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

[Mike_G]

Is there a common English term for potential recruits being examined for fitness for service before being conscripted?

Back when I enlisted, (back in the mists of time, right before they issued me my bow and arrow) we just called it a physical.

There was a written test, the ASVAB, (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) which was used to qualify you for certain specialties.

[Yora]

Interesting. In German we have a simple word for the whole process: "Musterung". Which is just an outdated term for "examination".

[Martin Greywolf]

Is there a common English term for potential recruits being examined for fitness for service before being conscripted?

It depends on if you are enlisting or being conscripted. For the former, every branch of service will have their battery of not only medical but also physical and sometimes other tests. It usually gets referred to as selection since that's what they are doing, selecting which of the applicants fulfill their criteria - the oficial name tends to be something rather unwieldy. Selection does also happen if you want to advance once you are enlisted, for things like sniper school or special forces. Again, specifics depend on the service.

For conscription, it's usually just a physical, since if that is happening, the country that does it is in dire straits - you are, after all, destroying your economy by taking away manpower. That means that the requirements are pretty generous, and often not that well enforced.

Also worth noting is that while enlisting is voluntary, conscription is not. The gray area are countries that have compulsory military service for all (well, al males, at least, I don't think there are any exceptions around) of their citizens - if a general mobilization is called, are those people conscripted or enlisted? Since it is compulsory, people usually consider it conscription, but the distinction bears mentioning.

[Max_Killjoy]

It depends on if you are enlisting or being conscripted. For the former, every branch of service will have their battery of not only medical but also physical and sometimes other tests. It usually gets referred to as selection since that's what they are doing, selecting which of the applicants fulfill their criteria - the oficial name tends to be something rather unwieldy. Selection does also happen if you want to advance once you are enlisted, for things like sniper school or special forces. Again, specifics depend on the service.

For conscription, it's usually just a physical, since if that is happening, the country that does it is in dire straits - you are, after all, destroying your economy by taking away manpower. That means that the requirements are pretty generous, and often not that well enforced.

Also worth noting is that while enlisting is voluntary, conscription is not. The gray area are countries that have compulsory military service for all (well, al males, at least, I don't think there are any exceptions around) of their citizens - if a general mobilization is called, are those people conscripted or enlisted? Since it is compulsory, people usually consider it conscription, but the distinction bears mentioning.


I wouldn't call that a grey area, I'd call that conscription. Any involuntary military or like service would be conscription, even "national service" and 'compulsory service".

[Brother Oni]

I wouldn't call that a grey area, I'd call that conscription. Any involuntary military or like service would be conscription, even "national service" and 'compulsory service".

While I see your point, I'd think most people would see expending a national service requirement working in the public sector (e.g. welfare, healthcare, R&D) not at the same level as conscription in the traditional sense of 'compulsory military service as an active or a reserve member'.

[Martin Greywolf]

Okay, for countries with compulsory miltiary service, there are two chief distinctions.

Firstly, you aren't conscripted when a war breaks out and you are actually called to fight, you are conscripted when you first join up for that compulsory training, and then transfer into reserve force. That has several side effects from legal etc standpoints, mostly because there are people disqualified from serving at all. That happening was a big deal in e.g. Warsaw pact countries, but we can't get into that here.

Also note that many countries have this sort of general military service set up so that you can be exempted from it on various grounds. Medical is the most well known one, but what about moral or religious grounds? Can you call it conscription if you can avoid it by paying a fee and filling out paperwork? This incidentally impacts older prectices as well, since paying (in gold or mercenaries instead of going yourself) instead of serving yourself was pretty common in medieval times.

Second issue revolves around what general public imagines when it comes to conscription, and what we imagine is fuelled by Hollywood movies. Conscripts are therefore poor, badly trained souls unleashed unprepared onto the battlefield. And while there are cases where that happened, Vietnam, WW1, WW2 and so on, general mobilization countries usually have a higher quality of conscripts than that image would suggest. This, annoyingly, seeps into medieval popculture stories as well, medieval armies were almost exclusively professional, unless you were defending a castle or a city, you wouldn't see a farmboy get hauled off to war against his will.

Sure, they might not be the best motivated, but they remember how to use equipment and there are logistics and gear already in place. Compare that to Soviet approach of one in five men gets a rifle - which did happen, albeit the scale is somewhat exaggerated - and you run into what a word means in technical terms vs in everyday speech.

[Xuc Xac]

Interesting. In German we have a simple word for the whole process: "Musterung". Which is just an outdated term for "examination".

In English, "muster" is used to mean "gather soldiers for inspection".

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay, for countries with compulsory miltiary service, there are two chief distinctions.

Firstly, you aren't conscripted when a war breaks out and you are actually called to fight, you are conscripted when you first join up for that compulsory training, and then transfer into reserve force. That has several side effects from legal etc standpoints, mostly because there are people disqualified from serving at all. That happening was a big deal in e.g. Warsaw pact countries, but we can't get into that here.

Also note that many countries have this sort of general military service set up so that you can be exempted from it on various grounds. Medical is the most well known one, but what about moral or religious grounds? Can you call it conscription if you can avoid it by paying a fee and filling out paperwork? This incidentally impacts older prectices as well, since paying (in gold or mercenaries instead of going yourself) instead of serving yourself was pretty common in medieval times.

Second issue revolves around what general public imagines when it comes to conscription, and what we imagine is fuelled by Hollywood movies. Conscripts are therefore poor, badly trained souls unleashed unprepared onto the battlefield. And while there are cases where that happened, Vietnam, WW1, WW2 and so on, general mobilization countries usually have a higher quality of conscripts than that image would suggest. This, annoyingly, seeps into medieval popculture stories as well, medieval armies were almost exclusively professional, unless you were defending a castle or a city, you wouldn't see a farmboy get hauled off to war against his will.

Sure, they might not be the best motivated, but they remember how to use equipment and there are logistics and gear already in place. Compare that to Soviet approach of one in five men gets a rifle - which did happen, albeit the scale is somewhat exaggerated - and you run into what a word means in technical terms vs in everyday speech.


In part I think that's another case of the post-medieval king's or national armies, bloated up with conscripts, being projected back on the medieval period. As far as I know, you'd be far more likely to see a farmboy pressed into service and a weapon shoved in his hand in 1650 than in 1050.

[Pauly]

Is there a common English term for potential recruits being examined for fitness for service before being conscripted?

No.
The process is conscription then assessment of capacity.

Exemption from conscription is usually based on being in some kind of protected category (eg working in a critical industry). In some times/places where you could buy an exemption, for example paying someone else to do your service. The usual practice s for everyone to show up. The people with exemptions show proof they are exempt. Next the assessments of fitness for service are made and people are accepted or rejected for service. There really is little point in assessing fitness before conscription because people's health can change due to illness or injury and people can move in or out of protected categories.

[fusilier]

Second issue revolves around what general public imagines when it comes to conscription, and what we imagine is fuelled by Hollywood movies. Conscripts are therefore poor, badly trained souls unleashed unprepared onto the battlefield. And while there are cases where that happened, Vietnam, WW1, WW2 and so on, general mobilization countries usually have a higher quality of conscripts than that image would suggest. This, annoyingly, seeps into medieval popculture stories as well, medieval armies were almost exclusively professional, unless you were defending a castle or a city, you wouldn't see a farmboy get hauled off to war against his will.

I agree with what you write, however I would avoid using the term "professional" to describe most medieval armies -- that term is typically reserved for mercenaries in this time period. Knights had feudal obligations to fight when called upon, but were not paid year round to be in a constant state of military readiness.

[Kaptin Keen]

I was conscripted - Denmark has general mobilization. I have received 9 months of military training. Not that I have any idea how the rest of the world works, but our conscript army isn't untrained.

Of course today the conscripts get only 4 months of training, so .. those poor sods won't last long, heh =)

Actually, I think those 4 months contain pretty much the same training, just with less marching about. My 9 months were not learning intensive, so to speak =)

[Yora]

No.
The process is conscription then assessment of capacity.

Before it was suspended in Germany, all boys finishing school would be called for assessment to create a database of all men fit or unfit for service. And then the military would conscript recruits for basic training as reservists from this pool of men fit for service, and I believe generally giving delays for boys and men currently in apprenticeships. (Men finishing school with university qualification would usually be old enough to be conscripted for basic training immediately before they start university.) Then you could opt-out with civilian replacement service and they would draw more conscripts from the available pool until they had their numbers.

Women were never assessed or conscripted, and after the cold war the military was gradually downsized, so even with lots of men going into replacement service, they had their numbers of new reservists complete long before everyone fit for service was being conscripted. Technically conscription is constitutionally illegal in Germany anyway, but all governments simply decided to ignore that and the constitutional court let them get away with it because it was the cold war. But after the cold war it was increasingly considered unnecessary and the drafting was basically happening at random, with some young people being forced to serve for 9 month and the majority not having to do anything. So a few years after I did my service in 2005, the whole thing was suspended indefinitely.

Now the military has problems getting new recruits for the professional army because previously they simply recruited their soldiers from the conscripts that had just completed basic training. There also is now a looming shortage of truck drivers in Germany, because for decades the German army had been training thousands of truck drivers every year for free. Paying for a truck driving license yourself is really expensive and young people who would be interested in that career can't afford it, so they look for work elsewhere.
The German military also never reaches its recruitment quotas, I believe. But given the current strategic defense situation of Germany nobody outside the military is really bothered by that. Not only are all of Germany's borders with allies, with the sole exception of Poland, all those allies are also bordered only by allies. In theory, it would take a simple majority in parliament to resume conscription, but I just can't see that going to fly with the German population.

[Martin Greywolf]

Knights had feudal obligations to fight when called upon, but were not paid year round to be in a constant state of military readiness.

Yeah, about that. Neither were the mercenaries. We had a debate on Landsknechts, so facts about them are fresh in mind, and pretty much every Lnadsknecht in their early period had a job. I specifically recall butchers, armorers, knife makers and a bridge builder. They didn't not practice their jobs either, that bridhe builder managed to make a bridge that the HRE emperor comissioned while he was actively serving nearby.

Knights being called upon is again distorted by modern lens, as governments today need to use their military to respond to any and all military-shaped problems. That sort of muster happened only when the king had a large campaign in mind or needed to defend a realm from a large attack. Most of the time knights fought was outside of mustered armies, dealing with bandits (this occasionally required heavy artillery), small raiding parties from surrounding lands (Czechs, Austrians and Hungarians have a proud tradition of raiding absolute **** out of each other) or engaging in their own private wars. On the whole, they had about the same level of fighting prowess as the more militarily active mercenary groups.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, about that. Neither were the mercenaries. We had a debate on Landsknechts, so facts about them are fresh in mind, and pretty much every Lnadsknecht in their early period had a job. I specifically recall butchers, armorers, knife makers and a bridge builder. They didn't not practice their jobs either, that bridhe builder managed to make a bridge that the HRE emperor comissioned while he was actively serving nearby.

Knights being called upon is again distorted by modern lens, as governments today need to use their military to respond to any and all military-shaped problems. That sort of muster happened only when the king had a large campaign in mind or needed to defend a realm from a large attack. Most of the time knights fought was outside of mustered armies, dealing with bandits (this occasionally required heavy artillery), small raiding parties from surrounding lands (Czechs, Austrians and Hungarians have a proud tradition of raiding absolute **** out of each other) or engaging in their own private wars. On the whole, they had about the same level of fighting prowess as the more militarily active mercenary groups.

Wouldn't the king (or other top-level monarch) typically also have at least a small force of their own sworn men, separate from "calling the banners" (to borrow a term from GOT with tongue firmly in cheek), to be used for security, minor actions, enforcing edicts, etc?

[Berenger]

Wouldn't the king (or other top-level monarch) typically also have at least a small force of their own sworn men, separate from "calling the banners" (to borrow a term from GOT with tongue firmly in cheek), to be used for security, minor actions, enforcing edicts, etc?

The king will usually be a member or even the leader of a major noble house himself, so he will be able to "call his own banner" when he needs some bodyguards or messengers. I also imagine that at most times a medieval king will be within shouting distance of a few dozen more or less trustworty companions, relatives and court officials, many of these will be trained fighters.

[fusilier]

Yeah, about that. Neither were the mercenaries. We had a debate on Landsknechts, so facts about them are fresh in mind, and pretty much every Lnadsknecht in their early period had a job. I specifically recall butchers, armorers, knife makers and a bridge builder. They didn't not practice their jobs either, that bridhe builder managed to make a bridge that the HRE emperor comissioned while he was actively serving nearby.

Knights being called upon is again distorted by modern lens, as governments today need to use their military to respond to any and all military-shaped problems. That sort of muster happened only when the king had a large campaign in mind or needed to defend a realm from a large attack. Most of the time knights fought was outside of mustered armies, dealing with bandits (this occasionally required heavy artillery), small raiding parties from surrounding lands (Czechs, Austrians and Hungarians have a proud tradition of raiding absolute **** out of each other) or engaging in their own private wars. On the whole, they had about the same level of fighting prowess as the more militarily active mercenary groups.

While this is true, landsknechts were not the *only* mercenaries, and they were technically post medieval.

A knight probably would have objected if you referred to them as "professionals" -- being a knight was their status, not their "job." Referring to them as professional, puts them in a modern context which is not really appropriate. While they were expected to be warriors, they also, typically, had lands to manage.

The only really permanent soldiers were the few garrison troops, typically infantry, that were paid year round. Other mercenaries were usually only hired for a short amount of time, but they, being professionals, were not bound to the land, and could move to seek employment after a contract ended (or before sometimes). By the end of the 15th century, Condottierri contracts had become very long and could be expected to be renewed -- there were different kinds of contracts, but at least some of them were, ostensibly, paying troops to keep them on the rolls year-round, in peacetime, to prevent them from taking on other jobs. However, now we are entering the Renaissance period.

None of this diminishes the fighting potential of the knights during the medieval period, nor to claim that by not being "professional" they couldn't be expected to have good training or equipment.

[SleepyShadow]

Hey all, I need some help figuring out the best way to use a sniper in combat. I'll try to be brief and keep the setting details to a minimum.

The combat zone is a large city in the desert with two opposing armies fighting in the streets, one trying to defend the city and the other trying to capture it. Due to the city's layout and the armies' technological limitations, most of the fighting is either at short range or melee. My sniper is on the side trying to capture the city, and is tasked with eliminating as many high priority targets as possible. The sniper is equipped with a Kar98k, and has two well-trained but inexperienced soldiers acting as spotters and bodyguards. If the sniper's position is compromised, she can reposition safely up to three times, or completely withdraw from the battlefield, but doing so leaves behind the spotters and would force them to footslog to the new position.

If anyone has suggestions on how to best utilize my sniper, please let me know. Thanks in advance :smallsmile:

[KineticDiplomat]

Can we get some general war/battle context? In terms of forces, density, that sort of thing?

What you do in an Irish Civil War Dublin is going to look a lot different than what you do in Stalingrad.

[Kaptin Keen]

Well .. um. A sniper (to my thinking) has a sum value of accurcy*intel*position.

Each factor in the equation is meaningless without the others. Being able to hit a sparrow at 1000 paces is meaningless if all you have to shoot is sparrows. Intel is meaningless if you cannot get into position, or hit the target. The best position in the world means nothing, if the target is somewhere else.

But really, intel is the thing. Unless you know where priority targets will be, snipers are ... just soldiers.

And that's kind of a problem. Because in movies, books and rpg's, snipers are a big deal, leading characters, pivotal plot points. But in reality, the sniper is the final link in a long chain that propably starts with something really boring and mundane involvine time tables, grubby notes written on napkins, and a desk job.

[Mike_G]

Hey all, I need some help figuring out the best way to use a sniper in combat. I'll try to be brief and keep the setting details to a minimum.

The combat zone is a large city in the desert with two opposing armies fighting in the streets, one trying to defend the city and the other trying to capture it. Due to the city's layout and the armies' technological limitations, most of the fighting is either at short range or melee. My sniper is on the side trying to capture the city, and is tasked with eliminating as many high priority targets as possible. The sniper is equipped with a Kar98k, and has two well-trained but inexperienced soldiers acting as spotters and bodyguards. If the sniper's position is compromised, she can reposition safely up to three times, or completely withdraw from the battlefield, but doing so leaves behind the spotters and would force them to footslog to the new position.

If anyone has suggestions on how to best utilize my sniper, please let me know. Thanks in advance :smallsmile:

If you're looking for high value targets, you want to be behind the enemy front. You should try to move at night, take up position before first light. Try to find a well concealed position close to enemy artillery or command posts, wait for officers to come out in the morning. Take your shot from an upper floor window. One shot. Stand well back from the window to that outside observers won't see your muzzle flash.

Maybe if they have no idea where you are, you might take a second shot. But usually you reposition. Go down to street level or a cellar and wait until you can move to another concealed position. You may only get a few shiots like that per day.

If you just want to rack up bodies, you can post near cross streets, important chokepoints, like bridges, and camp out and take long shots where the enemy probably won't be able to equal your accuracy, but you won't get high ranking targets that way.

In short, if you want the enemy commanders, you need to infiltrate through the lines, which is dangerous, and once you do shoot, you will be cut off and outnumbered, so you're unlikely to pick off many officers before you get surrounded and taken out.

[SleepyShadow]

Can we get some general war/battle context? In terms of forces, density, that sort of thing?

What you do in an Irish Civil War Dublin is going to look a lot different than what you do in Stalingrad.

Sure thing!

The attackers are numerically superior, made up of three different groups with goals that only align in the short term. The bulk of the force is light infantry provided by the first group and made up of well-trained marines better suited to boarding ships than urban combat. The second group is providing a substantial light cavalry unit trained to ride and shoot, but the narrow city streets are inhibiting their mobility advantage. The third group is fielding a token force of close-quarters specialists, and they are providing mutated monsters to serve as living "mechanized" units (artillery, tanks, etc.). Total forces are about 4,000.

The defenders are numerically inferior, but are pretty well entrenched and fighting on their home turf. Most defenders are medium infantry, with a few groups of light infantry and a lot of volunteer militiamen. There is a single group of heavy cavalry, and a single group of irregulars acting as shock troops. Total forces are about 1,600.


Well .. um. A sniper (to my thinking) has a sum value of accurcy*intel*position.

Each factor in the equation is meaningless without the others. Being able to hit a sparrow at 1000 paces is meaningless if all you have to shoot is sparrows. Intel is meaningless if you cannot get into position, or hit the target. The best position in the world means nothing, if the target is somewhere else.

But really, intel is the thing. Unless you know where priority targets will be, snipers are ... just soldiers.

And that's kind of a problem. Because in movies, books and rpg's, snipers are a big deal, leading characters, pivotal plot points. But in reality, the sniper is the final link in a long chain that propably starts with something really boring and mundane involvine time tables, grubby notes written on napkins, and a desk job.

Right, I agree with you. That's why I come asking for help. I want this sniper to be more than just a flashy movie character :smallsmile:
My sniper has decent intel on the three major targets she's supposed to take out: the battlefield commander, the communications specialist, and the king. The commander is leading from the rear, the specialist is highly mobile, and the king is understandably well guarded.


If you're looking for high value targets, you want to be behind the enemy front. You should try to move at night, take up position before first light. Try to find a well concealed position close to enemy artillery or command posts, wait for officers to come out in the morning. Take your shot from an upper floor window. One shot. Stand well back from the window to that outside observers won't see your muzzle flash.

Maybe if they have no idea where you are, you might take a second shot. But usually you reposition. Go down to street level or a cellar and wait until you can move to another concealed position. You may only get a few shiots like that per day.

If you just want to rack up bodies, you can post near cross streets, important chokepoints, like bridges, and camp out and take long shots where the enemy probably won't be able to equal your accuracy, but you won't get high ranking targets that way.

In short, if you want the enemy commanders, you need to infiltrate through the lines, which is dangerous, and once you do shoot, you will be cut off and outnumbered, so you're unlikely to pick off many officers before you get surrounded and taken out.

Okay, so it sounds like playing the long game is going to work out for the best if the sniper need to take out high profile targets. If her position is compromised, would it be worth sacrificing the two spotters for a clean getaway, or should an attempt to escape on foot be made along with them?

[Mike_G]

Okay, so it sounds like playing the long game is going to work out for the best if the sniper need to take out high profile targets. If her position is compromised, would it be worth sacrificing the two spotters for a clean getaway, or should an attempt to escape on foot be made along with them?

This is a tough one.

And an easy one.

I wouldn't leave a man behind. Because we don't do that.

Now, it may be the logical thing. Take the shot, take out the target, and get out. Two grunts are a small price to pay to take out a general.

But that undermines any brotherhood you have in a unit. Which is important for unit morale. If your spotters think they're part of the team, they will give you back that loyalty. If they think they are just expendable and you will lose them to make your escape, they won;t trust you a bit, and it will be hard to get volunteers if you keep coming back without them.

[SleepyShadow]

This is a tough one.

And an easy one.

I wouldn't leave a man behind. Because we don't do that.

Now, it may be the logical thing. Take the shot, take out the target, and get out. Two grunts are a small price to pay to take out a general.

But that undermines any brotherhood you have in a unit. Which is important for unit morale. If your spotters think they're part of the team, they will give you back that loyalty. If they think they are just expendable and you will lose them to make your escape, they won;t trust you a bit, and it will be hard to get volunteers if you keep coming back without them.

Well, that answers it for me. I guess the sniper will be carrying them on her back if it means getting them out alive.

Thank you.

[Brother Oni]

Well, that answers it for me. I guess the sniper will be carrying them on her back if it means getting them out alive.

Thank you.

A question - from what I've seen of spotter and sniper teams, they work very close together*. Does your sniper have an ability to self teleport/fly/otherwise evade the enemy that doesn't allow her to bring her spotter(s) along?


*Sometimes a little too close together - in the book Sniper One, the author recounts a (probably exaggerated) anecdote where he was on his scope, waiting for an imminent target, but also really needed to defecate. His spotter ended up having to catch his faeces in a plastic bag (while complaining constantly) as he couldn't risk going to take a dump versus potentially missing his opportunity to take the shot.

[Vinyadan]

A question - from what I've seen of spotter and sniper teams, they work very close together*. Does your sniper have an ability to self teleport/fly/otherwise evade the enemy that doesn't allow her to bring her spotter(s) along?


*Sometimes a little too close together - in the book Sniper One, the author recounts a (probably exaggerated) anecdote where he was on his scope, waiting for an imminent target, but also really needed to defecate. His spotter ended up having to catch his faeces in a plastic bag (while complaining constantly) as he couldn't risk going to take a dump versus potentially missing his opportunity to take the shot.
Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKV4WlwFPXs

[AdAstra]

There are generally 4 things you might expect a sniper to do.

1. Scouting- Observing enemy forces, keeping track of everything from positions to shift changes to individual people and their routines. Many higher officers will visit the front to get a better picture of the local situation, and field officers will of course be up with their troops. You also want to look for places the enemy might use to hide things, or places you can hide yourself. The only shooting that might be expected is if you get spotted or if you were to find a particularly juicy target and decided to take the opportunity. In some cases this might be a sniper's primary role.

2. Harassment. Kill people. Make the enemy feel unsafe, and generally demoralize and unbalance them when they least expect it. While officers and NCOs are certainly better to hit, anyone can do. Of course, keep it up long enough or hit someone important enough and the enemy will start trying their best to kill you back with whatever they've got. If you don't stay unpredictable and cautious you're liable to be dead.

3. Assassination. In a serious conflict, you won't expect to do this too much, because it tends to be bad for your life expectancy, and because going for a specific target takes a lot of work and preparation. The most likely to involve going behind enemy lines. In many cases, as long as advanced communications are available, you won't be taking the shot yourself, but acting as a spotter for other assets.

4. Fire Support- Basically, your allies are trying to do something, and you're supposed to help them, usually by shooting at things that are important to the enemy. You're essentially just another soldier, albeit one with a specialist skill set and all that entails.

[SleepyShadow]

A question - from what I've seen of spotter and sniper teams, they work very close together*. Does your sniper have an ability to self teleport/fly/otherwise evade the enemy that doesn't allow her to bring her spotter(s) along?

Correct. She can dimension door 3/day, and plane shift 1/day. So the sniper has escape options, but her spotters don't.

[Brother Oni]

Correct. She can dimension door 3/day, and plane shift 1/day. So the sniper has escape options, but her spotters don't.

Wandering a bit off tangent for this thread:

The SRD20 says that with Dimension Door, you can bring along another touched willing Medium Sized creature per 3 levels and Plane shift up to 8 willing people that have joined hands. Have you modified both spells so that they only affect herself?

[Rogan]

Well, that answers it for me. I guess the sniper will be carrying them on her back if it means getting them out alive.

Thank you.


Correct. She can dimension door 3/day, and plane shift 1/day. So the sniper has escape options, but her spotters don't.


I think having an ability like this would change the situation a bit. Instead of staying with the spotters, I could imagine the sniper using one dimension door to reposition after the shot, leaving the spotters alone. Then, from a new position the sniper could shoot at some enemys rushing his old position with the spotters. This might draw the enemys soilders away from the spotters, increasing their chance to get away. The sniper can use a second DD to escape without too much risk for him.

[jayem]

There are generally 4 things you might expect a sniper to do.
2. Harassment. Kill people. Make the enemy feel unsafe, and generally demoralize and unbalance them when they least expect it. While officers and NCOs are certainly better to hit, anyone can do. Of course, keep it up long enough or hit someone important enough and the enemy will start trying their best to kill you back with whatever they've got. If you don't stay unpredictable and cautious you're liable to be dead.

Even if they adapt for you, while they are doing that (e.g. having to stay under cover when out of range of the normal infantry) they are using energy.
[Or in WW1/2 Naval terms if you can keep the sub underwater you don't have to sink it.]


5a) Take out their sniper to protect your allies.
5b) Take out the sniper who's planning to take you out as a result of them applying 5a or reacting to it.


The sniper by necessity must give up their position, the spotters in theory not so much.

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, obviously having D&D-esque magic very rapidly shifts the dynamic of "real world" weapons and tactics, as does the D&D weapon modelling which is basically a set of numbers wanted for balance that get named later. For instance in "D&D land" a commander - who almost always embodies Asskicking = Authority - probably isn't actually snipable, because a rifle is simply 2dX damage. "Oh no! If that sniper shoots me seven more times, I might go unconscious! Good thing people around me have super life force detecting magic and a vial of red liquid that heals the bullet wound!" Truly, Vasily Zaistev is the terror of house cats and small rabbits.

With that out of the way, acknowledging that playing a realistic sniper in D&D is probably a doomed effort, as is in attempt to recreate the kind of gritty individual experience ethos of the modern war movie....

The force densities in question are quite low for a modern urban fight. That's only 5,600 men total. In contrast, the punitive raids into Mogadishu had about a total of that many (probably) committed fighters. Hue city would be ~16,000, the assault on Brest had ~120,000 combatants, and Stalingrad had at least half a million men fighting in the city limits - sometimes with a division holding a front just a few blocks wide. So that should help inform your context of what this fight looks like.

You might want to look at the Siege of Alcazar for inspiration.

Namely, at the levels you mentioned, it probably isn't "lines" so much as flying columns and strongpoints, with the concepts of a front or rear only really being applicable at the site of specific engagements for a short while before the situation changes. On one side, this is going to give you a lot of freedom to move around the city comparatively unimpeded. On the other, the situation is so fluid that you may get lots of nasty surprises from places you weren't thinking of, the moment you leave the wire everything is potentially hostile - and, since the citizenry is on the side of the defenders, you won't have long at any given hide before you're compromised.

As such, you really have three operating environments. Places where the attackers are surrounding a strongpoint, and you can count on the defenders being reasonably predictable, but it's very hard to get "behind the lines" because the strongpoint is probably a building or cluster of buildings with a tight perimeter. Places where that's being done to you. And a no man's land that is most of the city where you can't really know what the enemy is doing or where he'll be, but on the upside that applies to you as well.

No man's land is value-less to you unless you already know when someone is coming through. Which means either lots of risky movement or praying to the gods that your chosen position is a lucky enough to have a target pass by. Worse, because you only have three people and an active militia, you might find that twenty locals are swarming you on minimal notice. At that point the only question will be if you're doing a plane shift, or if they desecrate three bodies rather than two when this is over. Other than dedicated stalks, you'll want to travel with friendlies here.

From there, it's really a question of if you hang tight to enemy storngpoints currently under siege-assault and look for your targets from inside the security bubble of your own forces, or let them get you as close as reasonable to an enemy position not under attack and try your luck with either infiltration or stalking someone who leaves.

As for your spotters - well, that's a matter of ethos and organization. A modern western sniper wouldn't leave them behind, but a modern western sniper would have a reasonably motivated and competent spotter as part of a unit inside a culture that abhors casualties and promises no man left behind. That may apply to your character, you may have an entirely different social and organizational construct.

[SleepyShadow]

@Brother Oni: The sniper's abilities are self only, mostly to force the judgement/ethics call of leaving the spotters behind.

@Rogan: That's a really good idea. I'll have to use that trick. Thanks :smallsmile:

@KineticDiplomat: I've got the numbers worked out to make her a credible sniper even in D&D. 4d12+8d6+2d8+20 damage per shot is usually good enough. With the crunch out of the way, I'm aware the headcount for the battle is pretty low, but we were about halfway through the battle when I made the post, so I was trying to take the approximate casualties into consideration.

