daylight before they attempt to cross").

I don't know how built up your area is, but try and get out in the dark, away form lights and traffic, no torches or lanterns turned on, and just see what you can see in the dark, once your eyes have adapted. its surprising if you've never done it.

[Pauly]

one minor point, but on clear or clear-ish nights, with a decent moon, its actually quite easy to see long distances in the dark, espically if your not next to a light source yourself thats screwing with your night vision. If they know the area (and if their looking out form a watchtower, they should know the area), then they might be able to localise the fire pretty well ("thats near Humber's ford. they must be waiting for daylight before they attempt to cross").

I don't know how built up your area is, but try and get out in the dark, away form lights and traffic, no torches or lanterns turned on, and just see what you can see in the dark, once your eyes have adapted. its surprising if you've never done it.

Especially if there is snow on the ground or on nearby mountains. Snow reflects moonlight quite well.

[KineticDiplomat]

If you want an extra layer of play for them...”clearing” a watchtower/lair/old mine does nothing unless they can occupy and guard it. Stronger garrisons can patrol on their own and hold off attacks...eight poor bastards can barely keep three men awak at night to stop anyone with bad intentions. A resource constraint on what they can actually do strategically (and avoids the six men conquer the world idea). Plus it lets them politic for more resources/forces, playing the factions of the expedition and the home land.

[Pauly]

Visual sighting distance depends a lot on the conditions.

Variable 1) nearer the equator the sunlight is stronger and objects can be made out much further than in areas which receive less direct sunlight.

Variable 2) the thickness of the air. Generally speaking the higher you go the thinner the air becomes and the further you can see.

Variable 3) how close the air is to it’s dewpoint. If the air is significantly above it’s dewpoint the water vapor in the air won’t coalesce and if the air is significantly lower then the water vapor drops out of the air. When the air temperature is close to its dewpoint haze and mist forms.

Variable 4) How much smoke/dust is present.

As a general rule sighting distances in mountainous areas are longer than usual as the air is thinner and less polluted and the air is often lower than the dewpoint.

[Maquise]

A somewhat different question, but I think it fits in the scope of this thread.

If one had a fully-functional cybernetic arm, with strength and range of movement comparable to a physically fit human's natural arm, what would be the most effective way to mount a retractable bladed weapon?

[redwizard007]

A somewhat different question, but I think it fits in the scope of this thread.

If one had a fully-functional cybernetic arm, with strength and range of movement comparable to a physically fit human's natural arm, what would be the most effective way to mount a retractable bladed weapon?

That would depend entirely on the design of the prosthetic. Ideally the blade would be integrated into any appropriately sized void in the arm.

[Maquise]

That would depend entirely on the design of the prosthetic. Ideally the blade would be integrated into any appropriately sized void in the arm.

Indeed, but I was wondering how it would be designed to be used. Would arm-blades like we see in Cyberpunk or Deus Ex be the best way to go about such a weapon, and if so what configuration would be optimal?

[Mr Beer]

What's it for and how much spare volume do you have in the cyberarm?

For the same of utility, assuming that simply carrying around weapons like a normal person is a problem for some reason, I would think a small concealed blade in hand for knife stuff and a proper weapon like a gun in your arm for combat would be better than a long fighting blade.

I'm dubious about the overall combat utility of integral weapons anyway.

Melee weapons suffer from things like lack of mobility unless you somehow incorporate all the articulation available to a sword gripped in a hand. Also, I don't think it would be great to parry with something that's wired directly into your skeleton. Also, melee weapons are generally much less effective at killing people in comparison to, for example, rapid fire rifles (a very old technology compared to fully functional cyberlimbs).

Missile weapons, which are effective weapons, do things that are incompatible with being contained within the human body e.g. waste heat, recoil, toxic fumes etc.

So using limbs as somewhere to hide holdout grade weapons for special situations might be the most realistic application of this kind of thing.

I think if sufficient technology exists to overcome these problems, you could go in a variety of different ways anyway. So you maybe better off thinking about what kind of aesthetic you are after and then go about justifying it.

[redwizard007]

I'm dubious about the overall combat utility of integral weapons anyway.

Melee weapons suffer from things like lack of mobility unless you somehow incorporate all the articulation available to a sword gripped in a hand. Also, I don't think it would be great to parry with something that's wired directly into your skeleton...

...So using limbs as somewhere to hide holdout grade weapons for special situations might be the most realistic application of this kind of thing.

This.

What I am picturing is sort of a spike or blade protruding from your hand or elbow. That would look cool, but would be horrid to actually fight with.

A fully retractable weapon is going to be great for assassins. Not so much for actual combat. Your pros will be surprise and placement of that first strike. Cons will be deflecting enemy attacks, adjusting your strikes, and the ability to adjust your angle of attack (or lack of ability to do these.)

