PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Brother Oni
2019-06-03, 06:20 AM
Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XXVIII

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

A few rules for this thread:


This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.
Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so politics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware and tactics). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis (These are arbitrary dates but any dates would be, and these are felt to be reasonable).
No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.
A few additional comments following the premature demise of thread XXVI: Words from Roland St. Jude (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23417769&postcount=794).

With that done, have at and enjoy yourselves!

Thread I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?24294-Got-A-Weapon-or-Armor-Question)
Thread III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?21318-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-III)
Thread IV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18302-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IV)
Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80863-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-V)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124683-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VI)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?168432-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VII)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192911-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VIII)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217159-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IX)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238042-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-X)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255453-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XI)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?282471-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XII)
Thread XIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308462-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XIII)
Thread XIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327994-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-XIV)
Thread XV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347806-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XV)
Thread XVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371623-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVI)
Thread XVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392804-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVII)
Thread XVIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421723-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVIII)
Thread XIX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454083-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XIX)
Thread XX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480058-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XX)
Thread XXI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493127-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXI)
Thread XXII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503643-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXII)
Thread XXIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518251-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIII)
Thread XXIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?532903-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIV)
Thread XXV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?548448-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXV)
Thread XXVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?564037-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVI)
Thread XXVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?571567-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVII)

hymer
2019-06-03, 06:32 AM
I'm looking for some inspiration on a coming fight at a ford, pre-gunpowder.

With that in mind, if a small force are holding a ford against enemy raiders and scouts, what are some things to take into account when deploying said force? They may need to be there for days, and there is no certainty which side the enemy might try to attack and/or sneak across from. Any interesting and illuminating accounts of skirmishes at fords I might read for ideas?

Kiero
2019-06-03, 08:13 AM
I'm looking for some inspiration on a coming fight at a ford, pre-gunpowder.

With that in mind, if a small force are holding a ford against enemy raiders and scouts, what are some things to take into account when deploying said force? They may need to be there for days, and there is no certainty which side the enemy might try to attack and/or sneak across from. Any interesting and illuminating accounts of skirmishes at fords I might read for ideas?

Why are they holding the ford? Does the geography make it the only viable crossing, or could an enterprising foe make their own passage by other means (eg pontoon bridge)? How capable are the defenders, can they prepare measures to slow the enemy, such as putting up stakes? How good is their communication with other elements of the defending force? How big is the mobile reserve which could respond either to reinforce the ford, or defend alternate crossings? Could the attacking force attempt a night-time crossing?

hymer
2019-06-03, 08:50 AM
Why are they holding the ford?
Opportunism is their leader's main motivation. They are part of a loose confederation of tribes allied against invaders. Holding the ford is good for charging tolls or picking up slaves. The defenders will have to concentrate their forces once/if the enemy gets closer with their main force. In the mean time, it's skirmishing and trying to prevent/delay the invaders finding out about the lay of the land, and what they are up against exactly.


Does the geography make it the only viable crossing, or could an enterprising foe make their own passage by other means (eg pontoon bridge)?
That can be decided according to what would be more interesting or appropriate. But it is at least the best crossing in the general area, let's say within a day's march.


How capable are the defenders
No more capable than a group of PCs can rout them. But then, five or six heroes do make for quite a force.


can they prepare measures to slow the enemy, such as putting up stakes?
They can, if it makes for a more interesting encounter. They may have taken over from a more industrious group.


How good is their communication with other elements of the defending force?
Sluggish. I intend for there to be an initial encounter where the PCs seize the ford. And then two or three encounters when others try to recapture it. Then the PCs' allies will arrive and cross, and they'll all be on their way out of the area as fast as they can. So the ford guards should manage to get help within a few hours, although that may come down to someone else coming by to check up on them. Possibly someone better organized if the initial fight is easy.


How big is the mobile reserve which could respond either to reinforce the ford, or defend alternate crossings?
Perhaps three to five times the small force holding the ford. But they'd rather not commit them all to the ford if they can avoid it, especially since the PCs are not with the main invaders.


Could the attacking force attempt a night-time crossing?
Absolutely.

fusilier
2019-06-03, 09:39 AM
It’s not an acceptable risk for reenactors in the present day.

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

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

Yeah, the manuals of the day had the soldiers return the ramrod with your pinky finger, to prevent putting your hand over the muzzle of a loaded musket.

And rifles need a tight fitting ball -- I can't imagine that it would be possible to spit load (or tap load) one. Maybe if they carried undersized balls for rapid fire? But I haven't heard of that in the Napoleonic period.

However, poor training among soldiers was also all too common. In the early 1850s when a group of US regulars had their old weapons replaced with new ones, some inspectors-general happened to be on hand to inspect the old weapons before they were cleaned. Something like half of the weapons they inspected had been loaded incorrectly, with the ball placed down the muzzle first, and the powder poured on top!

Mike_G
2019-06-03, 12:12 PM
Yeah, the manuals of the day had the soldiers return the ramrod with your pinky finger, to prevent putting your hand over the muzzle of a loaded musket.

And rifles need a tight fitting ball -- I can't imagine that it would be possible to spit load (or tap load) one. Maybe if they carried undersized balls for rapid fire? But I haven't heard of that in the Napoleonic period.

However, poor training among soldiers was also all too common. In the early 1850s when a group of US regulars had their old weapons replaced with new ones, some inspectors-general happened to be on hand to inspect the old weapons before they were cleaned. Something like half of the weapons they inspected had been loaded incorrectly, with the ball placed down the muzzle first, and the powder poured on top!

I totally buy bad training. I mean, in Vietnam some early M 16s were issued without cleaning kits and troops were told they didn't need them, the rifle was "self cleaning" which simply isn't a thing.

But these guys are the Rifle regiment, so marksmen who should know about guns and shooting, and a group of "chosen men" so the best of the Rifles.

And I've been a history nerd all my life and never encountered spit loading before reading Cornwell. It sounds like something a guy who doesn't spend a lot of time on the range would think is cool and unique to put in a book. But putting your face in front of the muzzle of a gun after you just primed the pan and pour powder down the barrel is a red flag range violation everywhere. I can't see a Somali pirate thinking that's safe, let alone a sharpshooter.

In the movie "The Crossing" about Washington's sneak attack on Trenton, a sharpshooter loads his rifle and then dribbles candle wax over the lock to keep the powder dry. It's an interesting idea, but I never saw it elsewhere so it seems more like something s screenwriter would think was cool to include than something a sharpshooter would do, ie waving a candle around a loaded black powder musket.

So to me, "Cornwell put it in a book" seems more "Rule of Cool" than "Supported by Fact." And the fact a a reenactor tried it just says "some reenactors are really dumb." As well as the fact that the Rifles reenactors only cite Sharpe as a source, not any kind of historical manual or primary source like a period letter or whatever.

Vizzini's third classic blunder should be "never take safety advice from a Sean Bean character."

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-03, 01:52 PM
Cornwell put it in a book was more a “for the loose purposes of historical fiction, and its RPG counterpart, you have more than enough to go with here, regardless of the swirling academic debate”.

Re: the ford.

A few things that may help a clever PC group:

1. How are the defenders feeding themselves? You can only carry so much food on your (or your horse’s) back, cooking and eating take time, and if they are “living off the land” there are entire cycles of foraging, hunting, gathering, and food preparation that should create opportunities.

2. Given it is a tribal confederation, what’s the command structure look like? Does the leader owe loyalty to the confederate whole, just his tribe, a specific tribal leader? Is he a young man out to show he’s got bones, take loot, earn some wife-rights - the type that maybe gets ansty without action, maybe sees “hold the ford” less as hold the ford and more as “engage in glorious battle with anyone near the ford”? Is he an old passed over man who just wants this to be quiet, and is barely doing more than camping by the river?

3. How are they talking to the main body? Are they sending back messengers? Completely isolated? Using signal fires the PCs can see?

A few things that may hinder the PCs:

1. Depending on the force size, a few scattered patrols or scouts on the far side, maybe even a foraging party may alert the defenders, harass the PCs, or even fight a delaying action. Now the PCs have to race against the clock to clear the ford.

2. A layered kill zone. The far side of the ford is blocked up with barricades like logs, brush, and ditches - maybe just a shield wall - but something to bottle the PCs in the ford itself as they fight. Depending on the tech/magic level, there could be obstacles below the water surface, tripping, snaring, and slowing movement through the ford. And if you have missile troops that can overwatch from a flank or high position, they can shoot the attackers apart as they struggle through the water.

3. Let the PCs out into a killing cup. Basically, you know the PCs have to cross on a given line, hence the ford. You can let them drive head, bowing the line around their axis, then fall on them from multiple sides.

Pauly
2019-06-03, 02:53 PM
I'm looking for some inspiration on a coming fight at a ford, pre-gunpowder.

With that in mind, if a small force are holding a ford against enemy raiders and scouts, what are some things to take into account when deploying said force? They may need to be there for days, and there is no certainty which side the enemy might try to attack and/or sneak across from. Any interesting and illuminating accounts of skirmishes at fords I might read for ideas?

One incident from Napoleon’s 1809 Austrian campaign comes to mind. At one of the smaller battles the French were looking to Ford the river, but didn’t know where the ford was. They noticed that a stretch of river had an artillery battery deployed facing it.

They made the assumption that the only reason to defend that part of the river was that it must have been where the ford was, attacked and crosssed there.

The Jack
2019-06-03, 04:49 PM
Swiss Alpenflage, Belgian Jigsaw, Rhodesian bushstroke (to a lesser extent)

are there any other camouflage patterns where you look at them up close and think 'nope, that'd never work' but then which get absurdly effective with a little bit of range?

Because I think they're works of genius.

Pauly
2019-06-03, 10:05 PM
Swiss Alpenflage, Belgian Jigsaw, Rhodesian bushstroke (to a lesser extent)

are there any other camouflage patterns where you look at them up close and think 'nope, that'd never work' but then which get absurdly effective with a little bit of range?

Because I think they're works of genius.

The rifle green of the Rifle Regiments and the Ghurkas in the 19th C. To my mind was amazing. Turns a man crouching/kneeling in an open field into a bush. The Ghurkas kept their rifle green for quite a while after the rest of the British and Indian armies had moved onto khaki.

fusilier
2019-06-04, 12:05 AM
I totally buy bad training. I mean, in Vietnam some early M 16s were issued without cleaning kits and troops were told they didn't need them, the rifle was "self cleaning" which simply isn't a thing.

But these guys are the Rifle regiment, so marksmen who should know about guns and shooting, and a group of "chosen men" so the best of the Rifles.

And I've been a history nerd all my life and never encountered spit loading before reading Cornwell. It sounds like something a guy who doesn't spend a lot of time on the range would think is cool and unique to put in a book. But putting your face in front of the muzzle of a gun after you just primed the pan and pour powder down the barrel is a red flag range violation everywhere. I can't see a Somali pirate thinking that's safe, let alone a sharpshooter.

In the movie "The Crossing" about Washington's sneak attack on Trenton, a sharpshooter loads his rifle and then dribbles candle wax over the lock to keep the powder dry. It's an interesting idea, but I never saw it elsewhere so it seems more like something s screenwriter would think was cool to include than something a sharpshooter would do, ie waving a candle around a loaded black powder musket.

So to me, "Cornwell put it in a book" seems more "Rule of Cool" than "Supported by Fact." And the fact a a reenactor tried it just says "some reenactors are really dumb." As well as the fact that the Rifles reenactors only cite Sharpe as a source, not any kind of historical manual or primary source like a period letter or whatever.

Vizzini's third classic blunder should be "never take safety advice from a Sean Bean character."

Agree 100% about the riflemen being elite, well trained soldiers, and as I pointed out spit-loading makes even less sense for a rifle. I was just pointing out that spit-loading *may* have been done, even if the particular context presented in the Sharpe's series makes no sense. (But, as you said, we should really see the original sources for such practice.)

One of the things that I've heard, but haven't been able to track down a good source on, is the claim that they sometimes skipped priming. The vent hole was drilled large, allowing powder to escape from the barrel to pan, the soldier giving the musket a good flick of the wrist to shake some powder into the pan. The pan still had to be closed, but the fiddly bit of pouring the right amount of powder out of a paper cartridge is skipped. I've seen this done, and it can work surprisingly well, but I would still rather have a contemporary source for it.

I might want to look into the wax thing; I have heard of similar things, although I am concerned about molten wax coming in contact with powder. On the other hand, concerning waving a candle around a loaded musket . . . I have used a matchlock!!

I'm constantly learning new things, even about things I thought were well understood. Probably too esoteric for this board but there's a debate in the ACW reenactor crowd about oblique firing that may overturn how it's been interpreted for decades.

snowblizz
2019-06-04, 02:52 AM
I might want to look into the wax thing; I have heard of similar things, although I am concerned about molten wax coming in contact with powder. On the other hand, concerning waving a candle around a loaded musket . . . I have used a matchlock!!


The wax thing I remember has cropped up before in these threads. Just can't recall the context.

Wax won't be hot enough to set of the powder, and you are presumably waxing the outer parts of the mechanisms like the lock which should be fairly safe. As safe as wielding a matchlock anyway around loose powder.

Mike_G
2019-06-04, 05:54 AM
Agree 100% about the riflemen being elite, well trained soldiers, and as I pointed out spit-loading makes even less sense for a rifle. I was just pointing out that spit-loading *may* have been done, even if the particular context presented in the Sharpe's series makes no sense. (But, as you said, we should really see the original sources for such practice.)

One of the things that I've heard, but haven't been able to track down a good source on, is the claim that they sometimes skipped priming. The vent hole was drilled large, allowing powder to escape from the barrel to pan, the soldier giving the musket a good flick of the wrist to shake some powder into the pan. The pan still had to be closed, but the fiddly bit of pouring the right amount of powder out of a paper cartridge is skipped. I've seen this done, and it can work surprisingly well, but I would still rather have a contemporary source for it.

I might want to look into the wax thing; I have heard of similar things, although I am concerned about molten wax coming in contact with powder. On the other hand, concerning waving a candle around a loaded musket . . . I have used a matchlock!!

I'm constantly learning new things, even about things I thought were well understood. Probably too esoteric for this board but there's a debate in the ACW reenactor crowd about oblique firing that may overturn how it's been interpreted for decades.

I'm not saying tap loading never happened. My issue is just with spitting the ball down the barrel, since it's risky (I will never accept that pointing the muzzle at your own damn face is anything but stupid and negligent) but has no significant payoff even if the slim chance of blowing your head off seems like a reasonable risk.

Tap loading eliminates the need to ram the ball down, which clearly saves a significant amount of time, including drawing and replacing the ramrod. And if it shakes powder into the pan, it saves the step of priming, so it probably increases your rate of fire by a lot.

But how much time do you actually save by spitting the ball into the barrel versus putting it there with your fingers?

The concept annoyed me when I first read "Sharpe," especially since the rifle needed a tight fit, and was really short, so you can't put the butt on the ground and spit a ball into it unless you basically kneel down.

I just thinks it's stupid and dangerous and unsupported by any source material and ineffective and probably never done by the Rifles, if it was done at all. It really kinda soured me on Cornwell.

Kiero
2019-06-04, 06:54 AM
I can see why tap-loading (just in terms of not using a ramrod) could speed things up for a smoothbore musket.

However, rifles have grooves which give the ball a snug fit, I don't think gravity and a tap alone would make the ball fall all the way to the bottom of the breech. Even moreso if the barrel is already fouled from previous firing.

Aneurin
2019-06-04, 12:17 PM
While I don't know of a source that says spit-loading the rifle actually happened, I don't think it's all that implausible.

It might sound stupid and dangerous to put your face over the barrel of a charged (and soon to be loaded) gun, but so does urinating in the barrel of a musket or rifle to clear the caked powder. So does crawling under the engines in mills to clear jams by hand while the engines are working. The world was very different back then, and didn't care much for health and safety laws - in fact, it didn't have any.

Spitting the ball into the barrel has one significant advantage over loading by hand, which is that it requires less movements to complete and there is less opportunity for tired and cramping fingers to fumble and drop the ball while trying to move it from mouth to barrel. Every movement, and every opportunity to fumble, you can cut out is an advantage as it means fewer mistakes and even a fraction of a second could be enough for you to fire before the enemy does. I believe that the official British musket drill was mostly shortened by veteran regiments, who took shortcuts in order to increase their rate of fire as the official drill was slow and complicated - spit-loading sounds like another one of those short cuts, not the "right" way of doing things but something that probably was done on the battlefield.