[Martin Greywolf]

A knight probably would have objected if you referred to them as "professionals" -- being a knight was their status, not their "job."

It is their job in the sense that it is their duty, at least for up to high medieval times. Objecting to it, I suspect not. The more snobbish ones would maybe insist that they were better than mere professionals. Even then, this is once again, presenting English and French customas as "this is medieval". Hungarian nobles had zero problems being employed for pay by other nobles as familiars, Italian mercenaries enjoyed high status as paid professionals, and HRE had about as many attitudes about mercenraies as it had provinces.

And there is a problem of what a knight means, because there is no definition. Miles means different things in different times, as does nobilis, and then there are secular and monastic knightly orders - we just use it colloquially to denote a member of fighting nobility.


While they were expected to be warriors, they also, typically, had lands to manage.

By this metric, most modern high-ranking generals aren't professional soldiers because they have to spend most of their time politicking. That's not even mentioning support personnel armies need, who while trained in combat, are there to do stuff behind the lines. Or any sort of NCO who spends a lion's share of his time doing paperwork.

You could argue that that is related to military purposes, but... so is managing your land as a noble. That's where the medieval logistics positions live, not to mention building of defensive structures and maintaining and inspecting garrisons.



The only really permanent soldiers were the few garrison troops, typically infantry, that were paid year round. Other mercenaries were usually only hired for a short amount of time, but they, being professionals, were not bound to the land, and could move to seek employment after a contract ended (or before sometimes).

This distinction is largely a modern inventions, to a medieval view, these two are the same thing, men paid to fight. Provided they are paid in the same thing (usually money and loot), they are referred to the same way - though not consistently, sometimes not even in the same document.

I don't know the details of England or France, but those garrison troops? In Hungary, they aren't mercenaries.

They are either villages of (often nomadic, often muslim or pagan) minorities who have their land with the understanding that they will defend the borders and attend muster with specified amounts of men. They can also be relocated if the person to give them that lands tells them to. A farmer or mercenary who is a free man actually has a higher social standing than them.

Second group are iobagiones castrii (not just iobagiones, there are several types), they are granted land around the castle to work on, and in exchange serve as the castle garrison and other personnel. We have no idea how they really operated, but odds are they often worked on their land and only went to the castle if there was need for more men. Perhaps they even rotated shifts in permanent garrison, especially within a family.



None of this diminishes the fighting potential of the knights during the medieval period, nor to claim that by not being "professional" they couldn't be expected to have good training or equipment.

What the phrase professional soldier means is simple - someone with a relatively high level of training who is expected and willing to fight. Claiming actual fighting knights were not professionals is not really defensible in any way - they had more training than modern professional soldiers and they had the duty and expectation to fight. How or if they were compensated for it doesn't really come into it (a lawyer working pro bono is still a lawyer), and neither do other duties they had along the line.

Sure, there were some among them who probably did a bad job of it because of lazyness, but that's going into another meaning of the word professional.

[fusilier]

What the phrase professional soldier means is simple - someone with a relatively high level of training who is expected and willing to fight.

This is *not* the definition of "professional" -- a professional soldier is someone who's "profession" is that of a soldier. High training and willingness have nothing to do with that definition. They are connotations -- connotations that are more modern than historical. Throughout history there have been plenty of "professional soldiers" who were poorly trained and their willingness was at best questionable.

Referring to a knight as a member of a feudal host, instead of a professional army, has all sorts of negative connotations, because of modern conceptions, not historical ones. The fact that some knights were willing to hire themselves out for pay, doesn't necessarily make them professionals. Some were, but it becomes a gray area. It only further shows how inappropriate it is to try to force modern conceptions on medieval society.

EDIT--

How or if they were compensated for it doesn't really come into it (a lawyer working pro bono is still a lawyer), and neither do other duties they had along the line.

Correct. Just because a lawyer works pro bono, doesn't mean he ceases to be a professional lawyer -- he still takes on paying cases, and that's where his livelihood comes from. However, to be a lawyer in the first place one must have training and pass an official examination, so it's probably not the best analogy. Likewise, just because a knight decides to work for pay, doesn't mean he becomes a professional soldier.

[ExLibrisMortis]

This is *not* the definition of "professional" --

[...]

It only further shows how inappropriate it is to try to force modern conceptions on medieval society.
By insisting on the modern definition of "professional" to be used in medieval context, you're doing exactly that. You're projecting modern concepts of what a "profession" is back in time, and then concluding that they don't apply.

[fusilier]

By insisting on the modern definition of "professional" to be used in medieval context, you're doing exactly that. You're projecting modern concepts of what a "profession" is back in time, and then concluding that they don't apply.

Well, I was trying to argue that the term is potentially misleading for that very reason. I pointed out that referring to feudal knights as "professional soldiers" -- even though I understood what was meant in the context -- was potentially problematic, given that profession and professional have meanings beyond (and even exclusive of) "well trained." There are entire books dedicated to the subject of studying the transition from feudal armies to "professional" ones.

I agree fundamentally with the arguments Martin is making, I just attempted to point out that terminology can be misleading. Leading to another exhausting argument, where nobody seeks to further their understanding.

I give up.

[Martin Greywolf]

This is *not* the definition of "professional" -- a professional soldier is someone who's "profession" is that of a soldier.

Then a Roman legionary can't be a professional soldier because he's a legionary, not a soldier. Anyone who has been in a militia is also not a professional soldier, because his profession is a militiaman. And both of these professions are distinct from modern USA military soldier - legionary does a lot more infrastructure building, militiaman has more police duties.

Your definition is basically so narrow it's useless.

Merriam-Webster defines professional (with a soldier as an example) as:



having a particular profession as a permanent career
// a professional soldier

Do knights have fighting as part of a permanent career? Yes. At most, you can argue they aren't soldiers, but again, then you define soldier so narrowly it's a useless word. And again, Merriam-Webster:


one engaged in military service and especially in the army

So yes, knights are professional soldiers, because words have meaning. They are a subset of professional soldiers. So are ALandsknechts, legionaries, hatamotos, Jaguar warriors and so on and so forth. There are peculiarities and differences to all of them, much like there are differences between a US and UK marines, or indeed between US marines and US army, not to mention air force or navy.

[gkathellar]

Concepts like "profession" and "career" don't map cleanly back in time because the social context in which we recognize them as occurring now didn't exist. That doesn't mean that there were no analogous concepts, but it's probably better to discuss those things directly than to try to draw equivalencies for the sake of drawing equivalencies. This is to say: rather than get into semantics debates about whether, "knights were soldiers" or "legionnaires were soldiers" or whatever, why not focus on the properties and characteristics that knights and legionnaires actually possessed, and discuss those instead?

[AdAstra]

@Brother Oni: The sniper's abilities are self only, mostly to force the judgement/ethics call of leaving the spotters behind.

@Rogan: That's a really good idea. I'll have to use that trick. Thanks :smallsmile:

@KineticDiplomat: I've got the numbers worked out to make her a credible sniper even in D&D. 4d12+8d6+2d8+20 damage per shot is usually good enough. With the crunch out of the way, I'm aware the headcount for the battle is pretty low, but we were about halfway through the battle when I made the post, so I was trying to take the approximate casualties into consideration.

Well, for starters, what do the spotters do for your sniper? Do they even have optics or radios (or equivalents)? How much do they contribute to the sniper's protection, situational awareness, carrying capacity (ie do they haul any equipment that would significantly burden the sniper by themselves), and general role? Is that enough to justify the greater risk of detection and liability to the sniper should she need to bug out? Especially since these spotters are not described as particularly well-trained, they might be more of a hindrance than an asset, and best given other duties.

If they really are crucial, then there are some ways to mitigate the solo-teleport problem. For example, if the sniper wants to take a shot and immediately tp to a safe spot, she can send her spotters over there on foot preemptively if they have enough prep time. That way they're already in a safe spot (and she can cover them on their way), with the added bonus of being able to secure the area, reducing the risk that the sniper teleports into an ambush. If radios or other secure long-range communication is available, then the spotters can set up at a significant remove and still be able to provide help to the sniper, without their position being given away when she shoots.

[Yora]

Does anyone know of any images of reconstructions or just illustrations of complete Bronze Age swords of the "rapier" type? There's plenty of images of corroded blades without hilts, but I can't find a single one that shows how the actual thing would have looked in practice.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Does anyone know of any images of reconstructions or just illustrations of complete Bronze Age swords of the "rapier" type? There's plenty of images of corroded blades without hilts, but I can't find a single one that shows how the actual thing would have looked in practice.

There's a few of them with handle here (https://web.archive.org/web/20090203162813/http://www.templeresearch.eclipse.co.uk/bronze/rapier.htm)? Not quite reconstructions (but they're very much not quite rapiers either, so that makes them and me even).

[Yora]

I see. So they really seem to be using the word rapier for pretty much anything that has a blade. There are some really thin and long blades (http://www.futuremuseum.co.uk/imageGen.ashx?image=%2Fmedia%2F567187%2FRPD0090n.j pg), but can't really imagine how they would be handled with a standard dagger or short sword grip.

[AdAstra]

I see. So they really seem to be using the word rapier for pretty much anything that has a blade. There are some really thin and long blades (http://www.futuremuseum.co.uk/imageGen.ashx?image=%2Fmedia%2F567187%2FRPD0090n.j pg), but can't really imagine how they would be handled with a standard dagger or short sword grip.

Well, at least intuitively, a true rapier, in the sense of a one-handed sword with a long light blade and a balanced, often elaborate hilt, isn't going to translate well to a bronze weapon. Rapier blades have a lot of flex (at least compared to say, a longsword), which bronze and iron do not handle well at all. Just theorizing, but I would imagine that any long bronze blade would operate more like an estoc or something.

[Jeivar]

I was wondering: Is there a fairly comprehensive list somewhere, arranging historical types of armour by actual weight and protective value? I'm thinking of homebrewing a Transylvania-during-Vlad-Tepes esque setting and wanted to maybe overhaul the 5e armour list.

[AdAstra]

I was wondering: Is there a fairly comprehensive list somewhere, arranging historical types of armour by actual weight and protective value? I'm thinking of homebrewing a Transylvania-during-Vlad-Tepes esque setting and wanted to maybe overhaul the 5e armour list.

If you take any "type" of armor, you'll end up with a wide range of potential weights and protective values due to simple manufacturing differences alone. It's certainly not a simple matter of "plate is heavier than a gambeson" since any set of plate armor, and especially a gambeson, will vary a lot from others. Thickness of material in different areas, quality of material (especially relevant with metal plates), coverage, etc, will all change things quite a bit.

In addition, there really isn't a good way of defining real-world protective value in simple terms. Sure, a well-made metal breastplate will stop a whole lot of hurty things, but it provides exactly zero help if someone wacks you on the head with a hammer or slams your toe with their shield rim. Simple AC values in DnD aren't unrealistic because they got the numbers wrong, but because numbers are inadequate to describe them.

In modern armor, there is some exception to this in the form of NIJ ratings and such, but those are assisted greatly by the fact that most body armor has similar coverage, somewhat similar construction (typically combo of soft strong fibers and hard strike plate), and are designed to mostly combat a particular threat (bits of metal at high velocity), and can be tested with standardized ammo types.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you take any "type" of armor, you'll end up with a wide range of potential weights and protective values due to simple manufacturing differences alone. It's certainly not a simple matter of "plate is heavier than a gambeson" since any set of plate armor, and especially a gambeson, will vary a lot from others. Thickness of material in different areas, quality of material (especially relevant with metal plates), coverage, etc, will all change things quite a bit.

In addition, there really isn't a good way of defining real-world protective value in simple terms. Sure, a well-made metal breastplate will stop a whole lot of hurty things, but it provides exactly zero help if someone wacks you on the head with a hammer or slams your toe with their shield rim. Simple AC values in DnD aren't unrealistic because they got the numbers wrong, but because numbers are inadequate to describe them.

In modern armor, there is some exception to this in the form of NIJ ratings and such, but those are assisted greatly by the fact that most body armor has similar coverage, somewhat similar construction (typically combo of soft strong fibers and hard strike plate), and are designed to mostly combat a particular threat (bits of metal at high velocity), and can be tested with standardized ammo types.


As just one example, much of the debate over whether plate armor was immediately made obsolete by firearms comes from the fact that the same projectile, fired from the same gun with the same powder at the same distance, will punch a hole clean through a cheap mass-produced breastplate, and barely dent a high-end tempered steel breastplate.

[AdAstra]

As just one example, much of the debate over whether plate armor was immediately made obsolete by firearms comes from the fact that the same projectile, fired from the same gun with the same powder at the same distance, will punch a hole clean through a cheap mass-produced breastplate, and barely dent a high-end tempered steel breastplate.

Heck, the same projectile, with the same charge, fired from the same gun, at the same range,at the exact same piece of armor, might or might not penetrate, based on the angle and location of the hit. Though that at least is somewhat handled by the inherent randomness of die rolls.

If one were to design an armor system that even approaches reality, the armor your character wears would probably need at least 4 factors:
-Which parts are covered by armor. Face, armpits, ankles, tiny slivers of the elbow, etc.
-What thickness of armor is on each part.
-What material/construction is the armor on each part. Armor is often layered and composite in nature, so some areas may have multiple types covering them.
-What level of craftsmanship/material quality is the armor made with in each part. This should also include things like battle damage and maintenance. Armor compromised by rust or rot is going to have compromised effectiveness

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If one were to design an armor system that even approaches reality, the armor your character wears would probably need at least 4 factors:
-Which parts are covered by armor. Face, armpits, ankles, tiny slivers of the elbow, etc.
-What thickness of armor is on each part.
-What material/construction is the armor on each part. Armor is often layered and composite in nature, so some areas may have multiple types covering them.
-What level of craftsmanship/material quality is the armor made with in each part. This should also include things like battle damage and maintenance. Armor compromised by rust or rot is going to have compromised effectiveness

If you're willing to half ass it a little bit something like that might actually work.

When you attack, roll 2 d20's. The first one determines hit location, in a broad sense. If the character has 50% of their body surface covered with heavy plate with padding underneath, 40% covered with light plating (like a gauntlet, or maybe the limb armor is not as thick as the cuirass), mail or very thick layered fabric and 10% is barely covered at all then 10 or lower hits the heavy parts and 11-19 the medium armor. That roll retroactively sets the armor class the second die needs to hit, maybe with a zone in between full success and failure for partial damage or something (your helmet holds, but that blow hurt). Raising your accuracy gives a bonus on the first die, raising your chance to hit the weak spots, and something like the power of your attack gives a bonus to the second roll, the odds to hurt.

Of course it probably adds more complexity than it's worth. It doesn't really do anything a single armor class number does not do. But it's technically a better simulation.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If you're willing to half ass it a little bit something like that might actually work.

When you attack, roll 2 d20's. The first one determines hit location, in a broad sense. If the character has 50% of their body surface covered with heavy plate with padding underneath, 40% covered with light plating (like a gauntlet, or maybe the limb armor is not as thick as the cuirass), mail or very thick layered fabric and 10% is barely covered at all then 10 or lower hits the heavy parts and 11-19 the medium armor. That roll retroactively sets the armor class the second die needs to hit, maybe with a zone in between full success and failure for partial damage or something (your helmet holds, but that blow hurt). Raising your accuracy gives a bonus on the first die, raising your chance to hit the weak spots, and something like the power of your attack gives a bonus to the second roll, the odds to hurt.

Of course it probably adds more complexity than it's worth. It doesn't really do anything a single armor class number does not do. But it's technically a better simulation.
You could probably have a stepped, slightly random damage reduction value depending on the attacker's roll. For example:

(1) Touch AC > attack roll -- No damage.
(2) AC > attack roll > touch AC -- Damage roll against DR 2d6 + 2*CON + enhancement bonus.
(3) Attack roll > AC -- Damage roll against DR 1d6 + CON + enhancement bonus.

Using D&D 3.5 stats, you'd need to adjust typical TAC values, because hitting TAC is easier than the already-easy-to-hit AC (lack of defensive equivalent to base attack bonus is a big cause of this). You could also separate out "AC needed for touching" (as used by magical attacks, splash weapons, and PF firearms, requiring only minute contact to have their full impact) from "AC needed to connect a weapon to a target" (more akin to grapples and trips, which need more than fleeting contact, but don't need to penetrate armour or skin).


(Edit: Obviously, it's much easier if you just roll against "no DR" in case (3), but I like armour to have some DR. An alternative is the Damage Conversion UA variant, converting the negated damage into nonlethal damage. Using that, you could perhaps roll against the same DR for both (2) and (3), but converting all damage that isn't negated to nonlethal damage for (2), and converting the negated damage to nonlethal for (3) (without touching the non-negated damage). That gives nonlethal damage a much greater presence in the game, and incidentally also doubles in-combat magical healing, which helps underpowered cure spells.)

[Pauly]

Heck, the same projectile, with the same charge, fired from the same gun, at the same range,at the exact same piece of armor, might or might not penetrate, based on the angle and location of the hit. Though that at least is somewhat handled by the inherent randomness of die rolls.

If one were to design an armor system that even approaches reality, the armor your character wears would probably need at least 4 factors:
-Which parts are covered by armor. Face, armpits, ankles, tiny slivers of the elbow, etc.
-What thickness of armor is on each part.
-What material/construction is the armor on each part. Armor is often layered and composite in nature, so some areas may have multiple types covering them.
-What level of craftsmanship/material quality is the armor made with in each part. This should also include things like battle damage and maintenance. Armor compromised by rust or rot is going to have compromised effectiveness

Hyper complex models are often less reliable at simulating reality than simplistic rough and ready models. That’s because you have separate each element correctly then model the interactions that element has with every other element correctly. It’s very easy to get compounding errors magnifying or reducing effects. Even if you do get all of the elements correct the time and effort it takes to process the data just isn’t worth it.

However when you look at simulating combat there are three elements.
- Primary safety - how hard is it to hit the target. Size, speed agility factor in. Also shields are primarily there to prevent the main target being hit.
- Secondary safety - the ability to survive the hit. Basically armor.
- Tertiary safety - the ability to mitigate the hit, reduce the effect of damage.

In most tactical/skirmish wargames this gets represented by a roll to hit, an armor roll and a damage roll. D+D merges the roll to hit and the roll for armor effect into one die roll. But in a more ‘realistic’ simulation you might have a character equipped with a shield, some mail and a gambeson. The shield would act as a negative factor in being able to hit the character, the mail would give a chance of negating the hit and the gambeson would have a chance of reducing the effect of the hit (quite possible down to zero).

[fusilier]

In most tactical/skirmish wargames this gets represented by a roll to hit, an armor roll and a damage roll. D+D merges the roll to hit and the roll for armor effect into one die roll. But in a more ‘realistic’ simulation you might have a character equipped with a shield, some mail and a gambeson. The shield would act as a negative factor in being able to hit the character, the mail would give a chance of negating the hit and the gambeson would have a chance of reducing the effect of the hit (quite possible down to zero).

In GURPS 3rd edition, armor had two factors: DR (Damage resistance), and PD (Passive defense). Attack resolution went something like this:

1. Roll to hit. If successful,
2. The target can make an Active Defense roll, adding the PD of the armor -- if this roll is successful the attack is avoided. If not,
3. Roll damage
4. Subtract DR from damage

The idea behind PD was to make it easier to turn a hit into a glancing blow, some armors were better at this than others. Active defenses were things like blocks, parries and dodges. I think they removed Passive defense from 4th edition, but increased the default Active defense value.

Also they had a hit location system, so you used the armor values for that location. As usual GURPS could get quite complicated, and certain projectile weapons ignored x amount of PD, there were special rules for armor piercing ammunition, etc. DR could be stacked by wearing multiple layers of armor, but (usually) only the PD of the top layer would be used.

[KineticDiplomat]

In Blade if The Iron Throne, also Song of Swords, it actually does have a pretty comprehensive system for that.

You call an attack to an area (say, overhand right) or try to aim for one with ranged weapons, and then 1d6 determines what sub-area of that you hit - for an arm, day, the upper shoulder at one end of the D6 and the hand at the other.

From there it has ratings ranging from gambeson and stiff leather up through renaissance high end plate, with some eclectic stops like brigandine over maille as well. And while you could stay out each part of your body, it’s easier just to have a common sense picture between the players and GM.


If you had a short sleeve maille shirt on over a gambeson, there’s a good chance a one handed sword chop to the shoulder will be ineffective - it's going to be converted to blunt, and almost certainly reduce all but the most crushing blow to a minor bruise - while a pole-hammer has a good chance to break bones, and a good thrust MIGHT make it through.

Your unarmored hand, caught by a slash, is probably going to be a red ruin.

This all gets resolved in two die rolls : Attack vs Defense, Where it Hit

[AdAstra]

Hyper complex models are often less reliable at simulating reality than simplistic rough and ready models. That’s because you have separate each element correctly then model the interactions that element has with every other element correctly. It’s very easy to get compounding errors magnifying or reducing effects. Even if you do get all of the elements correct the time and effort it takes to process the data just isn’t worth it.

However when you look at simulating combat there are three elements.
- Primary safety - how hard is it to hit the target. Size, speed agility factor in. Also shields are primarily there to prevent the main target being hit.
- Secondary safety - the ability to survive the hit. Basically armor.
- Tertiary safety - the ability to mitigate the hit, reduce the effect of damage.

In most tactical/skirmish wargames this gets represented by a roll to hit, an armor roll and a damage roll. D+D merges the roll to hit and the roll for armor effect into one die roll. But in a more ‘realistic’ simulation you might have a character equipped with a shield, some mail and a gambeson. The shield would act as a negative factor in being able to hit the character, the mail would give a chance of negating the hit and the gambeson would have a chance of reducing the effect of the hit (quite possible down to zero).

That's pretty much my opinion too. I prefer DnD's system massively because it's good enough and simple, and not meaningfully less accurate than most simulationist systems.

The big problem with your proposed model is that attacks are not entirely random things. People will act to exploit weaknesses in their opponents' armor, taking on trade-offs in order to effectively do so. Against well-made plate without a particularly concussing or penetrating weapon, pretty much your only option is to try to hit the parts the plate doesn't cover. If you want to take this into account, you need to actually have armor coverage be a factor. This also involves specific tactical choices, such as attempting to grapple or unbalance a person in full-plate to be able to actually get at the gaps. This of course usually involves putting your limbs within easy stabbing range, and is thus not something you'd normally do unless you had to.

Basically, a good simulationist armor system to me (if I were to actually play such a thing) isn't just having a billion different types of armor, but having many ways of attacking it, and many ways of exploiting it. This forces both the armor system and the combat system to be more complex.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's pretty much my opinion too. I prefer DnD's system massively because it's good enough and simple, and not meaningfully less accurate than most simulationist systems.

The big problem with your proposed model is that attacks are not entirely random things. People will act to exploit weaknesses in their opponents' armor, taking on trade-offs in order to effectively do so. Against well-made plate without a particularly concussing or penetrating weapon, pretty much your only option is to try to hit the parts the plate doesn't cover. If you want to take this into account, you need to actually have armor coverage be a factor. This also involves specific tactical choices, such as attempting to grapple or unbalance a person in full-plate to be able to actually get at the gaps. This of course usually involves putting your limbs within easy stabbing range, and is thus not something you'd normally do unless you had to.

Basically, a good simulationist armor system to me (if I were to actually play such a thing) isn't just having a billion different types of armor, but having many ways of attacking it, and many ways of exploiting it. This forces both the armor system and the combat system to be more complex.

Just thinking out loud...

Maybe for something simple, have separate factors for "the armor makes it harder to hit the wearer to simulate more coverage of effectively immune zones" and "the armor reduces damage by absorbing/deflecting some of the energy even if you do hit a non-immune spot".

This would give many plate armors a high "to hit" effect, but mainly only the "reduction" factor of chain, since many of the gaps you're trying to hit still have chain shirt or voiders or whatever there.

[AdAstra]

Just thinking out loud...

Maybe for something simple, have separate factors for "the armor makes it harder to hit the wearer to simulate more coverage of effectively immune zones" and "the armor reduces damage by absorbing/deflecting some of the energy even if you do hit a non-immune spot".

This would give many plate armors a high "to hit" effect, but mainly only the "reduction" factor of chain, since many of the gaps you're trying to hit still have chain shirt or voiders or whatever there.

That setup doesn’t really take into account the fact that someone trying to go for such small gaps will be taking significant risks to do so (why I would consider the combat system to be just as important as the armor system when it comes to making complex combat). It’s not simply a matter of “I aim at the weak spot”. I think this part would be best simulated by called shots being not only less accurate, but leaving yourself vulnerable to counterattacks should they fail. By trying to get into position to make a specific strike, rather than any opportunity that presents itself, you’re forced to position and attack in specific ways, ways that make you more predictable, and often more vulnerable. Example:

Generally the most viable way to take on a person in full plate without either armor of your own or specific weapons would be to knock them over, hold them down, and start shanking them wherever they can be shanked (most likely armpits, crotch, or eyes). This of course, often requires that you get direct limb contact on a person who wants to kill you. That’s why the safest way is to distract them while several of your buddies sneak up behind and blindside them, but that takes numbers.

On the other hand, if you are armored and your foe is not, your best friend is distance. Keeping some space allows you to make very dangerous attacks with near impunity, and significantly reduces the likelihood of you getting knocked over and shanked. Poke them from afar, use sweeping strikes to ward them off, or perhaps just chuck a rock at their head before they even get close. If they can’t lay a hand on you, it’ll be nearly impossible for them to hurt you without weapons designed for the job. And using those weapons imparts their own weaknesses.

So the armor system must be complemented by an appropriate combat system, or else you’re not really much better off than with simple ACs. You’d probably want, at the least, a spacing system, a called shot system, and a forced movement system. Something along these lines perhaps:

Spacing- probably a contested check every time someone wants to try to change the distance between the characters, with opportunity attacks if the initiator fails by a sufficient margin. A tie might give the initiator the choice to take the attack in exchange for a success.

Called Shot- certain areas require a certain spacing to actually target effectively (ex: basically impossible to target an armpit unless the opponent is grappled, on the ground, or unable to face you), and an aware opponent can contest, giving them a chance to stop your attack and/or land a counterblow. Once again, a tie might give the initiator the ability to take the OA and get their called shot off.

Forced Movement- Grapples, shoves, etc. a la 5e. Shoves can increase spacing or knock people over, grapples can make it more difficult to get away and makes certain called shots and other combat actions easier/possible.

Pretty much all of these actions could be covered by one contested check, plus potentially a standard opportunity attack.

[KineticDiplomat]

There are actually systems that let you do all the shoving, grappling, head bashing until he’s groggy type armored fighting goodness...and honestly, they are easy enough to run. Easier than day, GMing a d&d caster.

[Vinyadan]

If they deserve it, please name them! :wink:

[KineticDiplomat]

Well the old Riddle of Steel evolved into Blade of The Iron Throne, which I’ve played heavily. Honestly, one of the best balances between realism and (low) fantasy gameplay I’ve seen in a melee system - if you ever wanted a fight where a feinted slash turned into a thrust to the face, only to be barely partied while and the original attacker remains his momentum but his now off balance follow up gets caught in a winding and binding situation that ends up grappling...that’s the system.

There’s also Song if Swords which has a similar system that gives even more granularity, albeit at more complexity.

[BlacKnight]

Well the old Riddle of Steel evolved into Blade of The Iron Throne, which I’ve played heavily. Honestly, one of the best balances between realism and (low) fantasy gameplay I’ve seen in a melee system - if you ever wanted a fight where a feinted slash turned into a thrust to the face, only to be barely partied while and the original attacker remains his momentum but his now off balance follow up gets caught in a winding and binding situation that ends up grappling...that’s the system.

There’s also Song if Swords which has a similar system that gives even more granularity, albeit at more complexity.

I remember having different experiences with RoS. I even opened a thread about it a year ago https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?582400-The-Riddle-of-Steel-why-not-using-all-dices-to-attack
I would be interested in discussing it, obviously not in this thread.

[KineticDiplomat]

Admittedly I mostly play the BoIT update. Feel free to start a thread or PM me. My experience is that it plays smoothly

[VonKaiserstein]

I was wondering: Is there a fairly comprehensive list somewhere, arranging historical types of armour by actual weight and protective value? I'm thinking of homebrewing a Transylvania-during-Vlad-Tepes esque setting and wanted to maybe overhaul the 5e armour list.

The DnD set is a pretty good starting point- you're going to have regional variants affected by supplies available, what sort of threats they faced, and everything is going to be complicated by our incomplete historical record. Even for large civilizations, we don't have many examples of nonmetallic armor- it rots away and leaves much less evidence than metal. Then when we go to reproduce it, we make assumptions, compromises, and modifications based on our current understanding- so without knowing if we're using authentic materials, we can't really say how heavy or effective the originals were.

Take the linothorax, for example. Layers of linen, or possibly leather. We know from art what it looks like, and there are multiple written descriptions- but actually recreating it is well informed inferences.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/how-to-make-your-own-greek-armor

Then too- you've now got a piece of armor that weighs much less than a metal equivalent, is hard and resistant to damage- should a linothorax be considered padded armor, or a breastplate?

So I'd go with dnd style ratings- just modify them for the region. If it's an ancient campaign, sure, the linothorax or musculata are both breastplates. If it's Middle Eastern themed, the Char Aina serves as your breastplate, with the heavier examples straying into half plate.