In theory, a weapon that shoots out of your arm and into your hand (to be held like a normal weapon) could be feasible. A short straight sword of some type, or even an ax that's blade is collapsed could be feasible. At that point you just have a spring loaded weapon delivery device. Packing a pistol instead of a blade would be more practical.

Depending on tech level you could even have the whole arm morph into the weapon instead of simply concealing it. Picture your arm liquefying and reshaping, or breaking into a million nanobots to do the same. It could even be more like the transformers, basically just rearranging pieces to get the weapon you want. In any of these you are going to be better off using your other arm to wield this weapon. That way you maintain reach and a normal range of movement.

[Maquise]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

[AdAstra]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

If this is a true "can cut through just about anything" style monoblade, then you're going to want maximum dexterity and finesse, since the amount of force you can apply is far less relevant, and your best defense will be getting the first strike in. This means that a blade mounted directly to your arm is likely to be too unwieldy compared to one held in the hand, due to less articulation. That being said, you could probably have a hidden compartment you can draw a conventional blade from, or one that extends from the knuckle or like, the top part of the hand. That would at least allow you to use your wrist to maneuver the blade, as opposed to having to use your entire forearm.

[Pauly]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

The first thing you want is a gyroscopic stabilizer to ensure correct edge alignment. The blade has zero effective mass so any cut that is not aligned perfectly with the angle of momentum will not cut effectively.

[Willie the Duck]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

The problem for this specific question in a thread like this is that monoblades are based on author-fiat rules. So the answer is whatever you want. Can the filament be kept on a spool or the like when not in use? In that case, maybe have it in a fingertip, and the power source somewhere down the arm. Wherever you have the most fine motor control, the better.

[Maquise]

I will ask another, completely unrelated (to my last question) then.

I recently learned that during the Agincourt period, French knights were known to wear a padded surcoat-like garment called a jupon. Is that just another word for surcoat or something different, and if so how decorated could they be?

[Mike_G]

I will ask another, completely unrelated (to my last question) then.

I recently learned that during the Agincourt period, French knights were known to wear a padded surcoat-like garment called a jupon. Is that just another word for surcoat or something different, and if so how decorated could they be?

It's a specific type of surcoat. It was thickly padded and may have been designed to help defeat arrows.

They briefly discuss the jupon in the arrrows vs armor video I linked further up.

Here it is again if you don;t want to go digging. It's long-ish, but probably the most sound test I've seen, as far as attempts to get the details right.

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

[Clistenes]

I have read about the jupon as a civilian piece of clothing similar to the doublet. It apparently had spanish origin, and it seems that it originally was worn by warriors under the hauberk, but it eventually became a fashionable piece of male clothing...

[Mr Beer]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

Whichever one provides most articulation. If you can just wave it around like a wand and slice through steel with a flicking gesture, then maybe stick it in a finger.

If you need to apply force, I wouldn't mount it into the body, I would have a concealed monoblade sword in my cyberarm.

[Brother Oni]

As an aside to the futuretech talk going on, here's a picture that might interest some people: Dutch Royal Army Pantserhouwitser (PZH 2000 155mm SPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000)) and crew with their loadout:

https://i.redd.it/z7rkvtju5qn31.jpg
Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7#C8) (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG) (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Minimi) (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3) (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an aside to the futuretech talk going on, here's a picture that might interest some people: Dutch Royal Army Pantserhouwitser (PZH 2000 155mm SPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000)) and crew with their loadout:

https://i.redd.it/z7rkvtju5qn31.jpg
Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7#C8) (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG) (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Minimi) (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3) (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

Reminds me of playing the original Company of Heroes, and my US engineering team accidentally picking up an MG42 on the battlefield. :smallbiggrin:

[Gnoman]

Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7#C8) (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG) (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Minimi) (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3) (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

Considering how badly wrong things have to go for this kind of unit to be in direct combat, ensuring that they are heavily armed strikes me as a good idea.

[KineticDiplomat]

Makes complete sense. Small arms are, on the state level, absurdly cheap. And on a self propelled artillery piece, it's not like the weight matters.

In return for this investment, you get artillery platoons and batteries that can self secure against low level rear area threats without having to detach additional line elements (and with the transport to keep up as the guns shoot and scoot) or MPs, both of which are always in demand. In western armies in particular, the prohibitively high cost of a soldier means that any chance you get to not have to spend any more guarding something that might be able to guard itself is going to be taken.

Will they likely survive an infantry company or tank platoon coming through? Nah. Might they be able to beat off a raid by special purpose forces or a squad that got bypassed in the fighting and happens to be in the area? Quite possibly.