Re: tap loading the rifle, the rifle balls were encased in leather to make them snug enough that the rifling would be effective. By leaving the leather off, or using regular musket balls, you could tap load the rifle - though it would be a bit inferior to the Brown Bess and lose the accuracy and range of the rifle, in exchange for a significantly higher rate of fire.

fusilier
2019-06-04, 07:59 PM
Re: tap loading the rifle, the rifle balls were encased in leather to make them snug enough that the rifling would be effective. By leaving the leather off, or using regular musket balls, you could tap load the rifle - though it would be a bit inferior to the Brown Bess and lose the accuracy and range of the rifle, in exchange for a significantly higher rate of fire.

That's a good point! If they were using patches to make up the windage (rather than simply a tight fitting ball), then it may be just loose enough for spit/tap-loading if they discarded the patch. I'm not too sure about this though: researching the Baker rifle the windage doesn't look all that great (although I'm seeing conflicting information). The Brown Bess, on the other hand, used a .69 caliber ball in a .75 caliber barrel.

Mike_G: I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you are bringing up good points. Clearly this has struck a nerve. ;-)

Gnoman
2019-06-04, 11:01 PM
I don't remember the title, but I remember reading a novelized story about an underage Civil War drummer boy which featured spit loading. IIRC, it was written in the 50s and predates the Sharpe books.

Mike_G
2019-06-05, 05:25 AM
I don't remember the title, but I remember reading a novelized story about an underage Civil War drummer boy which featured spit loading. IIRC, it was written in the 50s and predates the Sharpe books.

It makes even less sense with a Minie ball.

Gnoman
2019-06-05, 09:51 AM
Not going to argue with you there, just pointing out that I'd seen it in an earlier work.

Mike_G
2019-06-05, 12:13 PM
I'll have to just let this go, but as a guy who learned about gun safety in the Marines, and who has worked two decades as a paramedic, I just can't wrap my head around the idea of putting your face over the muzzle of a loaded gun, then banging the loaded weapon with a half-**** safety on the ground, hoping you seat the ball safely.

My mid swims with images of headless reenactors.

snowblizz
2019-06-06, 02:47 AM
It makes even less sense with a Minie ball.

Not *all* civil war weapons used Minie balls though. Especially the South had to use both older and non-standard weapons due to shortages.

Plenty of older vintage, and even shotguns, used.

Still agree it seems weird.


I am having trouble even picture how it works. It can't be "spit" the way I imagine it because that'd mean you're trying to hit a tiny hole at distance.....:smalltongue:

Brother Oni
2019-06-06, 03:32 PM
I am having trouble even picture how it works. It can't be "spit" the way I imagine it because that'd mean you're trying to hit a tiny hole at distance.....:smalltongue:

I can think of a number of adult videos that can help with the visualisation. :smalltongue:

Grim Portent
2019-06-06, 05:34 PM
I am having trouble even picture how it works. It can't be "spit" the way I imagine it because that'd mean you're trying to hit a tiny hole at distance.....:smalltongue:

I think the idea is; hold bullet in mouth, raise gun to mouth or bend/crouch to bring mouth to gun, spit bullet down barrel of gun from point blank. Obviously this means the gun barrel is pointed at the face, which is generally ill advised.

As opposed to say spitting a cherry pit a dozen paces or trying to hawk a blob of phlegm into a spittoon across a saloon.

fusilier
2019-06-06, 11:42 PM
Not *all* civil war weapons used Minie balls though. Especially the South had to use both older and non-standard weapons due to shortages.

Plenty of older vintage, and even shotguns, used.

Still agree it seems weird.


I am having trouble even picture how it works. It can't be "spit" the way I imagine it because that'd mean you're trying to hit a tiny hole at distance.....:smalltongue:

The rifle-musket was relatively new in the US at the outbreak of the war, most going to small regular army. As a result large numbers of smoothbores and rifled muskets* were used by both sides. After the fall of Vicksburg some of Grant's regiments were able to exchange their French/Belgian smoothbore muskets for Enfield rifle-muskets captured from the Confederates. So sometimes the Confederates were better equipped than the Yankee opponents. Despite some early problems which beset both sides, the Confederates seem to have done a reasonable job of equipping their army with modern firearms.

I haven't seen any original references to spit-loading, and I know of no ACW reenactors who have promoted it. My initial understanding of it was to simply blow/spit down the barrel and hope that seats the ball at the base (if it doesn't the barrel could explode). But reading about it here, it sounds like the ball was actually placed in the mouth, then spit down the barrel? I'll admit, I never studied it much, because I never took the concept too seriously . . .

*A "rifled musket" is a smoothbore musket that was subsequently rifled. A "rifle-musket" was produced with rifling. This distinction is often lost, even on period documents -- only pedantic ordnance officers seem to have respected the difference. Rifled muskets were typically of a larger, less efficient, caliber than the rifle-muskets. Also, as smoothbore weapons were not designed to be rifled, the act of rifling made their barrels effectively thinner, which reduced the amount of powder that could be safely used. This led to a further deterioration of the ballistic properties.

Mike_G
2019-06-07, 07:51 AM
I haven't seen any original references to spit-loading, and I know of no ACW reenactors who have promoted it. My initial understanding of it was to simply blow/spit down the barrel and hope that seats the ball at the base (if it doesn't the barrel could explode). But reading about it here, it sounds like the ball was actually placed in the mouth, then spit down the barrel? I'll admit, I never studied it much, because I never took the concept too seriously . . . .

I don't think many people did. Until bloody "Sharpe's OSHA Violation" or whatever book one of that series is.

It's dumb and dangerous and doesn't shave much time off the loading process. I'm sure somebody did it, because people are stupid, but I doubt it was ever widespread or authorized.

But now there are a number of reenactors courting a 69 calibre lobotomy because Sean Bean made it cool.

rrgg
2019-06-07, 12:51 PM
I think it's specifically the spitting part that doesn't make much sense to me. Going back to even earlier treatises though I have definitely found complaints about soldiers using bullets small enough that they don't need to use the ramrod.

fusilier
2019-06-07, 03:24 PM
I think it's specifically the spitting part that doesn't make much sense to me. Going back to even earlier treatises though I have definitely found complaints about soldiers using bullets small enough that they don't need to use the ramrod.

We've discussed this before, the so called "rolling gauge" bullets, and even De Gheyn's manual (circa 1610) makes a comment about drawing the ramrod *if* you are using one. It does not, of course, mention spitting down the barrel. While there's enough evidence to convince me that sometimes soldiers loaded loose ammo without using the ramrod, I still haven't seen anything to support spit-loading.

Trying to check this up on the internet, it is invariably frustrated by references to Sharpe's rifles, rather than primary sources. I did find a discussion, which includes two Napoleonic era references to what could be described as "tap-loading" but they did NOT involve spitting.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=330789

Shepsquared
2019-06-10, 09:45 PM
Question relating to ships, particularly in the (early?) medieval period where ships like cogs became widespread: would a fireball spell be a ship killer? Would it just burn away the mast and set some parts of the deck one fire, which sailors could deal with? Or was everything on a ship very fireproof?

Mr Beer
2019-06-10, 11:02 PM
Question relating to ships, particularly in the (early?) medieval period where ships like cogs became widespread: would a fireball spell be a ship killer? Would it just burn away the mast and set some parts of the deck one fire, which sailors could deal with? Or was everything on a ship very fireproof?

OK, so we have to specify system and edition, so let's do this:

D&D 5e Fireball spell "ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.".

Looks like a GM call to me. Medieval ships are not fireproof but may take precautions, especially if they expect to face fire weapons e.g. flaming arrows.

I think the sails and rigging are going up. A poorly run ship is going to have flammable material on deck (e.g. buckets, rags, ropes etc. just lying around). A well run warship will not - stuff gets stowed. I would consider decking to be not very flammable so presumably is not going to just light up. Note that it looks like people probably aren't going to get ignited according to the spell description.

My ruling would be that a fireball directed at a 60' long cog around its' single mast is going to ignite the sail and rigging.

The crew of a well run ship will be able to cut down the flaming wreckage, saving the ship and mast, but they will be unable to get under power until they can re-rig the whole thing, making them vulnerable for quite some time.

A poorly run ship is going to be alight in a bunch of places and the crew probably won't be able to prevent the whole thing eventually going up in flames.

Basically, yes this would initially be a shipkiller if used against mediaeval cogs, were I running the game.

However, in a world with fireballs, war captains will enchant the sail and rigging or use exotic non-flammable construction materials or at the very least, hose everything down with sea water prior to a battle. That should change the situation.

AdAstra
2019-06-10, 11:32 PM
Question relating to ships, particularly in the (early?) medieval period where ships like cogs became widespread: would a fireball spell be a ship killer? Would it just burn away the mast and set some parts of the deck one fire, which sailors could deal with? Or was everything on a ship very fireproof?
It would likely depend on the nature of the Fireball, but I can tell you that sailing ships were very, very flammable. Aside from the structures being made of wood, you had rope (often tarred for waterproofing), cloth, and other materials waiting to catch. In addition, most ships were waterproofed with pitch, which is usually either petroleum or plant-resin based. Needless to say, all of this basically makes your sailing vessel a floating torch with delusions of grandeur. In fact, shot heated to a glowing red was used by shore forts as very effective anti-ship munitions, one that could not be safely replicated on ships themselves due to the obvious dangers (though obviously that wouldn't apply here). Hell, even nowadays fires aboard ships are considered extremely dangerous, as even though the hulls are metal, there's usually lots of fuel aboard.

However, sailors were (and usually still are) very well aware of this fact, and usually were very well trained, or at least motivated, in fire prevention and management. While even a small fire left unattended might be able to doom a vessel, an attentive crew would quickly be smothering it with water and sand. Also note that getting solid, well-seasoned wood to do anything more than scorch is a lot harder than it would appear, and a great deal of the outer surface of a ship, including the sails/rigging, will likely be soaked with water, further hindering ignition.

As for fireball specifically, I will be using 5e's version of it, which is a 20 ft. radius sphere that spreads around corners and explicitly lights up flammable objects in the area. Depending on your definition of flammable you might have next to no effect (assuming you consider solid wood and/or or materials soaked with water to not be flammable), or literally everything on the outer surface of the ship set alight. Might not be so bad, except that the spell spreading around corners (and presumably through significant gaps) means you also may have to deal with everything on the inside, which is likely to be much drier, and still include many obviously flammable materials (hammocks, spare rope, etc.). And with that area of effect, there's no way most ships have a crew capable of adequately fighting the fire conventionally, even assuming they all survived the blast.

Shepsquared
2019-06-11, 12:54 AM
OK, so we have to specify system and edition, so let's do this:

D&D 5e Fireball spell "ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.".

Looks like a GM call to me. Medieval ships are not fireproof but may take precautions, especially if they expect to face fire weapons e.g. flaming arrows.

I think the sails and rigging are going up. A poorly run ship is going to have flammable material on deck (e.g. buckets, rags, ropes etc. just lying around). A well run warship will not - stuff gets stowed. I would consider decking to be not very flammable so presumably is not going to just light up. Note that it looks like people probably aren't going to get ignited according to the spell description.

My ruling would be that a fireball directed at a 60' long cog around its' single mast is going to ignite the sail and rigging.

The crew of a well run ship will be able to cut down the flaming wreckage, saving the ship and mast, but they will be unable to get under power until they can re-rig the whole thing, making them vulnerable for quite some time.

A poorly run ship is going to be alight in a bunch of places and the crew probably won't be able to prevent the whole thing eventually going up in flames.

Basically, yes this would initially be a shipkiller if used against mediaeval cogs, were I running the game.

However, in a world with fireballs, war captains will enchant the sail and rigging or use exotic non-flammable construction materials or at the very least, hose everything down with sea water prior to a battle. That should change the situation.

It would likely depend on the nature of the Fireball, but I can tell you that sailing ships were very, very flammable. Aside from the structures being made of wood, you had rope (often tarred for waterproofing), cloth, and other materials waiting to catch. In addition, most ships were waterproofed with pitch, which is usually either petroleum or plant-resin based. Needless to say, all of this basically makes your sailing vessel a floating torch with delusions of grandeur. In fact, shot heated to a glowing red was used by shore forts as very effective anti-ship munitions, one that could not be safely replicated on ships themselves due to the obvious dangers (though obviously that wouldn't apply here). Hell, even nowadays fires aboard ships are considered extremely dangerous, as even though the hulls are metal, there's usually lots of fuel aboard.

However, sailors were (and usually still are) very well aware of this fact, and usually were very well trained, or at least motivated, in fire prevention and management. While even a small fire left unattended might be able to doom a vessel, an attentive crew would quickly be smothering it with water and sand. Also note that getting solid, well-seasoned wood to do anything more than scorch is a lot harder than it would appear, and a great deal of the outer surface of a ship, including the sails/rigging, will likely be soaked with water, further hindering ignition.

As for fireball specifically, I will be using 5e's version of it, which is a 20 ft. radius sphere that spreads around corners and explicitly lights up flammable objects in the area. Depending on your definition of flammable you might have next to no effect (assuming you consider solid wood and/or or materials soaked with water to not be flammable), or literally everything on the outer surface of the ship set alight. Might not be so bad, except that the spell spreading around corners (and presumably through significant gaps) means you also may have to deal with everything on the inside, which is likely to be much drier, and still include many obviously flammable materials (hammocks, spare rope, etc.). And with that area of effect, there's no way most ships have a crew capable of adequately fighting the fire conventionally, even assuming they all survived the blast.
Yes, for 5e. Sorry about that.

I hadn't really thought about how basically everything would be soaked with water, especially since wet sails apparently catch the wind better. I also didn't think about how fireball could get into the the interior sections. So I'll be keeping all that in mind when sorting out what results from the usage of magic in ship construction and for my idea for a turtleship - instead of cannons a spellcaster or two using the dragonhead at the front to empower their fireball spells, setting even damp sections of the ship on fire.

Pauly
2019-06-11, 01:30 AM
Yes, for 5e. Sorry about that.

I hadn't really thought about how basically everything would be soaked with water, especially since wet sails apparently catch the wind better. I also didn't think about how fireball could get into the the interior sections. So I'll be keeping all that in mind when sorting out what results from the usage of magic in ship construction and for my idea for a turtleship - instead of cannons a spellcaster or two using the dragonhead at the front to empower their fireball spells, setting even damp sections of the ship on fire.

Fireball spells definitely kill any wooden ship. Hell even lower level fire spells with any range would be ship killers too. As would potions of fiery burning etc.

In earlier warfare with galleys the threat of fire isn’t reported as being so a dreaded. It took the invention of Greek Fire to turn the fire threat into the realms of being super scary. I assume this may be due to relatively denser crews per square foot being able to respond to fires more quickly.

If you have a world where magic fireballs are commonplace then that leads to one of several things:-
- Sea going ships not being used because they are too easy to kill. (For something similar look at the ME 321/323 Gigant in WW2. If something is too big and too easy to kill people stop using it). Coastal vessels and galleys could still be viable, but things like cogs would not.
- Anti-Fireball measures are common and used routinely. This allows for cogs, but fireball and similar spells would be mostly ineffective.
- Cogs are only used by people who can equip each cog with a wizard or two for fireballs/fireball defense.

All of this would be well established lore in the region. Your PCs are not going to be the first people in the world to think “I wonder what happens if we use common magic set fire to that floating box of wood, tar, pitch and rope?”

AdAstra
2019-06-11, 01:42 AM
Yes, for 5e. Sorry about that.

I hadn't really thought about how basically everything would be soaked with water, especially since wet sails apparently catch the wind better. I also didn't think about how fireball could get into the the interior sections. So I'll be keeping all that in mind when sorting out what results from the usage of magic in ship construction and for my idea for a turtleship - instead of cannons a spellcaster or two using the dragonhead at the front to empower their fireball spells, setting even damp sections of the ship on fire.