[Pauly]

The DnD set is a pretty good starting point- you're going to have regional variants affected by supplies available, what sort of threats they faced, and everything is going to be complicated by our incomplete historical record. Even for large civilizations, we don't have many examples of nonmetallic armor- it rots away and leaves much less evidence than metal. Then when we go to reproduce it, we make assumptions, compromises, and modifications based on our current understanding- so without knowing if we're using authentic materials, we can't really say how heavy or effective the originals were.

Take the linothorax, for example. Layers of linen, or possibly leather. We know from art what it looks like, and there are multiple written descriptions- but actually recreating it is well informed inferences.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/how-to-make-your-own-greek-armor

Then too- you've now got a piece of armor that weighs much less than a metal equivalent, is hard and resistant to damage- should a linothorax be considered padded armor, or a breastplate?

So I'd go with dnd style ratings- just modify them for the region. If it's an ancient campaign, sure, the linothorax or musculata are both breastplates. If it's Middle Eastern themed, the Char Aina serves as your breastplate, with the heavier examples straying into half plate.

This is the start of a problem with D+D and other high fantasy settings. They try to compress all of human weapons and armor technology into one codified system. Yet many of the weapons and armors that are rated never co-existed and thus we have no solid basis for assessing for example how a Roman pilum would fare against gothic plate.

Historically weapons and armors existed in the context of known technology, available materials, pre-existing traditions, regional economies and trade routes in addition to the wepaons and armors of expected opponents. Apart from so e exceptional circumstances you would never have a situation of. A guy with a wooden club and leather armor facing off against someone in full plate armed with a poleaxe.

Trying to shoe-horn wildly disparate technologies into a single combat system is problematic if you want to maintain a fiction of granularity. As you say it ends up being “all of these things count as a breadtplate and provide X amount of protection”.

[Zombimode]

Well the old Riddle of Steel evolved into Blade of The Iron Throne, which I’ve played heavily. Honestly, one of the best balances between realism and (low) fantasy gameplay I’ve seen in a melee system - if you ever wanted a fight where a feinted slash turned into a thrust to the face, only to be barely partied while and the original attacker remains his momentum but his now off balance follow up gets caught in a winding and binding situation that ends up grappling...that’s the system.

There’s also Song if Swords which has a similar system that gives even more granularity, albeit at more complexity.

One of the big problems of less abstracted combat systems is that they tend to be narrow in scope: they take pains to model their chosen part (most likely human with medievalish weapons and armor vs. human with medievalish weapons and armor) and when deviate from this scope things tend to break down or feel lacking. Or, because to game is aware of its narrow scope, is not supported at all.

There is a good reason why the overwheling majority of games use some kinf of abstract combat system. If well done the moving parts of the system are evocative enough that your mind can construct a visual on how any particular interaction plays out.


How das Blade of The Iron Throne fares in that regard? Can it handle Ogres, Hellhounds, Bears, Dragons, Zombies or Ghosts as well it can handle humans?

[KineticDiplomat]

To keep us short and on the Real World Part, I can say it handles classic S&S enemies well (undead, daemons, vampires, werewolves, a pack of wolves, Grendel from Beowulf, etc.), albeit at a different scaling than D&D.

Anyhow, I’ll answer black knight in his thread in order to avoid cluttering the real world one.

[Martin Greywolf]

This is the start of a problem with D+D and other high fantasy settings. They try to compress all of human weapons and armor technology into one codified system. Yet many of the weapons and armors that are rated never co-existed and thus we have no solid basis for assessing for example how a Roman pilum would fare against gothic plate.


Sure we do, answer is pretty poorly. Thrown spears weren't completely out of use. You can get really pedantic about it, but only in edge cases where all of the material bits matter, like longbows against munitions-grade plate. Still, we have a pretty good idea even then.



Historically weapons and armors existed in the context of known technology, available materials, pre-existing traditions, regional economies and trade routes in addition to the wepaons and armors of expected opponents.

Historically, cultures did clash a lot. Most of history you get, especially in fantasy, is British-centric, so about England or France. English and nomadic mercenaries being hired as Condottieros in medieval Italy doesn't get much mention.


Apart from so e exceptional circumstances you would never have a situation of. A guy with a wooden club and leather armor facing off against someone in full plate armed with a poleaxe.

This describes so, so many wars. Hussites, several uprisings in Hungary, Teutonic Order's Baltic crusades... Expand it a bit and you get heavily armored Mongol keshiks cutting through numerous villiages on Hungarian plains post-Subutai invasion or natives in Amazon being ineffective against armored conquistadors. Or all of Sikh rebellions and Opium wars.

It's arguably more common for disparate weapon/armor types to face off on the battlefield.



Trying to shoe-horn wildly disparate technologies into a single combat system is problematic if you want to maintain a fiction of granularity. As you say it ends up being “all of these things count as a breadtplate and provide X amount of protection”.

Mostly because it does. For vast majority of melee weapons, solid breastplate is the same as lamellar, it's when you get to edge cases (couched lances, pollaxes) where it matters. And modelling this sort of bell curve accurately is very, very hard without a computer doing ti for you.

[Brother Oni]

This describes so, so many wars. Hussites, several uprisings in Hungary, Teutonic Order's Baltic crusades... Expand it a bit and you get heavily armored Mongol keshiks cutting through numerous villiages on Hungarian plains post-Subutai invasion or natives in Amazon being ineffective against armored conquistadors. Or all of Sikh rebellions and Opium wars.

My favourite disparity is the Imjin Wars where the invading samurai went up again Korean cannon and rocket propelled artillery (hwacha).

Aside from the most recent conflicts with asymmetric warfare, the next one I can think of involving formal militaries is during the start of WW2, where the Poles were in the midst of upgrading their cavalry squadrons to mechanised infantry and ended up being forced to use cavalry against German mechanised infantry and armoured units.

That said, the Poles weren't stupid and only once through sheer accident at the Battle of Mokra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra), did they end up executing a cavalry charge against German tanks (or rather Polish cavalry and TKS tankettes reinforcements accidentally drove through the middle of a German Panzer II column).

[Martin Greywolf]

ended up being forced to use cavalry against German mechanised infantry and armoured units

Well, sort of, but not really. At that point, Poles didn't really have cavalry in the saense it was understood at the start of WW1 or before, there were no horsemen ready to charge with melee weapons. What they did have was what is more properly referred to as mounted infantry, that sometimes did shoot their rifles from horseback.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Polski_u%C5%82an_z_karabinem_przeciwpancernym_UR.j pg/1024px-Polski_u%C5%82an_z_karabinem_przeciwpancernym_UR.j pg

https://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Polish_Infantryman_equipment.jpg

Sure, they had sabres and there was grand total of one battle where they actually used them to some temporary effect, but it was more of a traditional cavalry weapon thing, rather than practical consideration.



Aside from the most recent conflicts with asymmetric warfare

Assymetrical warfare is not modern, and especially noteworthy in this context - how many TTRPGs pit PCs against overwhelming odds?

[InvisibleBison]

Sure, they had sabres and there was grand total of one battle where they actually used them to some temporary effect, but it was more of a traditional cavalry weapon thing, rather than practical consideration.

So if the sabres weren't expected to actually be used, why were they issued? The resources used to make them could have been used to make something else, after all.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So if the sabres weren't expected to actually be used, why were they issued? The resources used to make them could have been used to make something else, after all.

Many types of soldiers carry a sidearm. Today that's often a pistol, but you'll notice there is no pistol in that picture of their kit. That's the role the sword fills. It does not work as a primary battle weapon, but it might work in self defense if something is wrong with your rifle. For horse troops the sword might even make a weird sort of sense being chosen over a pistol. If you charge at someone on horseback swinging a sabre around people might step aside and give you the room you need to get away. (If they don't manage to shoot you on the way through.)

(A bayonet does not count as a sidearm. It can be very useful, but when your gun is lost or broken there's a pretty good chance your bayonet was lost or broken as well, or at least just became a lot less effective.)

[Vinyadan]

I think the Poles even won that battle.

About sabers, no one was expecting much out of them. I believe that swords killed a grand total of seven Germans during the Franco-Prussian war. And yet, during WWI, iirc the Russians even had cavalrymen with lances (!) due to an inability to modernise the very traditionalist cavalry the way the top brass would have wanted. Too many nobles in there.

The cavalries were later used in the wars between Poland and Russia, because there was a lack of motorisation, a lack of roads, and the numbers involved were too small to create the impassable defenses of WWI, so it made sense to have highly mobile dragoons. Even then, at least cavalry officers were carrying swords in the revolutionary armies, too. (a communist shashka (http://www.spandaumilitariashop.com/1934-dated-russian-shashka-with-bayonet/))

So I wonder if it was actually an old sign of rank. I didn't look it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if Polish cavalry were made up by an unusually high number of nobles, as the Russian had been, and so being part of the cavalry in and of itself meant a higher social standing that got a sign for it with the sword.

(There is a Wikipedia article that claims that the Battle of the Niemen river in 1920 between Poland and the Soviets saw a crucial use of lances and swords, but I found no corroboration, and it sounds unlikely.)

EDIT: Concerning the sword as a sidearm: as observed by Lvl 2 Expert, the sword wouldn't have covered the same role as the bayonet, and indeed we see that the Soviet shashka above is made as a set with a bayonet.

I think there is no pistol in the loadout posted by Martin?

Also, some nice photos from Russian parades with historical equipment: https://www.guns.com/news/2018/03/01/recent-military-parade-shows-the-russians-never-really-throw-anything-away-photos It shows some cavalry with lances, although I think the cavalrymen are actually women.

[fusilier]

Surprised no one has mentioned this cavalry charge of WW2 on the Eastern Front:

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

[Khedrac]

And always remember, before getting too derogatory about soldiers carrying swords in WW2, that Major John Churchill (a.k.a. Fighting John and Mad Jack) of the British Army is usually credited with getting the last "kill using a longbow" during WW2. He regarded officers without swords as "improperly dressed" - his sword was a claymore which he lost in the fighting at Salerno and had to go back for!

[Lacco]

I remember having different experiences with RoS. I even opened a thread about it a year ago https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?582400-The-Riddle-of-Steel-why-not-using-all-dices-to-attack
I would be interested in discussing it, obviously not in this thread.

Apologies. I wrote a fairly detailed answer to your post, but the forum chew it and spat out nothing.

I will try to compose it again and PM you. The overall answer was done pretty well by KineticDiplomat, but there are few things to add.


There is a good reason why the overwheling majority of games use some kinf of abstract combat system. If well done the moving parts of the system are evocative enough that your mind can construct a visual on how any particular interaction plays out.

How das Blade of The Iron Throne fares in that regard? Can it handle Ogres, Hellhounds, Bears, Dragons, Zombies or Ghosts as well it can handle humans?

Original RoS was constructed with mainly humanoid enemies. Additional books (Of Man and Beasts, Flower of Battle and Companion) provided some additions - mainly the first mentioned - including giants, trolls and dragons. Undead too.

But where a zombie is relatively low-level threat in D20, the undead of RoS were terrifying - you could cut them down to pieces, but the pieces would continue the fight.

Looking back on the system, it did best when facing humanoid enemies, but had its share of fantasy goodness. I would assume Blade would fare even better, as it was a compilation of everything that was good on the RoS + some bonuses.

One good example: killing a dragon. I have no idea how it would look if you took just fighters, rogues, rangers and barbarians to the fight - my experience with DnD is too limited. But in RoS the battle would be epic... or short (TPK), depending on your approach. Dragons have terribly high Toughness stat (damage resistance) and maybe the highest armor stat, which means to damage it beyond scratches you have to get a good roll.

So you either go in full force, trying to overcome incredibly high armour over most of the body (ideally? knight charging the dragon with a lance would use the strength of the horse instead of his own; two-handed heavy poleaxes, hammers and axes), aim for the "naked" parts (very small areas - eyes, mouth, armpits) and bleed it to death via death of a thousand cuts.

All this while fighting a creature that can stomp a legendary warrior to the ground if he just stands in the open - one hit from a dragon would spell death to most people easily.

So, what you would do? Get some mercenaries to work as meat shields and fight smart. Lure the dragon somewhere he can not maneuver well, maybe use poison and take cover & make sure it does not hit you while you wait for your opening. Have few good archers (or better: veteran archers, maybe few heavy crossbows) and uneven terrain, with hiding places, cover and possibility to get higher than the dragon is. Oh and be sure to use the Spiritual Attributes (ideally your luck, your passionate hatred of all draconic and your oath to slay a dragon).

Also: RoS models stagger well, so one of your options would be to pummel the poor dragon with as much hits from heavy blunt & mass weapons so it does not even have power to stand up and fight back. Risky option, but would be doable.

So, the fight would take around 30 minutes if you knew the rules/mechanics well... but it would be epic.

It's definitely not be-all-end-all system, but a good alternative.


If they deserve it, please name them! :wink:

RoS provides two sets of grapple rules: the core ones (relatively easy to learn and grow into) and expanded (Flower of Battle supplement; not as complicated as they sound if you have the memory for it or make good notes - they take up some 10 pages if I remember well). They allow you to pin your opponent, throw them, break limbs, choke, fight dirty... and do it relatively smoothly.

That said, you first have to get used to the main combat system, which is incredibly different from DnD. Learning the core combat mechanics (initiative, dice pools, rounds & exchanges, basic offensive and defensive manuevers) takes somewhere around 2-3 combats and from then you start to discover all the possibilities and tactics and add it up. It's also not as crunchy as it looks like - and the combats flow well when you get the basics down. Only when you reach the "legendary" level it gets bogged down - but it's a long way there.

I would suggest everyone to try it at least once - especially if you happen to have a GM block because you feel like you have done everything. Even stupid bandits are a threat - and smart bandits double so. The game is basically Tucker's Kobolds the RPG :smallbiggrin: - even the combat primer states that if you go in charging, you will die and suggests you fight smart.

But if you decide to give it a whirl, you should not start with RoS. The rules are... well, old. The book is disorganized, there are missing rules you have to interpret/create so the system works. Do not even try the magic system. Start with BoIT.


To keep us short and on the Real World Part, I can say it handles classic S&S enemies well (undead, daemons, vampires, werewolves, a pack of wolves, Grendel from Beowulf, etc.), albeit at a different scaling than D&D.

Anyhow, I’ll answer black knight in his thread in order to avoid cluttering the real world one.

Unfortunately, the thread you both mention has been open for so long I assume it would cound as thread necromancy. Please contact one of the mods regarding this. I would like to continue the debate there.

If not, we can still open a new one for the questions.

[Brother Oni]

Aside from the most recent conflicts with asymmetric warfare, the next one I can think of involving formal militaries is during the start of WW2,


Assymetrical warfare is not modern, and especially noteworthy in this context - how many TTRPGs pit PCs against overwhelming odds?

Please don't misrepresent my posts by selective editing. I even mentioned a 17th century example of asymmetric warfare in the same post.

I never claimed that asymmetric warfare was a modern phenomenon, I was trying to think of examples of asymmetric warfare between formal militaries. Under-equipped natives against formal military forces is something that can be found repeatedly throughout history, especially during the colonial era.

[AdAstra]

Please don't misrepresent my posts by selective editing. I even mentioned a 17th century example of asymmetric warfare in the same post.

I never claimed that asymmetric warfare was a modern phenomenon, I was trying to think of examples of asymmetric warfare between formal militaries. Under-equipped natives against formal military forces is something that can be found repeatedly throughout history, especially during the colonial era.

EDIT: Wait, completely forgot we were talking about the distant past, so the Toyota War is irrelevant here

What definition of asymmetric warfare are we using? Technological asymmetry, or just militaries with wildly different capabilities?

[Vinyadan]

EDIT: Wait, completely forgot we were talking about the distant past, so the Toyota War is irrelevant here


As Mr Toyoda said in 1939, "This is a good time for motorisation."

[KineticDiplomat]

I suspect that prior to the currently emerging age of state liminal maneuver, you’ll have a very hard time finding asymmetric warfare between two state armies.

For one, the nation state as we know it spends its formative centuries in Europe, and when it comes out of Europe the other side doesn’t look like that. In 1800 you would struggle to find a non-western “State” with a “state army”. So it becomes “state army versus however the locals fight”, which while often potentially asymmetric, is by definition not two state armies.

The armies within states, in contrast, have fairly similar technological levels until the industrial revolution - you could maybe make an argument that Russia spent some time behind the power curve, but certainly by the time of Frederick they were basically caught up.

And since the state initially came about to impose order from the top down within and protect/conquer those without, that meant having some sort of hierarchical centralized army that fought like...well...a regular army. Which means that while there were doctrinal and organizational differences, they all looked pretty similar.

Even after the offset strategies, one could argue that T-72s dying in the desert didn’t represent asymmetric warfare so much as being completely outclassed in symmetric warfare.

Which raises an interest RPG point - if you can reliably expect monsters, nooks, and PCs to line up an slug it out toe to toe, using basically the same stuff just the PCs do it better - it probably isn’t asymmetric just because there’s five PCs, any more than Barbarossa was asymmetric because there were less Germans.

[AdAstra]

I suspect that prior to the currently emerging age of state liminal maneuver, you’ll have a very hard time finding asymmetric warfare between two state armies.

For one, the nation state as we know it spends its formative centuries in Europe, and when it comes out of Europe the other side doesn’t look like that. In 1800 you would struggle to find a non-western “State” with a “state army”. So it becomes “state army versus however the locals fight”, which while often potentially asymmetric, is by definition not two state armies.

The armies within states, in contrast, have fairly similar technological levels until the industrial revolution - you could maybe make an argument that Russia spent some time behind the power curve, but certainly by the time of Frederick they were basically caught up.

And since the state initially came about to impose order from the top down within and protect/conquer those without, that meant having some sort of hierarchical centralized army that fought like...well...a regular army. Which means that while there were doctrinal and organizational differences, they all looked pretty similar.

Even after the offset strategies, one could argue that T-72s dying in the desert didn’t represent asymmetric warfare so much as being completely outclassed in symmetric warfare.

Which raises an interest RPG point - if you can reliably expect monsters, nooks, and PCs to line up an slug it out toe to toe, using basically the same stuff just the PCs do it better - it probably isn’t asymmetric just because there’s five PCs, any more than Barbarossa was asymmetric because there were less Germans.

That's why we need to clarify what is meant by Asymmetric Warfare, or even what a state is for the purposes of this discussion. Do the Mongols count? Because they definitely were organized and fought a lot of also-organized states' armies. They might not qualify as a "state" per se, but they also weren't exactly just random marauders.

As for DnD combat, I would say that cases of one big monster vs The Party or The Party vs hordes of mooks are pretty asymmetric, at least in the tactical sense. And in a strategic sense, typically adventuring parties go up against reasonably large and organized groups, whole states even, so that's definitely asymmetrical so long as you count the Party as a legitimate player.

[KineticDiplomat]

Acknowledging that the state didn’t suddenly leap into being at Westphalia, it is still a decent mark as to when we start seeing modern states and what the modern west considers a formal army with all the distinctions that we basically envision when we think “army.”

Prior to that, so many entities claim the legitimate right to use force that much of our perception is invariably skewed when we envision them. Banking houses, families, clans, religious orders, generals supposedly representing a city or just themselves with forces gathered from across wherever...well, suffice to say that the idea of a “state” army with due loyalty to a nation rather than the raising/employing figures simply isn’t there. Even the comparatively advanced Chinese empire is more a confederation of culturally aligned families than a “state”.

So what does that have to do with assymetry?

Well, for one it means that it isn’t a clean case of “mongols fought Russians” so much as “mongols fought a local lord of Russian ethnicity and bonds who may or may not have a claim on assistance from others, but just as likely had some random religious order on their side”.

Which to our discussion really means we’re discussing gunpowder and beyond if we’re defining state on state armies.

[KineticDiplomat]

As to RPGs, a simple difference in numbers doesn’t make a conflict asymmetrical.

Take the 1814 campaigns. Napoleon is outnumbered, but defeats the allies in sequence tactically (and fails to achieve anything with that operationally, natch), much as PCs fight waves of a bigger organization.

But it’s still symmetrical. He has a bunch of guys that look like an army and using muskets and cannons that go and fight a bunch of other guys that look like an army carrying muskets and cannons in a series of open field battles where both sides - to grossly simplify - line up and fight in much the same manner. The fact that he is outnumbered and still wins doesn’t change the fact that this a very symmetrical conflict both tactically and technologically.

In turn, PCs essentially line up and swap fireballs/power attacks with a host of mooks and bosses doing the same thing. Both sides have the same tools, and both sides line up to have a smash out (that the GM will usually ensure the PCs win). That the PCs are 3-5 people fighting “the as big as I need it to be horde” doesn’t change that.

Tucker’s Kobolds are asymmetric tactically, even if technologically they have the same tools as the PCs. They don’t line up for a dice off.

And technologically (so to speak) play balance almost always ensures the same basic range of tools is available to PCs and their opponents, preventing technical asymmetry

[AdAstra]

As to RPGs, a simple difference in numbers doesn’t make a conflict asymmetrical.

Take the 1814 campaigns. Napoleon is outnumbered, but defeats the allies in sequence tactically (and fails to achieve anything with that operationally, natch), much as PCs fight waves of a bigger organization.

But it’s still symmetrical. He has a bunch of guys that look like an army and using muskets and cannons that go and fight a bunch of other guys that look like an army carrying muskets and cannons in a series of open field battles where both sides - to grossly simplify - line up and fight in much the same manner. The fact that he is outnumbered and still wins doesn’t change the fact that this a very symmetrical conflict both tactically and technologically.

In turn, PCs essentially line up and swap fireballs/power attacks with a host of mooks and bosses doing the same thing. Both sides have the same tools, and both sides line up to have a smash out (that the GM will usually ensure the PCs win). That the PCs are 3-5 people fighting “the as big as I need it to be horde” doesn’t change that.

Tucker’s Kobolds are asymmetric tactically, even if technologically they have the same tools as the PCs. They don’t line up for a dice off.

And technologically (so to speak) play balance almost always ensures the same basic range of tools is available to PCs and their opponents, preventing technical asymmetry

There's a difference here, and that's that Napolean's individual soldiers were not radically different from anyone else's soldiers. On the other hand, a Dragon, even one with PC class levels, is very different from a gaggle of non-dragon PCs. Even if mechanically the tools are similar (attack rolls and damage), at least in-universe a giant Dragon vs a regular person(s) is pretty asymmetrical even if both sides are equivalent in power.

In addition, DnD is often played with tactical asymmetry as well. Monsters played poorly (intentionally or not) will generally rely on sheer attrition, distributed haphazardly amongst the PCs. PCs playing tactically (which is usually more common than the DM doing so due to less to manage and the DM not necessarily trying to win) will focus fire and rely a lot on maneuver and positioning.

[Zombimode]

Tucker’s Kobolds are asymmetric tactically, even if technologically they have the same tools as the PCs. They don’t line up for a dice off.

Tucker's Kobolds are asymmetric because they don't fight using the rules of the system, the fight using DM fiat while the PCs are still bound by rules.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Tucker's Kobolds are asymmetric because they don't fight using the rules of the system, the fight using DM fiat while the PCs are still bound by rules.
No, that's not what Tucker's kobolds are. They are regular kobolds played straight by the DM, rules-wise, but tactically smart and taking full advantage of their tools, numbers, and environment, i.e. the dungeon. Tucker's kobolds safely shoot crossbows from murder holes behind the wall, set devastating traps, and fight in formation. In contrast, standard dumb kobolds charge blindly at powerful foes, and promptly die comical and very predictable deaths.

Here's the original article on Tucker's kobolds (https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/TuckersKobolds.pdf), from Wizards' site.

[KineticDiplomat]

Raw differences I. power or prowess does not, in its own right, constitute asymmetrical warfare.

A bunch of export model T-72Ms that line up in the desert in the face of total supremacy to fight top of the line western MBTs are as helpless as any PC in front of a dragon. But it’s still symmetrical conflict. Both sides are basically fighting some doctrinal variation of a conventional war using roughly the same organization and theoretical approach to conflict, just one that’s utterly unfair for one side. Drubbings like this teach people to develop asymmetric methods.

For our RPG purpose, the fact that PCs are a bit more clever in their positioning or spell use doesn’t change the fact that both sides lined up in a room and decided to duke it out. They are still fighting in fundamentally the same style with the same basic tools and methods: one side is just better at it. So it’s still symmetrical. Just as the Red Army versus the Heer was a symmetrical fight despite several tactical and organizational differences.

Where you start seeing asymmetry is when the fighting is in a categorically different vein between the two sides. If the PCs are ridiculous PC Power Kids, but they keep losing to a bunch of trivial powered enemies who might actively avoid fights with the PCs while undermining them elsewhere - asymmetry.

If the Kobolds keep executing hit and run because they know they can’t stand toe to toe, asymmetry. Etc.

[Vinyadan]

I don't remember who it was, but thanks to whoever gave me a heads up about the disappearance of the timocratic subdivisions in Athens over the centuries. It was a very useful notion.

[AdAstra]

Raw differences I. power or prowess does not, in its own right, constitute asymmetrical warfare.

A bunch of export model T-72Ms that line up in the desert in the face of total supremacy to fight top of the line western MBTs are as helpless as any PC in front of a dragon. But it’s still symmetrical conflict. Both sides are basically fighting some doctrinal variation of a conventional war using roughly the same organization and theoretical approach to conflict, just one that’s utterly unfair for one side. Drubbings like this teach people to develop asymmetric methods.

For our RPG purpose, the fact that PCs are a bit more clever in their positioning or spell use doesn’t change the fact that both sides lined up in a room and decided to duke it out. They are still fighting in fundamentally the same style with the same basic tools and methods: one side is just better at it. So it’s still symmetrical. Just as the Red Army versus the Heer was a symmetrical fight despite several tactical and organizational differences.

Where you start seeing asymmetry is when the fighting is in a categorically different vein between the two sides. If the PCs are ridiculous PC Power Kids, but they keep losing to a bunch of trivial powered enemies who might actively avoid fights with the PCs while undermining them elsewhere - asymmetry.

If the Kobolds keep executing hit and run because they know they can’t stand toe to toe, asymmetry. Etc.

I see your point on the other things, but the inferior outdated export tanks vs modern tanks isn't really the same as dragon vs non-dragons. One is a matchup between two types of tanks, the other is two entirely different species of creature.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I see your point on the other things, but the inferior outdated export tanks vs modern tanks isn't really the same as dragon vs non-dragons. One is a matchup between two types of tanks, the other is two entirely different species of creature.

Sure, but the main point is that the difference in how the armies are equipped (especied?) needs to lead to a difference in tactics and strategy. A dragon standing there clawing and breathing fire employs very similar tactics to a group of adventurers where the fighter uses his sword and the wizard casts fireball. If the dragon realizes the party has the advantage in such a conflict, abandons and seals its lair in order to go for more of a guerrilla type fighting style with aerial surprise attacks, keeping an eye on the party using its kobold underlings as scouts who have orders to avoid engagements at all costs, that could count as asymmetric. At least until the wizard figures they need to fight fire with fire, starts preparing overland flight several times each day and uses scrying (or the fighter's leadership feat) for intelligence. Then the conflict becomes symmetrical again.

[KineticDiplomat]

Expert has the right of it.

And while there is an argument to be made that, say, a Game of Thrones dragon represents asymmetry since it represents essentially an unanswerable nuclear weapon unless you are also a "nuclear power" , the ones you find in D&D who are generally killable by a mid level party who stand up for the D&D boxing match. That's symmetrical.

As to the T-72 comparison...well, a mid level party will probably have a good chance in a toe to toe fight with a dragon. The T-72Ms are committing suicide, they just don't know it.

[Draconi Redfir]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

I'm really looking for real-world information about Tridents so i can draw inspiration from them for a fictional trident. that isn't fully pictured yet.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

[tyckspoon]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

Don't drape chains and skulls all over your weapon :smallamused: The very first point in just about any 'how do I make this fantasy weapon work like a real weapon' question is going to be 'take off all the fantasy bling.'

I would really just run with 'it's magic, part of the magic is making up for how the decorations muck up the weight distribution.'

[Max_Killjoy]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

How long is it overall?

Being all metal, with an actual haft most of the length, and over 6 feet, there's a real risk of it being comically heavy.

[Draconi Redfir]

more looking for general structure ideas. how they're intended to be used, what's usually common on them. best i'm finding is the "for Honor" trident wielded by the gladiator class (https://forhonor.fandom.com/wiki/Gladiator). kinda looks like i has handwraps, but also this weird thing in the middle between them? not sure if that's supposed to be paint, cloth, or some separate material.

plus you know, the entire rest of the thing. straight prongs or hooked, pommel at the end or none, grips or no, size of prong to length of shaft ratio, etc.

Basically i'm looking for real-world examples and information to draw inspiration from. suppose i should have worded my first post better, sorry.


How long is it overall?

Being all metal, with an actual haft most of the length, and over 6 feet, there's a real risk of it being comically heavy.

It's a Pathfinder trident, which reads the shaft as being 4ft long. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/trident/) not enough to be a reach weapon.

admittedly, might have been thinking too much in "Aquaman" terms of Tridents when i made it. real world tridents seem to be mostly wood.

[Vinyadan]

Well, tridents are intended to be used for fishing. They have multiple heads, because you are aiming for a small animal swimming beneath the water, so it maximises the chances of hitting something. And they have barbs, to make sure that the fish stays on the weapon when you pull it out of the water.