[AdAstra]

As an aside to the futuretech talk going on, here's a picture that might interest some people: Dutch Royal Army Pantserhouwitser (PZH 2000 155mm SPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000)) and crew with their loadout:

https://i.redd.it/z7rkvtju5qn31.jpg
Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7#C8) (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG) (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Minimi) (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3) (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

Very interesting. Wonder what those silver rods above the (presumably) Panzerfaust 3 ammo are. Look almost like aircraft rockets.

[Brother Oni]

Very interesting. Wonder what those silver rods above the (presumably) Panzerfaust 3 ammo are. Look almost like aircraft rockets.

They're extendable tent poles for the camo netting, which are the green bundles immediately to the right of the tent poles.

[AdAstra]

They're extendable tent poles for the camo netting, which are the green bundles immediately to the right of the tent poles.

Neat! I would assume that the things to the right of the backpacks are poles for the crew tents? Or something else?

[Brother Oni]

Neat! I would assume that the things to the right of the backpacks are poles for the crew tents? Or something else?

You mean the 4 poles above the two fire extinguishers? The crew are immediately to the right of the backpacks.

I'm not sure - they could be tent poles for the crew.

[AdAstra]

You mean the 4 poles above the two fire extinguishers? The crew are immediately to the right of the backpacks.

I'm not sure - they could be tent poles for the crew.

Er, left of the backpacks, sorry. The long green packages.

[Storm Bringer]

Neat! I would assume that the things to the right of the backpacks are poles for the crew tents? Or something else?

honestly? i'd have gone with more cam poles, myself, but im not sure. you wouldn't need that many poles for a crew tent, as most of those are designed in a lean-to fashion and to be supported by the vehicle itself.

my money is the bags to the left of the crew are the cam system poles, and the poles in the centre are something else entirely.

the poles above the fire extinguishers are radio antennas.

[Brother Oni]

honestly? i'd have gone with more cam poles, myself, but im not sure. you wouldn't need that many poles for a crew tent, as most of those are designed in a lean-to fashion and to be supported by the vehicle itself.

my money is the bags to the left of the crew are the cam system poles, and the poles in the centre are something else entirely.


The site I found the picture on suggested that the bags to the left of the crew could be holding the barrel rifling cleaning gear, including the mother of all pull-throughs - apparently 155mm shells really don't like fouling.

[KineticDiplomat]

Radio Antennas.

[Maquise]

A real quick question about bascinets: Is there an official name for "prow-face (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6hvbSpraOGM6tP50d6zUDGMowXHRTVw_79p60y1veRdh1qQhAY rmhOYJ6CDO7B8EpI3FPlEi5BbsobrsrZRR-_bq9Po0bp9TgLRqR_pmAblgma5148TpSZL_8mCQmwtcdsd8Mbo )" bascinet visors, for lack of knowing the name myself, and are they actually historical? I've seen images of reproductions claiming to be historic, but my admittedly brief attempts to research has not found any references to them from the period (Of course, I don't know the name, so am not sure what to look for).

[Pauly]

A real quick question about bascinets: Is there an official name for "prow-face (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6hvbSpraOGM6tP50d6zUDGMowXHRTVw_79p60y1veRdh1qQhAY rmhOYJ6CDO7B8EpI3FPlEi5BbsobrsrZRR-_bq9Po0bp9TgLRqR_pmAblgma5148TpSZL_8mCQmwtcdsd8Mbo )" bascinet visors, for lack of knowing the name myself, and are they actually historical? I've seen images of reproductions claiming to be historic, but my admittedly brief attempts to research has not found any references to them from the period (Of course, I don't know the name, so am not sure what to look for).

Firstly, most naming conventions are thevwork of 19th and 20th century scholars, and are not the words used by the original users of the objects.

That helmet looks a lot like some jousting helmets I have seen. Without going into my book there is nothing about it that screams ‘unhistorical’ to me. It may not be strictly be a replica of an existing historically documented helmet, but it seems to me to be generally correct.

[Brother Oni]

That helmet looks a lot like some jousting helmets I have seen. Without going into my book there is nothing about it that screams ‘unhistorical’ to me. It may not be strictly be a replica of an existing historically documented helmet, but it seems to me to be generally correct.

I would agree with Pauly here as the inscription would imply that the armour had a secondary decorative purpose. The lack of air holes on the left hand side of the face visor would also support jousting use, since that's the direction where the majority of exploding lance fragments would come from, thus additional coverage would be preferred over more ventilation.

[Martin Greywolf]

A real quick question about bascinets: Is there an official name for "prow-face (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6hvbSpraOGM6tP50d6zUDGMowXHRTVw_79p60y1veRdh1qQhAY rmhOYJ6CDO7B8EpI3FPlEi5BbsobrsrZRR-_bq9Po0bp9TgLRqR_pmAblgma5148TpSZL_8mCQmwtcdsd8Mbo )" bascinet visors, for lack of knowing the name myself, and are they actually historical? I've seen images of reproductions claiming to be historic, but my admittedly brief attempts to research has not found any references to them from the period (Of course, I don't know the name, so am not sure what to look for).