If your intent is to make Fireball an even better shipkiller (which seems a little like trying to put a space heater in a furnace, but your choice), you could always say that enough water is evaporated out by the heat to cause most wet objects to light up anyway, perhaps requiring repeated strikes to get ignition. For your turtleship-analogue, I would recommend ceramic tiles or iron plate all around (for fireproofing, it can be paper-thin), as well as internal shutters for all openings to prevent Fireballs from getting through and scorching the inside.

Other potential counters to fire aside from runes and spells may include "sprinkler" systems set up on the masts to keep everything damp, fed by pumps leading from the bilge or sea, which could also be used to flood the decks. Asbestos (would have been available, though in real history it was a very exotic material in the period you're using) covers or containers for the most flammable materials might be an option as well. Rather complex and expensive for the time, but probably feasible in a more fantastical world.

Vinyadan
2019-06-11, 06:43 AM
A god of travel may offer protection from fire spells to ships with his symbol painted on. Depending on how easy you want it to be, there may or may not be a cleric and/or a spell involved.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-11, 07:22 PM
Not only would they be shipkillers, they would transform naval warfare. No one really got past "ram them or board them" until the invention of reliable cannon and the ability to mount them without messing up the ship. Yes, there we some ballista and small siege weapons were used in antiquity, and early carronades in the late medieval/early renaissance period but the name of the game was generally ram a hole in the waterline, break their oars with a raking attack, or board them. Even with Napoleonic cannon and ships, generally you had to get in close and batter the almighty hell out of each other with banks and banks of guns. Inaccuracy and the ability for wooden ships to keep floating despite being hit by several iron balls turned naval warfare into a slugging match.

With "fireball", you have none of that. You point, they die. The end. 50 yards for the non-extended range of the spell, so basically Napoleonic broadside range, but you can wield it as one man in 360 degree arc, and fire shots off as quickly drawing a bow. Unless you can afford to magically shield your ships from fire - and presumably, the kings of the world would be smart enough to mass produce wands if they wanted naval dominance - any large ship is a liability. A flaming coffin for your men waiting to happen. So you would have this odd mix of magical dreadnaughts combined with cheap and small firing platforms whose only purpose would be to carry killer spells into range. Anyone with shielding is basically playing rocket tag - we get close enough, then we both explode into flames, sink, and die. Or you have an extra few yards, and you turn me into a pyre first, but unless you smahs me to pieces before I cover the gap, you die too.

Really, on-call snap-your-fingers common magic pretty much destroys anything approaching a "real world" tactical solution in medieval times.

The more martyr-centric religions would love it.

Mr Beer
2019-06-11, 10:36 PM
So with the Rocket Tag thing, one warfare evolution may be to have a large heavily fireproofed ship surrounded by a flotilla of detection/protection vessels. This heavy ship acts as a base from which squadrons of flying fireball wizards sally forth in order to engage enemy fleets.

Clistenes
2019-06-12, 04:28 AM
In the Tanya the Evil manga they actually test what happens when you pit flying sorcerers vs WWI dreadnaughts.

Tanya proposes to turn the warships into aircraft carriers, adding multiple layers of anti-air artillery to protect them against flying foes...

VoxRationis
2019-06-12, 12:15 PM
Does anyone have a good idea of how in the world people adjusted the rigging on undecked galleys? For something like a trireme or a larger Hellenistic ship, where there's at least a partial deck, it's not difficult to see, but I have difficulty imagining how one could rotate yards, raise sails, adjust trim, and the like in a penteconter or Renaissance galley, where most of the surface is just packed with rowers.

hymer
2019-06-12, 01:36 PM
Does anyone have a good idea of how in the world people adjusted the rigging on undecked galleys? For something like a trireme or a larger Hellenistic ship, where there's at least a partial deck, it's not difficult to see, but I have difficulty imagining how one could rotate yards, raise sails, adjust trim, and the like in a penteconter or Renaissance galley, where most of the surface is just packed with rowers.

Maybe you don't need to do so much with the sails when all those rowers are there. When you're under sail, presumably they don't have sit there and get in your way.

Clistenes
2019-06-12, 01:38 PM
Does anyone have a good idea of how in the world people adjusted the rigging on undecked galleys? For something like a trireme or a larger Hellenistic ship, where there's at least a partial deck, it's not difficult to see, but I have difficulty imagining how one could rotate yards, raise sails, adjust trim, and the like in a penteconter or Renaissance galley, where most of the surface is just packed with rowers.

Renaissance galleys didn't have the surface packed with rowers... they had at least partial decks....

Look, there are three wooden strips going from stern to bow, one along each rail, and a third running through the middle of the ship...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/7f/68/e97f68526fa27a011ed5903f8f7da392.jpg

Maybe you are thinking about galliots or about Renaissance brigantines (which were similar to viking drakkars) and frigates (which were basically long chalupas...). Some later "galleys" didn't have full decks, either...

As for the Pentekonter... galley-type ships did use either sails or oars, not both at the same time. When you are going to use the oars, you haul down the sail and sometimes you may even remove the mast itself...

VoxRationis
2019-06-12, 02:10 PM
As for the Pentekonter... galley-type ships did use either sails or oars, not both at the same time. When you are going to use the oars, you haul down the sail and sometimes you may even remove the mast itself...
In that case, though, the rowers are still there and there's not a lot of room for the dedicated sailors to move about.

Kiero
2019-06-12, 04:52 PM
Does anyone have a good idea of how in the world people adjusted the rigging on undecked galleys? For something like a trireme or a larger Hellenistic ship, where there's at least a partial deck, it's not difficult to see, but I have difficulty imagining how one could rotate yards, raise sails, adjust trim, and the like in a penteconter or Renaissance galley, where most of the surface is just packed with rowers.

Ancient galleys didn't have complex rigging like later vessels that relied on sail. For a start they could step and unstep the mast relatively easily, which you couldn't do if you have to take the rigging apart and put it back together again. Sails were shortened by use of brails (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brail).

Pauly
2019-06-12, 05:47 PM
In that case, though, the rowers are still there and there's not a lot of room for the dedicated sailors to move about.

The crew operated the ship. Dedicated rowers only really appear to have been used on slave galleys (which was more a renaissance thing than a classical thing) or high speed galleys that were under oar for extended periods.

It doesn’t make sense to pay one bunch of guys to sit around and do nothing while another group of guys do work if you can train one bunch of guys to do both tasks.

Kiero
2019-06-13, 03:17 AM
"Slave galleys" weren't an ancient thing at all; oarsmen were trained professionals, or else citizens serving out their militia duties. The idea of slaves chained to their benches was largely a fiction created by Ben Hur.

Why would free oarsmen want to serve on a vessel that used slave labour? Where would they keep the slaves when they beached at night? How would they keep a large contingent of slaves under control, given the limited freeboard and thus small crew?

Vinyadan
2019-06-13, 04:26 AM
Slave rowers were around a bit earlier than the Renaissance (I have in mind an example from 900 AD), but they were mostly used by the Saracens, as far as I can remember.

Looking at the image of the galley, does anyone know why they used to put most cannons in the front, and when they begun putting them on the sides? I assume that there was a risk of capsizing?

Also, do we have any well-preserved wreck of a galley in some museum? I know that they excavated a merchant galley near Venice (San Marco in Boccalama), but I don't know if they actually ever put it in a museum.

Clistenes
2019-06-13, 04:50 AM
Slave rowers were around a bit earlier than the Renaissance (I have in mind an example from 900 AD), but they were mostly used by the Saracens, as far as I can remember.

Looking at the image of the galley, does anyone know why they used to put most cannons in the front, and when they begun putting them on the sides? I assume that there was a risk of capsizing?

Also, do we have any well-preserved wreck of a galley in some museum? I know that they excavated a merchant galley near Venice (San Marco in Boccalama), but I don't know if they actually ever put it in a museum.

Spaniards used slave rowers too, but it was mostly a matter of labor shortage... there weren't enough free people willing to take the job (low pay, dangerous, hard work and horrid working conditions), so they pressed criminals and prisioners into it...

True slaves, as in people bought with money or born from other slaves were a very small minority, a last resort...slaves were expensive, an if well treated, they were more trustworthy than prisioners or criminals, so they were kept working in the cities...

EDIT: Only big galleys and galleasses used slave rowers... smaller renaissance brigantines, frigates, galliots and feluccas tended to be manned by free men only...

EDIT 2: Over time, rowing became associated with criminals, captives and lowlifes, becoming a dishonourable task, and finding free rowers became even harder ..

snowblizz
2019-06-13, 05:20 AM
Looking at the image of the galley, does anyone know why they used to put most cannons in the front, and when they begun putting them on the sides? I assume that there was a risk of capsizing?

Stability issues, but also it's the logical way of doing it. You point your galley the way it wants to go and aim where you are going, very simple.

Basically, the way a galley is built you can only put weigth in the centre line, also the rowers take up space on the sides. But mostly a galley is built a certain way that is not conductive to putting cannon on the sides. You need a lot of ballast deep in the hulls to not roll over, again something galleys just can't have.

Also you have to understand galley fleets face each other head on. The line-abreast formation was quite a late invention really, almost a century after cannon were commonly side-mounted of ships. Forming up head on is a necessity ofc course since most of your damage comes from head-on, eg rams.

We need to look at the galley as essentially a fully explored technology at the time cannon is introduced, we are at "peak galley".

We get side-mounted cannon only with the introduction of sizable roundships. They have the displacement and stability to mount them on the sides. Still in the 1600s shipbuilders weren't experienced enough not to make bad mistakes sometimes, RE: Wasa which capsized on her maiden voyage.

Clistenes
2019-06-13, 01:41 PM
Also, do we have any well-preserved wreck of a galley in some museum? I know that they excavated a merchant galley near Venice (San Marco in Boccalama), but I don't know if they actually ever put it in a museum.

La Real (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_(galley)) is a replica, but it was built using the original blueprints, I believe...

There is also the Kadirga (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00253359.1974.10657958) in Istanbul Naval Museum, which is an original, not a replica...

VoxRationis
2019-06-13, 01:49 PM
As for that illustration, by the way, it (as well as most depictions of Renaissance and early modern galleys I have seen) shows the oars going over the outer walkways, such that anyone attempting to traverse them would have to step over each oar and then be careful of where they stand, lest the oar swing into their ankles during the stroke. This seems like an impractical way to conduct tasks which by themselves are demanding and dangerous, like handling rigging or fighting.

Kiero
2019-06-13, 06:13 PM
Not a wreck, but there is the Olympias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)), a reconstruction of a trieres, which is also commissioned in the Greek navy.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-13, 06:25 PM
Presumably, yes, rocket tag would include small offensive and defensive screens, though with ranges well within visual, we'd literally be talking clouds of ships boats/rowing skiffs. Or flying things. Whatever. Anything to get the easy ship killing power out near the enemy and away from you. Surprise would also be a killer. A "cutting out" party that could get into an anchorage, or a single wand shooter waiting either beneath the waves or just hard to see until you got within 50 yards until a ship or squadron came by... would basically be as good as hitting them with cluster bombs. D6+1 charges a day right? 20 max? So, twenty dead unshielded ships if you can slip one wand bearer into range.

No brains
2019-06-14, 12:25 AM
Perhaps this is stretching the intent of this thread a little, but I figure someone here would know the answer: Wasn't there some quote that some Spartan guy said of Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian war? I remember it being a rather nice quote, but I don't recall the words.

It was something in the same spirit as Frank's quote after Charlie stole his money on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Maybe not exactly, but I remember the quote seemed kind of sporting/ chivalrous when I read it at 2AM five years ago.

The best I can find is wikipedia mentions that "Athens and Sparta should have the same friends and enemies." I was sure there was more to it.

Clistenes
2019-06-14, 04:12 AM
As for that illustration, by the way, it (as well as most depictions of Renaissance and early modern galleys I have seen) shows the oars going over the outer walkways, such that anyone attempting to traverse them would have to step over each oar and then be careful of where they stand, lest the oar swing into their ankles during the stroke. This seems like an impractical way to conduct tasks which by themselves are demanding and dangerous, like handling rigging or fighting.

While using the oars, sailors would use the central walkway to move around.

While using the sails, the oarsmen themselves would do the rigging, and would use the central walkway if they needed to move around. It would be kinda slow, but sails weren't used during combat, there wasn't a reason to hurry. Plus the rigging of galleys tended to be simple.

During combat galleys would shoot at their foes from their forecastle or frontal gun deck, they rammed them and boarded them jumping from their galleys's bow... oarsmen weren't in the way.

Vinyadan
2019-06-14, 06:03 AM
Perhaps this is stretching the intent of this thread a little, but I figure someone here would know the answer: Wasn't there some quote that some Spartan guy said of Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian war? I remember it being a rather nice quote, but I don't recall the words.

It was something in the same spirit as Frank's quote after Charlie stole his money on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Maybe not exactly, but I remember the quote seemed kind of sporting/ chivalrous when I read it at 2AM five years ago.

The best I can find is wikipedia mentions that "Athens and Sparta should have the same friends and enemies." I was sure there was more to it.

The Spartans did say "Sorry Thebans & Corinthians, we are NOT destroying Athens". Xenophon, Hellenics, II.2:

[19] Now when Theramenes and the other ambassadors were at Sellasia and, on being asked with what proposals they had come, replied that they had full power to treat for peace, the ephors thereupon gave orders to summon them to Lacedaemon. When they arrived, the ephors called an assembly, at which the Corinthians and Thebans in particular, though many other Greeks agreed with them, opposed making a treaty with the Athenians and favoured destroying their city.

[20] The Lacedaemonians, however, said that they would not enslave a Greek city which had done great service amid the greatest perils that had befallen Greece, and they offered to make peace on these conditions: that the Athenians should destroy the long walls and the walls of Piraeus, surrender all their ships except twelve, allow their exiles to return, count the same people friends and enemies as the Lacedaemonians did, and follow the Lacedaemonians both by land and by sea wherever they should lead the way.

[21] So Theramenes and his fellow-ambassadors brought back this word to Athens. And as they were entering the city, a great crowd gathered around them, fearful that they had returned unsuccessful; for it was no longer possible to delay, on account of the number who were dying of the famine.

[22] On the next day the ambassadors reported to the Assembly the terms on which the Lacedaemonians offered to make peace; Theramenes acted as spokesman for the embassy, and urged that it was best to obey the Lacedaemonians and tear down the walls. And while some spoke in opposition to him, a far greater number supported him, and it was voted to accept the peace.

The "same friends and enemies" formulation was actually the name for a kind of league; some leagues were defensive in nature, but others essentially put the city's military power at disposal of a hegemon city, and this is what Sparta is asking from Athens. I don't know if it actually got to the point where Athens completely would have relinquished all of its foreign policy decisions to Sparta, or if it just was the matter of always join in Spartan wars, but Sparta did later install an oligarchic government known as the 30 tyrants in Athens, which had the same results as giving up foreign policy.

No brains
2019-06-14, 10:34 AM
Thank you, Vinyadan.

Yora
2019-06-15, 03:22 AM
What is that thing that seems to be an air intake on the bottom of a P-51 mustang? It looks like it's in the completely wrong place to be part of the engine.

hymer
2019-06-15, 06:08 AM
What is that thing that seems to be an air intake on the bottom of a P-51 mustang? It looks like it's in the completely wrong place to be part of the engine.
You're right. It's the radiator's air intake.
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Content/1944/P51_Av_4407_DA_scoop_p132_W.png

Yora
2019-06-15, 07:19 AM
This helped me finding this drawing:

http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/images/Harrison%20Radiator/p-51-107w-2.jpg

It does indeed have the cooling for the engine in the back of the plane. Seems a bit weird, but I guess you'll have to make do with the space you got.

Pauly
2019-06-15, 08:29 PM
This helped me finding this drawing:

http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/images/Harrison%20Radiator/p-51-107w-2.jpg

It does indeed have the cooling for the engine in the back of the plane. Seems a bit weird, but I guess you'll have to make do with the space you got.

Water cooled engines (as opposed to air cooled rotary engines) had a notorious weak spot - the radiator.
In combat you generally want your nose pointed towards the enemy. When the radiator is nose mounted you have one of the weakest points of the aircraft at the point where a lot of expected incoming fire is coming from.
Also have the radiator in the nose makes it difficult to streamline the fuselage - for example look at the SE5a from the Great War.