The retiarius was an artificially created class of fighter that was a reference to fishing. Retiarius means "the one who works with a fishnet", so he had a fishnet and, to keep to the fisherman's theme, a trident, because it was meant to be used against fish. You can take a look at some images here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius

Another fighting version is the trishula, but I'm not sure that it was actually used by people.

[Clistenes]

Some asian trident weapons (https://www.shaolin.com.au/Weapon-Trident.html) look like they would work like some sort of halberd, the side prongs being more like sword blades able to slash an opponent.

Some trishuls look very similar to the chinese trident-axe.

[AdAstra]

So what can ya'll tell me about Tridents? want to get an image done of my character's Trident weapon and want to know what to look for / to avoid.

I'm really looking for real-world information about Tridents so i can draw inspiration from them for a fictional trident. that isn't fully pictured yet.

Two caviats:
This Trident has chains connected to animated skulls connected to the prongs, and a skull (Possibly transformed into Ebony or something, idk yet) embedded either into the point where the prongs connect, or the point just below that, at the very top of the shaft.

Whole thing is made out of metal (adamantine), but might also have some leather wraps in grip-areas if those exist on tridents at all.

main worry is that if the embedded skull is below the prongs, it might throw off the weight of the whole thing if the trident needs to be thrown or something.

What would you recommend for some do's / don'ts? Keeping in mind this is a fantasy magical trident with skulls chained to it.

I just can't see any justification for the skulls on chains. As far as you've stated all it does is muck up the balance and handling of the weapon. If you wanted that look, armor would probably be a more justifiable place to put them (albeit still impractical). Either that or making the skulls and chains very small, so that they're more like floating tassels.

[Pauly]

Tridents aren’t fighting weapons. You basically triple the amount of force you need to penetrate if there was a single spike. They are good for trapping and pinning a soft target like a fish or a bale of hay.

What you may want to look at is the corseque or ranseaur family of polearms. They have a strong central spike, a spearhead if you like, and to smaller spikes set further back. There is a lot of variation of design of the secondary spikes, some more suited to chopping, some more suited to trapping enemy weapons, some more suited as crossguards to prevent overpenetration.

http://www.maquetland.com/v2/images_articles/Ranseurs.jpg

[Draconi Redfir]

yeah, realized shortly after posting my last comment that finding examples of combat tridents is near impossible outside of fiction, best you can find is roman gladiators. even in fiction it's pretty rare.

thank you for your input everyone, it's given me a lot to think about actually. in hindsight this probably wasn't the best thread to go to about this since they're fishing tools and not weapons, so sorry about that. Thank you nonetheless though!

[Max_Killjoy]

yeah, realized shortly after posting my last comment that finding examples of combat tridents is near impossible outside of fiction, best you can find is roman gladiators. even in fiction it's pretty rare.

thank you for your input everyone, it's given me a lot to think about actually. in hindsight this probably wasn't the best thread to go to about this since they're fishing tools and not weapons, so sorry about that. Thank you nonetheless though!

I don't think the thread was a bad place to ask, they're depicted as weapons in fiction and were used by gladiators.

Something LIKE a trident, but with the two side points shorter and acting as combination "wings" to prevent over-penetration and "spikes" to give a secondary swung usage against armor and for hooking riders, might work.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't think the thread was a bad place to ask, they're depicted as weapons in fiction and were used by gladiators.

Something LIKE a trident, but with the two side points shorter and acting as combination "wings" to prevent over-penetration and "spikes" to give a secondary swung usage against armor and for hooking riders, might work.

The wings could also work as some form of sword catchers, for parrying. Granted, that function probably works better with wings on a shorter weapon and closer to the hilt, like a sai or a trident dagger or the I think Japanese but maybe Chinese (and quite possibly shared) bar mace whose name escapes both me and Google at this point. But especially when used in a formation it could probably still be a legitimate useful function on a polearm.

[Willie the Duck]

The wings could also work as some form of sword catchers, for parrying. Granted, that function probably works better with wings on a shorter weapon and closer to the hilt, like a sai or a trident dagger or the I think Japanese but maybe Chinese (and quite possibly shared) bar mace whose name escapes both me and Google at this point. But especially when used in a formation it could probably still be a legitimate useful function on a polearm.

There are polearms like spetums and partisans and winged spears which are rough analogues to the idea. My impression is that they are more for locking/binding other long weapons than direct parring (although that might be a distinction only in my own head).

[Brother Oni]

The wings could also work as some form of sword catchers, for parrying. Granted, that function probably works better with wings on a shorter weapon and closer to the hilt, like a sai or a trident dagger or the I think Japanese but maybe Chinese (and quite possibly shared) bar mace whose name escapes both me and Google at this point. But especially when used in a formation it could probably still be a legitimate useful function on a polearm.

The Japanese had the jitte, but that's a short weapon (about the length of a forearm).

The Chinese bar mace had two variants, a heavier bian with a circular cross section or the lighter jian (鐧) with a square cross section. Note that the latter shouldn't be confused with the Chinese double edged sword jian (劍).

Both the bian and the jian didn't have any secondary 'blades' to catch weapons, despite the odd shape of some bian, which could be best described as 'ribbed for her pleasure'.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The Japanese had the jitte, but that's a short weapon (about the length of a forearm).

The Chinese bar mace had two variants, a heavier bian with a circular cross section or the lighter jian (鐧) with a square cross section. Note that the latter shouldn't be confused with the Chinese double edged sword jian (劍).

Both the bian and the jian didn't have any secondary 'blades' to catch weapons, despite the odd shape of some bian, which could be best described as 'ribbed for her pleasure'.

In this context I was thinking of the jitte. Thanks.


There are polearms like spetums and partisans and winged spears which are rough analogues to the idea. My impression is that they are more for locking/binding other long weapons than direct parring (although that might be a distinction only in my own head).

Those are the ones we were discussing. Locking/binding might be a better term than parrying for what I was looking for, the main point was that I figure the forward pointing wings added more than prevention of overpenetration, because the much simpler and lighter wings of a typical boar spear do that just fine. I also feel like some sort of spetum/ranseur/military fork derived weapon could look realistic and functional as a battlefield weapon while getting close enough to a trident to have that theming and aesthetic about it.

Chains connected to animated skulls (are they flying around on their own? How does this work? I'm confused about the description) are maybe a bit much for that balance, but that's what it's fantasy for.

[Talakeal]

I was wondering if anyone in this thread could settle a stupid bet for me:

Is it possible for a cannonball (solid shot, not explosive, grapeshot, sabot, etc) to tear a man in half?

And if so, could you provide a reliable account (or picture) of it happening or an explanation of the physics behind it?

My thought is that it is not, a smaller cannonball will punch a hole right through a man, and a larger cannonball will have its force distributed over too large an area and so it will simply knock men aside like a bowling ball, shattering bones and pulping organs in the process.

Thanks!

[Vinyadan]

Ever read The Cloven Viscount? :smallbiggrin:

Reportedly, Richard Deane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Deane_(regicide)) was hit by a roundshot (https://books.google.com/books?id=MxzOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=richard+deane+ship+resolution&source=bl&ots=bw-_26cT3A&sig=ACfU3U1lY77WsBzFEDbcVadviOBCUOxJRw&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkmvGE4KnqAhWfQEEAHZucDWIQ6AEwAHoECAYQA Q#v=onepage&q=richard%20deane%20ship%20resolution&f=false) and cut in half (https://books.google.com/books?id=1qe9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=man+%22cut+in+half%22+by+%22cannonball%22&source=bl&ots=KWNfdB378e&sig=ACfU3U1oTHbfJu7i5NIWnEEbgbSkIlJt_A&hl=it&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) during the Battle of Portland in 1653.

[Talakeal]

Ever read The Cloven Viscount? :smallbiggrin:

Reportedly, Richard Deane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Deane_(regicide)) was hit by a roundshot (https://books.google.com/books?id=MxzOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=richard+deane+ship+resolution&source=bl&ots=bw-_26cT3A&sig=ACfU3U1lY77WsBzFEDbcVadviOBCUOxJRw&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkmvGE4KnqAhWfQEEAHZucDWIQ6AEwAHoECAYQA Q#v=onepage&q=richard%20deane%20ship%20resolution&f=false) and cut in half (https://books.google.com/books?id=1qe9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=man+%22cut+in+half%22+by+%22cannonball%22&source=bl&ots=KWNfdB378e&sig=ACfU3U1oTHbfJu7i5NIWnEEbgbSkIlJt_A&hl=it&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) during the Battle of Portland in 1653.

Thank you.

I had actually seen that incident, but the thing is it is an almost four centuries old account without any details, so I find it hard to be.ieve it was anything more than an embellishment or maybe a one in a million freak occurrence.

If it was something that was commonplace, I would think one could find some detailed accounts, or maybe even photographs, from a more recent conflict such as the american civil war.

[InvisibleBison]

Thank you.

I had actually seen that incident, but the thing is it is an almost four centuries old account without any details, so I find it hard to be.ieve it was anything more than an embellishment or maybe a one in a million freak occurrence.

If it was something that was commonplace, I would think one could find some detailed accounts, or maybe even photographs, from a more recent conflict such as the american civil war.

You might want to look at Leonidas Polk. I haven't been able to look at the primary sources myself, but secondary sources describe him as being nearly cut in half by a shell that passed through his body before exploding.

[AdAstra]

Thank you.

I had actually seen that incident, but the thing is it is an almost four centuries old account without any details, so I find it hard to be.ieve it was anything more than an embellishment or maybe a one in a million freak occurrence.

If it was something that was commonplace, I would think one could find some detailed accounts, or maybe even photographs, from a more recent conflict such as the american civil war.

At the very minimum, being "blown from a gun" was a method of execution that was known to leave very little left of the person at all other than chunks. Of course, that was with the person tied to the front of the gun and no projectile, so it's not nearly the same scenario.

As for roundshot, I would not be surprised, though I'd imagine it a pretty rare occurrence. Considering it could travel through formations dozens of human beings deep and could injure/kill even by passing near you, there's more than enough energy involved to accomplish the task. At the very least, if you were relatively thin and standing side-on to the projectile, it could probably do the job, though that sort of scenario seems rather unlikely.

EDIT: Okay, looking through the Roundshot article on Wikipedia, I found this source on injuries from naval warfare, which appears to describe people being ripped in half by roundshot: http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2388509&blobtype=pdf

On page 8, the section on roundshot:
"McPherson describes how, at Navarino, he saw a midshipman knocked clean out of the top, hanging by the intestines from the boat's davits"

"A similar fate befell de Brueys in L'Orient, his flagship at the
Nile, when a shot carried off both legs. He
had himself placed in an armchair on deck
with tourniquets on both stumps until a cannon ball cut him in half"

de Brueys in this case being a French admiral at the Battle of the Nile. However, I can't find any other sources for him dying in this specific way, but others do seem to confirm the "legs torn off by a cannonball" part

[KineticDiplomat]

A twelve pound iron cannonball is about 4.5 inches wide; the average male waistline is about 14.2 inches dead across from the front, so you'd need some hellacious shear forces from the front. However, as you rotate the body you'll eventually be facing 90 degrees, where the depth now becomes the width - only about 6 inches at the waist. And less of that is actual muscle/spine.

Is it possible that a 4.5 inch ball could strike dead center from the side, above the hips and severe the spine and a good chunk of muscle and organ, pulling skin and fat with it? Yes.

Is it particularly likely? No.

[el minster]

however if you put them against an unbreakable wall then the cannon ball would shatter/explode and tear them to pieces maybe

[Kraynic]

Something you might think about is how much kinetic energy is being delivered. If you are really bored, you could check out cannon ballistics on a page like this: https://www.arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html

Then you could plug some numbers like 12 lbs and 1484 ft/s into a kinetic energy calculator like this: https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/kinetic-energy-calculator.php

That may not be perfect, but will give you an idea of the type of forces being transferred to (and through) a body.

One thing (totally unscientific personal experience) I will pass on is that shot/round balls do different damage from shells/bullets. For instance, I used to shoot in a lot of muzzleloader competitions. My favorites where the novelty shoots where you split playing cards and the like. The best was a charcoal briquette hanging by a string. If you shoot that with most (all in my experience, but there are a lot of things I've never used) modern firearms, the briquette will shatter into multiple pieces. If you hit it with a round ball from a muzzleloader, even just a .32 like I usually shot, the briquette usually gets totally destroyed, becoming a black cloud of charcoal dust. It may move slower, but it also transmits energy to the target differently because of the different shape. Not sure if any of that is useful, but there it is.

[rrgg]

It does depend a lot on what sort of cannon you're talking about, the size of the cannonball and it's velocity on impact. But yeah, in general i think the energy is definitely there depending on the angle and where it hits to cut someone in half, or at the very least do enough damage that there isn't very much still holding the person together. A round ball hitting flesh doesn't "cut" it's way through cleanly, it's pushing the material out of the way either forward or to the side and suddenly transferring a lot of energy to that material in the process. Flesh tends to be pretty elastic and will usually snap back into shape if it hasn't been too badly damaged, which is how you can still end up with a fairly small bullet hole at the very end, but if the projectile makes a hole large enough that there isn't enough intact skin, muscle, and bone to maintain structural integrity in the face of that energetic shockwave to maintain structural integrity then yeah it could just fall apart.

You can see the shockwave from the impact in slow motion against ballistic gel or a human analog, for instance the closest pig in this video: https://youtu.be/Dic-A-e8vY8?t=60

I don't remember the specifics about the size or velocity of the cannon used in the episode, but somewhere between that and Mons Meg-sized I'm pretty sure there were cannons that would have no trouble cutting a person in half.

[comicshorse]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It sounds like something that could have existed. Pre +-1850 firearms were manufactured industrially, but not nearly on the same scale as today. The technology is also a bit simpler and thus easier to play around with. So there was some extra room for individual shops going a little crazy with their designs and for custom jobs. I know I've seen pictures of stuff like a pistol with 6 barrels, basically compensating for the fact that the revolver hasn't been invented yet. So a hidden wrist gun sounds like something that probably existed.

It also sounds pretty impractical not to mention dangerous to the owner, so I don't think there were a lot of them.

[tyckspoon]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

Probably about as many as people who actually tried to use forearm-sheathed knives as surprise weapons, it's roughly the same concept.

I would bet the idea of having the gun attached to a mechanical extender/spring-loaded device is probably mostly Hollywood, but derringers did (and do) provably exist, and were/are commonly carried as concealed weapons - it's not an enormous stretch to believe that somebody might have found a way to strap one in such a place that it would effectively fall into the hand when released and bypass the need to actually draw it. Seems like the kind of thing a habitual card cheat might do, the sort of character who would both be well practiced at the kind of sleight of hand you'd need to pull that off and would have a pretty high expectation that their daily life would require shooting or threatening to shoot somebody.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdout_(gambling)

Similar tricks have been used to conceal knives and derringers.

If you've ever played a Star Wars RPG, this is where the term "hold out pistol" or "hold out blaster" as used there comes from.

[Pauly]

Okay you've all seen the scene. The hero is cornered by a villain and suddenly with a snap of his wrist a tiny pistol is shot out from his sleeve and into his hand and bye-bye baddie. I've a vague feeling they're called 'spring loaders'
Did they actually exist outside Hollywood ? And if so did anybody who actually knew what they were doing use them or where they just a gimmick sold to idiots ?

In WWII station IX of SOE developed a sleeve gon from a welrod pistol.
https://news.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1330462470048cover-sleeve-gun1.jpg

As far as I can tell that’s the only real life developed for practical use sleeve gun or holdout gun ever developed. However I can’t find any example of it being used irl.

The hold out style spring loaded device appears in the Wild Wild West and Maverick TV shows (I’m not sure which came first) in the 1960s from which it became popular in movies.
Here’s a link to a forum which has comments from someone who had and used one of the movie replica devices. TL;DR version is that they are wildly unsafe and impractical for real life.

https://www.therpf.com/forums/threads/wild-wild-west-sleevegun.37371/

[Silver Swift]

What mayor innovations in warships where there between the late antiquity/early medieval times and late medieval/early renaissance times?

Context: I'm trying to do some world building for a campaign setting that involves a protracted naval war between the elven nations and the other races that abruptly ends in favor of the other races once the dwarves start getting serious about building a navy (as it turns out, being one of the most industrialized nations on the planet and having a culture build around craftsmanship is quite helpful when building big sturdy things like warships). I'd like the dwarven ships to be a significant improvement over the ones from the other races, but I don't quite know what that would look like in this context. Is it just bigger boats = better boats or are there cooler optimizations that a more industrialized country could apply to ship making?

I'd like to avoid giving the dwarves access to gunpowder if at all possible, so no cannons, but are there any non-gunpowder based siege weapon that were used for ship-to-ship combat?

[Vinyadan]

In the XV century there were innovations like using iron nails, mixing pitch with pine resin to chaulk the whole hull, and sealing the seams with lead; these flowed into the carrack. The carrack was a key step forward, because it allowed for far longer voyages and a larger cargo, however, not necessarily because it was better at fighting. The carrack also mixed lateen and square sails and had differently sized booms.

The Vikings introduced the keel. They also used iron nails (I'm not sure of whether this use later disappeared).

As far as navigation is concerned, Vikings may have used a mineral called Icelandic spar, which can tell you the position of the sun with a cloudy sky. The compass came to use around the XI-XII century, after a thousand of years in which it was employed in China for divination. However, there is another important invention, which is the stand that allows the compass to always be horizontal (https://www.theeventhorizon.it/sites/all/images/riferimenti/bussola_cardanica_con_compensatori.jpg), (Gimbal or Cardan suspension). I believe it was invented towards the end of the middle ages.

There's a last innovation that could have had importance for a long-range war, and that's Mercator's projection. It allowed ships to easily reach their destinations by changing how the Earth curvature is portrayed -- with previous maps, you had to frequently correct your course, because going straight would have meant finding yourself far to the south of where you meant to go. Instead, with Mercator's, you can just draw your course as a straight line following the compass.

[prabe]

However, there is another important invention, which is the stand that allows the compass to always be horizontal, but I don't remember how it's called. I believe it was invented towards the end of the middle ages.


I think the word you're looking for is "gimbal." While the word itself only seems to date to the late-eighteenth century, I wouldn't doubt that the item existed for some time before that.

[Vinyadan]

I think the word you're looking for is "gimbal." While the word itself only seems to date to the late-eighteenth century, I wouldn't doubt that the item existed for some time before that.
Yes, you're right. Leonardo apparently made a drawing of it (Madrid Codex (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/S5C4g3u_KUJh-z-ncNLfiOVoym6FelFNeegsS3XpW7I5IKSgZWQIPAT4IoBSyv7rj QMLnFh5OtVSOO5D37qAa326CTlgfdMn66xqY8lZN_7NmNc)).

[prabe]

Yes, you're right. Leonardo apparently made a drawing of it (Madrid Codex (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/S5C4g3u_KUJh-z-ncNLfiOVoym6FelFNeegsS3XpW7I5IKSgZWQIPAT4IoBSyv7rj QMLnFh5OtVSOO5D37qAa326CTlgfdMn66xqY8lZN_7NmNc)).

I'm unsurprised about Leonardo drawing one.

I'll go back to lurking on this thread, now. Words I'm pretty good at, but though I find the subject matter fascinating I'm out of my depth as far as contributing.

[KineticDiplomat]

Of course, if your world has staple D&D magic, advances in wooden hull construction and navigation won’t matter much compared to the magic item industry. Don’t think a carrack made of wood and pitch is going to survive a fireball.

[Clistenes]

What mayor innovations in warships where there between the late antiquity/early medieval times and late medieval/early renaissance times?

Context: I'm trying to do some world building for a campaign setting that involves a protracted naval war between the elven nations and the other races that abruptly ends in favor of the other races once the dwarves start getting serious about building a navy (as it turns out, being one of the most industrialized nations on the planet and having a culture build around craftsmanship is quite helpful when building big sturdy things like warships). I'd like the dwarven ships to be a significant improvement over the ones from the other races, but I don't quite know what that would look like in this context. Is it just bigger boats = better boats or are there cooler optimizations that a more industrialized country could apply to ship making?

I'd like to avoid giving the dwarves access to gunpowder if at all possible, so no cannons, but are there any non-gunpowder based siege weapon that were used for ship-to-ship combat?

If you don't have access to gunpowder, galleys are the way to go. In our own world they built bigger and sturdier galleys over time, gradually ditched the naval ram in favor of boarding actions, and eventually replaced the classical style of several lines of oars operated by a single oarsman each for a simpler one of a single line of bigger oars operated by several oarsmen each (less efficient, but a sturdier design, less complex to build and requires less training from the oarsmen).

Most pirates and corsairs in history used small, agile oar-powered boats without a deck, and with a single sail, similar in design to viking drakkars. That has remained quite consistent over time, so long as piracy has existed until the development of engine-powered ships. Only the most powerful and wealthy pirates used bigger ships, and these would often raid coastal villages rather than attacking ships...

Cogs appeared during early medieval times as cheap, efficient merchant vessels, but similar ships existed since classical times... they were a poor man's warship. They could sail rougher seas than galleys and smaller oar-powered vessels, but in calmer seas galleys would go in circles around them.

Late medieval and early renaissance carracks were useful, but they were more like floating fortresses. They were hard to assault and beat, but anything smaller could avoid them easily... they would be used in combination with smaller, more agile vessels most of the time.


Of course, if your world has staple D&D magic, advances in wooden hull construction and navigation won’t matter much compared to the magic item industry. Don’t think a carrack made of wood and pitch is going to survive a fireball.

Yeah, if you have enough magic users and/or magic wands, wealthier countries would have magical aircraft carriers that would launch flying Wizards against their enemies...

[fusilier]

If you don't have access to gunpowder, galleys are the way to go. In our own world they built bigger and sturdier galleys over time, gradually ditched the naval ram in favor of boarding actions, and eventually replaced the classical style of several lines of oars operated by a single oarsman each for a simpler one of a single line of bigger oars operated by several oarsmen each (less efficient, but a sturdier design, less complex to build and requires less training from the oarsmen).

Most pirates and corsairs in history used small, agile oar-powered boats without a deck, and with a single sail, similar in design to viking drakkars. That has remained quite consistent over time, so long as piracy has existed until the development of engine-powered ships. Only the most powerful and wealthy pirates used bigger ships, and these would often raid coastal villages rather than attacking ships...

Cogs appeared during early medieval times as cheap, efficient merchant vessels, but similar ships existed since classical times... they were a poor man's warship. They could sail rougher seas than galleys and smaller oar-powered vessels, but in calmer seas galleys would go in circles around them.

Late medieval and early renaissance carracks were useful, but they were more like floating fortresses. They were hard to assault and beat, but anything smaller could avoid them easily... they would be used in combination with smaller, more agile vessels most of the time.

To add a little more to this. Late medieval galleys were effective warships of the time, but they required an infrastructure to support them. Northern nations often lacked this infrastructure, so they tended to operate fewer galleys. Although the Baltic states did get a system going by the 16th century, most large galley fleets operating in the area were temporarily moved up from the Mediterranean.

Galleys require large crews -- if they're not slaves it gives them a potentially very large fighting compliment by default. On the other hand sailing ships, especially square rigged, can have very small crews. They were efficient for merchant use, although a bit riskier. Galleys were used as merchant ships too -- their large crews and ability to avoid danger allowed them to operate without insurance.

Galleys are rather high maintenance. They have to be maintained, year round, even when not in use, so that they can be ready. You need large crews of oarsmen, but usually they're not engaged year round, only during the active seasons (when there are fewer storms). Over time, forced labor became more common, but for most of the medieval period the oarsmen were paid. Galleys need a support network, they have to put in regularly for food and water (water is an important one). If operating along friendly coasts, it was not uncommon to put to shore every night to rest the crew and take on more water.

Northern nations tended to have only a few warships maintained year round. During war, they would press civilian ships (mostly sailing ships) into service. They would assign soldiers to the ships, and might even fortify the fore and aft castles. Mediterranean nations tended to maintain galley squadrons year round (even if they weren't active), although when necessary they could impress merchant vessels too. Galleys could be built fairly quickly if the infrastructure was in place: Venice's famous "Arsenal" could build and outfit an entire war galley in a day!

A large well armed (i.e. with soldiers), well handled sailing ship could hold off many galleys. The Roccaforte at the Battle of Saseno is an example. However, coordinating galleys with sailing ships is difficult. Not that they weren't used together, just that tactically they couldn't move and function in the same manner. Usually when mixed, the sailing ships seem to have been used to provide cover if the galleys needed to fall back.

[Xuc Xac]

Of course, if your world has staple D&D magic, advances in wooden hull construction and navigation won’t matter much compared to the magic item industry. Don’t think a carrack made of wood and pitch is going to survive a fireball.

People keep saying this, but I don't see why.

"I won't let the PCs have gunpowder because it's too powerful! They have fireballs though. Those are ok. Also, wooden ships that shot each other with cannons and lit each other on fire in the real world would obviously be instantly destroyed by the fireball spells I let my PCs have instead of cannons because cannons are too powerful."

It's like gunpowder is simultaneously too strong to let PCs have access to it and too weak for anyone to want to use it.

[Silver Swift]

Amazing everyone, thanks for the great answers!

Some follow up questions:


If you don't have access to gunpowder, galleys are the way to go. In our own world they built bigger and sturdier galleys over time, gradually ditched the naval ram in favor of boarding actions

Were those the only options, you either rammed the enemy ship or boarded it? I would imagine catapults or balistas would be a safer way to take down an enemy ship.


To add a little more to this. Late medieval galleys were effective warships of the time, but they required an infrastructure to support them. Northern nations often lacked this infrastructure, so they tended to operate fewer galleys. Although the Baltic states did get a system going by the 16th century, most large galley fleets operating in the area were temporarily moved up from the Mediterranean.

What did this infrastructure look like, just well supplied outposts on the coast?


Late medieval and early renaissance carracks were useful, but they were more like floating fortresses. They were hard to assault and beat, but anything smaller could avoid them easily... they would be used in combination with smaller, more agile vessels most of the time.

Maybe similar to the above question, but how did this combination played out, were the larger ships just mobile resupply stations for the smaller ships? You can't really board or ram another ship if you can't catch up to it.


It's like gunpowder is simultaneously too strong to let PCs have access to it and too weak for anyone to want to use it.

The reason I don't want to use gunpowder is aesthetics, not gameplay balance. Once you add guns to a setting you change the feel of the world from a purely pseudo-medieval world to something that's a little more modern and that's not what I'm trying to do with this campaign. This is also, at least initially, a very low magic world, so the magic vs. gunpowder thing doesn't really come up.

[VoxRationis]

@Xuc Xac: I'd argue that D&D-style fireballs are legitimately more destructive than most pre-modern naval artillery. They enjoy a substantial range advantage against incendiaries like Byzantine siphons and immediately set fire to a very broad area of a ship in a consistent way (as there's usually a clause in the spell description specifying that it sets flammable objects on fire automatically in the area). Real-life incendiaries were not so broad-reaching or dependable, and certainly did not act so instantly. Depending on the edition and how damage to objects works in that rule, the fireball might not do quite the same amount of up-front structural damage as cannon shot (although I'd argue that it's competitive), but it will have instantly killed most of the deck crew in the area of effect and then set the deck, masts, gunwales, rigging, and masts on fire, which is not something that is true of shot.


Amazing everyone, thanks for the great answers!

Some follow up questions:

Were those the only options, you either rammed the enemy ship or boarded it? I would imagine catapults or balistas would be a safer way to take down an enemy ship.

Naval artillery did start seeing use during the Hellenistic era, but usually in a supplementary role. Before the use of gunpowder (which allows chemical storage of large amounts of energy in a comparatively compact form), artillery consisted of various means of storing and releasing energy supplied by the muscles of whatever people were crewing the engine. This creates a sharp trade-off between rate of fire and range/power, and it happens that regardless of what point on that curve one picks, it's never quite as efficient a method of attack as ramming or boarding. Artillery is, however, helpful for: killing or injuring rowers so as to disrupt the enemy's rowing cadence, which can be critical in naval duels; damaging battlements (not usually the walls themselves; it's pretty simple to make walls thick enough that human-powered artillery won't crack them) and suppressing wall-mounted archers in support of a siege; firing grappling hooks (harpaces) so as to reel small ships in and allow them to be overwhelmed by boarders; or killing or disrupting enemy marines so as to reduce their ability to fight in the melee.

That's not to say that pre-gunpowder naval artillery can't destroy ships; if a 1-talent naval ballista landed a lucky shot on a liburnian, such a blow might well have holed it (but likely not sunk it; ancient galleys were often light enough that the buoyancy of the hull's wood would be sufficient to keep afloat independently of the hull's actual structure). At that point, however, a massive siege engine of tremendous size and expense has eliminated one small, light opponent.



Maybe similar to the above question, but how did this combination played out, were the larger ships just mobile resupply stations for the smaller ships? You can't really board or ram another ship if you can't catch up to it.

The proper tactical use of larger ships has been something much debated among historians and archaeologists; William Murray's The Age of Titans argues that they existed almost more for strategic reasons, enabling generals to force open harbors of fortified port cities (a serious concern in antiquity). A polyreme could mount siege artillery or towers and could win in frontal ramming engagements in the close confines of a harbor, where a lack of maneuverability would be rendered moot by lack of room in which to maneuver. Such a use would also explain the arms race in Hellenistic navies; a ten might well be less cost-efficient than an eight, but in a direct head-to-head ramming contest with no ability to maneuver, that will not matter, as the eight will lose and its general will have lost the entirety of its cost. The absolute efficacy of additional resources put into larger ships suffers from diminishing returns, but only the efficacy relative to the opponent matters. This kind of calculus is common in arms races, where the costs of continuing the arms race quickly become exorbitant but will be thought of as worth it because of the even more tremendous costs of losing the race.