There is no official name, but they did exist, one example I can think of comes from 1300-1350 period, so from the great helmet to bascinet switch.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Rozgony_Battle.jpg

That means they are an early model of visored bascinets, and would be reffered to as such in period documentation. They were not tremendously popular, but you do see them cropping up throughout pretty much the entire lifecycle of bascinets.

That aside, your picture is at best a very poor reproduction. The major issue there is the large gap for the eyes - not only will it not stop much of anything, it's angled in such a way that a descending thrust or projectile will easily slide inside and impale squishy bits. The real examples do not have this, uh, "feature".


http://myarmoury.com/talk/files/img_2971_116.jpg
http://myarmoury.com/talk/files/img_5768_842.jpg
https://2static1.fjcdn.com/comments/I+always+thought+that+they+were+something+like+gre at+helmets+_130ff13211d8940c8f9b6c11bfbf4230.jpg


Especially the last one gives you an iodea of how the upper eyehole rim has to be angled to make this style of visor effective.



That helmet looks a lot like some jousting helmets I have seen.


I mean, sort of, by this time a lot of jousting helmets are either thickened great helmets to invoke ye olde feel, or bascinets like this that kinda sorta look like them.



I would agree with Pauly here as the inscription would imply that the armour had a secondary decorative purpose.


You can't make assumptions like this on inscriptions alone, armor was by and large decorated quite a bit more than you see in modern re-enactment, an inscription like this would be par for the course for a field plate. Seeing as the image is most likely a reproduction, it's impossible to say what role if any the original had.



The lack of air holes on the left hand side of the face visor would also support jousting use, since that's the direction where the majority of exploding lance fragments would come from, thus additional coverage would be preferred over more ventilation.


It does not, lack of air holes on left side of face is standard for all visored helmets, because thet is where the guy with a pollaxe will smack you with his strongest blow. Now, if there was an additional steel plate riveted there, that would indicate jousting a bit more strongly, and made it a done deal if it restricted mobility or vision, but as is, it's a pretty standard helmet. Additionally, lance fragments aren't that much of an issue, only the small ones will get through the air holes and scratch you a bit at worst, jousters are more concerned about a direct or deflected lance hit there.

Edit: I had a moment and misidentified the king in first illumination

[Clistenes]

That aside, your picture is at best a very poor reproduction. The major issue there is the large gap for the eyes - not only will it not stop much of anything, it's angled in such a way that a descending thrust or projectile will easily slide inside and impale squishy bits. The real examples do not have this, uh, "feature".

I dunno... historically speaking, plenty of people have chosen to sacrifice some protection in exchange for a better field of vision... I can see some knight seeking a compromise somewhere in between an open faced helmet and a visor with two tiny slits...

[Martin Greywolf]

I dunno... historically speaking, plenty of people have chosen to sacrifice some protection in exchange for a better field of vision... I can see some knight seeking a compromise somewhere in between an open faced helmet and a visor with two tiny slits...

That alone isn't the issue. If you look at those images of actual helmets from the period, they universally have top of the visor angled into a brim that will stop any arrow falling from above from simply slipping into the visor. It's a very easy to make modification once you're hamering a helmet by hand, and it is demonstrably in, as far as I can find, universal use.

What's even worse for a protection-visibility compromise argument is that, well, the helmet is visored. If you want visibility, just raise a visor.

Still, the topic caught my interest and I did some further digging - though with great helmets only as they are my period of interest - into assymetrical airholes. Copnclusions to be made are:


physical helmets are so few they are statistically insignificant
many, many manuscripts don't bother with showing them in the first place
most manuscripts show side picture only, and it's not really possible to tell if those airholes are just artistic license to make the picture more interesting
there is not a single damned greatheml in the entire Maciejowski bible facing left


That all said, there is some evidence for assymetrical airholes even for greathelmets.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1209-64_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/21-8_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/21-13_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1231-5_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1023-2_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/106-1_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1376-9_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1-71_large.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1472-2_large.jpg

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/alars_de_cimai_large.jpg

http://armourinart.com/media/cache/armourinart.com/original/507_large.jpg

http://armourinart.com/media/cache/armourinart.com/original/256_large.jpg

Edit: fixed a broken image link

[Pauly]

Now ai have had time to consult my books, I would reaffirm what Martin Greywolf is saying about the vision slit. It is too large and it is of the wrong shape compared to historical versions.

I would also say that the breaths ins the helmet are either too many for that size breath or the breaths are too large for that many breaths.

The historical solutions to the vision slits being too small were:
- suck it up
- use an open faced helm
- use a visor and close or open it according to the situation.
Medieval closed face helmets universally had small well protected vision slits.