The spitfire and ME109 for example had two underwing radiators. There were some nose mounted radiators like in the P-40 Hawk series and Hawker Typhoon, but for the most part aircraft designers tried to move the radiator away from the nose where possible.

AdAstra
2019-06-16, 02:50 AM
This helped me finding this drawing:

http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/images/Harrison%20Radiator/p-51-107w-2.jpg

It does indeed have the cooling for the engine in the back of the plane. Seems a bit weird, but I guess you'll have to make do with the space you got.

One thing that's important to note is that space and complexity of ductwork are not the only factors in play. They wanted the radiator to be far back and long. Being far back means that it'll ingest less turbulent air from the prop, and being long means that the air travels within the radiator for a greater distance, increasing heat transfer without increasing the frontal area, which would produce more drag. In addition, the shape of the assembly actually produced a tiny amount of forward thrust due to the expansion of air being heated by the radiator. Probably not even enough thrust to offset the drag produced by the radiator, but it's better than just getting drag.

The Mustang was designed from the outset as a long-ranged fighter escort, and while the development time was laughably short, the designers knew exactly what they were doing. Aerodynamic refinements like these are often put down as part of why the Mustang managed to be so effective.

fusilier
2019-06-17, 11:32 AM
I apologize for being late to this conversation, although I think the question has been well answered already, there's a few minor things I would like to add.


Maybe you don't need to do so much with the sails when all those rowers are there. When you're under sail, presumably they don't have sit there and get in your way.

My understanding of a renaissance galley, the oarsmen didn't really have anywhere to go, they basically lived on the deck at their posts. This is why it was common in the Mediterranean to put ashore at night, where possible, and allow your crews to spend the night more comfortably on land.

The question of how the crew managed the sails is a good one. Most galleys of the period had large lateen sails. The crew requirements for a lateen sail increases as its size increases, and a standard galley had a single, large lateen sail. So they required a good number of sailors to handle it.

Re slave oarsmen:

If by "slave" we mean any kind of forced labor (including prisoners, etc.), then slave rowing crews were primarily a development of the 16th century. Although there are cases from earlier. This development is traced in detail in John F. Guilmartin's Gunpowder and Galleys, but basically he attributes the change to wage inflation making the expense of paid professionals increasingly prohibitive. The Spanish shifted over more completely first, the Venetians resisted the longest.

This change in manpower also led to a change in rowing. At the beginning of the century most galleys were rowed alla sensile each man had an oar. With three men on the same bench this required a certain amount of skill to prevent the oarsmen from interfering with each other. The other style of rowing alla scalaccio involved all men on the same bench pulling together on a single oar. It was easier to perform, and was usually used by forced labor crews, but it was less efficient. A galley rowed alla scalaccio required four men per bench, to keep up with a galley rowed alla sensile with only three men per bench.

On the other hand, it was difficult to increase the number of oarsmen per bench using the alla sensile method, with three being the practical limit (although the Venetians did perform successful experiments with more, they don't seem to have put it into practice). So on a large vessel, where more men were needed, it was easier to employ the alla scalaccio style of rowing. Understandably, when the shift toward forced labor began, it would be the larger ships that would use it first.

Finally, the switch to forced rowing crews was probably never 100%. I'll have to dig up my source, but I recall reading a crew description of a Spanish galley of the 1590s, and it still included a handful of professional oarsmen.

Clistenes
2019-06-17, 12:07 PM
Finally, the switch to forced rowing crews was probably never 100%. I'll have to dig up my source, but I recall reading a crew description of a Spanish galley of the 1590s, and it still included a handful of professional oarsmen.

Yep, the so-called "buenas boyas", "good rowers"; they usually were convicts who had already served their sentence and "voluntarily" accepted to stay on board for a wage... But in truth, if you worked as a galley oarsman, that usually meant you either were pressured into it, or you had literally nowhere else to go... Nobody wanted to be a galley oarsman... it was dishonorable, stinky, exhausting, unhealthy, dangerous, the pay was bad and the food was worse...

I guess desperate people would give it a go, if starving, and that some had hope of moving from oarsman to full on sailor... but I have no proof of that kind of mobility being the norm...


On the other hand, it was difficult to increase the number of oarsmen per bench using the alla sensile method, with three being the practical limit (although the Venetians did perform successful experiments with more, they don't seem to have put it into practice). So on a large vessel, where more men were needed, it was easier to employ the alla scalaccio style of rowing. Understandably, when the shift toward forced labor began, it would be the larger ships that would use it first.

Also, a small vessel like a galliot or a felucca needed as many fighting men as it could afford. Oarsmen made most of the men onboard, and if they weren't fighting for you, the amount of warriors a small ship could carry was too small to take on a well-defended merchant vessel or to raid a coastal town...

fusilier
2019-06-17, 12:12 PM
Stability issues, but also it's the logical way of doing it. You point your galley the way it wants to go and aim where you are going, very simple.

Basically, the way a galley is built you can only put weigth in the centre line, also the rowers take up space on the sides. But mostly a galley is built a certain way that is not conductive to putting cannon on the sides. You need a lot of ballast deep in the hulls to not roll over, again something galleys just can't have.

Also you have to understand galley fleets face each other head on. The line-abreast formation was quite a late invention really, almost a century after cannon were commonly side-mounted of ships. Forming up head on is a necessity ofc course since most of your damage comes from head-on, eg rams.

We need to look at the galley as essentially a fully explored technology at the time cannon is introduced, we are at "peak galley".

We get side-mounted cannon only with the introduction of sizable roundships. They have the displacement and stability to mount them on the sides. Still in the 1600s shipbuilders weren't experienced enough not to make bad mistakes sometimes, RE: Wasa which capsized on her maiden voyage.

To add a little more to this. The design of galleys did evolve with the introduction of cannon, mainly the bow became bigger/wider to support the increased weight. Some galleys had a ramp to run the main cannon below decks and more to the middle of the ship, improving handling when not in combat.

On a galley there really isn't room for cannons on the sides (beyond small swivel pieces). Galleases, which were larger and had a different design, could mount more cannons on the sides. Placing the offensive weaponry at the front also made sense given the tactics used at the time, for both sailing ships and galleys, which were all about a boarding fight. In the case of galleys it worked much better with the physical design of the ship. On sailing ships it was difficult to mount large cannons in the bow, although they did attempt to do so. Instead it was easiest to mount large cannons in the stern (the sternchasers). But this meant the cannons were in a defensive position.

As the designs evolved, sailing ships could start to mount more and more cannons on the sides, which eventually led to broadside tactics. But as Snowblizz points out with the Vasa (Wasa), even in the 17th century, the designers could still have trouble with getting the weight distribution right.

fusilier
2019-06-17, 12:21 PM
Yep, the so-called "buenas boyas", "good rowers"; they usually were convicts who had already served their sentence and "voluntarily" accepted to stay on board for a wage... But in truth, if you worked as a galley oarsman, that usually meant you either were pressured into it, or you had literally nowhere else to go... Nobody wanted to be a galley oarsman... it was dishonorable, stinky, exhausting, unhealthy, dangerous, the pay was bad and the food was worse...

I guess desperate people would give it a go, if starving, and that some had hope of moving from oarsman to full on sailor... but I have no proof of that kind of mobility being the norm...

Agreed -- although I can't imagine that the conditions on a galley are much better for than sailors than the oarsmen (except not having to row). It's still a very crowded vessel with little room.

I've heard stories that when Florence started manning it's own galleys (after conquering Pisa), they conscripted people from coastal regions to man them. Many people fled from the coastal regions to avoid being conscripted, and some towns were practically deserted! They increasingly had to go farther inland to find crews.

On the other hand, Venice seems to have done a better job at keeping a professional rowing force for longer. And conscription wasn't always looked upon as an undue burden, especially during a war when there was a certain patriotic zeal.

Professional oarsmen were considered to be more skilled (at least in the earlier period). The sense I get is that they wanted to have a few professionals on a ship who could lead the rest of the oarsmen.

fusilier
2019-06-17, 12:24 PM
Also, a small vessel like a galliot or a felucca needed as many fighting men as it could afford. Oarsmen made most of the men onboard, and if they weren't fighting for you, the amount of warriors a small ship could carry was too small to take on a well-defended merchant vessel or to raid a coastal town...

Yes, even if rowed alla scalaccio the smaller vessels tended to use fewer slaves/forced rowers. Another thing about using forced labor is that they had to be guarded, so that increased the manpower requirements too. On a small fighting vessel, it wouldn't leave you with enough fighting men.

fusilier
2019-06-17, 12:43 PM
Crew of the larger of the two galleys stationed in Cuba in the 1580s:

"21 officers, 24 seamen, 46 soldiers, and 254 oarsmen made up of 13 paid freemen, 49 slaves, and 192 convicts including 18 Frenchmen and ten other foreigners."

Source: Armies of the Sixteenth Century, 2: The armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, other native peoples of the Americas, and the Conquistadores 1450-1608 by Ian Heath.

Clistenes
2019-06-17, 12:57 PM
Agreed -- although I can't imagine that the conditions on a galley are much better for than sailors than the oarsmen (except not having to row). It's still a very crowded vessel with little room.

Rowing was VERY hard work; work such as rigging and sweeping the deck was greatly preferable... yeah, pulling the sails up and down is hard, but you aren't doing it continuously... And rowing was a dishonorable task, which was a big deal in Spain and Italy.

Also, sailors had more mobility. Oarsmen were pressured to stay as part of the crew, while sailors had it easier moving from ship to ship... A captain could make do if he lost a large part of the crew, but a galley lacking oarsmen was screwed...

And a sailor could move from a galley to a round vessel (which were more comfortable, less stinky and had better food...) easily... An oarsman had to stay in a war galley, which sucked...


Crew of the larger of the two galleys stationed in Cuba in the 1580s:

"21 officers, 24 seamen, 46 soldiers, and 254 oarsmen made up of 13 paid freemen, 49 slaves, and 192 convicts including 18 Frenchmen and ten other foreigners."

Source: Armies of the Sixteenth Century, 2: The armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, other native peoples of the Americas, and the Conquistadores 1450-1608 by Ian Heath.

Spanish America was a special case in that a VERY large percentage of the population were African slaves. Not just plantation workers, or the workers extracting gold from the rivers, or domestic service... also farmers, cowboys, artisans, masons, carpenters, peddlers, sailors, fishermen... etc., Slaves were often trained, and then they were allowed to set shop and work on their own in exchange for a fixed payment to their owners.

On the other hand, there were less war prisoners. So they filled the gaps by renting slaves...

In the Philippine Islands, where it was illegal to import slaves or to enslave the local population, the Spaniards sometimes drafted Chinese sailors as galley rowers... that often ended badly, with the Chinese rebelling and killing the Spanish crewmen...

fusilier
2019-06-17, 01:25 PM
Rowing was VERY hard work; work such as rigging and sweeping the deck was greatly preferable... yeah, pulling the sails up and down is hard, but you aren't doing it continuously... And rowing was a dishonorable task, which was a big deal in Spain and Italy.

Also, sailors had more mobility. Oarsmen were pressured to stay as part of the crew, while sailors had it easier moving from ship to ship... A captain could make do if he lost a large part of the crew, but a galley lacking oarsman was screwed...

And a sailor could move from a galley to a round vessel (which were more comfortable, less stinky and had better food...) easily... An oarsman had to stay in a war galley, which sucked...

I'm not really disagreeing, but I will point out that this changed over time. What you are describing is probably correct for the later period (16th and 17th centuries). In the 15th century, you had many professional oarsmen, and, in the mediterranean, still a large number of merchant galleys. There was an active season and an off-season where the oarsmen were discharged and allowed to seek other employment. Basically they had the same freedom and mobility as other sailors. Rowing on a large merchant galley could be a lot nicer, not only did the ships have more room for the crew, the oars were rarely used -- often just into and out of port.

Effectively, I think there existed a pool of trained professionals who could be hired when necessary and possibly augmented with conscripts. (Note: conscripts are not considered "forced labor" in the literature). That changed over the course of the 16th century. By the end of the century (or even earlier in some places), it would not have been possible to hire a new crew when necessary. So discharging the crew, especially if it is a military vessel (which most were at this period), would not be practical.

Also the size of galleys generally increased, the crew requirements increased even more, making the ships more crowded and more uncomfortable.



Spanish America was a special case in that a VERY large percentage of the population were African slaves. Not just plantation workers, or the workers extracting gold from the rivers, or domestic service... also farmers, cowboys, artisans, masons, carpenters, peddlers, sailors, fishermen... etc., Slaves were often trained, and then they were allowed to set shop and work on their own in exchange for a fixed payment to their owners.

On the other hand, there were less war prisoners. So they filled the gaps by renting slaves...

In the Philippine Islands, where it was illegal to import slaves or to enslave the local population, the Spaniards sometimes drafted Chinese sailors as galley rowers... that often ended badly, with the Chinese rebelling and killing the Spanish crewmen...

What the breakdown shows is that even in Spanish Cuba, which would have had many slaves, the majority of the rowing crew is still convicts.

Clistenes
2019-06-17, 02:49 PM
I'm not really disagreeing, but I will point out that this changed over time. What you are describing is probably correct for the later period (16th and 17th centuries). In the 15th century, you had many professional oarsmen, and, in the mediterranean, still a large number of merchant galleys. There was an active season and an off-season where the oarsmen were discharged and allowed to seek other employment. Basically they had the same freedom and mobility as other sailors. Rowing on a large merchant galley could be a lot nicer, not only did the ships have more room for the crew, the oars were rarely used -- often just into and out of port.

Effectively, I think there existed a pool of trained professionals who could be hired when necessary and possibly augmented with conscripts. (Note: conscripts are not considered "forced labor" in the literature). That changed over the course of the 16th century. By the end of the century (or even earlier in some places), it would not have been possible to hire a new crew when necessary. So discharging the crew, especially if it is a military vessel (which most were at this period), would not be practical.

Also the size of galleys generally increased, the crew requirements increased even more, making the ships more crowded and more uncomfortable.

I was speaking of Spanish galleys from the XVI century onwards.

Venetia and other Italian trading powers had a strong fleet of merchant galleys with free oarsmen (and war galleys that protected their trading lines) during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance because they controlled the Mediterranean trade of fine wares like spices, silk and saffron, so they could afford to pay decent wages to professional oarsmen... But when Portugal accessed Asian markets, that started to change.

Small corsair galley-type ships used free oarsmen too... Not just because using captive oarsmen would be impractical, but because piracy was profitable enough that using free oarsmen was worth it...


What the breakdown shows is that even in Spanish Cuba, which would have had many slaves, the majority of the rowing crew is still convicts.

Yep. But the percentage of slave rowers is very high when compared to Europe (in Europe they would use Muslim captives instead...).

fusilier
2019-06-17, 04:47 PM
I was speaking of Spanish galleys from the XVI century onwards. . . .

That's true, it also varied by location. For example, Venice didn't have such a low view of their oarsmen, and primarily employed paid freemen until the end of the 16th century.

HeadlessMermaid
2019-06-17, 05:21 PM
Re slave oarsmen:

If by "slave" we mean any kind of forced labor (including prisoners, etc.), then slave rowing crews were primarily a development of the 16th century. Although there are cases from earlier. This development is traced in detail in John F. Guilmartin's Gunpowder and Galleys, but basically he attributes the change to wage inflation making the expense of paid professionals increasingly prohibitive. The Spanish shifted over more completely first, the Venetians resisted the longest.
The way I understand it, what happened in the 16th century was forced unpaid labour replacing forced paid labour. My notes on anti-vagrancy laws (https://roguish.wordpress.com/2017/12/04/no-rest-for-the-wicked-anti-vagrancy-laws-in-tudor-england-1495-1604/) say:

"In 1545, as he was invading France, Henry VIII issued the proclamation “Ordering Vagabonds to the Galleys”, which ostensibly aimed to prevent people from avoiding the press gangs (conscription), but it didn’t end with the war. From that point on, vagrants could be used as galley-slaves, and the practice continued through the end of the reign of Elizabeth."

So while galley-slaves appear around that time (at least in England), it's not like they replaced [I]voluntary labour, only forced conscription which happened to come with wages of some sort. Or at least that's what I thought. Did I get that wrong?

rrgg
2019-06-18, 01:30 PM
Slave rowers were around a bit earlier than the Renaissance (I have in mind an example from 900 AD), but they were mostly used by the Saracens, as far as I can remember.