The reason I don't want to use gunpowder is aesthetics, not gameplay balance. Once you add guns to a setting you change the feel of the world from a purely pseudo-medieval world to something that's a little more modern and that's not what I'm trying to do with this campaign. This is also, at least initially, a very low magic world, so the magic vs. gunpowder thing doesn't really come up.

I'd argue that if you're trying to use naval artillery as a primary arm of battle, you've got the gunpowder feel creeping in regardless of whether you're actually using gunpowder weapons to accomplish this, because the tactics that stem from these non-gunpowder ship-killing weapons will come to resemble those of the Age of Sail. In a way, such a milieu would be similar to Star Wars, though working in the opposite temporal direction: the setting uses unfamiliar weapons in a familiar way to the modern audience.

[Clistenes]

Amazing everyone, thanks for the great answers!

Some follow up questions:



Were those the only options, you either rammed the enemy ship or boarded it? I would imagine catapults or balistas would be a safer way to take down an enemy ship.

Many kinds of projectile weapons were used to kill enemy crews and soften the enemy before the boarding action, but rarely to sink enemy ships. It was usually impossible to sink a ship with a balista or catapult you can load on a ship of similar size...



What did this infrastructure look like, just well supplied outposts on the coast?

You needed a lot of money to build a galley. You needed specialized shipwrights. You needed to repair them every winter. You needed to train and pay many oarsmen (or get captives and slaves to do the job...).

It was quite common for kings to pay a high ranking noble to keep a small fleet of galleys to protect a section of the coast, and to hire mercenary galley fleets for war.



Maybe similar to the above question, but how did this combination played out, were the larger ships just mobile resupply stations for the smaller ships? You can't really board or ram another ship if you can't catch up to it.

Large sailing ships were used to attack arbors, to defend arbors, to break through blockades, to disembark invading armies, to attack other large. slow sailing ships...etc. Generally, when there was a static target to attack or defend, or if the enemy was using big slow ships too.

In the battle of Sluys the English sent a great fleet of cogs to attack and take the port of Sluys; their ships were slow, but it didn't matter, because they weren't targeting other ships, they were going to disembark an army.

The French sent their own fleet to intercept them: The French, reinforced by Italian mercenaries, had a large fleet of sailing ships protected by a few galleys. The role of the French fleet was to block the English fleet and protect the arbor.

The Italian advised a retreat, but the French chose to chain their ships to each other, building a large platform. The English used their longbows to clear the decks one by one, boarding them once their defenders were softened by arrows.

Galleys were the true battle craft, sent to defeat other fleets. In Sluys there weren't enough galleys to defeat the English before they reached the coast; if the French had more galleys, they could have attacked and taken the English ships one by one in opens seas.

Small ships like galliots, renaissance frigates, renaissance brigantines, feluccas, xebecs, fustas...etc. acted as scouts, provided lines of communication, harassed the enemy, attacked civilian vessels and used their mobility to reach and support bigger ships by assisting them when they were attacked.

[Pauly]

Even in the age of Nelson with 100 gun ships of the line very few ships were sunk by cannon fire. It is very hard to get a stoutly made wooden ship to sink.
Even going to WW1 and WW2 relatively few ships were sunk by gunfire. Torpedos sank many more ships than gunfire.

Artillery in naval combat has a variety of effects:
- it kills the crew
- it wrecks and damages weapons and controls
- it causes damage that makes maneuvering and ship handling very difficult. This can indirectly cause sinking in rough weather, for example in the aftermath of Trafalgar.
- it causes fires that can lead to the explosion of a ship if it reaches the powder storage, or having the ship burn down to the water line.

Directly sinking the enemy by artillery fire is very uncommon. Shore batteries have better ability to sink ships but that was because of either shooting from elevation or shooting with very big guns, bigger than those usually mounted on ships.

[fusilier]

What did this infrastructure look like, just well supplied outposts on the coast?

That was a major part of it. If you study Mediterranean naval warfare of the era, there's a lot of capturing and establishing bases, so that you could project your naval power a little farther. Outposts to resupply the ships were important to increase operating area, and coastal fortresses can provided effective shelter to a beleaguered fleet.

[Galleys were used to blockade, but it was exhausting for the crews. On the defense, galleys could be backed on to a suitable coast, the oarsmen could be disembarked so that they can rest, while the soldiers could effectively defend the ships]

The infrastructure went far beyond simply maintaining supply points -- the ships were often laid up in special sheds during the off season. Large numbers of specialists were needed to run the ships, and they weren't trained in the modern military sense. They were professionals who were hired, that had learned their trade through years of experience. The destruction of the Ottoman fleet at the Battle of Lepanto, wasn't a disaster for the Ottomans because of the ships lost -- they were able to rebuild them quickly -- but the loss of expertise that couldn't be easily replaced. That resulted in a deficiency that lasted for generations.

Rowing crews were also a necessity. While forced labor was eventually turned to, it was recognized as not being as efficient (you needed more oarsmen for the same performance). For most of the middle ages, navies relied upon professional oarsmen, augmented by conscripts when necessary. This means that you needed a pool of professional oarsmen from which you could draw to fill up your navy. In areas where galleys were commonly used for merchant service, like the Mediterranean, they could usually be found. Likewise, experienced marines could be found in the Mediterranean, although again, in an emergency, they could press into service soldiers who didn't have naval experience.

Government institutions (and money) to support a navy, and the maintenance of facilities for supplying, protecting, and maintaining galleys were a part of the infrastructure, but so was the culture of the populations which could be called upon.

While focused on the Renaissance, Gunpowder and Galleys, by John Guilmartin, explains this very well.

[fusilier]

The reason I don't want to use gunpowder is aesthetics, not gameplay balance. Once you add guns to a setting you change the feel of the world from a purely pseudo-medieval world to something that's a little more modern and that's not what I'm trying to do with this campaign. This is also, at least initially, a very low magic world, so the magic vs. gunpowder thing doesn't really come up.

Most naval fights of the period were boarding actions. When cannons were first introduced on ships they were mostly very light and performed an anti-personnel role, and I suspect pre-gunpowder artillery on ships was mostly used in the same way. Ships can sink for a variety of reasons; not all of them were in excellent condition to begin with, and it would not surprise me that rough collisions may loosen the hull enough that a ship could founder. Incendiaries were often used, but could some times backfire if the opposing ships grappled.

[Vinyadan]

I know of catapults on ships, but they were used against ground targets (by Alexander during the siege of Tyre, iirc by using two ships for each engine, and by Caesar against the Britanni). I didn't check the sources, so I am not sure of whether these machines threw stones or arrows.

[KineticDiplomat]

To go back to the magic part, I suspect you’ll run into the basic issue of trying for “realistic medieval X” in a high magic world. If there are a reasonable selection of things readily available that would easily take the place of or surpass far more modern technology, then a lot of “how it was done”, technically, tactically, operationally - hell even strategically - no longer makes sense. It’s perfectly possible if higher level spells are present to enter a state of close to nuclear stand off with real time ISR and communications in the supposed world of peasants and pitchforks. In that world, does the planning on a galley matter? Do a series of locally run feudal outposts matter when communications infrastructure is sufficient to allow modern centralized states? When logistics are literally magically available?

[jayem]

The rudder is around that time.
And at the start you have whatever made the longboat and dhow.

On the infrastructure, at the end of the period your vaguely getting dock infrastructure (, Liverpool has the pool sealed off at low tide (to keep the water in), while at the start you pretty much have to beach (and hench need the boat to be shallow, keelless, and realistically rudderless.

[fusilier]

The rudder is around that time.
And at the start you have whatever made the longboat and dhow.

On the infrastructure, at the end of the period your vaguely getting dock infrastructure (, Liverpool has the pool sealed off at low tide (to keep the water in), while at the start you pretty much have to beach (and hench need the boat to be shallow, keelless, and realistically rudderless.

Galley rudders were removable so that they could back themselves onto a beach. Old fashioned "steering boards" could easily be lifted out of the way. Galleys did have keels. Cogs were flat bottomed, which allowed them to enter shallow ports, although I don't know if they could be beached easily.

[Vinyadan]

Some time ago I asked if thigh armour for Greek oplites was a thing. Now I think I have found a depiction of it on a famous vase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exekias#/media/File:Akhilleus_Aias_MGEt_16757.jpg

[Storm_Of_Snow]

To go back to the magic part, I suspect you’ll run into the basic issue of trying for “realistic medieval X” in a high magic world. If there are a reasonable selection of things readily available that would easily take the place of or surpass far more modern technology, then a lot of “how it was done”, technically, tactically, operationally - hell even strategically - no longer makes sense. It’s perfectly possible if higher level spells are present to enter a state of close to nuclear stand off with real time ISR and communications in the supposed world of peasants and pitchforks. In that world, does the planning on a galley matter? Do a series of locally run feudal outposts matter when communications infrastructure is sufficient to allow modern centralized states? When logistics are literally magically available?
Well, a divine caster would be subject to the whims of their deity, and it's a lot easier to elminate or disable a single spell caster than it is to sink a cargo vessel (it may be as simple as denying them access to a single material component).

There's also the question of how many supplies that caster can produce in the same amount of time a single vessel would need to travel from the supplies origin point to their destination.

[rrgg]

Here's what the Konungs Skuggsja had to say about naval engagements:


But if the fight is on shipboard, select two spears which are not to be thrown, one with a shaft long enough to reach easily from ship to ship and one with a shorter shaft, which you will find particularly serviceable when you try to board the enemy's ship. Various kinds of darts should be kept on ships, both heavy javelins and lighter ones. Try to strike your opponent's shield with a heavy javelin, and if the shield glides aside, attack him with a light javelin, unless you are able to reach him with a long-shafted spear. Fight on sea as on land with an even temper and with proper strokes only; and never waste your weapons by hurling them to no purpose.

Weapons of many sorts may be used to advantage on shipboard, which one has no occasion to use on land, except in a fortress or castle. Longhandled scythes and long-shafted broadaxes, "war-beams "and staff slings, darts,: and missiles of every sort are serviceable on ships. Crossbows and longbows are useful as well as all other forms of shooting weapons; but coal and sulphur are, however, the most effective munitions of all that I have named. Caltrops cast in lead and good halberds are also effective weapons on shipboard. A tower joined to the mast will be serviceable along with these and many other defenses, as is also a beam cloven into four parts and set with prongs of hard steel, which is drawn up against the mast. A "prow-boar": with an ironclad snout is also useful in naval battles. But it is well for men to be carefully trained in handling these before they have to use them; for one knows neither the time nor the hour when he shall have to make use of any particular kind of weapons. But take good heed to collect as many types of weapons as possible, while you still have no need of them; for it is always a distinction to have good weapons, and, furthermore, they are a good possession in times of necessity when one has to use them. For a ship's defense the following arrangement is necessary: it should be fortified strongly with beams and logs built up into a high rampart, through which there should be four openings, each so large and wide that one or two men in full armor can leap through them; but outside and along the rampart on both sides of the ship there should he laid a level walk of planks to stand upon. This breastwork must be firmly and carefully braced so that it cannot be shaken though one leaps violently upon it. Wide shields and chain mail of every sort are good defensive weapons on shipboard; the chief protection, however, is the gambison made of soft linen thoroughly blackened, good helmets, and low caps of steel. There are many other weapons that can be used in naval fights, but it seems needless to discuss more than those which I have now enumerated.

To an extent, before naval artillery really got good at dealing damage from long ranges, the introduction of gunpowder seems to have actually increased the advantage of tall ships in close combat somewhat. Holding a shield overhead doesn't help so much when the enemy is throwing bombs or shooting swivel guns down at you. Weapons like muskets also limited the effectiveness of the "fighting tops" up in the masts, since relatively lightweight wooden screens could protect against arrows, but not musket balls.

[fusilier]

Here's what the Konungs Skuggsja had to say about naval engagements:



To an extent, before naval artillery really got good at dealing damage from long ranges, the introduction of gunpowder seems to have actually increased the advantage of tall ships in close combat somewhat. Holding a shield overhead doesn't help so much when the enemy is throwing bombs or shooting swivel guns down at you. Weapons like muskets also limited the effectiveness of the "fighting tops" up in the masts, since relatively lightweight wooden screens could protect against arrows, but not musket balls.

One thing not mentioned explicitly in that description are stones and rocks, that were thrown from the fighting tops. There are even drawings showing hoists to carry stones up to the tops.

I'm going to push back a little bit on the gunpowder -- when the guns were primarily small it's probably true that they initially aided in the defense, especially on tall ships. But as large cannons started to be mounted on ships it was the galley that was first able to take advantage of them in an offensive capacity. With little modification to the basic galley design, a rather large cannon could be mounted in the front firing directly forward. While the earliest known attempts of mounting large cannon on galleys occurred in the 1380s, they seem to have been limited mostly to attacking coasts and not other ships. However, sometime in the early 1500s they became standard for ship vs ship combat. These cannons were usually much larger than anything put on a sailing ship at the time. 30 pdrs were common early in the century, and 50-70 pounders becoming common later on. (Those stats are for cannons throwing iron cannonballs, the earlier stone projectile bombards could fire a heavier shot, 80 pounds). While it is true, that a galley typically mounted only one of these heavy cannons, on the centerline, it was in a perfect position to be used offensively. Smaller cannons were added to the flanks, giving a very powerful forward battery. The large cannon could be used at long range, and hold other ships at bay, or try to knock out their defenses before closing in. Occasionally a well placed shot could even sink a ship, but it wasn't common. A well timed volley from the forward battery just before ramming, could clear the enemy decks to facilitate boarding.

Sailing ships couldn't really emulate this. The front of the ship wasn't a very good place to mount a large cannon -- when they first started to use large cannons they were mounted low in the aft, firing rearward. It made sense for the design of the ships, but limited the most powerful cannons to a defensive position -- perhaps useful for dissuading any stalking galleys. (Could also be used in a more static situation against land based targets). Sailing ships had to go through a lot more evolution, and changes in tactics, before powerful artillery could be mounted and used offensively. However, sailing ships were ultimately able to undergo more evolution than galleys, and while galleys never disappeared completely, until the advent of steam power, by the end of the 16th century sailing ships had gained the upper hand.

Long story short -- gunpowder artillery probably gave galleys a new lease on life, at least for a century or so, before they were eclipsed by sailing ships.

[rrgg]

One thing not mentioned explicitly in that description are stones and rocks, that were thrown from the fighting tops. There are even drawings showing hoists to carry stones up to the tops.

I'm going to push back a little bit on the gunpowder -- when the guns were primarily small it's probably true that they initially aided in the defense, especially on tall ships. But as large cannons started to be mounted on ships it was the galley that was first able to take advantage of them in an offensive capacity. With little modification to the basic galley design, a rather large cannon could be mounted in the front firing directly forward. While the earliest known attempts of mounting large cannon on galleys occurred in the 1380s, they seem to have been limited mostly to attacking coasts and not other ships. However, sometime in the early 1500s they became standard for ship vs ship combat. These cannons were usually much larger than anything put on a sailing ship at the time. 30 pdrs were common early in the century, and 50-70 pounders becoming common later on. (Those stats are for cannons throwing iron cannonballs, the earlier stone projectile bombards could fire a heavier shot, 80 pounds). While it is true, that a galley typically mounted only one of these heavy cannons, on the centerline, it was in a perfect position to be used offensively. Smaller cannons were added to the flanks, giving a very powerful forward battery. The large cannon could be used at long range, and hold other ships at bay, or try to knock out their defenses before closing in. Occasionally a well placed shot could even sink a ship, but it wasn't common. A well timed volley from the forward battery just before ramming, could clear the enemy decks to facilitate boarding.

Sailing ships couldn't really emulate this. The front of the ship wasn't a very good place to mount a large cannon -- when they first started to use large cannons they were mounted low in the aft, firing rearward. It made sense for the design of the ships, but limited the most powerful cannons to a defensive position -- perhaps useful for dissuading any stalking galleys. (Could also be used in a more static situation against land based targets). Sailing ships had to go through a lot more evolution, and changes in tactics, before powerful artillery could be mounted and used offensively. However, sailing ships were ultimately able to undergo more evolution than galleys, and while galleys never disappeared completely, until the advent of steam power, by the end of the 16th century sailing ships had gained the upper hand.

Long story short -- gunpowder artillery probably gave galleys a new lease on life, at least for a century or so, before they were eclipsed by sailing ships.

That's all true. I guess I meant to emphasize specifically close quarters combat. War galleys saw a resurgence in popularity as an extremely effective gun platform but that's sort of a completely new tactical role that appears. When it comes to the boarding tactics that were used before gunpowder, though, whereas before galleys might be able to get the upper hand by swarming individual ships one at a time and overwhelming them with boarders, this seems to have been increasingly dangerous against larger ships. Most notably you have the performance of the Venetian Galleasses at the battle of Lepanto, which were essentially upsized galleys with large fore and aft castles like roundships, which seem to have had little problem pushing their way straight through the Ottoman fleet. This also seems to have been an advantage enjoyed by many early european explorers who arrived in the east in relatively large, strudy, ocean-going vessels and despite an often relatively modest gunpowder armament apparently could hold their own pretty well against much larger numbers of enemies at sea.

What I'm wondering is if the use of very early gunpowder weapons in europe, in the form of very early guns, bombs, and incendiaries was part of what was hastening the galley's decline in the first place during the 1300s before cannon technology improved enough to make effective ship-board artillery and the galleys could switch to using their superior speed and maneuverability to soften up roundships from a distance with bombardment.

[Pauly]

It took the development of 2 things
1) Wheeled naval gun carriages so that the recoil of the gun was not transferred to the deck which allowed guns to be side firing.
2) gun ports that allowed the guns to be run inboard for loading
That allowed sailing ships to deliver effective broadsides that ended the galley as a main battle weapon.

[fusilier]

That's all true. I guess I meant to emphasize specifically close quarters combat. War galleys saw a resurgence in popularity as an extremely effective gun platform but that's sort of a completely new tactical role that appears. When it comes to the boarding tactics that were used before gunpowder, though, whereas before galleys might be able to get the upper hand by swarming individual ships one at a time and overwhelming them with boarders, this seems to have been increasingly dangerous against larger ships.
Yeah. Before the introduction of artillery, this certainly seems to have been the case. It probably carried over into the early introduction of artillery, when the artillery was relatively light. It was initially used defensively.

There's a very detailed drawing of carrack from the 1460s, it shows javelins and hoists for stones, a grappling hook at the prow. The cannons are hard to see, but they are all confined to the aft-castle -- the defensive part of the ship.

Hopefully this works:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AsVRoBfaX-w/Vt8NKxGp32I/AAAAAAAAFHY/-b9ToTpTPIw/s1600/5-WA_Kraeck.JPG


Most notably you have the performance of the Venetian Galleasses at the battle of Lepanto, which were essentially upsized galleys with large fore and aft castles like roundships, which seem to have had little problem pushing their way straight through the Ottoman fleet.
It's been a while since I've studied Lepanto, but my recollection is that the Venetian Galleasses were put in front of the Allied battle line to break up the Ottoman lines. Once disordered, it was easier for the allied war galleys to attack them. Despite the powerful artillery, boarding was still the main form of fighting, and the large size and height of the galleasses would have helped them fend off attacks (as would the large amount of artillery). However, they were slow and not very maneuverable compared to the smaller war galleys. The galleys and galleasses supported each other. Without the support of the galleys, I don't think the galleasses would have proved invulnerable against the Ottoman fleet for long.



This also seems to have been an advantage enjoyed by many early european explorers who arrived in the east in relatively large, strudy, ocean-going vessels and despite an often relatively modest gunpowder armament apparently could hold their own pretty well against much larger numbers of enemies at sea.

Indeed, ships intended for trade in the Indias were often tall, but lacked heavy artillery. The Portuguese Santo Catarina do Monte Sinai (circa 1520), had 140 cannon, but they were all light pieces, mostly swivel guns. The tall castles were the main protection against pirates.


What I'm wondering is if the use of very early gunpowder weapons in europe, in the form of very early guns, bombs, and incendiaries was part of what was hastening the galley's decline in the first place during the 1300s before cannon technology improved enough to make effective ship-board artillery and the galleys could switch to using their superior speed and maneuverability to soften up roundships from a distance with bombardment.

In my studies I haven't seen that phenomenon. I see sailing ships getting larger and taller, carrying more soldiers. Swivel guns just fit into the existing fighting styles, and don't seem to be a driver of design. Put another way, it's not the artillery that makes the difference, it's the increasing height and size of the sailing ships that's driving the relative tactical capabilities. To the contrary, the introduction of heavier artillery *does* have an impact on both tactics and ship design.

[Martin Greywolf]

Naval catapults and ballistae and their issues

Problem here is very simple, they aren't efficient enough in the mechanical sense. Any catapult or trebuchet capable of launching projectiles big enough to cause significant structural damage reliably would be absolutely massive, and ballista may never even get there in the first place because of material limitations.

Furthemore, weight of projectiles themselves is an issue - since they are moving slower than cannonballs, they need to be bigger to get the same destructive effect, and that weight has to be carried by the ship that already has trouble because it is primarily oar-powered and needs to house and supply the oarsmen. Trebuchet projectile weighs about 50-500kg, cannonballs in Borggard's Ordnance are 4-42 lbs, so about 2-21 kg. That is the reduction of ammunition weight by a factor of about 20. I couldn't find any good data on powder weight, but later ratios suggest about 1:4, so total ammo weight is 5-52 lbs, a still huge ten to one in favor of cannon.

There is also accuracy, but we'll get there.

All of this means that there is no way to have siege engines for direct hull destruction, so you only take ones that are good for destroying either people or sails. These can be made a lot smaller, but there will still be only a few of them, and they will therefore have supplementary role instead of being the primary weapons.

Fire attacks

Using flaming arrows or fire pots was definitely done - but boy, do you have to be careful when using them. First of all, there are all the range and accuracy problems we'll get to later, but let's say you actually managed to set the enemy ship on fire.

First of all, you can't capture that ship - it's on fire and will sink with all the booty and lucrative people to ransom and/or sell into slavery. It's not talked about too much, but slave trade was well and operational around the European frontiers, especially in the Mediterranean and along the Eurasian border.

Second problem is, you are at close range and now you have a ship that will sink, and is made for ramming. That enemy crew now has a hell of a motivation - literal fire lit under their bottoms - to ram and board you, and will fight extra hard to sieze your ship. It's the only way for them to live, and if they can't, then there is a solid chance of them taking you down with them, because a ship that is on fire just rammed you.

You can still use fire attacks, and people obviously did, but you need to make sure all of these things are accounted for - maybe you are on city walls, maybe wind is in your favor, or the enemy ship is too slow to catch you.

Last issue is that, well, you need to have an open fire somewhere on a wooden ship, and should that be lit when the enemy is shooting at you, an unlucky hit could very well spill your own incendiary weapon - sure, you can remove fire source from where you store weapons, but wood will still burn, and you just made logistics for your fire attacks harder.

I suspect that one aspect that made Greek fire work was that it was relatively safe to store, but who knows.

Early cannon and how they solve nothing

Problem of early cannons is that they aren't that powerful in proportion to their weight. Sure, you have some like houfnice that are meant for short range and light load, but those meant for sieges?

https://husitstvi.cz/wp-content/uploads/jednotky-vyzbroj-vystroj12.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Great_Turkish_Bombard_at_Fort_Nelson.JPG/800px-Great_Turkish_Bombard_at_Fort_Nelson.JPG

So while the weight of ammunition has been somewhat mitigated, the weapons themselves are extremely heavy if they are made big enough to damage ships. That means you can't fit enough of them on a ship, since they have to be spinal mounts.


It took the development of 2 things
1) Wheeled naval gun carriages so that the recoil of the gun was not transferred to the deck which allowed guns to be side firing.
2) gun ports that allowed the guns to be run inboard for loading
That allowed sailing ships to deliver effective broadsides that ended the galley as a main battle weapon.

Not really, the order of inventions is almost the other way around.

Both gun carriage and gun ports were feats of engineering people were capable of well before advent of age of sail style gunnery. Problems are in cannon metallurgy and gunpowder manufacture - you needed cannons that were small enough to fit on a broadside (cannon exploding on you is not a good thing on land, and even worse on a ship) and powerful enough to punch through ship hulls (there were significant improvements in manufacturing process of powder, and they don't get a lot of attention). Once they were developed and it suddenly made sense for them to be fitted on ships, gun ports and carriages were promptly developed.

Accuracy - by volume

This is the largest problem here, and will remain an issue until mechanical ranging computers will solve it. It is really hard to fire from a moving platform, really hard to hit a moving target, and even harder to do it of either or both are moving in such a way that their range changes. The maths there gets fiendishly complex, and some of the methods, like integration, will not be invented until Newton-Leibnitz feud.

What's more, should the range be far enough, there is the possibility that the defending vessel will change course after the shot was fired and before it hits. With gunpowder, you need a lot of range, but something slower like a trebuchet will run into this issue a lot sooner - Warwick castle treb has top speed of 70 meters per second, so even if that speed was constant - and it isn't - a target a kilometer away would have 14 seconds before the rock hit.

That means one thing - you either need to be really close, or have a lot of guns so that some of them hit, and preferably both. Age of sail cannons had effeective range in the ballbark of a kilometer or two at best, but real ranges were often as little as 50 meters and most often well under 500.

Conclusion - useful for TTRPGs

So, if you want your ships to be able to wreck each other realistically, you need a weapon that fulfills the following:


enough power to reliably damage vessel hulls
enough accuracy to hit at least somewhat reliably
ammunition of which enough can be stored in the space available
safe enough to not damage own ship


Provided you have no magical range-finders capable of calculating firing solutions (or hitscan weapons, in the forms of speed of light beams or just really fast projectiles), your weapons have to be short ranged and you need a lot of them for a broadside, which means your weapons also have to be:


small enough to fit multiple of them to the sides
ammunition needs to be even smaller


And that is a pretty stringent list of requirements.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

That means one thing - you either need to be really close, or have a lot of guns so that some of them hit, and preferably both. Age of sail cannons had effeective range in the ballbark of a kilometer or two at best, but real ranges were often as little as 50 meters and most often well under 500.

If you've got rifling, then your range and accuracy increases, but you basically need breech-loaders to maintain any kind of rate of fire.

However, a massive issue affecting accuracy is the pitch and roll of the boat.

Although I just started thinking while writing this - were case rounds (as in the fused explosive charges that, with a good gunner and an accurate fuse, detonated over their target, spreading musket balls and shrapnel onto them) used on naval vessels?

[fusilier]

If you've got rifling, then your range and accuracy increases, but you basically need breech-loaders to maintain any kind of rate of fire.

However, a massive issue affecting accuracy is the pitch and roll of the boat.

Although I just started thinking while writing this - were case rounds (as in the fused explosive charges that, with a good gunner and an accurate fuse, detonated over their target, spreading musket balls and shrapnel onto them) used on naval vessels?

The Carronade, introduced in the latter half of the 18th century, was designed like a howitzer, but didn't actually fire an exploding shell. It could fire solid shot, but also had a variety of grapeshot and canister rounds for anti-personnel use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carronade

The French responded with a howitzer designed to fire a shell, but it doesn't appear to have been successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obusier_de_vaisseau

It seems that not until the introduction of the Paixhans "shell guns" (invented in the 1820s, not widely adopted until the 1840s) were exploding ordnance common for ship-vs-ship. In that case, the intention was to smash the enemy's ship to pieces with large caliber exploding ordnance, rather than having an anti-personnel effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paixhans_gun

Mortars were mounted on specially designed ships as early as the late 1600s, but they seem to have been used for siege operations against land targets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_vessel

[Martin Greywolf]

If you've got rifling, then your range and accuracy increases, but you basically need breech-loaders to maintain any kind of rate of fire.

Rate of fire is not necessarily a dealbreaker when you are in a salvo combat - sure, you don't have great RoF, but neither does the other side. The issue here is making the rifling itself - not only is it really damn hard to make it in the first place, if your metallurgy isn't consistent enough, it will get worn down very quickly. The prices are very hard to find, but something like a rifled wheellock would be monstrously expensive in its time, even without decorations they tend to have.

Take that sort of expense, scale it up to cannon size and multiply by something like 50 per ship and they become so prohibitively expensive you may as well get another ship or two for the same price.

Additionally, if the rifling manufacture was possible, rate of fire was possible to solve. Hussites used a gun called Rychlice (literally Speedy in English) that used pre-loaded chambers, not unlike swappable revolver cylinders - only in 1420s.

http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/userpics/11841/rychlice01.jpg
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/userpics/11841/rychlice02.jpg

The above is a small field example, these were made big enough to be used as siege weapons, one is mentioned at Karlštejn in 1422.

You may ask, why didn't it catch on? Well, remember that metallurgy we keep coming back to? Apparently, Rychlice had trouble with their barrels, they kept exploding in use if the top RoF was sustained for too long. This was bad enough on dry land to get them discontinued, it would be much worse in cramped ship conditions, with loaded chambers lying everywhere.


Although I just started thinking while writing this - were case rounds (as in the fused explosive charges that, with a good gunner and an accurate fuse, detonated over their target, spreading musket balls and shrapnel onto them) used on naval vessels?