[Vinyadan]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Rozgony_Battle.jpg

Not directly related, but I wanted to notice how good the colouring of that visor is. The 3d is made through colour, and you can tell the various surfaces even without contour lines.

[Kiero]

Now ai have had time to consult my books, I would reaffirm what Martin Greywolf is saying about the vision slit. It is too large and it is of the wrong shape compared to historical versions.

I would also say that the breaths ins the helmet are either too many for that size breath or the breaths are too large for that many breaths.

The historical solutions to the vision slits being too small were:
- suck it up
- use an open faced helm
- use a visor and close or open it according to the situation.
Medieval closed face helmets universally had small well protected vision slits.

There's a fourth one there, which is tip the helmet back on your head when the situation allows it, which was the standard for Corinthian helms in antiquity (at least according to re-enactors).

[DrewID]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

[Kiero]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

Bronze is easier to work into large pieces (like ship's rams), especially since it requires a lower temperature to work and can be cast into all sorts of shapes, or hammered even when cold. Damaged equipment is pretty easy to repair. Bronze is about 10% denser than an equivalent volume of steel, and well-worked stuff is much better than any kind of iron and even the lowest grades of steel. In the real world, the advantage iron had was that it was plentiful and occurred with coal/charcoal, making it cheap. Tin was harder to source, being the necessary other component besides copper to make bronze, and often didn't appear anywhere near each other. Though depending how early you are, there might be a lot of arsenical bronze around - that's where the stereotype of the lame smith comes from, working with arsenic is very bad for your health.

Start from armour, which will influence the sorts of weapons available. A hoplite-style panoply of bronze plates - helmet, cuirass, shin, thigh and forearm plates - is likely the heaviest armour available. There are textile armours available for something lighter than bronze. Flexible locations covered by leather or textile tassets, and the shield is the most significant piece overall. Unless you're going into late Iron Age, mail doesn't exist. Many warriors will fight with no more protection than helmet and shield.

There are few two-handed weapons because blades can't be made that long and they're not necessary. Two-handed axes are about it. Most swords are shorter than a medieval arming sword, some of them heavy choppers rather than cut-and-thrust. Spears are ubiquitous and the prime weapon used in war. Javelins are also common. If you're going with a European-style late Bronze/early Iron age, bows are weak and underpowered self bows, generally used for hunting rather than war (obviously if you have an eastern/steppe analogy then composite bows are around and much better than the western bows).

Contrary to the oft-perpetuated myth, cavalry could charge (stirrups are necessary for horse-archery, not shock cavalry). However, horses were small and might only be large enough to pull chariots rather than support genuine cavalry. As an example, the original Persians who founded the Achaemenid Empire were charioteers.

If you're considering the maritime stage of affairs (which you should be if it's at all inspired by antiquity), most trade is conducted by sea, with land trade being predominantly from the port to larger settlements that aren't coastal. Which will be rare, most major settlements will be on the coast to take advantage of trade. Most vessels would be oared galleys like the pentekonter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penteconter), which is equally useful for trade and war. Their primary means of combat is ramming and boarding, with the oarsmen also acting as marines.

Are you going with Bronze age palace economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy), where society revolves around the king? Or something less centralised from later? That'll impact stuff like whether there is even currency.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?
Here's a nice resource: typology of Bronze Age Aegean swords and daggers (http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?96342-Charts-Ancient-Swords).

[Vinyadan]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

I think that this is very problematic, simply because of what "iron age" and "bronze age" actually mean. For example, earlier I read a suggestion of hoplite-like armour. But the Bronze Age in Greece was over by 1000 BC, the Iron Age by 800 BC. The hoplite shield is attested around 700 BC, when both Bronze and Iron ages were over in Greece. Another culture that had hoplites, the Villanovan-Etruscans, also followed a similar timeline. On the other hand, you have the Nordic Iron Age, which lasted from the 5th century BC to the 8th century AD, and is followed directly by the Viking Age. Could an early iron-age Scandinavian have put his hands on hoplite armour? Maybe. I don't think it happened, but a PC would definitely find a way.

If you are interested in Greece, you can take a look at this article, there are some images of weapons found in graves. https://www.academia.edu/10436377/Greece_in_the_Early_Iron_Age_Cambridge_Prehistory_ of_the_Bronze_and_Iron_Age_Mediterranean_2014_

[Max_Killjoy]

I think that this is very problematic, simply because of what "iron age" and "bronze age" actually mean. For example, earlier I read a suggestion of hoplite-like armour. But the Bronze Age in Greece was over by 1000 BC, the Iron Age by 800 BC. The hoplite shield is attested around 700 BC, when both Bronze and Iron ages were over in Greece. Another culture that had hoplites, the Villanovan-Etruscans, also followed a similar timeline. On the other hand, you have the Nordic Iron Age, which lasted from the 5th century BC to the 8th century AD, and is followed directly by the Viking Age. Could an early iron-age Scandinavian have put his hands on hoplite armour? Maybe. I don't think it happened, but a PC would definitely find a way.