Looking at the image of the galley, does anyone know why they used to put most cannons in the front, and when they begun putting them on the sides? I assume that there was a risk of capsizing?

Also, do we have any well-preserved wreck of a galley in some museum? I know that they excavated a merchant galley near Venice (San Marco in Boccalama), but I don't know if they actually ever put it in a museum.

As far as i understand it slave rowers in the Mediterranean tended to be more common among merchant or transport vessels. In combat however it was still much preferred to have skilled, professional rowers, which is part of what made dedicated war galleys a bit more pricey to maintain.

Regarding mounting cannons at the front of a galley. I wanted to add that it also made a bit more sense back when really heavy, bronze artillery capable of posing a serious threat to other vessels was still fairly expensive compared to the ships themselves or even their crews. If you can only afford a few large guns but have plenty of skilled crew and can build new galleys for fairly cheap, then the best way to get the most work out of your guns is to just put each one on it's own galley, making them very quick and maneuverable as well as easy to aim. At the prow of a galley there was usually plenty of room to walk around the guns and load them easily before more complex rolling trucks and pulley systems were perfected, and it also kept the gun fairly low to the water where it was more likely to hit the waterline of an enemy vessel and do the most damage when fired right before boarding. "Roundships" at the time typically had to be built way larger in order to mount the same caliber guns that a small galley could and especially when there wasn't much wind would have far more difficulty aiming. Similarly, if a fleet of roundships found itself too spread out it ran the risk of having the more maneuverable galleys gang up on just one ship at a time and pick the fleet apart piecemeal. Bernardino de Mendoza recommended that if sailing ships were threatened by galleys and there wasn't much wind then the ships should quickly launch all their skiffs or longboats with rowers and ropes and attempt to pull the fleet into a very tight formation where they can better support each other.

Interestingly, the first half of the 16th century even saw some galleys briefly return to warfare in northern european waters. At the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547, William Patten noted the english Subtle Galley in particular for the effectiveness of its large, accurate cannon during the bombardment. He wrote that the scottish highlander light infantry in particular abandoned the fight after a single large cannonball killed twenty men in addition to the the master of Graham in a single shot.


As for that illustration, by the way, it (as well as most depictions of Renaissance and early modern galleys I have seen) shows the oars going over the outer walkways, such that anyone attempting to traverse them would have to step over each oar and then be careful of where they stand, lest the oar swing into their ankles during the stroke. This seems like an impractical way to conduct tasks which by themselves are demanding and dangerous, like handling rigging or fighting.

Ideally there was supposed to be a fair amount of space between the oars where during combat they could store weapons, ammunition, barrels of seawater, surgeons, etc within easy access. Mendoza does mention though that galleys in particular should always keep at least a couple of lanterns lit below decks at night so that the men aren't stumbling and tripping over each other if they need to do something in the middle of the night.

Clistenes
2019-06-18, 01:57 PM
As far as i understand it slave rowers in the Mediterranean tended to be more common among merchant or transport vessels. In combat however it was still much preferred to have skilled, professional rowers, which is part of what made dedicated war galleys a bit more pricey to maintain.

Quite the opposite, actually. Slaves were expensive, so merchants couldn't afford to have slave oarsmen (save maybe in the Caribbean, where you could rent slaves and pay their owner by the week...). States, on the other hand, could press vagrants, convicts and war prisoners into becoming forced labor as oarsmen...

So war galleys were more likely to have slave rowers, while merchant galleys relied on free workers...

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-18, 07:51 PM
For those with more martial arts experience than I...

Are there any attack to counter/grapple sequences that could fluidly end with the initial defender behind the initial attacker, somehow barring or locking his arm, and hand on the back of his head slamming him face-first into a wall?

(For something I'm writing.)

fusilier
2019-06-19, 12:11 AM
The way I understand it, what happened in the 16th century was forced unpaid labour replacing forced paid labour. My notes on anti-vagrancy laws (https://roguish.wordpress.com/2017/12/04/no-rest-for-the-wicked-anti-vagrancy-laws-in-tudor-england-1495-1604/) say:

"In 1545, as he was invading France, Henry VIII issued the proclamation “Ordering Vagabonds to the Galleys”, which ostensibly aimed to prevent people from avoiding the press gangs (conscription), but it didn’t end with the war. From that point on, vagrants could be used as galley-slaves, and the practice continued through the end of the reign of Elizabeth."

So while galley-slaves appear around that time (at least in England), it's not like they replaced [I]voluntary labour, only forced conscription which happened to come with wages of some sort. Or at least that's what I thought. Did I get that wrong?


The most detailed works I've read focus on the Mediterranean, so I can't really speak to the English experience with oarsmen. I don't think you got anything wrong, but different nations had different approaches.

Different nations had different cultures, strategic considerations, and resources. So their approaches would vary, even if we can point to general trends. For example, as the cost of paid oarsmen increased, in the 16th century more and more of the oarsmen were forced labor. However, Spain shifted almost completely to forced rowing crews very early. Whereas Venice increasingly experimented with forzati, but only just barely. Throughout the 16th century the majority of Venetian crews were paid freemen.

I don't know if I can find a specific reference, but the sense I get is that conscripts were conscripted for a particular event: a voyage, a campaign, etc. They were not forced into service for years. The expense of maintaining them during the off-season discouraged governments from keeping them year round. Convicts, who have been sentenced for years, need to be held anyway (and you don't have to pay them).

As for the increasing costs of paid oarsmen: In 1538 Spain paid oarsmen 1 ducat a month. In 1571 they paid them 10 ducats, less a two ducat clothing allowance. There may be other factors driving up the pay, but clearly some inflation was at work. Venice and the Ottoman Empire had greater ability to expand and shrink their fleets as the situation demanded, but Spain couldn't do that (for both organizational and strategic considerations). As a result, Spain was forced to keep a large permanent fleet. During the off-season they were known to discharge all those men whom they were confident they could rehire, but oarsmen were mainly supplied through forced labor, which could be maintained more cheaply year-round.

fusilier
2019-06-19, 12:14 AM
Ideally there was supposed to be a fair amount of space between the oars where during combat they could store weapons, ammunition, barrels of seawater, surgeons, etc within easy access. Mendoza does mention though that galleys in particular should always keep at least a couple of lanterns lit below decks at night so that the men aren't stumbling and tripping over each other if they need to do something in the middle of the night.

I would have to go over my sources again to get all the correct terminology, but basically, there was an inner walkway, and an outer walkway on each side, where soldiers could be stationed. However, from what I've seen they would still have to step over the oars. (Note the oars are leveraged between upright pegs mounted at the outside edge of this walkway, so it's not like the oars are moving all over the place).

fusilier
2019-06-19, 12:23 AM
Quite the opposite, actually. Slaves were expensive, so merchants couldn't afford to have slave oarsmen (save maybe in the Caribbean, where you could rent slaves and pay their owner by the week...). States, on the other hand, could press vagrants, convicts and war prisoners into becoming forced labor as oarsmen...

So war galleys were more likely to have slave rowers, while merchant galleys relied on free workers...

In the earlier period, they were mostly free. But I do believe there are later references in North Africa to slave (prisoners of war) being used to row merchant vessels. (I think Cervantes mentions this?)

However, again, we are talking about different times/places. Spain, which had to maintain a large fleet year round, found it economical to use convicts on their military vessels. The Ottoman Empire, had a complicated way of providing for both freemen and conscripts, and they preferred to avoid using slaves on warships, if possible. (In reality a large expedition would usually have a mix, but slaves seem to have been a minority).

The smaller galliots and fustas engaged in raiding, couldn't carry an effective number of fighting men, if they relied too heavily on slaves. Etc., etc.

fusilier
2019-06-19, 12:33 AM
Regarding mounting cannons at the front of a galley. I wanted to add that it also made a bit more sense back when really heavy, bronze artillery capable of posing a serious threat to other vessels was still fairly expensive compared to the ships themselves or even their crews. If you can only afford a few large guns but have plenty of skilled crew and can build new galleys for fairly cheap, then the best way to get the most work out of your guns is to just put each one on it's own galley, making them very quick and maneuverable as well as easy to aim. At the prow of a galley there was usually plenty of room to walk around the guns and load them easily before more complex rolling trucks and pulley systems were perfected, and it also kept the gun fairly low to the water where it was more likely to hit the waterline of an enemy vessel and do the most damage when fired right before boarding. "Roundships" at the time typically had to be built way larger in order to mount the same caliber guns that a small galley could and especially when there wasn't much wind would have far more difficulty aiming. Similarly, if a fleet of roundships found itself too spread out it ran the risk of having the more maneuverable galleys gang up on just one ship at a time and pick the fleet apart piecemeal. Bernardino de Mendoza recommended that if sailing ships were threatened by galleys and there wasn't much wind then the ships should quickly launch all their skiffs or longboats with rowers and ropes and attempt to pull the fleet into a very tight formation where they can better support each other.

The centerline cannon on a galley quickly became quite huge. By the mid 16th century, they were often 50 pounders, and later 70 pounders. Nothing on a sailing ship would match that for many years. Although the total weight of shot that a sailing ship could carry would typically be greater, the galley's centerline cannon, which is effectively a siege cannon, was quite the threat.


Interestingly, the first half of the 16th century even saw some galleys briefly return to warfare in northern european waters. At the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547, William Patten noted the english Subtle Galley in particular for the effectiveness of its large, accurate cannon during the bombardment. He wrote that the scottish highlander light infantry in particular abandoned the fight after a single large cannonball killed twenty men in addition to the the master of Graham in a single shot.

The Spanish found galleys very useful for anti-piracy action. That's why they sent some to Cuba (apparently sailing them there!), but they also maintained a squadron in Flanders at the end of the 16th and beginning of 17th century. They were very effective against the freebooters, but a galley squadron required an entire "ecosystem" to support and maintain it. In both cases the fleets kind of gradually died out, and weren't replaced.

The English designed and used some interesting galleys, and some galleases, but it never really "took off." The Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, did manage to get galley fleets going in the 16th century, and continued using them into the 19th century.

Guizonde
2019-06-19, 12:37 AM
For those with more martial arts experience than I...

Are there any attack to counter/grapple sequences that could fluidly end with the initial defender behind the initial attacker, somehow barring or locking his arm, and hand on the back of his head slamming him face-first into a wall?

(For something I'm writing.)

i've seen a kempo competition where that was done, it was started by a punch, the defender rolled into the attacker's reach, grabbed the wrist, ducked under the arm while twisting it, and ended in a standard arm lock... before being thrown to the ground by a variant of the ippon throw from judo. it was very quick, but as i understand it, kempo is heavily focused on take downs and ground grapples.

Kiero
2019-06-19, 03:35 AM
What did Renaissance galleys do with slaves when they weren't rowing? One of the reasons slaves weren't much used in antiquity was that they stopped at a beach most nights, and you couldn't bring a stockade/pen everywhere you went, not to mention the absence of any means of controlling them on board.

Oarsmen massively outnumbered everyone else on board; for example a trieres had 180 oarsmen, with only 15 other crew and about the same number again of marines.

How did that differ in the 15th-17th centuries? Were they simply left on board (since those vessels stayed in the water)?

HeadlessMermaid
2019-06-19, 07:27 AM
For galley crews in the Mediterranean, here's a relevant excerpt from Suraiya Faroqhi's The Ottoman Empire and the World Around It (I.B. Tauris, 2004):

Mediterranean states maintained galleys well into the seventeenth century, and a few ships of this type were in use even after 1700/1111–12. As the overcrowding and overwork on board resulted in high mortality rates, there was a sustained demand for rowers. Where the galleys based in Istanbul were concerned, we have noted that prisoners taken in war had as companions in misfortune both criminals and ‘free’ rowers furnished by the local craft guilds. In the sixteenth century, it became common also in the Ottoman territories to sentence people to the galleys for a variety of misdeeds. At certain times, the number of Ottoman subjects illegally kidnapped and sold to the naval arsenal may also have been considerable. In the North African provinces, with their much smaller populations, the percentage of slave rowers was probably higher than on the galleys based in Istanbul.

Galley crews consisting largely of prisoners, whether in the service of the Ottoman sultan or else of a Christian ruler, had little reason to feel any loyalty towards the state responsible for their misery. When a galley was under attack, the rowers thus might seize the chance to revolt; and in less extreme situations they were liable to flee if given half a chance. The insecurity generated by this situation in turn was the source of much brutality on the part of officers and guards, which cost the lives of many slaves. When a galley was taken by the ships of a Christian power, the Christian rowers were set free, and the converse was true for Muslim galley slaves if the captor was an Ottoman vessel. On the other hand, rowers with the ‘wrong’ religion were not included in this gesture of liberation. Thus, when Christian rowers were freed because the galley on which they had served was taken by a Maltese or papal ship, this did not mean that the misfortunes of their Muslim colleagues were at an end, quite to the contrary. Nor were Christian galley slaves normally released when their ship fell into the hands of the Muslims.

To date virtually no memoirs of Ottoman ex-galley slaves have been found, so that we know very little about the way in which these men experienced their captivity. However, the Roman archives do preserve evidence of the acts through which certain slaves serving on the papal galleys attempted to obtain liberation. One way was to flee the port towns where the ships were anchored, and make one’s way to Rome as, at least at certain times during the sixteenth century, slaves who reached the Capitol and demanded their freedom were recognized as freedmen. Even after the right to automatic manumission had been abolished, slaves continued to arrive because, if they could provide proof of baptism, they were still able to obtain their freedom. Others attempted to flee to Muslim territory, on a boat that they had found or ‘liberated’; unfortunately we only know something about those attempts that miscarried, and often those fugitives who had the misfortune to be recaptured were severely punished. Of course, the successful ones were those who left no trace.

In the second half of the sixteenth century, when food prices had greatly increased, captives employed on galleys generally received only the absolute minimum in terms of food. Michael Heberer of the small Neckar town of Bretten, near Heidelberg in today’s south-western Germany, who rowed on Ottoman galleys during the 1580s/987–98, described a remarkable scene in which the owner of a galley, a powerful bey, demanded that the captain (re’is) increase his beatings of the slaves in order to make them row harder. The captain refused, replying that the slaves needed more food, not beatings. When the owner was unwilling to see reason, the captain resigned his post in protest, saying that the slaves were people just as he himself, and that he wanted to treat them as men and as not as animals. According to Heberer, the bey was livid, but did not dare to do anything, as both the soldiers and the passengers took the captain’s side. Bad though conditions were on Ottoman galleys, they were often even worse on those of the Christian powers, where the bread was frequently inedible and possibly also the moral code which governed the treatment of ‘infidel’ captives was but weakly developed.

fusilier
2019-06-19, 09:22 AM
What did Renaissance galleys do with slaves when they weren't rowing? One of the reasons slaves weren't much used in antiquity was that they stopped at a beach most nights, and you couldn't bring a stockade/pen everywhere you went, not to mention the absence of any means of controlling them on board.

Oarsmen massively outnumbered everyone else on board; for example a trieres had 180 oarsmen, with only 15 other crew and about the same number again of marines.

How did that differ in the 15th-17th centuries? Were they simply left on board (since those vessels stayed in the water)?

In the 15th-17th centuries, in the Mediterranean they would still back their ships against a friendly shore at night if possible.

I don't have a precise answer, but I do know that the use of prisoners required more soldiers to guard them, which in turn weighed the ship down, which required more rowers to keep up dash speed . . . It created a kind of feedback loop, that led to the gradual enlarging of galleys.

jjordan
2019-06-19, 11:12 AM
Slightly tangential but please remember that logistics and technology are dictating weapons and tactics. Rowers were used to give increased maneuverability to sailing ships. Without rowers ship commanders were largely at the mercy of the winds. While this was always the case, having rowers meant that ships could maneuver independently of the wind once they were close to their opponents. It also allow ships mobility when moving between currents or wind patterns. And here is where rowing really comes into play. Piracy was possible, and prevalent, because ships followed established currents and wind patterns and these brought them past choke points. Ships moving from England to America (both North and South), for instance, sailed down the coast of Spain and Africa and rode the winds and currents West. Which exposed them to the predations of pirates from the cities on the North and Western Coasts of Africa. These currents and winds exposed Spanish shipping to piracy in the Caribbean and created similar choke points around Madagascar and the Straits of Malacca. Pirate ships used the wind to place themselves in favorable positions where they could then use their rowers (mostly slaves according to some fairly detailed accounts of the Algerines) to chase down ships.