I'll stick to pre-age of sail navies, and the answer for them is kinda. You did have naphta jars, fire pots and early grenades used as anti-personnel weapons during boarding actions, but they were somewhat rare. Fire weapons have all the same problems of burning your loot and you as well if not careful I already mentioned. As for grenades, once they were around, so were all sorts of guns, so you needed to be carful with them as well, because if one of them finds its way to gunpowder storage, you will all die.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/9b/e8/8b/9be88b125e7fefdcab1973128187a073.jpg

Catapults, trebuchets and mortars did rarely use hollow metal or stone shells, there are records from battle at Jadra in 1421, and I've seen several Hussite examples in local museums. The issue with these is that that fuse is a literal fuse, you set it on fire, it will go off after a given time. There was no way to consistently set these off at the right time, they worked by falling down, stopping and exploding later. This is fine for use in sieges where a wall is bound to stop them eventually, but for flat-trajectory cannon on board of ships, it's not ideal.

Catapults and trebuchets did also use clay fire pots, these worked as an upsized molotov coctails. They are possibly the most useful at sea, but you have problem with size of siege engines here.

Moreover this is to be noted, that the small pottes do serve for to be throne out of one ship into an other in fight upon the sea, and that the great pots are to be used in service upon the land for the defence of towns, fortes, walls, and gates, and to burn such things as the enemies shall throe into ditches for to fill up the same ditches, and also to destroy enemies in their trenches and campes


As for ballistae, they got in on the explosives game as well, alongside crossbows and bows, but again, these were rather rare in the grand scheme of things. Incendiary arrows or bolts could either be of the molotov coctail variety, or just straight up have a bunch of gunpowder strapped to them.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/61/3b/5f/613b5f26db1d58347c3d45aa1abd2fd9.jpg

Edit: Rychlice pictures refused to behave, fixed them

[Yora]

The modern military command system of officers and enlisted is an evolution of the medieval European system of nobles and peasants. It very much seems like something that got established out of tradition and sticking with something that already works, and not necessarily out of a natural requirement for military organizations. Are the any modern militaries (present and recent) that don't/didn't use the distinction between officers and enlisted?

[KineticDiplomat]

In the 20th century the PLA (China) and Red Army (Russia), and PAVN (communist Vietnam) amongst others each went with periods without express ranks or where despite a theoretical ranks structure rank was not designated on the ground, in keeping with communist ideals.

There was still a positional authority relationship between the leaders and the led, though there were some experiments with troops being responsible for critiquing and policing their leaders.

None the less, all of the example armies decided to embrace ranks eventually, sometimes off and on. The PLA went the longest, having no ranks from formation through the Korean War, where hideous casualties lead to a military reform along the Soviet model. They ditched ranks again in the 60s, lost a war with Vietnam, and reinstituted them in the 80s when the party decided they wanted a reliable professional army more than they wanted an ideological statement.

[AdAstra]

The modern military command system of officers and enlisted is an evolution of the medieval European system of nobles and peasants. It very much seems like something that got established out of tradition and sticking with something that already works, and not necessarily out of a natural requirement for military organizations. Are the any modern militaries (present and recent) that don't/didn't use the distinction between officers and enlisted?

This has happened in some form or another in many instances, as explained above. Another example I can think of were some of the forces in the Spanish Civil War, where officers were elected, but this was largely on the small unit level, and there were still people in charge.

One major thing is that while the current rank system is indeed descended from those aristocratic concepts, the hierarchy they represent is pretty well essential to modern tactics. You need designated people in charge of other people, and other people in charge of those people, in order to get things done quickly and efficiently. In order to actually exercise initiative and respond to a changing battlefield, you need people at each level who can observe the situation and give out orders that will actually be followed.

Wars cannot, at this point, be effectively fought by gaggles of people all operating independently. It's fought by units of people who support each other and help each other complete a shared mission. The only current way to do this quickly is by having trusted and trained individuals giving directives that the people below them will use their own authority and training to achieve, down to the individual soldier. And in situations where the pecking order is unclear, it's very helpful to have a detailed rank system so that it's clear who's supposed to be in charge.

Obviously, people of higher rank still need to listen to their subordinates if they want to succeed, especially since they're often dependent on them to determine and describe the situation. However, in terms of authority, a clear rank and unit structure is really, really helpful.

[Mike_G]

I don't think anyone is questioning the need for leaders and a chain of command. I think the question is the officer/enlisted divide.

A new 21 year old 2nd Lieutenant outranks a veteran sergeant when they may have less practical experience than even a junior enlisted like an E 3 with a year of service.

There's no good reason you couldn't have everyone enlist as a private and rise through the ranks from rifleman to platoon leader without the artificial line of "guys with shiny stuff on their collars" vs "guys with stripes."

[AdAstra]

I don't think anyone is questioning the need for leaders and a chain of command. I think the question is the officer/enlisted divide.

A new 21 year old 2nd Lieutenant outranks a veteran sergeant when they may have less practical experience than even a junior enlisted like an E 3 with a year of service.

There's no good reason you couldn't have everyone enlist as a private and rise through the ranks from rifleman to platoon leader without the artificial line of "guys with shiny stuff on their collars" vs "guys with stripes."

Oh certainly. Though to my knowledge, there indeed have been issues with officers that ascend through the enlisted ranks, so there potentially is a good reason for the divide. The issue, from what little I know, is that while “mustangs” are usually very competent and understand things that can’t really be taught, they frequently have disciplinary issues, Not necessarily in terms of being insubordinate, but in that they can frequently get too close with enlisted troops (having been one and all) and fail to act like a proper commander, which kinda requires some degree of professional distance. Not to mention that being good at managing a small unit does not necessarily make you that much better at managing a larger one.

There’s also the issue that rising dramatically in rank tends to require actually distinguishing yourself, which rarely happens outside of wartime. So if all your officers are selected from your pool of enlisted men, you’re either going to have to select a few to be officers, which is hard to do without a lot of data on performance and can breed resentment, or have way too many officers if you’re promoting people based on time served. And when it is wartime, you usually need to raise a lot of military units fast, and that’s typically going to require training officers from scratch, unless you want to just force all your prewar professional core into positions which they may not be suitable for.

[KineticDiplomat]

To MikeG's point, there are some western armies that require officers serve one to two years as junior enlisted before becoming officers.

However, even if go clean room on society, there are practical matters of labor management. Military manpower has a short shelf life compared to civilian occupations, even in peace time. Only a handful of very senior leaders are likely to serve past their early-mid forties. On top of which, there is a vast spectrum of jobs and human capital requirements in a military. The two combine to create a pressure for specialization in differing areas of responsibility with different skill sets.

While the idea of a rifle platoon leader maybe being less capable than his senior NCO is a well worn one (though the last few decades of combat have shown it to be false as often as it's true, just as occasionally when the chips are down it's the aggressive senior private who is somehow running things), the officers of the world don't really exist to lead platoons. If they did, you could certainly learn to be a rifleman/cook/truck driver/mechanic/clerk/analyst/etc. and then occupy a junior NCO position (for rifle purposes, team leader), a middling one (squad leader), and then a more senior one (platoon sergeant), before finally taking the platoon/maintenance bay/field kitchen/whatever as it's leader/commander. But it would take you at least half a dozen years and for most somewhere between twelve to fifteen. And then you would need to learn to do all the actual officer work, which is typically focused at higher levels.

That of course leads to three problems.

The first is that the people who make great, for civilian comparison, warehouse foremen or the best carpenters do not necessarily make the best supply chain managers or architects and vice versa. Likewise, a guy with unerring talent for keeping six cannons running and thirty people doing what they're supposed to does not make the best guy to synchronize the rocket and air attacks three days and ninety miles from now. In converse, the guy who can keep the trains running for 20,000 men might suck at driving a lead truck down a dark road or pulling one out of the mud. If he has to "earn his way up" then you end up with lots of people with very necessary skills essentially locked behind a different skill set. And you'll end up promoting a lot of people into "run the trains for 20,000 people" jobs who's skillset was being a great warehouse foreman. Sergeants Major (the highest enlisted rank) and quietly infamous for having extraordinarily bad ideas and grossly over-simplifying the complex at times (let's just make a giant line they can't get through....across all 20km of frontage with our 2,000 or so infantry) even when being very good at their role. Eisnehower was, by all accounts, not a stellar lieutenant and probably would have been an average at best private.

The second is the simple time to learn. Learning to plan the international movement of forces over the course of months, or to program acquisitions for years, takes time and education. Learning to be really good at getting a bunch of trucks down a dark road also takes time and education. You've got twenty years. Odds are you aren't going to learn to be good at both. And one of these two has to give the orders (also flexible, as said planner would be shoved in the back of the gun truck in a firefight, where the same men doing it would follow his multi-year campaign plan without ever questioning it.)

Finally, 21st century wars have had only a trickle of casualties relative to the 20th (at least if you're the western army), and long standing comparably small and professional forces. When the force size and the casualty rates go up, at some point you need to manage a large institution that is under constant attrition. The egalitarian ethos of having your nuclear engineer work as a deck hand rather than a nuclear engineer loses it's appeal quickly when you need lots of them in your navy and quite a few deck hands seem to be dying.

Not that there aren't points of stupidity in the whole matter - the USAF insists all of it's pilots be officers, though frankly there's no particular need for it other than vanity for example.

[Max_Killjoy]

The habit of having pilots etc be officers has some origin in the traditional rules of war and the additional consideration given to officers who become POWs, along with many of the original pilots coming from educated backgrounds, and along with pilots requiring massive amounts of training and a higher paygrade matching their "status".

[Lvl 2 Expert]

That's another thing about rank, it's somewhat intertwined with the traditional education system. "Regular" enlisted receive training below the bachelor level. Like skilled craftspeople around the world they get lots of invaluable practice, but not too much theory to master, which is traditionally valued higher. NCO's get what's essentially a professional/applied bachelor education, sometimes in the form of training on the job and rising through the ranks, and learning to be an officer is the equivalent of getting a master's degree. The math and physics you need to properly grasp what you need to do to keep a fighter jet in the air are university grade stuff, so they're officers.

In fact, all together the military might be fairer about rank than the general civilian world. There are very few people in the military who started as colonel because they were the general's nephew, because they inherited enough money to buy their own tank division or even because someone had legitimately figured out that this guy, he'd be great at running things. Put him in charge and give him a ten million dollar salary.

You want to be an officer? Get your degree and then show us how you handle a platoon.

[Yora]

Certainly a good point for not only having one entry point for people getting into the military rank structure.
Though that makes me wonder, have there been cases of armies with three tiers of ranks instead of two?

[AdAstra]

Certainly a good point for not only having one entry point for people getting into the military rank structure.
Though that makes me wonder, have there been cases of armies with three tiers of ranks instead of two?

Most countries generally delineate between non-commissioned officers and the people below and above them. So sergeants, corporals, petty officers, etc. There are also usually training courses that you're expected to go through, which has occasionally been used to train NCOs with no prior experience (basically entering the army as a sergeant or whatever). Making your NCOs "from scratch" like this tends to have problems, though, so it's usually only happened when there's a shortage of people of such rank. The main issue being that NCOs really need to have actual experience for the sorts of jobs they usually do, in most cases moreso than higher officers, especially since NCOs are often the ones expected to make sure that newer officers aren't making stupid mistakes.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Making your NCOs "from scratch" like this tends to have problems, though, so it's usually only happened when there's a shortage of people of such rank.

As far as I'm aware this is the rule rather than the exception in the current Dutch armed forces. There are separate training courses for corporals. Although I do believe they have been rebranded task specialists rather than "onderofficieren" (literally under/below/lower-officers, so NCO's). You don't get to be a proper NCO until you make sergeant. There are still internal ways to go from lower to higher ranks, including from enlisted to corporal and from sergeant/adjutant to officer, I just personally have no idea about what kind of percentages of people we're talking about there. Although honestly the requirements for regular enlisted person training aren't exactly bottom of the barrel either, so I suspect the step from soldier or sailor to corporal happens quite a bit. (Also any smallish standing peace time army is not necessarily the best model for any questions about military stuff, as it's usually the big wartime armies we're really trying to learn about.)

(Fun fact: the Netherlands has different types of junior high/high school education aimed at different types of followup. The type you want for a classic academic bachelor into master is called VWO and takes 6 years to complete, and that's what you need to become an officer. But the air force has made an exception. The physical requirements for being a pilot are so high that they needed a larger talent pool to scout from, figuring sometimes it's easier to drag a less academically inclined student through the hard physics than it is to teach an intelligent bookworm reflexes. So you can apply to be a pilot with a 5 year HAVO education. Did I say fun fact? I meant useless. Sorry.)

[Martin Greywolf]

Certainly a good point for not only having one entry point for people getting into the military rank structure.
Though that makes me wonder, have there been cases of armies with three tiers of ranks instead of two?

I mean, it depends on how you define tiers. Medieval armies had four de facto tiers, nobles, retinues, mercenaries/permanent militias (people paid for their expertise in killing stuff) and conscripted population (this one was rarely deployed in practice, but it did happen, usually in defensive sieges). De iure you got to double or triple all of that because of clergy having a separate country and because of free cities, so you end up with something like 4 tiers each of which has 3 "branches".

While some mobility between the tiers was happening, it was unusual - you got to the top ranks in your mercenary company, and that was usually it, unless you managed to make it to a lord's retinue or get a title yourself.

Modern militaries usually tend to split their ranks into two tiers officially, and that is doing stuff and management. This divide is drawn along the traditional lines, but it works well enough. Unoficially, you have a sort of third tier, which is specialists, and they sometimes enter into armies in strange ways. These would be people like nuclear engineers, programmers and other fields where you need a lengthy education. Whether these are officers or not tends to vary.

[Brother Oni]

Certainly a good point for not only having one entry point for people getting into the military rank structure.
Though that makes me wonder, have there been cases of armies with three tiers of ranks instead of two?

Technically yes, but only because salary and rank are heavily intertwined in the military.

The best example of this I can think of, are the various military bands in modern militaries - in order to attract capable candidates from the civilian sector, the military has to offer salaries commensurate with the civilian sector.
Often this means that they get quite a high rank to go along with their pay - looking at the USMC Band, on completion of their boot camp, new musicians get the rank of Staff Sergeant (E6), which has a minimum time-in-service requirement of 60 months and a minimum time-in-grade of 36 months (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2019/10/31/corps-increases-time-in-service-requirements-for-sergeants-and-staff-sergeants-revamps-re-enlistment-to-increase-retention/) - ie for a regular marine to be promoted up to an E6, they have to have spent at least 60 months serving, 36 of which must have been as a sergeant (E5).

Despite their apparent rank, you wouldn't trust a musician to take command of a full squad during a firefight.

The best media example I can think of, is Counselor Troi from ST:tNG - she's technically a LCDR and of the same rank as Data until very late on in the series, although she would most likely defer to him if the ship was under attack.

Incidentally, this is also the reason behind why you can wind up a British Royal Marine by asking him 'what instrument does he play?'. :smallbiggrin:

That's not to say musicians never got involved in combat - the most memorable example I can think of, is Trumpeter Calvin Titus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Pearl_Titus) of the US Army. During the Battle of Peking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Peking_(1900)) (1900), he was the first to volunteer to attempt to scale the city walls while under fire from the Imperial Chinese troops and suceeded. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for this.


Unoficially, you have a sort of third tier, which is specialists, and they sometimes enter into armies in strange ways. These would be people like nuclear engineers, programmers and other fields where you need a lengthy education. Whether these are officers or not tends to vary.

In the British Army, these are known as Professionally Qualified Officers - they usually get an abbreviated officer training course (informally known as the 'vicars and tarts' course) then get sent into the military to carry on being nurses, doctors, lawyers, etc.

That said, things have changed since I last read up on it - the PQO course now includes practical infantry knowledge so at the very least, they're not dead weight when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan. This is a response to RAMC medics ending up on patrol in deepest darkest Helmand, althoguh the shift probably started during GW1, when 3 of the 5 dressing stations were commanded by dental officers.

[Mike_G]

The "specialist" rank in the US Army is kind of like that. They are at an NCO pay grade, but don't have the command rank. So an infantry corporal (E 4) will make less than a Specialist 5 (E 5) who may have some particular skill, like being a medic or a linguist, but the corporal is in command even if the attached specialist is technically higher rank.

It's a way to get skilled individuals into the Army at a higher pay grade than an unskilled E 1 recruit but keep the radio repair guy from pulling rank and trying to take command of the platoon over an infantry corporal if the platoon or squad leader needs to be replaced.

[fusilier]

Aren't warrant officers between enlisted and commissioned officers, and typically technical experts of some kind?

[KineticDiplomat]

Yes. Ish.

While warrant officers are between the two and have technical specialties, those specialties are often comparatively narrow compared to what a typical audience might think of as a technical specialist.

The guy who manages the computer program that accounts for where everybody’s property is and is the master of property accountability rules, procedures, and regulatory requirements, yet retains no inherent authority in the command structure other than that which is provided to him, that’s a warrant. A civil engineer who specializes in on base construction and has no inherent command authority is none the less an officer.

Or you could have a warrant who has a leading role in the ever expanding complexity of the procedures and computer issues for integrating long range fires, but has very limited authority in comparison to his officer equivalent who probably doesn’t know the hardware or technical side as well but hopefully understands deep battle better.

In contrast, it is entirely possible to have a warrant officer be a flight lead for attack helicopters with a role in the chain of command, and an officer to do the same.

So...very Ish.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

A civil engineer who specializes in on base construction and has no inherent command authority is none the less an officer.

Unless he's a civilian working for the military, in which case he will still be in the officer pay scale locked to a specific rank as if he had it, but he will not have any command authority or an actual official rank. As a civilian he probably doesn't even salute or use other "you have to be a cool military person to do this" customs.

Granted, that would be a bit of a weird position for an on base civil engineer. But for IT specialists and such, people who might never need to operate from inside an active warzone but who are nontheless vital to the military's operation, it's certainly not an uncommon construction these days.

[Khedrac]

Aren't warrant officers between enlisted and commissioned officers, and typically technical experts of some kind?

I think this one depends on the country. In the UK Warrant Officers are very senior NCOs (and thus enlisted men) - they form the top two ranks of the NCO hierarchy and tend to be very skilled at whatever their particular job is and also excellent leaders.
I have worked with a few and they were all very competent people and someone to look up to.

[KineticDiplomat]

Ah L2E, you’ve hit upon one of the hot topics of modern law of war quibbling there.

But for the sake of uniformed military only, the engineer in question would be an officer. The fact that his civilian counterpart might be providing the same service to the military, at a military location, under the same final boss, and even be retired military continuing in a job he was performing in uniform a week ago...well, hence the debate over at what point are you allowed to kill a “civilian” or “contractor” who’s purpose is fundamentally military in nature.

[AdAstra]

Ah L2E, you’ve hit upon one of the hot topics of modern law of war quibbling there.

But for the sake of uniformed military only, the engineer in question would be an officer. The fact that his civilian counterpart might be providing the same service to the military, at a military location, under the same final boss, and even be retired military continuing in a job he was performing in uniform a week ago...well, hence the debate over at what point are you allowed to kill a “civilian” or “contractor” who’s purpose is fundamentally military in nature.

Considering how most countries consider civilian infrastructure to be an acceptable target so long as it has military value, I don't think anyone has much of a leg to stand on if they decided to make a fuss about civilian contractors being exposed to enemy fire. The immediate response would probably be "well why did you put them right next to acceptable targets, then?"

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, given LOAC is actually a hash of various conventions, standards, IHL, and domestic codes, it actually does become a question...with all the usual caveats about international law, and law during wartime in general. If you were to flip through the congressional LOAC deskbook, you would find an absolute muddle telling you that the initial '49 Geneva Conventions never strictly defined who receives article 4 protection as a civilian, that the 1979 AP I does define civilian but the US disagrees with it and acknowledges the potential for unprivileged combatants and deviations form those definitions, and that not really enshrined in law but by US internal executive regulation contractors may be exposed/targeted by incidental action but are not supposed to be inherently governmental in nature, which is what preserves their GC IV status as a civilian...but at the same time the US definition of inherently governmental isn't everyone else's. And at some point if you're believed to have exceeded that mandate, you get declared an unlawful combatant.

But that same logic lets any state decide that a civilian anywhere on the spectrum is an unlawful combatant if they are supporting the war. Which is of course mostly nebulous and really only defined by who's court you're in.

[Blackhawk748]

So I've been brainstorming so setting ides for a story recently (Apocalyptic Gothic Fantasy if you're curious) and I was thinking about the guns in the story. Now, for a rough (and I mean very rough) analogue on tech level it'd be in somewhere around the early 1600s so firmly in the Pike and Shot era with the common guns being primitive flintlocks with wheellocks still hanging around and old matchlocks still in use.

Now, the singular exception to this is the Dwarves who have made a Feguson breechloader rifle (and yes, they do have their's be rifled) and so far they are the only ones who have this technology. And to make it all more complicated (because why not, it's fun) I was thinking that the rifling of the gun was done in the style of the Whitworth rifle just to make it that much harder to replicate.

Now, the really simple question is, how much of an advantage does this lend the dwarves? The rifles are rather expensive, but they are also really good, which fits general dwarven demeanor on equipment. However, logistics would be a big deal as they can shoot a lot more and thus use more ammo.

Basically, how big of an advantage is this really?

[Khedrac]

Basically, how big of an advantage is this really?
During the Napoleonic Wars (so better technology than most, but not as good as the dwarves) the main considerations for Wellington (potentially the best general and certainly the one who eventually won) when training troops were:

1. Rate of Fire
2. Rate of Fire
3. Rate of Fire

With early muskets the gunner doesn't really aim the gun - they point it in approximately the right direction and fire it.
With the fergusson rifles the shooter has the option of aiming.
When you factor in the fact that officers were usualy quite distictively dressed and this gives the dwarves the ability to render most armies sent against them into leaderless mobs.
(This was one of the roles of skirmishers during the Napoleonic wars.)

So, I would say that this would give the dwaves a huge advantage.

[Pauly]

So I've been brainstorming so setting ides for a story recently (Apocalyptic Gothic Fantasy if you're curious) and I was thinking about the guns in the story. Now, for a rough (and I mean very rough) analogue on tech level it'd be in somewhere around the early 1600s so firmly in the Pike and Shot era with the common guns being primitive flintlocks with wheellocks still hanging around and old matchlocks still in use.

Now, the singular exception to this is the Dwarves who have made a Feguson breechloader rifle (and yes, they do have their's be rifled) and so far they are the only ones who have this technology. And to make it all more complicated (because why not, it's fun) I was thinking that the rifling of the gun was done in the style of the Whitworth rifle just to make it that much harder to replicate.

Now, the really simple question is, how much of an advantage does this lend the dwarves? The rifles are rather expensive, but they are also really good, which fits general dwarven demeanor on equipment. However, logistics would be a big deal as they can shoot a lot more and thus use more ammo.

Basically, how big of an advantage is this really?

Firstly whitworth rifling requires cutting edge late 19th century technology, which puts it some 250 years ahead of your setting. It”s the equivalent of putting an L96 sniper rifle into a Napoleonic setting. The degree of accuracy and the complexity of manufacture is beyond the technology of the time.


As for how big an advantage?
- Well for the first half dozen or so shots it’s an advantage, then black powder fouling will kick in. The weapon will need to be thoroughly cleaned to be accurate again. Whitworth riffling was rejected for British service because of excessive fouling compared to the Enfield rifle.
- Sniper rifles are issued to snipers, not issued en masse for a reason. Most soldiers aren’t good enough shots for it to be worthwhile. Over about 100 meters or so most of the shots fired will be going over or dropping short of the target.
- the cost of production and time of production will be exponentially higher than their opponents. The Fergusson rifle was 4 times the cost of a Brown Bess and were only able to be produced at 1/30th of the rate of Brown Bess because only a select few gunsmiths had the skills tp make it. The Whitworth rifle was something like 5 times the price of competing muskets. You’re looking at a weapon that will cost at least 20 times per unit and can be manufactured, at best, at 1/50th of the speed.
- Field maintenance. The Girondi air rifle, which is probably the best analogy for what you are trying to achieve, was dropped from Austrian service because it was too complex to keep working in the field. Even then the Girondi was only issued to the best shots of Jaeger units, in other words the most competent weapon handlers in the entire army.

Edit to add-
It’s the equivalent of Tiger Tank Syndrome.
IF you can make one, and
IF you can get it the battlefield, and
IF you can find a good crew, and
IF you can fuel and arm it, and
IF it works on the day you need it
THEN you have a war winning weapon.

[Blackhawk748]

Firstly whitworth rifling requires cutting edge late 19th century technology, which puts it some 250 years ahead of your setting. It”s the equivalent of putting an L96 sniper rifle into a Napoleonic setting. The degree of accuracy and the complexity of manufacture is beyond the technology of the time.


As for how big an advantage?
- Well for the first half dozen or so shots it’s an advantage, then black powder fouling will kick in. The weapon will need to be thoroughly cleaned to be accurate again. Whitworth riffling was rejected for British service because of excessive fouling compared to the Enfield rifle.
- Sniper rifles are issued to snipers, not issued en masse for a reason. Most soldiers aren’t good enough shots for it to be worthwhile. Over about 100 meters or so most of the shots fired will be going over or dropping short of the target.
- the cost of production and time of production will be exponentially higher than their opponents. The Fergusson rifle was 4 times the cost of a Brown Bess and were only able to be produced at 1/30th of the rate of Brown Bess because only a select few gunsmiths had the skills tp make it. The Whitworth rifle was something like 5 times the price of competing muskets. You’re looking at a weapon that will cost at least 20 times per unit and can be manufactured, at best, at 1/50th of the speed.
- Field maintenance. The Girondi air rifle, which is probably the best analogy for what you are trying to achieve, was dropped from Austrian service because it was too complex to keep working in the field. Even then the Girondi was only issued to the best shots of Jaeger units, in other words the most competent weapon handlers in the entire army.

Edit to add-
It’s the equivalent of Tiger Tank Syndrome.
IF you can make one, and
IF you can get it the battlefield, and
IF you can find a good crew, and
IF you can fuel and arm it, and
IF it works on the day you need it
THEN you have a war winning weapon.

Ah, I was under the impression that the Whitworth rifle was more of just a new application of an old idea, that seems to be incorrect upon further investigation, so that part will get dropped.

As for the individual cost, yes this is true, but Dwarves are frequently lower on numbers so wouldn't it make more sense for them to go with something like the Ferguson in order to maximize their limited troops?

[Mike_G]

Ah, I was under the impression that the Whitworth rifle was more of just a new application of an old idea, that seems to be incorrect upon further investigation, so that part will get dropped.

As for the individual cost, yes this is true, but Dwarves are frequently lower on numbers so wouldn't it make more sense for them to go with something like the Ferguson in order to maximize their limited troops?

The Ferguson has the advantage of higher rate of fire, greater accuracy and therefore effective range, and the ability to reload from a prone position, so better able to take advantage of cover.

For skirmishers and light infantry, it's a far better weapon. Even as a general issue rifle it has advantages in that you can use slow fire at greater range, or quick fire if things get close. The fouling is less of an issue because 18th century armies seldom fought extended musketry duels. It was usually a few volleys and a charge with the bayonet. In that kind of situation, six rounds of accurate rapid fire would be a game changer.

The biggest downside is cost. But for a small army of a technical race, I say they make a lot of sense

[Pauly]

Ah, I was under the impression that the Whitworth rifle was more of just a new application of an old idea, that seems to be incorrect upon further investigation, so that part will get dropped.

As for the individual cost, yes this is true, but Dwarves are frequently lower on numbers so wouldn't it make more sense for them to go with something like the Ferguson in order to maximize their limited troops?

The Whitworth wasn’t a new idea per se. It’s just that the ability to manufacture it at the required degree of precision required huge leaps in manufacturing and machining technology. No one has replicated it in the years since basically because the extra benefits it provides doesn’t justify the extra time and effort to manufacture the guns and ammunition

Going back to breechloaders. It’s good for specialists, but the problem with black powder fouling doesn’t go away. Once the users have fired more than 5 or 6 shots fouling causes problems. A smoothbore breechloader will give you the increase in rate of fire, with much less problems with fouling. So I’d only keep the rifled versions for specialist sharpshooters, but keep smoothbores for sustained battlefield fire.

[Blackhawk748]

The Whitworth wasn’t a new idea per se. It’s just that the ability to manufacture it at the required degree of precision required huge leaps in manufacturing and machining technology. No one has replicated it in the years since basically because the extra benefits it provides doesn’t justify the extra time and effort to manufacture the guns and ammunition

Going back to breechloaders. It’s good for specialists, but the problem with black powder fouling doesn’t go away. Once the users have fired more than 5 or 6 shots fouling causes problems. A smoothbore breechloader will give you the increase in rate of fire, with much less problems with fouling. So I’d only keep the rifled versions for specialist sharpshooters, but keep smoothbores for sustained battlefield fire.

Couldn't the powder fouling be mitigated by using the US Cleaner Bullet? (I know that isn't it's real name I just can't recall what it's actually called) It's the bullet that spreads out to more fully fill the barrel and contains the fouling to the bottommost part of the gun, or would that not work well in a breechloader or is it to complex for the period?

[Pauly]

Couldn't the powder fouling be mitigated by using the US Cleaner Bullet? (I know that isn't it's real name I just can't recall what it's actually called) It's the bullet that spreads out to more fully fill the barrel and contains the fouling to the bottommost part of the gun, or would that not work well in a breechloader or is it to complex for the period?