If you are interested in Greece, you can take a look at this article, there are some images of weapons found in graves. https://www.academia.edu/10436377/Greece_in_the_Early_Iron_Age_Cambridge_Prehistory_ of_the_Bronze_and_Iron_Age_Mediterranean_2014_

There's also simply the question of what someone means by "bronze age" or "iron age", I've noticed in the literature that quite often this has less to do with the metals being used and more to do with broader presumed/associated cultural elements.

More basically, bronze and iron were used side-by-side for a long time, long after the "bronze age" was nominally over in many places; and iron was the primary metal in use long after the "iron age" was over in many places.

[gkathellar]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

Out of curiosity, is this (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(DnD_Other)/Socionomicon) the essay you're referring to?

[Storm Bringer]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

assuming your talking about the eastern med bronze age (ie, the Egyptians, Persians, Hitties, etc), yhea, a few.

Good Kit is Rare: while the best bronze cuirasses are better than most early iron ones, they were fantastically expensive, far more so then even late medieval full plate armour was. while people think of classical Greece as bronze age, that was iron age, and the historical bronze age was much earlier, like the siege of troy era.

This is a image of historical bronze age armour, of the type used by the Mycenaean Greek peoples of 1000BC.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/59/c5/8759c5baba0f377ebb763b8986a85843.jpg


what your looking at here is not only the most protective armour available, but something only the kings and other top-tier nobles could have afforded. the man is barefoot because we don't actually know what footwear he would have worn (or even if he did wear shoes at all. plently of artwork form the period shows people being barefooted, and we cant say for certain wether this is artistic licence or an accurate portrayal).

most of the warriors of the time would have had a shield, and maybe a helmet, and thats about it armour wise. the richer ones in the mid tier might have a form of padded armour called a linothorax, made of layers of cloth glued together. apparently, this armour was quite effective (https://hackaday.com/2014/04/11/the-ancient-greeks-invented-kevlar-a-over-2-millennia-ago/), at least for its time. the Shield, however, was the major protection, and owning one was THE major perquisite for being seen as a warrior, because of the shield-wall/phalanx like tactics of the day, a warrior without a shield could not stand in the line of battle, so was relegated to secondary roles.

the link is to a modern reproduction of classical greek linothorax, but armour of this style is mentioned by Homer in the Iliad, so it was around back then as well.

[DrewID]

Out of curiosity, is this (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(DnD_Other)/Socionomicon) the essay you're referring to?

I don't think so; I seem to recall more info about the similarities between D&D culture and Iron Age society. But it has been a while.

DrewID

[DrewID]

Thank you all for the data on Bronze Age kit. It looks like what I want may be more Iron Age Greece than Bronze Age, with Bronze kit still in use because it is better than the equivalent iron/early steel kit for those who can afford it. There are places in the world where both tin and copper are found (Chile if I recall); they're just not in the Eastern Med. I plan to include a nation that has both: they will have been a world power in the past, and remain well organized, but they are losing influence to larger iron-equipped armies. In any event, D&D's version of Medieval Europe has set the bar pretty low for historical accuracy; I can scarcely fail to improve on that.

DrewID

[Kiero]

Thank you all for the data on Bronze Age kit. It looks like what I want may be more Iron Age Greece than Bronze Age, with Bronze kit still in use because it is better than the equivalent iron/early steel kit for those who can afford it. There are places in the world where both tin and copper are found (Chile if I recall); they're just not in the Eastern Med. I plan to include a nation that has both: they will have been a world power in the past, and remain well organized, but they are losing influence to larger iron-equipped armies. In any event, D&D's version of Medieval Europe has set the bar pretty low for historical accuracy; I can scarcely fail to improve on that.

DrewID

Bronze was still in use right through the Iron Age, from Classical to Hellenistic to Roman eras. It was still a good option for cuirasses, greaves and other armour plate. Ships rams were still made from bronze (because iron would rust within weeks) and marines still made use of bronze weapons, because they lasted a lot longer in a maritime environment. It was also still perfectly serviceable for things like arrowheads (steppe horsemen still used bronze and even bone arrowheads throughout these periods).

One place in the eastern Mediterranean that did have tin and copper close together was Turkey. However the tin was mined out very rapidly, which left everyone relying on British tin, which was distant.