Brother Oni
2019-06-19, 11:21 AM
For those with more martial arts experience than I...

Are there any attack to counter/grapple sequences that could fluidly end with the initial defender behind the initial attacker, somehow barring or locking his arm, and hand on the back of his head slamming him face-first into a wall?

(For something I'm writing.)

From personal experience, ikkyo (first technique) from a punch defence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRNpNnflShg), especially if you follow up the technique with a tenkan (redirect) finish (https://youtu.be/gYC-6Mq0NrI?t=41) rather than an irimi (entering) finish in the first video. You won't have your hand on the back of his head, but you can still drive him head first into a wall.

Alternately you can do gokyo which is more an arm bar, but it's harder to spin your opponent since you'd tend to go to the outside of the line of attack rather than the inside, making you stay more in the initial direction of travel.

If you don't like aikido, then I believe there's similar techniques in jiujitsu, but I don't know the technique names that style uses.

jjordan
2019-06-19, 12:41 PM
For those with more martial arts experience than I...

Are there any attack to counter/grapple sequences that could fluidly end with the initial defender behind the initial attacker, somehow barring or locking his arm, and hand on the back of his head slamming him face-first into a wall?

(For something I'm writing.) Yes. I suggest Wiktenauer as a good source of answers to these kinds of questions. And for this one I specifically recommend Fiore's work (https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi). The dagger section in particular, but the sword in armor section has a couple of suggestive techniques.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-19, 12:41 PM
i've seen a kempo competition where that was done, it was started by a punch, the defender rolled into the attacker's reach, grabbed the wrist, ducked under the arm while twisting it, and ended in a standard arm lock... before being thrown to the ground by a variant of the ippon throw from judo. it was very quick, but as i understand it, kempo is heavily focused on take downs and ground grapples.



From personal experience, ikkyo (first technique) from a punch defence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRNpNnflShg), especially if you follow up the technique with a tenkan (redirect) finish (https://youtu.be/gYC-6Mq0NrI?t=41) rather than an irimi (entering) finish in the first video. You won't have your hand on the back of his head, but you can still drive him head first into a wall.

Alternately you can do gokyo which is more an arm bar, but it's harder to spin your opponent since you'd tend to go to the outside of the line of attack rather than the inside, making you stay more in the initial direction of travel.

If you don't like aikido, then I believe there's similar techniques in jiujitsu, but I don't know the technique names that style uses.


That's great, and close enough to what I was trying to picture in my head that it works -- the character could follow through with the motion at full speed and drive the attacker head-first into the wall.



Yes. I suggest Wiktenauer as a good source of answers to these kinds of questions. And for this one I specifically recommend Fiore's work (https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi). The dagger section in particular, but the sword in armor section has a couple of suggestive techniques.


I will look into those.


Thank you, all three.

Clistenes
2019-06-19, 05:28 PM
In the earlier period, they were mostly free. But I do believe there are later references in North Africa to slave (prisoners of war) being used to row merchant vessels. (I think Cervantes mentions this?)

However, again, we are talking about different times/places. Spain, which had to maintain a large fleet year round, found it economical to use convicts on their military vessels. The Ottoman Empire, had a complicated way of providing for both freemen and conscripts, and they preferred to avoid using slaves on warships, if possible. (In reality a large expedition would usually have a mix, but slaves seem to have been a minority).

The smaller galliots and fustas engaged in raiding, couldn't carry an effective number of fighting men, if they relied too heavily on slaves. Etc., etc.

Barbary corsairs captured LOTS of Christian captives during their raids on European coasts and from captured ships. These were either ransomed (children and young women were usually kept as slaves rather than ransomed) or put into forced labor. They rowed as slave oarsmen in the corsair galleys during summer, and were rented as workers during winter. Merchants could rent them as oarsmen, of course, if there were more than the corsair galleys needed...

Strong men and skilled sailors and soldiers were pressured into converting to Islam and joining the corsairs...

Proper Ottoman warfleets relied on peasant levies (usually Christian ones) who were pressed into service as oarsmen, in addition to prisoners of war... Levied oarsmen were contemptuously called "jackals..."

Not sure about Muslim merchant galleys from the Eastern Mediterranean (Anatolia, Levant, Egypt...etc.). There were lots of cheap African slaves in the Red Sea region (they were bought in East Africa, brought to Yemen and the Red Sea, from where they were distributed to the Mediterranean, Arabia, Middle East and Persia...), so Egyptian and Syrian merchants may find it affordable to rely on them...


The Spanish found galleys very useful for anti-piracy action. That's why they sent some to Cuba (apparently sailing them there!), but they also maintained a squadron in Flanders at the end of the 16th and beginning of 17th century. They were very effective against the freebooters, but a galley squadron required an entire "ecosystem" to support and maintain it. In both cases the fleets kind of gradually died out, and weren't replaced.

The English designed and used some interesting galleys, and some galleases, but it never really "took off." The Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, did manage to get galley fleets going in the 16th century, and continued using them into the 19th century.

The Jabeque, a sailing vessel/galley hybrid was used by Spain at least until the beginning of the XIX century. It was very useful as an anti-pirate vessel and to protect the coasts. It was so good, in fact, that the French copied it, creating the french Chebec.

Unoriginal
2019-06-23, 06:58 AM
Hello folks.

I'm sorry if it's not on topic, but this thread was the closest I found.

My question is: do we know anything about European unarmed martial arts during the medieval period?

I know that knights and swordsfighters were known for punching/kicking each other and grappling/wrestling when they could, because it's useful in any close-range combat. And I suppose texts like Beowulf talk about heroes brawling and wrestling. But aside from that all the European unarmed fighting I'm aware of was established and widespread either before or after the 400-1600 A.D. range.

Which I guess make sense as unarmed martial arts tend to be popular either as part of combat sports or when a large group of people are forbidden from bearing weapons. But still, does anyone has info on medieval fisticuffs?

Clistenes
2019-06-23, 07:05 AM
Hello folks.

I'm sorry if it's not on topic, but this thread was the closest I found.

My question is: do we know anything about European unarmed martial arts during the medieval period?

I know that knights and swordsfighters were known for punching/kicking each other and grappling/wrestling when they could, because it's useful in any close-range combat. And I suppose texts like Beowulf talk about heroes brawling and wrestling. But aside from that all the European unarmed fighting I'm aware of was established and widespread either before or after the 400-1600 A.D. range.

Which I guess make sense as unarmed martial arts tend to be popular either as part of combat sports or when a large group of people are forbidden from bearing weapons. But still, does anyone has info on medieval fisticuffs?

Many manuals included a chapter about unarmed fighting.

A couple links:

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/unarmedcombat.htm
http://www.thortrains.com/getright/drillmedunarmed1.html


Also, modern boxing and wrestling are based on old popular versions of the same sports: Boxing was more savage and bloody, while wrestling was in many cases very ritualized, more similar to sumo than to today's Olympic sport.

Unoriginal
2019-06-23, 07:11 AM
Many manuals included a chapter about unarmed fighting.


Thanks for the answer! Would you know the names of any of the manuals that are notorious for said chapter?




Also, modern boxing and wrestling are based on old popular versions of the same sports: Boxing was more savage and bloody, while wrestling was in many cases very ritualized, more similar to sumo than to today's Olympic sport.

I was under the impression that the old version of boxing was still more recent than the Middle Age. And do you have any source on how wrestling was practiced during that period? I'd like to know more.

Clistenes
2019-06-23, 07:30 AM
Thanks for the answer! Would you know the names of any of the manuals that are notorious for said chapter?




I was under the impression that the old version of boxing was still more recent than the Middle Age. And do you have any source on how wrestling was practiced during that period? I'd like to know more.

I have edited my previous post and included a couple links.

People have always boxed, but without rules. They just punched each other until somebody fell down and couldn't get up. It went mostly unrecorded, since it was a "game" of commoners, thugs and lowlifes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare-knuckle_boxing) (high class people learned self-defense, but they didn't box), and educated people paid it little attention, but there are references to boxing in medieval Italy and in Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_fist_fighting).

As for wrestling, there are many wrestling traditions: Lucha Canaria, Lucha Leonesa, Cornish wrestling, Lancashire wrestling, Cumberland and Westmorland wrestling... etc.

Unoriginal
2019-06-23, 07:57 AM
I have edited my previous post and included a couple links.

People have always boxed, but without rules. They just punched each other until somebody fell down and couldn't get up. It went mostly unrecorded, since it was a "game" of commoners, thugs and lowlifes (high class people learned self-defense, but they didn't box), and educated people paid it little attention, but there are references to boxing in medieval Italy and in Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_fist_fighting).

As for wrestling, there are many wrestling traditions: Lucha Canaria, Lucha Leonesa, Cornualles's Wrestling, Lancashire's Wrestling... etc.

Thank you once more.

Kiero
2019-06-23, 09:40 AM
Hello folks.

I'm sorry if it's not on topic, but this thread was the closest I found.

My question is: do we know anything about European unarmed martial arts during the medieval period?

I know that knights and swordsfighters were known for punching/kicking each other and grappling/wrestling when they could, because it's useful in any close-range combat. And I suppose texts like Beowulf talk about heroes brawling and wrestling. But aside from that all the European unarmed fighting I'm aware of was established and widespread either before or after the 400-1600 A.D. range.

Which I guess make sense as unarmed martial arts tend to be popular either as part of combat sports or when a large group of people are forbidden from bearing weapons. But still, does anyone has info on medieval fisticuffs?

Pankration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration) was banned by the Edicts of Theodosius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius _I#Theodosian_decrees_(389%E2%80%93391)) against paganism, but allegedly it was still practised in secret until as late as the 10th century AD.

As long as it was in existence, I can imagine people would have been using it to inspire other sorts of unarmed combat.

Also bound up in murky rumours, but some suggest there's evidence from swordsmanship manuals of the 1400s which show the emergence of savate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savate) and zipota (the latter is a Basque martial art similar to the French one).

Clistenes
2019-06-23, 01:22 PM
Thank you once more.

A reference to boxing in Venice. (https://translate.google.es/translate?source=osdd&sl=it&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fit.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPugilato )

Beleriphon
2019-06-23, 03:15 PM
On box/wrestling don't forget pankration from Greece. Its a bit older than the medieval period, but likely forms the root of many unarmed combat techniques. Alexander was a skill pankration practitioner, and was tutored in it. So there were techniques, and move sets that were used. The only really off limits options though were biting and eye gouging, at least as far as official rules for competition went.

Think modern MMA, but the opponents can kill each other to win.

Fun fact, a pankratiast picked up the nickname "Fingertips" because he like to break his opponent's fingers early in a bout.

Myth27
2019-06-23, 03:16 PM
Maybe a little bit off-topic; could someone tell me roughly how much coal per hour was needed to move an average american civil war ironclad river steamboat like for example the CSS Missouri?

Beleriphon
2019-06-23, 03:34 PM
Maybe a little bit off-topic; could someone tell me roughly how much coal per hour was needed to move an average american civil war ironclad river steamboat like for example the CSS Missouri?

A big steamer trans-Atlantic with eight boilers could burn upwards of 100 tons per day on the low end. Missouri had four boilers, assuming they're roughly half the size of a trans-Atlantic steamer, that gives us about one-quarter the fuel. So 25 tons per day.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ironclad-fueling-question.73778/ sort of supports that.

Storm Bringer
2019-06-23, 04:37 PM
Maybe a little bit off-topic; could someone tell me roughly how much coal per hour was needed to move an average american civil war ironclad river steamboat like for example the CSS Missouri?

on top of what Beleriphon just said, bear in mind that a steam engine needs to quite literally "build up steam" and get the pressure up to a useable level, which is a process that can take hours on many ships, which needs to be factored into fuel usage. Getting one of these things going was a quite complex task that needed hours of forwarning to get the engines ready. they weren't like modern cars where you just turn the key and then go.

Kiero
2019-06-23, 06:13 PM
On box/wrestling don't forget pankration from Greece. Its a bit older than the medieval period, but likely forms the root of many unarmed combat techniques. Alexander was a skill pankration practitioner, and was tutored in it. So there were techniques, and move sets that were used. The only really off limits options though were biting and eye gouging, at least as far as official rules for competition went.

Think modern MMA, but the opponents can kill each other to win.

Fun fact, a pankratiast picked up the nickname "Fingertips" because he like to break his opponent's fingers early in a bout.

*cough* I just mentioned panktration. It supposedly dates back to 7th century BC and was practised quite widely wherever there were Greeks until the Christian Emperor Theodosius banned it along with all other "pagan" activities in 4th century AD. When it went underground for another few centuries until it died out in the 900s.

It featured techniques for use in armour and with a shield, as well as properly unarmed and unarmoured techniques.

Another fun fact, in one Olympic pankration bout, an athlete won, even though he'd died during the clinch he was in.

There's also the story of Dioxippus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxippus), a pankratiatist who beat one of Alexander's men in a contest when armed with only a club.

Squire Doodad
2019-06-23, 09:48 PM
At what point would a cudgel stop being a cudgel and start being something else? I wanted to give a character a cudgel in particular (I like the name, and part of the initial weapon design was based on the Demonlord Cudgel from Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate, though that one due to being an in-game Insect Glaive is much bigger than a normal one).
Would the appropiateness of the word "cudgel" taper off at being a third the length of someone (of average height)? A half? Being as long as them?

Pauly
2019-06-24, 01:09 AM
At what point would a cudgel stop being a cudgel and start being something else? I wanted to give a character a cudgel in particular (I like the name, and part of the initial weapon design was based on the Demonlord Cudgel from Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate, though that one due to being an in-game Insect Glaive is much bigger than a normal one).
Would the appropiateness of the word "cudgel" taper off at being a third the length of someone (of average height)? A half? Being as long as them?

There is no strict technical definition of a cudgel. They have other names such as shillelagh, knob-Korrie, nulla-nulla depending on what part of the world you are in. More or less a cudgel is a wooden mace. The defining part is a rounded protrusion at one end.

Basically the differentiation is cudgel-club-staff-stick. Cudgels are made like with a definite heavy end and a bulbous end. Clubs taper from thin to thick. Sticks are more evenly weighted and smoothly proportioned. Staffs are big enough to be wielded two handed. However where one category ends and another starts is open to debate.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-24, 08:32 AM
There is no strict technical definition of a cudgel. They have other names such as shillelagh, knob-Korrie, nulla-nulla depending on what part of the world you are in. More or less a cudgel is a wooden mace. The defining part is a rounded protrusion at one end.

Basically the differentiation is cudgel-club-staff-stick. Cudgels are made like with a definite heavy end and a bulbous end. Clubs taper from thin to thick. Sticks are more evenly weighted and smoothly proportioned. Staffs are big enough to be wielded two handed. However where one category ends and another starts is open to debate.

Plus some of the same words are verbs too, so you could club or cudgel someone with a staff or a stick. It's all very murky.

(And I suppose you could "stick" someone with a club...)

jjordan
2019-06-24, 09:21 AM
Hello folks.

I'm sorry if it's not on topic, but this thread was the closest I found.

My question is: do we know anything about European unarmed martial arts during the medieval period?

I know that knights and swordsfighters were known for punching/kicking each other and grappling/wrestling when they could, because it's useful in any close-range combat. And I suppose texts like Beowulf talk about heroes brawling and wrestling. But aside from that all the European unarmed fighting I'm aware of was established and widespread either before or after the 400-1600 A.D. range.

Which I guess make sense as unarmed martial arts tend to be popular either as part of combat sports or when a large group of people are forbidden from bearing weapons. But still, does anyone has info on medieval fisticuffs?Wiktenauer (https://wiktenauer.com/) is the largest online collection of documents related to Medieval martial arts. It's important to remember that techniques that can be done with weapons are frequently techniques that can be done without weapons as well. So the apparent lack of unarmed techniques in some manuscripts is deceptive. For grappling work Fiore Dei Liberi has some good stuff (both armored and unarmored). Pedro Monte has good information on wrestling. Ringer Kunst has a lot of wrestling material.