The Williams bullet was a Minie Ball bullet (NB called a cleaner bullet because it was’’t as dirty as the old type, not because it cleaned the gun https://youtu.be/wUhAxfeTrUk).

Again the problem is that it is something developed in the mid 1800s It’s a really big technological step to go from a spherical projectile to a conical shaped projectile with a hollow base. It’s not intuitive and needs a really good understanding of the sciences involved.

Think of it this way. The standard firearm in your world is a muzzle loaded smoothbore, and the flintlock is the brand new bleeding edge technology. Giving dwarves access to reliable breech loading riifles with cleaner bullets is 3 generations of technological improvements over their foes’ best technology. It’s the difference between a Kar 98-K and an AR-15.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Also give some thought to why the dwarves would selectively have this one mid 19th century rifle. There are a lot of gun based innovations that come into wide use around 1850. Revolvers, percussion caps, cartridges inserted as a whole, metallic cartridges, functional breech loading, bolt-action (rifles), high explosives, minié balls, boxlock (shotguns), all examples from between roughly 1808 and 1875 (or so, I took the dates from a small list I made years back). If you walk into a modern day American gun store and remove all of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons what you have left looks a lot like what armies had available during the second half of the 1800's. I think you will agree with me that if the dwarves get all of that you've got a pretty asymmetrical situation. The other armies just can't compete in gunfire. I won't go as far to say they get slaughtered anytime they get close, but they definitely can't have their men charge straight up to them and expect them to have much of a fight left when they get there. It's "this is not quite World War One" levels of bad (due to the lack of machine guns and airplanes, though the artillery is decent enough that you might not notice that difference right away). The British Zulu wars might be another decent point of comparison. There's just only so much that numbers, morale, terrain knowledge and being friggin awesome can do when you for one reason or another are using weapons that far behind on the other side's curve.

With one specifically selected specialist weapon type, sure, I think you can make the setting work. It has enough drawbacks. If you allow revolvers the dwarves get lots and lots of shots off at close range but both engaging them from afar and charging with heavily armored troops can do relatively well. With good sniper rifles keeping your distance is suicide, but if the cavalry can distract the dwarven formation long enough or if you can tempt them into fighting in an area with lots of obstructions and line of sight breaks you might be able to get your numerically superior infantry close. But then the question becomes: why only that weapon? How has the rest of their military gear not benefited from the same kinds of technologies? If you have proper modern cartridges and breech loading, how hard could it be to make shotguns and pistols and accurate artillery? It may not matter to your setting, because the setting is supposed to be a nice setting first and serious about being completely consistent second, but it is going to come up.

[Blackhawk748]

The Williams bullet was a Minie Ball bullet (NB called a cleaner bullet because it was’’t as dirty as the old type, not because it cleaned the gun https://youtu.be/wUhAxfeTrUk).

Again the problem is that it is something developed in the mid 1800s It’s a really big technological step to go from a spherical projectile to a conical shaped projectile with a hollow base. It’s not intuitive and needs a really good understanding of the sciences involved.

Think of it this way. The standard firearm in your world is a muzzle loaded smoothbore, and the flintlock is the brand new bleeding edge technology. Giving dwarves access to reliable breech loading riifles with cleaner bullets is 3 generations of technological improvements over their foes’ best technology. It’s the difference between a Kar 98-K and an AR-15.

Had a feeling it would be something like that. It seems so simple from where I'm sitting, but from where I'm sitting I have a magical box that lets me talk to people, so I like to bounce stuff back and forth.


Also give some thought to why the dwarves would selectively have this one mid 19th century rifle. There are a lot of gun based innovations that come into wide use around 1850. Revolvers, percussion caps, cartridges inserted as a whole, metallic cartridges, functional breech loading, bolt-action (rifles), high explosives, minié balls, boxlock (shotguns), all examples from between roughly 1808 and 1875 (or so, I took the dates from a small list I made years back). If you walk into a modern day American gun store and remove all of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons what you have left looks a lot like what armies had available during the second half of the 1800's. I think you will agree with me that if the dwarves get all of that you've got a pretty asymmetrical situation. The other armies just can't compete in gunfire. I won't go as far to say they get slaughtered anytime they get close, but they definitely can't have their men charge straight up to them and expect them to have much of a fight left when they get there. It's "this is not quite World War One" levels of bad (due to the lack of machine guns and airplanes, though the artillery is decent enough that you might not notice that difference right away). The British Zulu wars might be another decent point of comparison. There's just only so much that numbers, morale, terrain knowledge and being friggin awesome can do when you for one reason or another are using weapons that far behind on the other side's curve.

With one specifically selected specialist weapon type, sure, I think you can make the setting work. It has enough drawbacks. If you allow revolvers the dwarves get lots and lots of shots off at close range but both engaging them from afar and charging with heavily armored troops can do relatively well. With good sniper rifles keeping your distance is suicide, but if the cavalry can distract the dwarven formation long enough or if you can tempt them into fighting in an area with lots of obstructions and line of sight breaks you might be able to get your numerically superior infantry close. But then the question becomes: why only that weapon? How has the rest of their military gear not benefited from the same kinds of technologies? If you have proper modern cartridges and breech loading, how hard could it be to make shotguns and pistols and accurate artillery? It may not matter to your setting, because the setting is supposed to be a nice setting first and serious about being completely consistent second, but it is going to come up.

The Fergusson rifle is a mid 18th century invention and I picked it because it's a breechloader that requires you to make a rather unique screw to make it operate and I rather like it as a gun. I didn't feel like it was too much of a technological jump from other flintlocks (as it's still a flintlock it just has a unique loading mechanism) I just wound up wanting to put too much into it

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The Fergusson rifle is a mid 18th century invention and I picked it because it's a breechloader that requires you to make a rather unique screw to make it operate and I rather like it as a gun. I didn't feel like it was too much of a technological jump from other flintlocks (as it's still a flintlock it just has a unique loading mechanism) I just wound up wanting to put too much into it

Okay, I'm bad at reading/not entirely awake yet. Carry on.

[Martin Greywolf]

Esrly musketry, where medieval absolutemess of an organization meets early modern mass production. Fun times.


common guns being primitive flintlocks with wheellocks still hanging around and old matchlocks still in use

Wheellocks are not something that is still hanging around, they are objectively better lock for a firearm than anything until you get to percussion locks. Their problem is, however, quite massive - they have so many fine gears in them. So many. So small. That, for a period before mechanized manufacture, before you can make a series of machines that use hand/steam/electric power to machine a cog to within few fractions of a millimeter precission, means only one thing.

All wheellocks are custom, hand-crafted pieces of intricate machinery, in a world where you may need to parry a halberd or a greatsword with them. THey will break, and once they do, it doesn't take much for them to break so badly you need to deliver them to an experienced craftsman to fix.

This is why anyone who doesn't have to use them doesn't in war. They are fairly popular for aristocratic hunts, and you see them in use for cavalry, where mucking around with powder ppoured into a pan is a really bad disadvantage, but there is no widespread use. Even rich dwarves would avoid them because of durability use.

That said, they give you superior firepower, weather resistance and utility. The costs and drawbacks are just too great.



With early muskets the gunner doesn't really aim the gun - they point it in approximately the right direction and fire it.

Not entirely. The issue is that with line infantry, you need that rate of fire you mention, so you take bullets that are slightly under barrell diameter, just so they can be reloaded quickly. With hunting muskets, you load bullets that are exaclty barrell diameter, and are sometimes hexagonal, or have other features that slow down rate of fire, but increase accuracy.

While your line infantry won't be armed with those, skirmishers likely will, especially since they are called Hunters in several languages, e.g. German Jaegers. Hunters are what is usually recruited into them, since they already have good marksmanship. The first unit of these was created in about 1631, so they do fall into our period.


As for the individual cost, yes this is true, but Dwarves are frequently lower on numbers so wouldn't it make more sense for them to go with something like the Ferguson in order to maximize their limited troops?

That is a very complicated question. In theory, best equipment is what you want everyone to have, no matter the army size. Problem is, that costs a lot, and best isn't always clear cut - the greatest rifle in te world won't do you much good if it breaks regularly in field conditions, and you often can't train your soldiers for as long as you'd like for a host of reasons.

Medieval elites had the best possible equipment because they were 1) realtively rich and 2) obligated to fight no matter what. If you have a wealthy lord who knows he needs to serve in battle, he will not only outfit himself, he will invest into gear of his personal troops that will be with him. This works because medieval farms mean that only about 1/20 of total population can be in military service, and medieval logistics mean you can only field an army of about 30 000. Terms and conditions may apply, this is another complicated topic.

So. If your dwarves have Napoleonic tech, that means farm and rail and road systems of that era, and they can afford to field armies that are Napoleonic in terms of how many percent of their population is fighting. However, that also means that barring fantasy elements (e.g. unreasonable amounts of cash from mithril/dragon hoards), they can't afford to equip everyone with the best stuff, because that army is simply too large a portion of their population, and their economy can't quite handle it.

If you have dwarves still on medieval army system with Napoleonic era tech, they yeah, they can absolutely afford to arm their army with top of the line stuff - after it gets tested for reliability. In this case, a question of why don't they employ more of their population as troops in times of war comes into play, and you should answer it somehow. One plausible way is that they use their wealth to buy mercenaries to act as bulk of their forces, and have only a few true dwarven regiments.

[AdAstra]

In terms of best use, assuming that this isn’t something the dwarves can mass manufacture and outfit legions with, you’ve got a few options.

1. Don’t bother. How many work hours and materials go into each gun? If you instead invested those resources into other weapons, would you get more use? If not, you’ll probably want to go with this one.

2. Make some compromises. If your theoretical Ferguson rifle is too expensive, or fouls too easily, take some shortcuts. Use smoothbore barrels instead of rifled, or issue lots of undersized musket balls that your troops can still load once the rifle gets gunked up.

3. Take your super weapons and isolate them to people and units that can make best use of them. Get your best shots and ensure that they can get to good firing positions protected by your other troops. With Ferguson rifles and the tactics of the time, they’ll work wonders in the initial stages of the battle, striking at priority targets from a safe distance, messing with the enemy by hurting them while they can’t fight back effectvely, and potentially baiting the enemy into making bad moves. Then withdraw them before their guns foul too much and the enemy bumrushes them.

[Gnoman]

Wheellocks are not something that is still hanging around, they are objectively better lock for a firearm than anything until you get to percussion locks. Their problem is, however, quite massive - they have so many fine gears in them. So many. So small. That, for a period before mechanized manufacture, before you can make a series of machines that use hand/steam/electric power to machine a cog to within few fractions of a millimeter precission, means only one thing.

All wheellocks are custom, hand-crafted pieces of intricate machinery, in a world where you may need to parry a halberd or a greatsword with them. THey will break, and once they do, it doesn't take much for them to break so badly you need to deliver them to an experienced craftsman to fix.

This is why anyone who doesn't have to use them doesn't in war. They are fairly popular for aristocratic hunts, and you see them in use for cavalry, where mucking around with powder ppoured into a pan is a really bad disadvantage, but there is no widespread use. Even rich dwarves would avoid them because of durability use.



This isn't accurate. Wheellock, snaplock, and flintlock are all just methods of throwing a spark into a pan of fine powder to set off the gun. Tje wheellock was the first such system, and had huge advantages over the matchlock. The kater snaplocks and flintlocks had almost every advantage the wheellock had, but were simpler and more robust.

The modern analogy would be exposed hammers versus an internal striker for a combat pistol.





On the original question, the issue is that the Fergusson system genuinely requires a great deal of precision manufacture (the Hall system would be a bit better). This is not fundamentally out of place for Dwarves, but the ability to do it would have implications about what else they can do.

[Max_Killjoy]

This isn't accurate. Wheellock, snaplock, and flintlock are all just methods of throwing a spark into a pan of fine powder to set off the gun. Tje wheellock was the first such system, and had huge advantages over the matchlock. The kater snaplocks and flintlocks had almost every advantage the wheellock had, but were simpler and more robust.

The modern analogy would be exposed hammers versus an internal striker for a combat pistol.


I'm under the same impression Martin Greywolf is -- that wheellocks were superior in every way that was not "simplicity, durability, maintainability, and cost". For starters, the pan can be kept entirely shut for however long is needed, the powder thus kept dry in more weather conditions, and there's much less release of spark and smoke from the firing mechanism into the face of the user. A wheellock could be carried fully ready to fire for some time, and fired from a greater range of positions and angles without misfiring.

[Gnoman]

The automatic pan opening was the onky real advantage, and of limited use. It only had one shot (like all such systems), and slowed reloading. So you had a marginally faster first shot, but every later shot was slower. A flintlock with a covered pan took sligtly longer to fire the first time, but could be rapidly fired after.

The "wider variety of angles" is wrong. A flintlock had to be vertical to get the sparks to hit, but the wheellock had to be held at an angle for the sparks to make it into the main charge reliably.

[Martin Greywolf]

This isn't accurate. Wheellock, snaplock, and flintlock are all just methods of throwing a spark into a pan of fine powder to set off the gun.

Yeah, and any musket is just a device to make lead go fast. Statement like this adds nothing of value to any discussion.



The kater snaplocks and flintlocks had almost every advantage the wheellock had, but were simpler and more robust.


That's... not correct. I don't know what to tell you, honestly. We could talk about the very early flintlocks, and how snaplock is a subcategory of those, where the idea was to replace burning match with something that wouldn't explode a barrel of powder if you dropped it, but let's say we're talking only about locks with a frizzen - the actual part that stops powder from falling out.

The main issue a frizzen has is that the very action of firing the gun opens it up, and there's nothing stopping the powder to fall out. This is not a problem if you are firing horizontally or in close angles, but once your angles get more extreme, the powder can fall out of the pan before the fire reaches the barrell. If all your things are set up properly, stone is positioned just so and the angles are all correct, that may not happen, but the lock isn't reliable.

Second problem is that your striking surfaces are exposed, and if the lock gets rained on, it probably won't fire - this was enough of an issue that cow's knee, a cover for the lock, was standard issue for militaries.

Wheellock doesn't have any of those problems, except when it does. Thing is, are we talking about this:

https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/33292/1891093/main-image

or are we talking about this:

https://collections.royalarmouries.org/media/emumedia/329/255/large_BN1998_006.jpg


Because that second one has its firing pan enclosed when it's cocked - fire it uspide down, fire it in the rain, it doesn't care. As the first image shows, people didn't always bother to put that cover on wheellocks, but the point is that you can easily modify that wheellock to have it, all it takes is more precision in manufacture. If you want/need it, you can have it. Flintlocks, not so much.

As for speed of ingition, that's not much of a factor, both locks fire at about the same time, wheellock just doesn't first go off next to your face, so it's easier not to flinch. That can be trained out of people easily - enough so that Jaegers wouldn't flinch at that point, and line infantry doesn't care about accuracy that much in the first place.

And in the end, all of that is still not worth the increased cost, mechanical complexity and fragility.

[fusilier]

This isn't accurate. Wheellock, snaplock, and flintlock are all just methods of throwing a spark into a pan of fine powder to set off the gun. Tje wheellock was the first such system, and had huge advantages over the matchlock. The kater snaplocks and flintlocks had almost every advantage the wheellock had, but were simpler and more robust.

There's arguments on both sides of this. Wheellocks absolutely were mass produced. But a mass produced wheellock would not last as long as a custom one. They were, however, the fastest ignition system until percussion weapons were developed. And I believe there were special ones designed that could be fired under water. But their expense (even a poorly made, mass produced wheellock was expensive) and their complexity, means that flintlocks eventually pushed them out.

I know somebody who had a flintlock musket, and he had a gunsmith carefully tune the lock. With a good flint, he could fire it upside down (note: this was a military musket). Now, I'm not saying that it was typical, but it was probably cheaper to tune a flintlock to fire upside down, than to buy a wheellock. However, how often are you firing your gun while holding it upside down? (Are you part of some sort of equestrian acrobatic troop that specializes in crazy trick shots?) All these ignition types suffer during loading and priming in rough conditions (like riding a trotting horse, or on a bouncing carriage).

In the general sense, the wheellock's advantages, weren't justified by the expense and complications that it involved. But they did have those advantages, and maybe in very specialized situations they would come into play.

[Pauly]

The Fergusson rifle is a mid 18th century invention and I picked it because it's a breechloader that requires you to make a rather unique screw to make it operate and I rather like it as a gun. I didn't feel like it was too much of a technological jump from other flintlocks (as it's still a flintlock it just has a unique loading mechanism) I just wound up wanting to put too much into it

A couple of points.
1) Technology advances always seems obvious when you look back in hindsight and know what works.
2) The ideas behind the Fergusson and Whitworth rifles weren’t new ideas. What was new was the manufacturing technology that enabled them to be manufactured at the degree of precision needed to make them viable.
3) Both the Fergusson and Whitworth rifles (and I’ll throw in the Girondi air rifle as well) were either not adopted for full use or dropped from use because of the slow expensive production and the poor field reliability.

[fusilier]

On the original question, the issue is that the Fergusson system genuinely requires a great deal of precision manufacture (the Hall system would be a bit better). This is not fundamentally out of place for Dwarves, but the ability to do it would have implications about what else they can do.

But the Fergusson does make a better gas seal than a Hall rifle . . . which didn't really even bother. The poor gas seal of the Hall rifles/carbines did lower their effective range.

Concerning fouling:

Gunpowder fouling of the barrel is not that big of an issue with a breechloader -- the ball can be made (and should be made) a little larger than the caliber of the barrel. It will be squeezed down to size when fired, ensuring a tight fight with the rifling, and scraping the gunpowder residue from the previous shot out of the barrel. This can result in "lead" fouling though.

However, the bigger concern with a Ferguson breechloader is the gunpowder residue fouling the screw breech. I'm going off of memory, and I'm not entirely sure about what I'm about to say, so bear with me. I know people who either have reproductions of Ferguson's or they know people who have them. Apparently, when the first reproductions were made, they got some things wrong about the threading of the breech, and they fouled easily. Later this mistake was corrected, and the threading was more similar to the originals, they found that the threads tended to push the fouling out of the way (or something to the effect that the fouling wasn't as serious an issue). As people were reluctant to fire originals, our knowledge of how they operated was informed by the reproductions. However, I'm going off memory, so I could be wrong about that. Generally speaking, fouling of the breech mechanism is a potential issue with breechloaders.

Also I think that rifled breechloaders existed in the 1500s. So the technology to make one, certainly existed at the time. Whether or not it was reliable, sufficiently robust, and capable of sustained firing to make a good military weapon, is a separate question.

Rifled Breechloaders in combat:

What advantages would these weapons have, when most everyone else is equipped with a smoothbore muzzleloader? I recently saw a lecture by an American Civil War historian about tactics used during the war. He spent a considerable amount of time talking about the "Old rifle-musket theory." This is the claim that rifle-muskets marked a revolutionary change in tactics: 1. Soldiers fought at longer ranges, 2. Artillery was subsequently pushed further back, 3. because old mass tactics were still in use, casualties were proportionally higher than in previous wars.

This theory held sway until the 1980s when it was challenged. And gradually more and more historians are rejecting the theory. The studies begun in the 1980s actually tried to verify the claims of the old "rifle-musket theory," by compiling descriptions of battles, and looking at casualties, etc. They found that: 1. The soldiers fought at the same ranges as they had done with smoothbore muskets, 2. Artillery had rarely been used at close ranges in earlier wars, and 3. Casualties as a percentage of soldiers in engaged were just as high in older wars.

This actually makes sense to me. Rifle-muskets were introduced as a general infantry weapon, but the general infantry were not trained to use them. Many infantry in the civil war practiced by going through the motions of loading and firing, but rarely actually fired their weapons outside of combat. If I remember correctly, most probably fired their muskets once or twice, some fired their muskets for the first time only in combat. Some soldiers during the war even concluded a smoothbore was better:

"It is now thought that the musket with buck and ball is after all the best arm in the service." -- Colonel Robert McAllister, 11th New Jersey Vol. Inf. Regt., 1862

Certain elite units did receive extra training, and some soldiers would have had civilian experience or natural talent. But the evidence suggests that this did not dramatically change the outcome of the combat.

---Sorry, that's a very long way of saying, the rifling really only makes a difference if your soldiers are trained to use it! They would probably be more focused on skirmish tactics, although they should be trained in both.

The increased rate of fire of breechloaders is a different story, however, which clearly had an effect on tactics.

[rrgg]

here's some neat 1680s tech:


https://youtu.be/J_hnC6x036Q

Regarding snaphaunces, flintlocks, miquelet locks, scandinavian snaplocks, etc. keep in mind that these are generally victorian/modern collector categories based on the design of the lock mechanism and really have little to do with their quality or how they function. Period sources seem to consider them more or less the same thing with the only real difference being that up to some point in the early 1600s it would be more likely to refer to any flint-striking firearm as a "snaphaunce" (even long after "actual" snaphances had widely fallen out of use) and that then by the later 1600s it instead became more common to call them "flint-locks."

Secondly remember that we aren't talking about uniform factory parts here so much as tons of individual gunsmiths throughout europe and elsewhere each making individual gunlocks for different guns and different customers. The expense, quality, durability, reliability, etc. depends far more on the skill, experience, and familiarity with getting the temper of springs and other parts just right than anything else.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

here's some neat 1680s tech:

Okay, that ís cool.

It looks like one of those things that if it had worked just a little better could have become a major change in history.

[Max_Killjoy]

or are we talking about this:

https://collections.royalarmouries.org/media/emumedia/329/255/large_BN1998_006.jpg


Because that second one has its firing pan enclosed when it's cocked - fire it uspide down, fire it in the rain, it doesn't care. As the first image shows, people didn't always bother to put that cover on wheellocks, but the point is that you can easily modify that wheellock to have it, all it takes is more precision in manufacture. If you want/need it, you can have it. Flintlocks, not so much.

As for speed of ingition, that's not much of a factor, both locks fire at about the same time, wheellock just doesn't first go off next to your face, so it's easier not to flinch. That can be trained out of people easily - enough so that Jaegers wouldn't flinch at that point, and line infantry doesn't care about accuracy that much in the first place.

And in the end, all of that is still not worth the increased cost, mechanical complexity and fragility.

That second one is what I picture when someone says "wheellock" -- an enclosed mechanism that doesn't flip the pan open at all in its sequence, allowing the firearm to be carried loaded and ready, with no concern for the powder falling out or getting wet as long as you're kinda careful.

[KineticDiplomat]

So - Ferguson vs Matchlock (assuming your humans are mimicking history, the wheel lock will be an outlier with difficult production that will lead to it being jumped for flintlocks as a mass weapon). Since you control the world building, you’ll have to decide on production factors. As others have noted, the inability to produce more than a handful is what doomed the Ferguson.

Immediate tactical considerations:

Rate of Fire: For trained troops, 2 rounds a minute for matchlocks vs 4+ for the Fergusons.

Range: A Ferguson rifle could reliably hit targets in the 150-200 yds range in the hands of an average trooper (supposedly - we never got to see them in mass action with average troopers), and was sighted out to 300 yards.

A matchlock volley would be largely ineffective beyond 100 yards, and many of the tactics traded fire at close enough ranges that the pikes could charge the moment a volley broke the enemy formation.

Reliability: The matchlock mechanism requires a constantly lit match moving around large amounts of powder while held in a serpentine lock device - merely operating the thing is 40+ movements.

————

Tactically consider that as of 1642, the final charge of pike after fire has done its bit is considered the clinching move. By 1815 (and the Ferguson is considerably better than the average musket of 1815), even Napoleon’s old guard are struggling to advance into steady firepower - and they’re supported by the best artillery in the world at the time. It’s not just “my rifle shoots faster and further than humans, go dwarves!” its a technical capability that literally separates an entire generation of tactics because it has crossed a lethality threshold for gunfire.

[fusilier]

That second one is what I picture when someone says "wheellock" -- an enclosed mechanism that doesn't flip the pan open at all in its sequence, allowing the firearm to be carried loaded and ready, with no concern for the powder falling out or getting wet as long as you're kinda careful.

That's interesting, because my understanding is that those ones with the enclosed/sealed wheel were rare. Now, I'm curious about how they work. Did the cover have to be removed to prime the weapon? Or was it a self-priming style? If so, how was the wheel wound?

The earliest wheellocks (around 1510 or so) either lacked a pan cover, or had manually operated ones. But pretty quickly they developed pan covers that would automatically open when the trigger was pulled. That would do a good job of keeping the powder from falling out, and would protect it from a reasonable amount of water. However a pan cover is not the same as the enclosed type. Those completely enclosed ones must have really raised the protection of the mechanism from the elements.

[fusilier]

Regarding snaphaunces, flintlocks, miquelet locks, scandinavian snaplocks, etc. keep in mind that these are generally victorian/modern collector categories based on the design of the lock mechanism and really have little to do with their quality or how they function. Period sources seem to consider them more or less the same thing with the only real difference being that up to some point in the early 1600s it would be more likely to refer to any flint-striking firearm as a "snaphaunce" (even long after "actual" snaphances had widely fallen out of use) and that then by the later 1600s it instead became more common to call them "flint-locks."

And in some languages it could be even more obscure. A Spanish equipment list from the very end of the 1500s mentioned a certain number of snapping-lock arquebuses (distinguished from the regular arquebuses). Are these some form of miquelet lock (very possible at that time). Or are they referring to a snapping matchlock -- a design that would have been a bit outdated, but was still around. There is another way of referring to flintlock like mechanism in Spanish, that's less ambiguous, but they weren't always consistent with the terminology.

[VoxRationis]

here's some neat 1680s tech:


https://youtu.be/J_hnC6x036Q

Regarding snaphaunces, flintlocks, miquelet locks, scandinavian snaplocks, etc. keep in mind that these are generally victorian/modern collector categories based on the design of the lock mechanism and really have little to do with their quality or how they function. Period sources seem to consider them more or less the same thing with the only real difference being that up to some point in the early 1600s it would be more likely to refer to any flint-striking firearm as a "snaphaunce" (even long after "actual" snaphances had widely fallen out of use) and that then by the later 1600s it instead became more common to call them "flint-locks."

Secondly remember that we aren't talking about uniform factory parts here so much as tons of individual gunsmiths throughout europe and elsewhere each making individual gunlocks for different guns and different customers. The expense, quality, durability, reliability, etc. depends far more on the skill, experience, and familiarity with getting the temper of springs and other parts just right than anything else.

I have a number of replies to this:

1) That is an incredible pistol. I am astonished at such a device (assuming it is genuine), and am going to note the heights which custom-machined black powder weapons could attain for the next time the possibility of a gun-using character winds up in one of my games.

2) As a minor note, I love the line in the video near the end where the narrator says something to the tune of "If this isn't the coolest flintlock you've ever seen... you've seen more flintlocks than I have." It's refreshing, particularly on YouTube, the land of caps-lock and hyperbolic language, to have someone couch his obvious enthusiasm for the subject in calmness and an awareness of others' different perspectives and experiences.

3) I'm glad to hear this assessment of the terms flintlock, snaphance, and miquelet, as I have read their respective Wikipedia articles time and time again, attempting to get an understanding of how they significantly differ, to no avail.

[Pauly]

I have a number of replies to this:

2) As a minor note, I love the line in the video near the end where the narrator says something to the tune of "If this isn't the coolest flintlock you've ever seen... you've seen more flintlocks than I have." It's refreshing, particularly on YouTube, the land of caps-lock and hyperbolic language, to have someone couch his obvious enthusiasm for the subject in calmness and an awareness of others' different perspectives and experiences.


The narrator, Ian MacCullum, is commonly referred to as “Gun Jesus” and has an outstanding channel. He is a firearms historian, has a practical understanding of gunsmithing, and he likes to shoot the weird and wonderful guns he gets access to. If you have any interest in historical firearms he is the best channel on youtube.

[fusilier]

I have a number of replies to this:
3) I'm glad to hear this assessment of the terms flintlock, snaphance, and miquelet, as I have read their respective Wikipedia articles time and time again, attempting to get an understanding of how they significantly differ, to no avail.

Yeah. They seem to make a big distinction over somewhat minor differences. Flintlocks (aka "true" flintlocks) and miquelet locks both have an L-shaped frizzen. The Snaphance does not have a frizzen; instead it has a separate striking plate and pan cover. However, they were typically linked, so when the striking plate is struck by the flint, it slides the pan cover away.

In my mind a miquelet lock is, at a fundamental level, a flintlock. The L-shaped frizzen, combining the striking plate and pan cover into one unit, is the major innovation. However, collectors (gun historians?) make a distinction concerning the mechanism by which the lock is cocked. The "true flintlock" uses an internal tumbler, for both full and half-c*ck. A miquelet uses horizontally acting sears, that engage some part of the c*ck directly. An external mainspring is typically listed as an additional defining feature of the miquelet lock, but there were some made with internal ones.

Many of the early locks didn't have a half-c*ck. The doglock is a variant, which uses the internal tumbler for full-c*ck, but an external catch, the "dog", for half-c*ck. Again, all these locks produce the spark in the same manner -- the flint falls against the frizzen. But small technical differences lead to different categorizations. I consider them to be functionally equivalent.

[To really understand the mechanical differences, you need to study very good drawings, or see the pieces working in a video, or in person. It's very hard to describe how a tumbler works, if you don't know what it looks like and where it is relative the various other components of the lock.]