[Storm Bringer]

Thank you all for the data on Bronze Age kit. It looks like what I want may be more Iron Age Greece than Bronze Age, with Bronze kit still in use because it is better than the equivalent iron/early steel kit for those who can afford it. There are places in the world where both tin and copper are found (Chile if I recall); they're just not in the Eastern Med. I plan to include a nation that has both: they will have been a world power in the past, and remain well organized, but they are losing influence to larger iron-equipped armies. In any event, D&D's version of Medieval Europe has set the bar pretty low for historical accuracy; I can scarcely fail to improve on that.

DrewID


sounds pretty good.

a minor point, but the major bar to the use of iron was technological, specifically the ability to get smelters hot enough to work the iron, which required a switch to forced draught bloomery smelters. Notably, they weren't working with melted iron, as they couldn't get that hot until the later medieval period( copper/bronze melts at roughly 1000*C, but iron needs to be 1800*C to melt), but a iron-slag mix called "bloom" that they hammered (wrought) most of the slag out then hammered into whatever shape they wanted.

this is why bronze was able to keep a qualitive edge over iron/steel for so long, because it was much purer and be able to be cast into shapes as opposed to wrought into shape (which hardens the iron but also makes it more brittle). Theirs accounts of bronze weapons bending in fights and mentions of warriors stamping on their bronze swords to straighten them back up mid-battle, but iron weapons would just snap instead. it also meant that it wasn't practical to make big plates of iron, hence why the greek hoplites wore bronze breastplates, and the roman lorica segmentica (made 500 years later with better quality iron) still needed to be made of smaller plates tied together*.

thus, even during the "iron age", bronze was a major material for weapons and armour, and often the preferred metal for the nobles (for example, the Warring States Chinese officers and generals kept using bronze swords long after the rank and file had switched to cheaper but less effective iron weapons)




*side note: the DnD "studded leather" is a basically a misunderstanding of imagery of this sort of armour, specifically the "coat of plates (https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNTwfYV7719zOGGkZUxF4n8RWV3DkQ:156995101 8125&q=coat+of+plates&chips=q:coat+of+plates,g_1:brigandine:oax47vUp8EE% 3D&usg=AI4_-kQpJsOer4_SXXkXRVpJOnpCyijiSw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP3f-ly_vkAhWKEBQKHWzGB1QQ4lYILygC&biw=1518&bih=772&dpr=0.9#imgrc=_)" wear small metal plates are riveted to a leather jacket,

[Kiero]

For all its Hollywood appeal, I get the impression the lorica segmentata wasn't actually very good armour. Instead, it was cheap to mass-produce, and thus good at equipping lots of men. I don't think it's a coincidence that after the fall of the Western Roman empire, most warriors reverted to mail (lorica hamata) and banded armour like the segmentata never really re-appeared.

[AdAstra]

For all its Hollywood appeal, I get the impression the lorica segmentata wasn't actually very good armour. Instead, it was cheap to mass-produce, and thus good at equipping lots of men. I don't think it's a coincidence that after the fall of the Western Roman empire, most warriors reverted to mail (lorica hamata) and banded armour like the segmentata never really re-appeared.

That runs into the issue of lorica squamata (scale armor), which also saw significant usage, and for the most part would have all the advantages of segmentata in terms of ease of production. Between wire/sheet links, scales, and small plates, my money would be on scales being the cheapest, in addition to probably being easier to replace than segmentata plates.

One thing to consider is that the primary armor of a legionary wasn’t on his body, it was in his hand. The large shields that the romans used were the main defensive implement, with armor for the most part being a backup. In many scenarios, you don’t need a decent amount of protection over a large area, you need better protection over your vital bits, which lorica segmentata may have been able to provide in comparison to chainmail or scale. The shoulder plates might be seen as unnecessary for this, but I would disagree with that too. An injury to the shoulder will almost certainly impair one’s ability to maneuver a shield or weapon, even more so than an injury elsewhere on the arm. Considering that the romans were capable of doing rudimentary case-hardening, segmentata may have been perfect for that niche of “lightweight, not-too-cumbersome armor that can very reliably stop hits to your torso”,or at least good enough to offset it’s lower coverage and higher maintenance requirements/lower durability than scale or mail.

Economy was surely a factor, but I get the feeling that there was more to it in light of other options being superior in that area (scale).

[Storm Bringer]

For all its Hollywood appeal, I get the impression the lorica segmentata wasn't actually very good armour. Instead, it was cheap to mass-produce, and thus good at equipping lots of men. I don't think it's a coincidence that after the fall of the Western Roman empire, most warriors reverted to mail (lorica hamata) and banded armour like the segmentata never really re-appeared.

well, its worth noting that the romans themselves went back to chainmail, and even at the height of its use it never totally replaced chainmail armour. I believe their was also a issue with rusting brought on by form using brass fittings and sweat (the salt, brass and iorn created a battery like effect, that weakened the iron around the fastenings, in the same way the iron nails in early copper bottomed ships caused issues with the hull.

however, I think the major issue was that it required mass production of multiple different plates, and as the empire declined the centralised, high capacity factories that made them were either lost or switched to other tasks.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is there any evidence of the segmentata being used over the top of chainmail, as added protection for shoulders and upper torso?