Squire Doodad
2019-06-24, 04:23 PM
There is no strict technical definition of a cudgel. They have other names such as shillelagh, knob-Korrie, nulla-nulla depending on what part of the world you are in. More or less a cudgel is a wooden mace. The defining part is a rounded protrusion at one end.

Basically the differentiation is cudgel-club-staff-stick. Cudgels are made like with a definite heavy end and a bulbous end. Clubs taper from thin to thick. Sticks are more evenly weighted and smoothly proportioned. Staffs are big enough to be wielded two handed. However where one category ends and another starts is open to debate.

Thank you very much. So if I have it be a large, bulbous ended thing (or maybe conical with a rounded end? Working on making it look good but not overly complex) and a large heavier end to function as a sort of a grip, it can be a loosely correct cudgel. I suppose it is basically just a "a pole/stave/baton meant for whacking things", so it works! Technically!

Pauly
2019-06-24, 10:17 PM
Thank you very much. So if I have it be a large, bulbous ended thing (or maybe conical with a rounded end? Working on making it look good but not overly complex) and a large heavier end to function as a sort of a grip, it can be a loosely correct cudgel. I suppose it is basically just a "a pole/stave/baton meant for whacking things", so it works! Technically!

There is definitely a lot of examples of walking sticks with a rounded knob designed for whacking things. Here is a video from Matt Easton with one example of a cudgel-ish walking stick. https://youtu.be/mvIcxK8U5WM

Also of interest
https://youtu.be/WTEUz9lXExI
https://youtu.be/k1_FN5jUNsg

https://youtu.be/d43qH9w5Dow

SleepyShadow
2019-06-26, 12:42 PM
Hey all! I've got a question about jungle warfare. I've got two PMCs clashing in a Bolivia-style jungle circa 1950, and I was curious what the soldiers would be realistically equipped with for the situation. What firearms are best suited to the terrain, and what other gear they'd likely need. Thanks everyone :smallsmile:

Mike_G
2019-06-26, 01:34 PM
Hey all! I've got a question about jungle warfare. I've got two PMCs clashing in a Bolivia-style jungle circa 1950, and I was curious what the soldiers would be realistically equipped with for the situation. What firearms are best suited to the terrain, and what other gear they'd likely need. Thanks everyone :smallsmile:

In the jungle, ranges will be short. SMGs, carbines and shotguns are all good choices. You don't really need a full powered rifle round that can reach out to 500 yards because you'll never see a target that far out, and the higher capacity and lighter recoil, not to mention the reduced weight of a carbine is nice. 1950 is early for assault rifles, but they existed. The German SG44 and the early iterations of the AK were a thing, just not widely available. The Korean War was fought without any.

Each squad should have some kind of light machinegun. Maybe a BAR or a Bren.

Hand grenades are great when you know a guy is over there but can see him very well. They're also good because there's no noise and flash to give your position away. All that happens at the target.

Lots of fights will be ambushes or meeting engagements at close range. Co-ordinating large units will be difficult. Most tactics will be at the team or squad level. So you will want good NCOs who can take initiative. The Captain will be too far from most of the company to see, let alone command them all. Radios are primitive, especially in bad terrain that will block the signal, so every corporal or sergeant needs to be able to act without having to wait on orders.

Mobility is harder. Vehicles will have limited usefulness. Hard to get trucks and APCs and so on through the jungle, and even helicopters are limited by decent landing zones. Lots of the mobility will be on foot. Pack mules might be a good thing.

As far as other gear, everyone needs a machete. Waterproof groundsheets, mosquito nets, mosquito repellent, water purification tablets (there's plenty of water, but it's full of nasty microbes) are all nice. Uniforms should be lightweight, carry plenty of extra sock and change them often to avoid trench foot. Well packaged rations, since stuff spoils very easily in the jungle. First aid kits need to contain anti-malaria drugs and topical antibiotics to treat sores and cuts so they don't get infected, as they will stay warm and wet and great sports for bacteria.

Marching in the jungle is hard. It's a lot of work, it's hot and humid so your sweat doesn't evaporate and cool you off and men will ditch heavy gear they don't see a use for. Movement will be slow. Men need to rest and rehydrate often.

That's a good start. It all depends on how much detail you want to go into.

Beleriphon
2019-06-26, 02:39 PM
Another fun fact, in one Olympic pankration bout, an athlete won, even though he'd died during the clinch he was in.

There's also the story of Dioxippus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxippus), a pankratiatist who beat one of Alexander's men in a contest when armed with only a club.

Yeah, I saw that. I got ninja'd.

I knew about those. The guy that died was Arrhichion of Phigalia declared Olympic Champion because his opponent had "tapped out" because Arrhichion either broke his ankle or dislocated his toe. So, he posthumously won the event. There's even an original statue of him in Olympia today.

Pauly
2019-06-26, 03:06 PM
Hey all! I've got a question about jungle warfare. I've got two PMCs clashing in a Bolivia-style jungle circa 1950, and I was curious what the soldiers would be realistically equipped with for the situation. What firearms are best suited to the terrain, and what other gear they'd likely need. Thanks everyone :smallsmile:

Well if they’re in Bolivia, most of Bolivia is high altitude altiplano plateau or mountains. Unless they were specifically recruited for jungle warfare they’d probable by equipped as mountain troops.

Pauly
2019-06-26, 03:39 PM
In the jungle, ranges will be short. SMGs, carbines and shotguns are all good choices. You don't really need a full powered rifle round that can reach out to 500 yards because you'll never see a target that far out, and the higher capacity and lighter recoil, not to mention the reduced weight of a carbine is nice. 1950 is early for assault rifles, but they existed. The German SG44 and the early iterations of the AK were a thing, just not widely available. The Korean War was fought without any.

Each squad should have some kind of light machinegun. Maybe a BAR or a Bren.

Hand grenades are great when you know a guy is over there but can see him very well. They're also good because there's no noise and flash to give your position away. All that happens at the target.

Lots of fights will be ambushes or meeting engagements at close range. Co-ordinating large units will be difficult. Most tactics will be at the team or squad level. So you will want good NCOs who can take initiative. The Captain will be too far from most of the company to see, let alone command them all. Radios are primitive, especially in bad terrain that will block the signal, so every corporal or sergeant needs to be able to act without having to wait on orders.

Mobility is harder. Vehicles will have limited usefulness. Hard to get trucks and APCs and so on through the jungle, and even helicopters are limited by decent landing zones. Lots of the mobility will be on foot. Pack mules might be a good thing.

As far as other gear, everyone needs a machete. Waterproof groundsheets, mosquito nets, mosquito repellent, water purification tablets (there's plenty of water, but it's full of nasty microbes) are all nice. Uniforms should be lightweight, carry plenty of extra sock and change them often to avoid trench foot. Well packaged rations, since stuff spoils very easily in the jungle. First aid kits need to contain anti-malaria drugs and topical antibiotics to treat sores and cuts so they don't get infected, as they will stay warm and wet and great sports for bacteria.

Marching in the jungle is hard. It's a lot of work, it's hot and humid so your sweat doesn't evaporate and cool you off and men will ditch heavy gear they don't see a use for. Movement will be slow. Men need to rest and rehydrate often.

That's a good start. It all depends on how much detail you want to go into.

Great post. A few points to add.
- Soldiers preferred slower heavier bullets in the jungle over lighter faster bullets. The slow heavy bullet is less likely to be deflected by foliage. For example with SMGs a .45 cal SMG is more highly regarded in the jungle than 9mm parabellum.
- Reliability is the king. Failure rates multiply by 5 to 10 times in the Jungle. For example the Australian Owen SMG is a big heavy SMG (a bad thing in the jungle). The troops absolutely loved it because it went Bang! every single time you pulled the trigger.
- Jungle warfare is low light warfare. Flash hiders are very useful.
- Whilst assault rifles are not yet a thing, semi-auto rifles will be the cutting edge for PMCs. Less well funded PMCs would use bolt action rifles.
- The British and Australian armies developed a lot of jungle specific equipment.
- Helmets end up being not so useful in the jungle. Some armies discontinued the use of helmets in the jungle.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-26, 04:33 PM
Re: Jungle Goodness.

A lot of this depends on how you envision the PMCs, and where in the 50's you are. Regardless of the technical details...

-Automatic weapons. At 50 yards with a hard to see enemy and dense foliage, firefights will turn into literally throwing up a wall of lead towards where you think the enemy is. If you have the good fortune to see them first, you'll lose your ability to aim well when they go to ground, so you'll want to smash down their unit with loads of firepower. Hard to miss at that range if you can get a bead, even blasting out long bursts. If you can't see them anymore, you hose where you think they are to stop them from firing and to get lucky. And at Jungle ranges you need a lot less luck to hit while shooting up an area, than say, trying the same thing from across a European farm field.

-HE. Something that makes the boom happen. It might be hand grenades. It might be an RPG-2 equivalent. You're trusting blast effect and shrapnel to produce casualties, and to get into the dead space that thick root balls, ditches, and all that other stuff provides. Again, aim at the enemy is preferable...but...blow the hell out of where he should be will also do a trick. This is particularly true given thick trees, earth mounds. and other heavy cover that will stop even the heaviest bullets. You need a way to get the flying metal to come at him from behind the cover, and shrapnel is how you do it.

-Ammo. Lots of ammo. See above about throwing up walls of lead and liberally blasting areas with HE. If you run low, you can't fire as much, and he drives you down and maneuvers on you. Or you take your chances running away through that hail of unaimed lead. Either way, ammo.

-Mortars. These will be popular. Light enough to hump, big enough to give everyone in a few kilometers fire support. Which matters a lot when fights turn into blasting each other's likely positions and bog down into a slugging match.

-So much water. Because it's hot. And all those guns and ammo weigh a lot.

-Even the jungle leads to openings, villages, fields, bald hills, and so forth. And at those moments, all of a sudden your weapons have to be versatile enough to work there. So a "nothing but SMGs and shotguns" approach will probably end poorly.

-While we're at it, since vehicles are restricted, if you want your mercs to live through the evac, your first aid equipment will have to be on point

Gnoman
2019-06-26, 04:38 PM
Realistically, 1950s "PMCs" would be using arms from one of two sources - the United States, or the Soviet Union. Any other supply source would be too limited at the time.


Using US weapons, the primary personal arms would be the M1/M2 Carbine, the M1 Garand, and the M1 Submachine Gun. Heavier firepower would be provided by Browning Automatic Rifles and M1917 Machine guns. These weapons were all available in massive quantities, and were widely distributed.


Soviet weapons would be PPSh submachine guns and Moisin Nagant rifles, with the submachine guns being far more useful for most people. Heavier firepower would take the form of DP-2 light machine guns or M1910 Maxim guns. These were all being phased out by the Red Army, and were thus widely distributed to potential allies.

Storm Bringer
2019-06-26, 05:08 PM
Hey all! I've got a question about jungle warfare. I've got two PMCs clashing in a Bolivia-style jungle circa 1950, and I was curious what the soldiers would be realistically equipped with for the situation. What firearms are best suited to the terrain, and what other gear they'd likely need. Thanks everyone :smallsmile:

In addition to the other stuff said:

The Jungle is Neutral: it is not your enemy, and it is also not the friend of our enemy. It just is, and every hardship you are suffering, the enemy is as well. its worthwhile remembering this, during the hard, endless and seemingly pointless grind of minor skirmishes that dominate jungle warfare. it often seems like your enemy has all the cards, and is constantly a step ahead. however, the enemy also feels this.

The Jungle is Worthless. Almost all the time, the jungle itself is not worth fighting over, but rather something in the jungle, like a road to somewhere or a village, is what your fighting over. This means that controlling the jungle is a means to a end, not an end itself, and that affects your strategy. Holding ground for the sake of holding ground is pointless, you hold ground because it enables something (for example, controls access to a river, or dominates a road, etc), and most of the time, your need to hold that ground is transient (once the convoy is passed, theirs no need to control the road, and you can leave). for a PMC thats there to do a job, rather than win a war, this last point needs noting.

The Front is All Around. while technically true in most environments, the close in nature of jungle warfare means that its almost impossible to create a continuous frontage, and that means units are very likely to interpenetrate during combat. therefore, every unit need to provide its own all round defence, with soldiers watching the flanks and rear of every unit, down to squads level. this dilutes the firepower in any direction, but it means that you always have someone able to fire on a flanking attack. Due to the heavy intermixing of units and short engagement ranges, heavy fire support is often not very useful as your often fighting within the area of effect of a artillery barrage, which is compounded by the navigational difficulties of the jungle meaning that its really hard work out exactly where you are to the degree needed to avoid shelling your own troops. smaller, portable direct fire weapons like grenade launchers are much more useful for fire support.


Clearings are Death: if you are advancing into contact with an enemy, you can be reasonably certain that any clearings in the jungle you find within a k or two of his front line have been noted and ranged in by any supporting artillery. Do not use them as a convenient site for your support, or your HQ or medical post, because once the fight starts, you can be sure the enemy will be dropping fire on these obvious targets. instead, if you need a open space for something, make it yourself with explosives (wrapping det cord around tree trunks is great at felling trees). likewise, on the defensive, know the locations of any clearings near your location, and other features that the enemy might use (for example a stream, the base of a cliff, ect) and zero in your fire support on these sites for short, high intensity barrages that switch between a few of these sites in rapid succession.

Supply is Key: The Jungle is just about the most worst terrain to fight on, in terms of equipment degradation. Your rifle will rust, Your bullets will go off, your webbing will rot, and your shoes will come unglued. To keep yourself combat capable in these conditions requires a great deal of effort, training and experience, and a supply chain that can bring fresh kit though the jungle to the front line troops. as soon as you are off the main roads its either donkey loads or man packs of kit, and these supply troops all need supplies as well, which eats into (literally and figurately) your ability to supply the front line troops. control of logistic routes like a navigable river can make or break a campaign by shortening or lengthening the supply chain. Helicopters and airdropped supplies are a thing in 1950, but the Huey and other heavy lift choppers are 10+ years into the future, and contempory choppers have only a limited lift ability.

Brother Oni
2019-06-26, 06:16 PM
This might entertain some people. Apparently if you stick enough watermelons in a row, it can deflect a 152mm training shell fired from a D20 howitzer (https://youtu.be/xpJ8EoGmLuE?t=819).

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-26, 06:29 PM
This might entertain some people. Apparently if you stick enough watermelons in a row, it can deflect a 152mm training shell fired from a D20 howitzer (https://youtu.be/xpJ8EoGmLuE?t=819).

Giant version of what often happens with a bullet entering a body.

Wish their FPS ticker didn't give the misimpression that the projectile is still accelerating outside the barrel.

Just before where you have it linked, they miss, and a piece of burning propellant has enough KE to blow a chunk out of the first melon.

Mike_G
2019-06-26, 06:29 PM
-Even the jungle leads to openings, villages, fields, bald hills, and so forth. And at those moments, all of a sudden your weapons have to be versatile enough to work there. So a "nothing but SMGs and shotguns" approach will probably end poorly.


Which is why nobody said "nothing but SMGs and shotguns."

Carbines and a BAR or Bren are more than adequate for clearings and villages. I emphasized SMGs et al because a WWII/Korean War squad of nine riflemen and a Bren gunner would be much worse for jungle fighting than using that same squad as two teams of 1 SMG, two carbines, and a shotgun, and a squad leader with an SMG plus one guy with a BAR, and everybody has a handful of grenades.

Pauly
2019-06-26, 09:05 PM
Realistically, 1950s "PMCs" would be using arms from one of two sources - the United States, or the Soviet Union. Any other supply source would be too limited at the time.
.

You are forgetting just how big the British empire was in 1950, and how much surplus equipment there was from The UK to Canada to Australia to India to South Africa.

Also for example FN in Belgium was gearing up for post-war production, starting the FN FAL. For a PMC there are plenty of options, not just the superpowers

Pauly
2019-06-26, 09:17 PM
Re: Jungle Goodness.

A lot of this depends on how you envision the PMCs, and where in the 50's you are. Regardless of the technical details...

-Automatic weapons. At 50 yards with a hard to see enemy and dense foliage, firefights will turn into literally throwing up a wall of lead towards where you think the enemy is. If you have the good fortune to see them first, you'll lose your ability to aim well when they go to ground, so you'll want to smash down their unit with loads of firepower. Hard to miss at that range if you can get a bead, even blasting out long bursts. If you can't see them anymore, you hose where you think they are to stop them from firing and to get lucky. And at Jungle ranges you need a lot less luck to hit while shooting up an area, than say, trying the same thing from across a European farm field

...