[rs2excelsior]

Rifled Breechloaders in combat:

What advantages would these weapons have, when most everyone else is equipped with a smoothbore muzzleloader? I recently saw a lecture by an American Civil War historian about tactics used during the war. He spent a considerable amount of time talking about the "Old rifle-musket theory." This is the claim that rifle-muskets marked a revolutionary change in tactics: 1. Soldiers fought at longer ranges, 2. Artillery was subsequently pushed further back, 3. because old mass tactics were still in use, casualties were proportionally higher than in previous wars.

This theory held sway until the 1980s when it was challenged. And gradually more and more historians are rejecting the theory. The studies begun in the 1980s actually tried to verify the claims of the old "rifle-musket theory," by compiling descriptions of battles, and looking at casualties, etc. They found that: 1. The soldiers fought at the same ranges as they had done with smoothbore muskets, 2. Artillery had rarely been used at close ranges in earlier wars, and 3. Casualties as a percentage of soldiers in engaged were just as high in older wars.

This actually makes sense to me. Rifle-muskets were introduced as a general infantry weapon, but the general infantry were not trained to use them. Many infantry in the civil war practiced by going through the motions of loading and firing, but rarely actually fired their weapons outside of combat. If I remember correctly, most probably fired their muskets once or twice, some fired their muskets for the first time only in combat. Some soldiers during the war even concluded a smoothbore was better:

"It is now thought that the musket with buck and ball is after all the best arm in the service." -- Colonel Robert McAllister, 11th New Jersey Vol. Inf. Regt., 1862

Certain elite units did receive extra training, and some soldiers would have had civilian experience or natural talent. But the evidence suggests that this did not dramatically change the outcome of the combat.

---Sorry, that's a very long way of saying, the rifling really only makes a difference if your soldiers are trained to use it! They would probably be more focused on skirmish tactics, although they should be trained in both.

The increased rate of fire of breechloaders is a different story, however, which clearly had an effect on tactics.

There's one historian I know of who is promoting this theory - Earl Hess has a book, The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat, which argues exactly this. He discusses casualty rates, combat ranges, etc, noting that they were no higher than previously - while a unit armed with rifled muskets might open fire further out, most effective volleys happened within 100 yards or so. In particular, he talks about the ballistics of a rifled musket. The bullet is slow, heavy, and has significant drop. At a range of, say 300 yards, the musket might have a "lethal range" of 75 yards - i.e. if the sights were set too far the round would go over the enemy's head, and if they were set too short the rounds would not reach the enemy. And since men were not trained to use the sights or to accurately judge distance, much of the potential of a rifled musket at longer ranges was not utilized during the war.

I have not read that book, but I did read his follow up, Civil War Infantry Tactics: Training, Combat, and Small-Unit Effectiveness. Which has a chapter summarizing his arguments from The Rifle Musket (and is an interesting read in its own right!)

[fusilier]

There's one historian I know of who is promoting this theory - Earl Hess has a book, The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat, which argues exactly this. He discusses casualty rates, combat ranges, etc, noting that they were no higher than previously - while a unit armed with rifled muskets might open fire further out, most effective volleys happened within 100 yards or so. In particular, he talks about the ballistics of a rifled musket. The bullet is slow, heavy, and has significant drop. At a range of, say 300 yards, the musket might have a "lethal range" of 75 yards - i.e. if the sights were set too far the round would go over the enemy's head, and if they were set too short the rounds would not reach the enemy. And since men were not trained to use the sights or to accurately judge distance, much of the potential of a rifled musket at longer ranges was not utilized during the war.

I have not read that book, but I did read his follow up, Civil War Infantry Tactics: Training, Combat, and Small-Unit Effectiveness. Which has a chapter summarizing his arguments from The Rifle Musket (and is an interesting read in its own right!)

I recently saw a lecture by Hess, and he covered the subject pretty well, although there were some gaps (he missed an opportunity to point out that smoothbores can fire buck-and-ball, which would be an advantage at close range). A long time ago, I read Paddy Griffith's book, Battle Tactics of the Civil War, which was the work that started this revision. I thought it was pretty convincing.

The "plunging" nature of the, relatively, low velocity rounds was known at the time. I remember reading somewhere, that the French adopted two different minie-balls: 1. A heavy more accurate bullet used by the light troops, and 2. A lighter, flatter shooting, but less accurate, bullet for the line troops. The flatter shooting bullet was thought to be better for mass volleys versus a mass target.

[KineticDiplomat]

I suspect that the difference was less the concept of mowing down formations at 300 yards (though a practiced modern marksman can shoot an impressively tight group with rifle-muskets, so the technical advance was there) as it was the extreme uptick in accuracy at 75-100 yards. As opposed to having a volley where a comparatively low percentage of the balls hit at 100 yards, you would have fire that was rather devastating.

I can’t help but recall that at places like Monmouth Courthouse and Borodino musket armed formations pounded each other across open fields for hours, while by 1864 most attacks that make it to within 100 yards have a very short time frame before they fall apart, go to ground/cover, or carry forward without stopping ala the muleshoe - the ability for anyone to stand in the open against the rifles is just gone.

[fusilier]

I suspect that the difference was less the concept of mowing down formations at 300 yards (though a practiced modern marksman can shoot an impressively tight group with rifle-muskets, so the technical advance was there) as it was the extreme uptick in accuracy at 75-100 yards. As opposed to having a volley where a comparatively low percentage of the balls hit at 100 yards, you would have fire that was rather devastating.

I canÂ’t help but recall that at places like Monmouth Courthouse and Borodino musket armed formations pounded each other across open fields for hours, while by 1864 most attacks that make it to within 100 yards have a very short time frame before they fall apart, go to ground/cover, or carry forward without stopping ala the muleshoe - the ability for anyone to stand in the open against the rifles is just gone.

It's been a while since I've read the theory, but it's an evidence based theory, that concludes that there wasn't any increase in casualties or range. Overall they fought at the same ranges, and suffered the same casualties. (If I remember there are examples that included rifle-musket armed troops blasting away, in standing ranks, at well less that 100 yards, with few casualties on either side).

By 1864, field fortifications were becoming more common, which may have shifted the dynamic. I think Griffith's and Hess's theory accounted for field fortifications, but it's been too long since I read it (earlier wars involved field fortifications as well, so there should be points of comparison). Maybe r2excelsior can fill in some details?

Again, I want to stress that the theory was made by compiling as many statistics as could be found. According to Hess's lecture, Griffith did most of the work, and subsequent historians have only managed to add a relatively small number of datapoints, but they all conformed to the theory. The evidence could be incomplete, but as it stands, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable change in tactics, ranges, or casualties. It might not seem logical -- but it has withstood scrutiny for about three decades. We can only speculate as to why rifle-muskets didn't have the expected effect.

EDIT -- I do recall discussion about units standing and firing at each other, the ranges, and the casualties taken. So I think they were looking at it at a pretty close level, that would have picked up any uptick in the 75-100 yard range. Need to check out the books again.

[KineticDiplomat]

In fairness, I haven’t read the book. That said, statistical studies while powerful are also vulnerable to lurking variables and context changes. The reason most modern day rifle casualties are inflicted at under one hundred meters is far different than why most arquebus casualties were. And the fact that the first day of the Somme and the battle of Waterloo see the British suffer proportionate losses does not imply there was little change in weaponry or tactics.

I suspect the core of his argument “for much of the civil war, napoleonic formations closed to 100 yards and suffered equivalent casualties overall” misses the fact that those casualties were accrued much, much faster and that the limit on losses was men breaking, not the potential output of the weapons.

Consider the wheat field at Antietam where at ranges that a Frederickian battle might have seen two lines trade fire until a bayonet charge was practical and the loser fled, individual regiments were shattered by a few volleys and only by feeding more men into the grinder could either side sustain the fight.

Also consider that the shovel, axe, and pick were not new tools - and fond of American exceptionalism as I may be, I suspect that if muskets were just as good, Europeans would have decided to field fortify at some point in the centuries of musket based warfare.

Which actually brings us to another point, at Borodino the French actually do attack Russian breast works with frontal assaults. And unlike what we would see in 1864, this does not result in a lopsided repulse. (The Russians, incidentally, are forced to withdraw at roughly the proportionate casualty rate that will cause the 116th panzer to finally abandon Aachen).

[Max_Killjoy]

It seems like Hess is just looking at raw numbers and basic distances, without taking much of the context and detail into account.

[fusilier]

I lost my response, so here's a quick version --

-- Hess's work (and others), are based off of Griffith's. What I remember of Griffith is that it absolutely took into account the context. It was very detailed. Giving ranges, how long they fought, the casualties taken, etc. There were many quotes from battle reports and first person accounts. What I remember is that effects of fire could be highly variable: some units would exchange fire all day long at close ranges, taking little casualties, others were shattered by a single volley. Which is why it's important to look at it in the aggregate to get an idea of general effectiveness.

-- I have seen no evidence that Civil War battles accrued casualties more quickly, in a general sense. (As always there are exceptions like Cold Harbor). I would point out that Civil War infantry carried as much, if not more ammunition, than Napoleonic era infantry. (It is accepted that the rate of fire was roughly the same.) Perhaps statistics on bullets fired per casualty are available for the different wars?

-- At the Cornfield at Antietam (I assume that's what was meant) the corn and fog obscured visibility to the point that units were surprising each other at *extremely* close range. I actually got the chance to reenact this in very similar conditions, and it was really amazing how confusing it was, and how short the visibility became.

-- There are many more examples of field fortifications during the smoothbore musket era than Borodino. In 1864, exhaustion and the inability to replenish manpower (especially for the Confederacy), are, non-technological, factors commonly cited as why there was an increase in the use of field fortification.

-- That's the strength of Griffith et al's theory -- it was developed by studying and comparing large amounts of data. Instead of working backwards from assumptions about the effectiveness of the technology.

I think, often, we (humans) are too fascinated by technology, and tend to over emphasize the effect it had. So it can be hard to accept that rifle-muskets had little overall impact on warfare.

Anyway, if interested in Civil War tactics, you should read some of the works by Griffith et al. At the very least to understand what's considered *current* in the field. I don't actually have the books in front of me, so I can't go through them and see what they said specifically. I could spend more time picking apart arguments about casualties being accrued more quickly. But without the data to back it up it's just speculation (which I'm happy to do). If I recall, Griffith uses the data in his book to make an argument that if Civil War commanders had been more aggressive, they could have fought more decisive battles -- I'm not so sure about that. But I think the arguments about casualties, ranges, etc., were all pretty well backed up.

[rrgg]

I think Hess did agree that they were an advantage in small skirmishes and in the hands of skilled sharpshooters, but not so much in large pitched battles. In that sense it follows pretty closely Du Picq's observations on the subject (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7294/7294-h/7294-h.htm#link2H_APPE).

I do think it goes a fair bit deeper than just insufficient training. A lone sniper in a concealed position aiming at an unaware target is about as close to practice range conditions as you're going to get. But once you have targets shooting back at you and trying to kill you, you have hundreds of men packed together on either side of you shooting as well, there's flashes and smoke obscuring your vision and all around you are the sounds of gunfire, screaming, bullets and cannonballs whistling through the air, no matter how skilled of a shot you are your ability to stay calm, keep your hands steady and concentrate on aiming usually drops off pretty dramatically.

[Mike_G]

I'm not disputing the numbers, but the rifle musket was more accurate. That's demonstrable. Now, if you don't teach men how to shoot, the basic accuracy of the weapon doesn't matter all that much, so if the numbers of hits are the same, I put that down to lack of training. I know the Army of the Indian Wars had notorious few rounds allocated to marksmanship training, I would assume the average Civil War recruit didn't spend a week and a hundred rounds getting comfortable with the rifle and learning to estimate range and windage.

I do recall from what battles I remember reading about, that it was much more common for an attack to close successfully and drive off the defender in the smoothbore era, where attacks tended not to succeed as often in the ACW.

[fusilier]

I'm not disputing the numbers, but the rifle musket was more accurate. That's demonstrable. Now, if you don't teach men how to shoot, the basic accuracy of the weapon doesn't matter all that much, so if the numbers of hits are the same, I put that down to lack of training. I know the Army of the Indian Wars had notorious few rounds allocated to marksmanship training, I would assume the average Civil War recruit didn't spend a week and a hundred rounds getting comfortable with the rifle and learning to estimate range and windage.

Yes! I don't think anybody is arguing that the rifle-musket wasn't more accurate. But basic accuracy and accuracy on the battlefield are two different things. From what I remember most soldiers were lucky if they fired their weapons once or twice before going into combat. With the lack of training combined with the issues of firing in close formations, I think that whatever advantages rifling possessed were lost.

Another potential factor may be buck-and-ball. Smoothbores can effectively fire this round, consisting of one large round ball and three buckshot, while rifles can't. Typically, it's reported that it's effective under 30 to 50 yards. So it's possible that a slight increase in accuracy of rifle weapons at ranges above 50 yards, was offset by buck-and-ball at closer ranges. As I quoted before, some officers concluded that smoothbores with buck-and-ball were superior. (Although I admit that wasn't a particular prevalent view). But again, it's speculation, and it doesn't change the overall picture

[KineticDiplomat]

I'll happily read Griffith - detailed studies of black powder are rare enough to be valuable regardless of their eventual conclusions - but in the interests of this discussion:

MikeG has the heart of it. If the rifle was no better than the musket, it seems quite strange that you can storm Badajoz over the breach yet trying to reach a low stone wall is a charnel house. Or that attacks at Austerlitz can throw each side back and forth from roads, walls, and fences that would be small fortresses in the ACW - let alone conduct multiple bayonet charges up the Pratzen heights into a numerically superior foe and win...a recipe that rarely works well even before the ubiquitous field works by both sides of the late ACW. Or that cavalry went from an arm of decision which could force infantry into a square if it wanted to resist a charge, to a force that was largely relegated to harassment, screening, etc. because charging a line was likely to be a fatal affair (barring a few actual successful battlefield charges by Custer near the end, usually in an early fix-and-flank.) Or that cannon that could stand off at a few hundred yards in the age of the smoothbore started to take appalling losses at those ranges in the age of the rifle.

And while the ACW is the big one, these are hardly limited to American discoveries. When the highlanders in a line two deep just shoot the charging Russian cavalry to pieces at Balaclava rather than forming square, this is not an outcome you would have seen in the smoothbore era. When all but the best supported attacks start failing badly in the Italian Wars of Independence, people start to notice. And arguably Moltke's desire for the kesselnacht is born of the realization that the tactical defense has become substantially stronger.

Given the soldiers didn't change, and the generals didn't change, and by and large rifled artillery wasn't that common until the mid 1860s, if it wasn't the rifle that changed the tactical battlefield, most would be hard pressed to explain how in twenty years the face of war had changed so much from what had been the common style for a century and a half.

----------

As to moment by moment losses, again, I'll look at Griffith, but I can't help but notice that there are accounts in the ACW and such of attacks falling to pieces after a few minutes with the formations crippled as opposed to the back and forth of charge-rally-counter-charge that seems so common in the smoothbore era.

[fusilier]

I'll happily read Griffith - detailed studies of black powder are rare enough to be valuable regardless of their eventual conclusions - but in the interests of this discussion:

MikeG has the heart of it. If the rifle was no better than the musket, it seems quite strange that you can storm Badajoz over the breach yet trying to reach a low stone wall is a charnel house.

. . .

----------

As to moment by moment losses, again, I'll look at Griffith, but I can't help but notice that there are accounts in the ACW and such of attacks falling to pieces after a few minutes with the formations crippled as opposed to the back and forth of charge-rally-counter-charge that seems so common in the smoothbore era.

Examples are often used to support one position or another, while often conveniently ignoring numerous counter examples. War is, after all, not that consistent, and if you are trying to explain a theory, rather than *prove* it, a few examples can be good. This is why I like Griffith's and Hess's work, they didn't cherry pick, they found as many examples as they could and analyzed them. To, somewhat briefly, respond to your specific points:

1. Some field fortifications were successfully carried during the Civil War. For example at the Battle of Fort Stedman, both sides successfully stormed Fort Stedman.

2. It is true that the British successfully stormed Badajoz in 1812, but their storming parties *failed* at Badajoz in 1811. (Note also, this a siege situation, as opposed to attacking across an open field in broad daylight -- Napoleon failed at Waterloo in those conditions, although it was a "close run")

3. As referenced, the ACW was not the only war fought with rifle-muskets; often overlooked is the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, where both the French and Austrians were mostly equipped with rifle-muskets. The French, who were victorious, used very aggressive offensive tactics. The battles were bloody, although again, I don't think they were out of the ordinary compared to Napoleonic battles. The furia francese convinced the Austrians that strong offensive tactics were the key to success. In 1866 the Austrians, armed with rifle-muskets, attempted to use such tactics against the Prussians, armed with breechloading needle rifles, and were mowed down. [Interestingly in the Franco-Prussian War, the dynamic again seems to have reversed]

4. It was common in the 18th century for line to repulse cavalry. It was recognized that a line with well secured flanks was all that was needed. The square, removed the requirement for well secured flanks, and with the more mobile tactics of the Napoleonic era, infantry squares become common for defense against cavalry. I believe there are some cases of lines in that era repelling cavalry. [Concerning Balaclava: I think if anybody was properly trained to use the rifle-musket effectively, it would have been the British regular forces. However, I can't find consistent descriptions of the "Thin Red Line", and certainly nothing from the Russian perspective, or giving casualty numbers. Despite the dramatic depictions in art, some historians claim the Russians never charged, they were merely demonstrating at a distance.]

I've been reading a lot about Civil War tactics lately, and, it's been a very long time since I read Griffith, so I should probably find a copy and read it again too. :-)

[Kaptin Keen]

There's a thing I've been wondering. In old westerns, from time to time you'll come across a guy loading his shotgun with quarters, or drilling holes in his buckshot and pulling wire through them, and so on. In a near-future book by William Gibson, there is a use-and-discard 4 shot russian weapon firing lenghts of chain.

I'm sure these tricks have been attempted in real life, but since they do not seem to have made it into production, I assume neither chain nor quarters are actually better than buckshot.

But is there any actual science or even amateur testing of this?

[Pauly]

There's a thing I've been wondering. In old westerns, from time to time you'll come across a guy loading his shotgun with quarters, or drilling holes in his buckshot and pulling wire through them, and so on. In a near-future book by William Gibson, there is a use-and-discard 4 shot russian weapon firing lenghts of chain.

I'm sure these tricks have been attempted in real life, but since they do not seem to have made it into production, I assume neither chain nor quarters are actually better than buckshot.

But is there any actual science or even amateur testing of this?

Taofledermaus channel on Youtube specializes in exactly this. Anything weird, wonderful, innovative or wacky that can fit in a shotgun shell you can find tested.

Sample
https://youtu.be/YkL8q9_Jnj0

[Gnoman]

There's a thing I've been wondering. In old westerns, from time to time you'll come across a guy loading his shotgun with quarters, or drilling holes in his buckshot and pulling wire through them, and so on. In a near-future book by William Gibson, there is a use-and-discard 4 shot russian weapon firing lenghts of chain.

I'm sure these tricks have been attempted in real life, but since they do not seem to have made it into production, I assume neither chain nor quarters are actually better than buckshot.

But is there any actual science or even amateur testing of this?

Even a 10-gauge shotgun (about the largest you could get until you started reaching specialist levels) only has a .75" bore, and a quarter is closer to 1". Even a penny (at .75") would be too large for anything but a wide-open choke. Thus the only coin you could fire from the largest shotgun is a dime. (So far as I can tell, these coin sizes have been constant, just with changes to the metallurgy over time). If you went to this effort, you'd find them to be very poor ammunition, because they are not ballistically shaped and are big enough to interfere with one another while dispersing. This makes them worse than slugs or ordinary shot.

Lengths of chain would have similar issues. Most chain wouldn't fire well, and you're going to get worse performance. With muzzle-loading shotguns, loading in junk in an emergency is plausible, but as a very last resort.

[rrgg]

Some authors in the 16th century to mention firing pieces of chain or chained bullets and other types of irregular ammunition at very close ranges when assaulting or defending a breach. Sir Roger Williams mentions it cutting the heads off pikes, though i don't know if this was the intended purpose or if it was just meant to inflict more devastating wounds

"At these assaults both sides lightlie shoote all the vilest shot they can inuent, both to pierce Armes and to cut off Pikes, chained bullets, Dice of steele couered withlead. . ."

William Garrard also comments on ammunition like this being used, but disproves of it, claiming that repeated use tended to wear down a gun barrel and make it more likely to burst:

"Some contrary to the lawes of the field vse Chayne shot, and quarter shot, which is good in the defence of a breach, to keep a Fortresse, or vpon shipboard: but being dayly vsed, it wil gawle a peece within, and put it in hazard to breake, specially in a long skirmish when the Barrell is hot."


unrelated, but check out this irish horse archer

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Ierse_ruiter%2C_RP-P-OB-26.964.jpg/416px-Ierse_ruiter%2C_RP-P-OB-26.964.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Equitum_descripcio,_quomodo_equestres_cop ie,_Rijksmuseum_Amsterdam

[DrewID]

There's a thing I've been wondering. In old westerns, from time to time you'll come across a guy loading his shotgun with quarters, or drilling holes in his buckshot and pulling wire through them, and so on. In a near-future book by William Gibson, there is a use-and-discard 4 shot russian weapon firing lenghts of chain.

I'm sure these tricks have been attempted in real life, but since they do not seem to have made it into production, I assume neither chain nor quarters are actually better than buckshot.

But is there any actual science or even amateur testing of this?

In an O Henry story ("One Dollar's Worth"), the protagonist cuts a (counterfeit) dollar into slug-sized chunks, but the reasoning there was that the person trying to kill him has a Winchester and all he had was a shotgun and birdshot. Beyond a fairly short distance, heavy clothes are sufficient protection from birdshot pellets, so he rode a circle 'round them, looking for an opening to use his rifle. He was taken very much by surprise when he was shot full of counterfeit money.

DrewID

[DwanaHarrod]

this thread is very informative and lot of information which helped me to clearing my doubts!

[KineticDiplomat]

The examples in question are illustrative of trends, not proof entire. And just as individual examples may be misleading, so too can any number of mathematical arguments. That said, when broad tactical trends emerge - such as plenty of successful charges in the smoothbore era and far fewer in the rifles musket era - that is a good place to start from as to what true effects were.

The trends which we definitely notice changing in the relatively short life span of the rifle musket (Brown Bess had a life span of over 120 years...most rifle muskets were being replaced by breach loaders in under 25) would be:

1. Taking covered, let alone fortified, positions becomes substantially harder.

2. Cavalry transitions out of its shock role except for a few occasions.

3. Artillery is drawn substantially further back, even when using the same cannon as you’d find in Napoleonics.


Given the battlefield accounts that seem to show this being the result of increasingly lethal small arms fire, it seems natural to give the rifle musket the tip of the hat as the causation.

On a more technical note, I think most smoothbores for the time are generally thought to have a mechanical group of a little under two feet at 100 yards. Meaning even locking the gun in mechanically and lining up the perfect shot, the ball might go nearly two feet off target. The best shot in the word could easily miss a man at 100 yards.

In contrast, (and understanding this is inherently anecdotal), while I have never fired a Brown Bess, I have gotten to fire a Springfield 61. I am not a great shot by any means, merely an adequate one. While true to Hess I was lobbing rounds over and under at 200, I don’t think I missed a single e-type at 100.

The difference between “yes, even a vise-locked Brown Bess on a predetermined angle and elevation might miss a man at 100 yards” versus “a not-that-good shot can reliably hit a man from standing at 100 yards” seems like regardless of the other Hess dead zones, the lethality would go way up...

[Mike_G]

I honestly can see how the rifle was adopted, but didn't make the massive change it promised.

If the rifle is demonstrated to an army, replacing the smoothbore musket is a no brainer. The rifle is more accurate and has a greater effective range, and thanks to the Minie bullet, it no longer sacrificed rate of fire the way an earlier rifle did, when men had to start the bullets with a separate tool or a mallet. So it seems like it should be a total game changer.

But I also see how it wouldn't be able to live up to its promise under battlefield conditions. Marksmanship is a skill, and if you don't train, you won't get the actual advantages of an accurate weapon. I know the US army, at least, didn't spend a lot of time on marksmanship in the 19th Century. Range estimating is critical, if you want to avoid the "safe zone," and that takes practice.

The second fact is that smoke, especially smoke from a massed formation will quickly ruin visibility so that you can't aim at what you can't see. Add in the effect of noise and fear that go with any battle and shooting will be overall pretty bad.

So we can go to a range and put holes in a human sized target at 100 yards all day and figure that a hundred rifles should inflict a hundred casualties at close range, and then we're shocked when a volley doesn't hit anybody.

I still think that charges became harder to pull off. It's not easy to be sure, because every battle is different, but it really feels that way from the history I know.

[KineticDiplomat]

@Mike

I don’t think combat condition shooting would put 100/100 in a man sized target at 100, but I do think that the fact that a rifled musket can do that in range conditions when being shot by a standing human, while a musket is sometimes missing by two feet when shot locked in to a vise would indicate that the potential for lethality is much higher.

And some of that potential is going to make it through even in degraded conditions.

[Mike_G]

@Mike

I don’t think combat condition shooting would put 100/100 in a man sized target at 100, but I do think that the fact that a rifled musket can do that in range conditions when being shot by a standing human, while a musket is sometimes missing by two feet when shot locked in to a vise would indicate that the potential for lethality is much higher.

And some of that potential is going to make it through even in degraded conditions.

No, I totally agree.

A while back (like I'm not even gonna try to search it) somebody was quoting a book where the author took shooting range results, and compared them to battlefield results and tried to claim that the low hit ratio was a result of men not trying to hit the enemy. Like, if a company volley at 75 yards in practice produces say 80% hits, we should expect a company volley to produce those hits in combat, and it doesn't so therefore men aren't really trying to kill one another.

I'm paraphrasing, and I never read the actual book, so there may have been more of a point to it, but I totally agree that shooting on a controlled range isn't the same as shooting in combat, and I can think of a thousand better reasons for missing than "not wanting to kill a guy for realz."

I'm no Carlos Hathcock, but I hit ten shots of ten at 500 yards with an M 16 A2 in recruit training. Iron sights, prone, slow fire, with a support sling and--most importantly--nobody shooting at me and forcing me to take cover. I wouldn't expect that kind of result in real field conditions

[DrewID]

1. Taking covered, let alone fortified, positions becomes substantially harder.

2. Cavalry transitions out of its shock role except for a few occasions.

3. Artillery is drawn substantially further back, even when using the same cannon as you’d find in Napoleonics.

It occurs to me that you could see the second and third effects if the commanders perceived that rifle muskets had greater accuracy and lethality, even if that is not borne out in practice. So officers, who have seen the effects of the (admittedly few) highly accurate shots (practicing hunters and such among the semi-trained draftees) act more cautiously because "these new rifle muskets are longer ranged and more accurate than the old smooth-bores". And the first effect could come from officers more hesitant to directly storm covered or fortified positions.

DrewID

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It occurs to me that you could see the second and third effects if the commanders perceived that rifle muskets had greater accuracy and lethality, even if that is not borne out in practice. So officers, who have seen the effects of the (admittedly few) highly accurate shots (practicing hunters and such among the semi-trained draftees) act more cautiously because "these new rifle muskets are longer ranged and more accurate than the old smooth-bores". And the first effect could come from officers more hesitant to directly storm covered or fortified positions.

DrewID

It could happen that way. Then again, a lot of men were lost during the first world war because of officers who kept sending in charges versus positions protected with machine guns. So the average officer in this scenario would have to be at least more in touch with practice than an average WW1 officer. (Which is entirely possible, those guys do have a bit of a reputation as a stuck up high class bunch.)

[Pauly]

Another issue is that while fast loading rifled muskets existed in the ACW, the method of battlefield command hadn’t changed since the Napoleonic era. Yes the telegraph immensely changed long distance communications, but in the battlefield commands were restricted to voice, bugle and flag. The limitations of communication, including the huge amounts of smoke generated by massed blackpowder weapons, meant the leaders had to keep the men in closer formations.

So even if the rifled muskets were an improvement over Smoothbores (and obviously they were because of their widespread adoption) the ability to command troops hadn’t changed. It really took many continental powers up to WW1 to drop massed columns and lines for open order. The British were an early adopter because of the 2nd Boer War, but the continental powers learned the lesson the hard way in 1914.

[KineticDiplomat]

DrewID, I don’t think that rings true. The officers of the ACW were mostly amateurs with a leavening of Mexican War veterans and professionals. And they were still using Hardee’s manual (basically, slightly modified napoleonic stuff) as their baseline.

And just too many attacks get shot to pieces trying to close whether they succeed or fail to think that officer perception was preventing them.

[DrewID]

DrewID, I don’t think that rings true. The officers of the ACW were mostly amateurs with a leavening of Mexican War veterans and professionals. And they were still using Hardee’s manual (basically, slightly modified napoleonic stuff) as their baseline.

And just too many attacks get shot to pieces trying to close whether they succeed or fail to think that officer perception was preventing them.

Point. I forgot how long the U.S. held to its aversion to European-style (or at least perceived as such) standing armies and elite officer corps. And then a not insignificant percentage of their trained officers were from Southern states, decimating the U.S. Army's supply of trained officers. Unless hearsay "doctrine" received from the few veteran trained officers ... but now I'm slipping into circular argument.

DrewID

[Brother Oni]

Page 50, new thread is up (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619741-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIX&p=24732816).