[Pauly]

Is there any evidence of the segmentata being used over the top of chainmail, as added protection for shoulders and upper torso?

I’m pretty sure that’s what happened in the Dacian campaign when the Romans found themselves facing off against 2 handed falxmen.

[Kiero]

I’m pretty sure that’s what happened in the Dacian campaign when the Romans found themselves facing off against 2 handed falxmen.

I thought they added ridges to their helmets and manicae to their shield arms in response to the falx?

[Corneel]

I think that this is very problematic, simply because of what "iron age" and "bronze age" actually mean. For example, earlier I read a suggestion of hoplite-like armour. But the Bronze Age in Greece was over by 1000 BC, the Iron Age by 800 BC. The hoplite shield is attested around 700 BC, when both Bronze and Iron ages were over in Greece. Another culture that had hoplites, the Villanovan-Etruscans, also followed a similar timeline. On the other hand, you have the Nordic Iron Age, which lasted from the 5th century BC to the 8th century AD, and is followed directly by the Viking Age. Could an early iron-age Scandinavian have put his hands on hoplite armour? Maybe. I don't think it happened, but a PC would definitely find a way.

If you are interested in Greece, you can take a look at this article, there are some images of weapons found in graves. https://www.academia.edu/10436377/Greece_in_the_Early_Iron_Age_Cambridge_Prehistory_ of_the_Bronze_and_Iron_Age_Mediterranean_2014_
And then there were areas that skipped bronze and went from stone to iron such as Western & Central Africa (from which iron working spread to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa).

[Max_Killjoy]

I’m pretty sure that’s what happened in the Dacian campaign when the Romans found themselves facing off against 2 handed falxmen.



I thought they added ridges to their helmets and manicae to their shield arms in response to the falx?


I had heard somewhere that the horizontal ridge along the back and sides of their helmet was added to deflect downward blows away from the neck, due to the falx strikes tending to come over the top of their shields and slide down the back or side of the helmet.

[Pauly]

I thought they added ridges to their helmets and manicae to their shield arms in response to the falx?

I do know, but can’t find my source, that the legionnaires were given additional gladiator’s armor for the Dacian campaign.

[Kiero]

I do know, but can’t find my source, that the legionnaires were given additional gladiator’s armor for the Dacian campaign.

The manica is a piece of armour used by the murmillo gladiator - it covers the arm.

[VonKaiserstein]

The manica was used by the legions, just not uniformly and probably not consistently. Sadly I'm not fluent in the language of the caption, but you can see it in this illustration. The article itself is very good, super detailed. Scroll about 1/3 of the way down to where it's really talking about the arms and armaments over the centuries.

Interestingly one thing you would never see were two manicae (manicas?) on one soldier- it was supplementary armor for the weapon arm, and not worn on the shield arm. It also mentions the encounter with the falx, and the reaction in Roman helmet construction.

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/04/24/roman-legionary-509-bce-to-170-ad/

edit-
Ooh, and here's a scholarly article with archaeological evidence, sculpture analysis and tombstone identification. Enjoy!

http://www.romanarmy.net/manica.shtml

[Vinyadan]

The manica was used by the legions, just not uniformly and probably not consistently. Sadly I'm not fluent in the language of the caption, but you can see it in this illustration. The article itself is very good, super detailed. Scroll about 1/3 of the way down to where it's really talking about the arms and armaments over the centuries.

Interestingly one thing you would never see were two manicae (manicas?) on one soldier- it was supplementary armor for the weapon arm, and not worn on the shield arm. It also mentions the encounter with the falx, and the reaction in Roman helmet construction.

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/04/24/roman-legionary-509-bce-to-170-ad/

edit-
Ooh, and here's a scholarly article with archaeological evidence, sculpture analysis and tombstone identification. Enjoy!

http://www.romanarmy.net/manica.shtml

The captions are in Italian. The one of the soldier from the Dacian wars essentially repeats what was said earlier, that the manica and the helm were given to some Roman units as an answer to the Dacian scythes. It defines the helm as Spangenhelm, a "segmented helm of Danubian origin". It seems to me that the soldier in question is wearing a lorica plumata.

[Pauly]

The manica is a piece of armour used by the murmillo gladiator - it covers the arm.

Thanks, without my books I had forgotten the proper names.

[Kiero]

The falx isn't a scythe; I don't think it would be very useful for any attempts to harvest crops since the blade is set at the wrong angle.

https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/pw/uaja5fdbvomu.jpeg

Here's the various ancient Balkan choppers, the sica, falx and rhomphaia.