-Mortars. These will be popular. Light enough to hump, big enough to give everyone in a few kilometers fire support. Which matters a lot when fights turn into blasting each other's likely positions and bog down into a slugging match.



Jungle fighting often involved fighting at ranges closer to 15 yards than 50. Which actually meant reduced casualties compared to European fighting. Anyone who didn’t get knocked over in the initial volley went to ground. The amount of cover linked with just how dangerous it was to show yourself meant that there was lots of lead flying around but few available targets. The perception of soldiers who had fought in both environments was that jungle fighting was more deadly, but the casualty returns showed otherwise.

There is a big problem with mortars in the jungle - overhanging trees. There are plenty of accounts from WWII and VietNam of mortar bombs detonating against overhead trees in the jungle and showering the crew with shrapnel. On top of that if the target is inside the jungle the bombs get set off by the tree tops dropping branches on the position, which is decidedly unpleasant, but less deadly that getting the full shrapnel effect. You can’t just set up your mortar anywhere, as you can in Europe or the desert. You have to find, or make, a suitable clearing. And in a lot of situations mortars can’t cause casualties.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-26, 09:37 PM
@ Mike G: Nobody did. I also assume most of the responding posters know that. However, in the effort to prevent a misinterpretation by the OP who is less familiar with the concepts, I was adding that as a clarification.

@ Pauly: I'll buy the casualty thing for a dollar, particularly as the heavier support weapons are less likely to make themselves felt in a jungle. I'll also buy that the fighting "feels" deadlier to your average guy when you're in at hand grenade and SMG range even if it doesn't. There's probably also the psychological factor that the part of the engagement that is deadly is VERY deadly and feels violently jarring : a sudden chopping down of men on a trail from nowhere, rather than being ground down from a visible source of tracers across a field. There's a reason units break and run when the fight gets close after all.


Regarding mortars, it'd be less of a "bring the hump gun on patrol", and more of a "set the (60s/81s/what have you)" up in a patrol base to support area operations. So presumably the firing point is stake, measured, cleared, etc. Less direct lay.

Kaptin Keen
2019-06-27, 07:14 AM
Wish their FPS ticker didn't give the misimpression that the projectile is still accelerating outside the barrel.

My gunnery instructor informed me that that's exactly what happens. It never made sense to me, and I have no source for the info other than one military instructor. But .. it's what he said.

Willie the Duck
2019-06-27, 07:39 AM
My gunnery instructor informed me that that's exactly what happens. It never made sense to me, and I have no source for the info other than one military instructor. But .. it's what he said.

For the first extremely short fraction of a second after it leaves the barrel there's still expanding gas behind it. I wonder if that tidbit got over-generalized and just became part of the instructor's internal trivia list.

SleepyShadow
2019-06-27, 11:16 AM
@Mike_G: Thanks so much! This really helps out with what I'm trying to go for. I definitely think pack mules will come in handy. Why would the squads have different weapon types instead of all having the same loadout?

@Pauly: Yeah, they're specifically fighting in the jungle. The PMCs are being funded by the two countries with the strongest economies in the game, so they would have close to the best gear available for the time period. Would it be worth the time and money to even bother with mortars, given the problems discussed?

@KineticDiplomat: We're looking at no later than 1953, if that helps. Any vehicle recommendations for evac?

@Storm Bringer: The reason the PMCs are fighting in the jungle is because the area is allegedly rich in oil. Both of the major powers in the world want control of the region without officially putting their own troops into a country they are technically allied with. The country where the fighting is taking place doesn't have the manpower to eject the PMCs from the area because of an ongoing civil war (instigated by one of the major world powers as a distraction).

Oh, kind of an important question I forgot to ask earlier. How likely would it be for the PMCs to mistake my group's characters for enemy combatants?

Thanks for the help, everyone!

Brother Oni
2019-06-27, 11:32 AM
Wish their FPS ticker didn't give the misimpression that the projectile is still accelerating outside the barrel.

Just before where you have it linked, they miss, and a piece of burning propellant has enough KE to blow a chunk out of the first melon.

I think that's just a pretty graphical effect for the chronograph, rather than a measure of the shell still accelerating. Still, I see your point, but watching the slow-mo shots again from 15:18 onwards suggests that any visible acceleration is just due to the angle of the camera.

It's a 16.something minute video and while I've watched the whole thing multiple times, I figured that not everybody here shares my somewhat unhealthy enthusiasm for large calibre crew served weaponry. :smalltongue:

Mike_G
2019-06-27, 01:03 PM
@Mike_G: Thanks so much! This really helps out with what I'm trying to go for. I definitely think pack mules will come in handy. Why would the squads have different weapon types instead of all having the same loadout?

You need a variety of weapons due to the demands of the terrain and the fact that you picked 1950. Today you could give all the troops an M4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine) and call it a day.

You want a SMG for close combat, which there will be a lot of. But it's no use at anything other than very close range so if you do wind up fighting in a clearing, you want something with longer range.

A full length rifle like a Garand or SMLE is overkill, since you will probably never get a shot at 500 yards, and it's long and awkward and heavy and has a lower magazine capacity. But a carbine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine) is a nice compromise. More range than a SMG, accurate out to 200 or 300 yards, but still short and light and high capacity.

A LMG, like a BAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle) is nice for at least one per squad, because sometimes you want heavy, full powered automatic fire. Good for punching through cover and providing nice suppression and covering fire. And if you do need to kill a light vehicle it's nice to have the option

Shotguns are nice when you have a quick look at a target, or know somebody is behind that bush, but you can't see him. And the round that miss won;t go very far and endanger your other teams if the enemy get in between you.

So you want a variety of capabilities and in 1950 there wasn't a universally good weapon for everything. If I had to pick one gun for the jungle, it would be the M1 carbine, but I'd rather have a balanced team.

Silva Stormrage
2019-06-27, 01:47 PM
A question for all of you as I am not well versed enough in these topics to really say. Bludgeoning weapons such as hammers and such are useful against heavy plate armor compared to swords and other slashing weapons. Would such an advantage also hold for creatures with thick hide like Rhinos in real life or similar magical beasts in a fantasy setting? Bludgeoning weapons would probably still be very effective against invertebrates and other magical creatures with giant exoskeletons but I was mostly unsure about thick hide type armor.

The context for this is I am doing a bit of game design and was wondering from a realism perspective if a weapon with an advantage against armor would also apply to creatures with high natural armor.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-27, 01:49 PM
May I ask as to the scale and scope of the PMCs? I'll be happy to make recommendations. It looks different if they're a 20,000 man "Corporate Army" versus a battalion of vets who shouldn't go home (looking at you former SS types) versus a company of scruffy adventure seekers. In terms of small arms, this is what would be out there:

Bolt Action Rifle In all flavors and varieties. Enfields, Mausers, Springfields, Moisin Nagants, Arisaka There will be fifty years of these built up, of varying grades and types. Cheap, virtually impossible to jam (though you can still misfire bad ammo), and usually chambered for a round that will make you stay down if hit. In many cases, state armies will still have this as a mainstay weapon. Of note, many are service rifles - they'll still be quite accurate for a good shooter, but the modern perception of them being precision systems wasn't there when they were built. The technical accuracy will be excellent, but for many - especially older ones - the iron sights will be notch and post systems, the ergonomics...not a priority...and things like trigger weight more intended for, well, service, than for precision engagements. So handing one of these to a local peasant won't make him a marksman. But on the other hand, he can probably get his hands on one.

And so can your mercs. No, it's not optimal for a jungle. It does not throw walls of lead. It is probably too heavy and long. The range is wasted. But, you know, the Japanese, Chinese, Burmese, and British beat the hell out of each other in jungles using rifles just like these. So "sub-optimal" is a far cry from "won't work."

Semi-Auto Rifles The Garand is probably the trope namer on this one. Despite it's clear utility, Semis were basically leapfrogged for most nations. They went in to WWII with bolt actions, maybe had a few 'self loading" or "autoloading" rifles than were less common than the classics for industrial scale and engineering reasons (the German Army in WWII, for example, only built about 400k Gw43s ), and eventually went to assault rifles in the late 50s with very few stops. (The British held onto semis until the 1970s as the exception.) So you're at the dying days of the SA battle rifle. But there will be plenty of them to go around if you had a WWII-like event and one side was US-like. Slightly less technical accuracy, but honestly by being a product of recent modernity would have the most advanced "common" sights, and very few people need to see in a firefight if bullets are landing with 1.5 inches or 2.25 inches of where they aimed. Due to their single real source at industrial scale, odds are that if any force has these as a mainstay, it is with some backing or at least tacit approval from one of those superpowers.

So why would you have it in a jungle? Well, if your merc company was not in the business of custom tailoring it's weapon load to every contract or just hasn't adapted to years of jungle fighting, this would be considered the state of the art for a battle rifle. Accurate, superior rate of fire to most people's bolt actions, reliable. Hard to beat as a general purpose weapon.


SMGs These will be popular. They will generally come in three varieties.

Cheap and light ones like the sten gun, made for mass production. They throw lead. They don't weigh much; really, theyre about the lightest "main" weapon you can carry. They're super handy and, being made from mostly stamped parts are really, really cheap. Sure, the rounds are usually lighter - but when you're both either blasting bushes where you can't tell if you hit anyone anyhow, or hitting targets inside a house or on a trail...does it matter? Up to your players to decide, though the first time they hit a man twice and he's still standing, they may reconsider. Also if you do need to have a firefight across a football field...accuracy will suffer.

Reliable bullet hoses. Looking at the PPsh series. Famously tough. A little bit heavy. And, as the Americans learned in Korea, easy enough for a peasant to use to gain fire superiority real quick.

More to follow.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-27, 02:04 PM
So you want a variety of capabilities and in 1950 there wasn't a universally good weapon for everything. If I had to pick one gun for the jungle, it would be the M1 carbine, but I'd rather have a balanced team.


Given the year and circumstances, that's what I was thinking as well. Lighter per-round ammo (carry more for the same weight), actual magazines instead of "strippers", semi-auto, made in large numbers during WW2, hits well at the usual ranges and has decent range for when fights are in open areas, less bulky to carry and easier to shoot in tight spaces, etc.

The what-if circuit in my brain is musing about a "Thompson 2.0" with a moderated rate of fire so that it's easier to control and doesn't devour supplies quite so fast. The .45ACP with a long barrel (compared to pistols or small SMGs) wouldn't be a bad "generalist" weapon for jungle fighting.

tyckspoon
2019-06-27, 02:15 PM
A question for all of you as I am not well versed enough in these topics to really say. Bludgeoning weapons such as hammers and such are useful against heavy plate armor compared to swords and other slashing weapons. Would such an advantage also hold for creatures with thick hide like Rhinos in real life or similar magical beasts in a fantasy setting? Bludgeoning weapons would probably still be very effective against invertebrates and other magical creatures with giant exoskeletons but I was mostly unsure about thick hide type armor.

The context for this is I am doing a bit of game design and was wondering from a realism perspective if a weapon with an advantage against armor would also apply to creatures with high natural armor.

I think you'd still be looking at cutting weapons for effective damage in that case - until you get to 'this creature's hide is actually as tough as metal' you're still going to do more damage cutting into the meat than bruising it.

If I were going to be aiming at distinguishing them, I'd want to find a way to reflect a rhino's toughness as part of their bulk rather than the equivalent of their Armor Class - it's not that they're all that much tougher to injure, they're tougher to injure in a way that really hampers them. You can cut the hide, but the same slash that would go through a gambeson or buff coat on a human and cripple a limb is a flesh wound on a creature the size of five people put together.

(Large herbivores might actually be more resistant to bludgeoning damage, since for many of them bashing each other around is actually how they handle fights for territory, food, or mating rights, and it's relatively non-lethal.)

awa
2019-06-27, 02:19 PM
A question for all of you as I am not well versed enough in these topics to really say. Bludgeoning weapons such as hammers and such are useful against heavy plate armor compared to swords and other slashing weapons. Would such an advantage also hold for creatures with thick hide like Rhinos in real life or similar magical beasts in a fantasy setting? Bludgeoning weapons would probably still be very effective against invertebrates and other magical creatures with giant exoskeletons but I was mostly unsure about thick hide type armor.

The context for this is I am doing a bit of game design and was wondering from a realism perspective if a weapon with an advantage against armor would also apply to creatures with high natural armor.

The fact that I have never heard of big game having ever been hunted with a blunt weapon leads me to believe blunt is bad against big targets.

Piercing seem to overwhelmingly be the damage type of choice in the real world for big game.

The thing is a big animal might have a tough hide, it might have a thick hide but it does not have a hard hide and all the meat under that hide is going cushion the blow. What you want is something like a spear that can deliver deep wounds. Slashing weapons risk the fact that the vitals might be to deep to reach easily.

Logical a blunt weapon would likely be good on an exoskeleton that makes sense to me.

Storm_Of_Snow
2019-06-27, 02:22 PM
Realistically, 1950s "PMCs" would be using arms from one of two sources - the United States, or the Soviet Union. Any other supply source would be too limited at the time.


Using US weapons, the primary personal arms would be the M1/M2 Carbine, the M1 Garand, and the M1 Submachine Gun. Heavier firepower would be provided by Browning Automatic Rifles and M1917 Machine guns. These weapons were all available in massive quantities, and were widely distributed.


Soviet weapons would be PPSh submachine guns and Moisin Nagant rifles, with the submachine guns being far more useful for most people. Heavier firepower would take the form of DP-2 light machine guns or M1910 Maxim guns. These were all being phased out by the Red Army, and were thus widely distributed to potential allies.
You'd have a fair bit of ex-Axis materiel around at that time as well - surrendered weapons were distributed to other countries, plus you'd have battlefield trophies (Lugers in particular from Europe, plus Katanas from the Pacific theatre).

There'd also be some Allied-issue weapons that were supplied to resistance groups during the war or friendly governments post-war (Israel in particular got a lot of second hand materiel) that might have made their way into such groups in some manner, especially if better things came along (Stens getting replaced by Sterlings for example), plus trophies, issued weapons that were "destroyed" or taken off fiendly casualties and never returned to the QMs, looted caches, the black market, supplied via back channels by intelligence agencies to deniable assets for proxy wars, and so on.

Beleriphon
2019-06-27, 02:40 PM
@KineticDiplomat: We're looking at no later than 1953, if that helps. Any vehicle recommendations for evac?

Helos, specifically the small two man types you see in the opening sequence from M*A*S*H.


Oh, kind of an important question I forgot to ask earlier. How likely would it be for the PMCs to mistake my group's characters for enemy combatants?

Thanks for the help, everyone!

As high or as low as you need. Assuming PMCs are recruited from friendly neighbours there isn't much to differentiate between the majority ethnic group in America or Russian on visual inspection. A squad of black guys is probably from the US if they're speaking in English, but that's no guarantee given that the Soviets were mucking about in Sub-Saharan Africa.

This isn't like WWII where an Asian guy fighting in France by default is on the Allied side of the conflict.

You have to remember that these PMCs are in a combat zone, they're either discharged soldiers, or were never stable enough to join an army to begin with. So apply your preferred level of paranoia and go.

Grim Portent
2019-06-27, 03:44 PM
A question for all of you as I am not well versed enough in these topics to really say. Bludgeoning weapons such as hammers and such are useful against heavy plate armor compared to swords and other slashing weapons. Would such an advantage also hold for creatures with thick hide like Rhinos in real life or similar magical beasts in a fantasy setting? Bludgeoning weapons would probably still be very effective against invertebrates and other magical creatures with giant exoskeletons but I was mostly unsure about thick hide type armor.

The context for this is I am doing a bit of game design and was wondering from a realism perspective if a weapon with an advantage against armor would also apply to creatures with high natural armor.

Generally speaking large animals would be hard to hurt with blunt force trauma inflicted by a human, they're big and have lots of flexible force dispersing skin, fat and muscle between their skin and their bones and vitals. I wouldn't give blunt weapons a bonus against them. Blows to the legs of things like horses are meant to work well though, so maybe they could do a lot to a rhino's shin as well.

The usual way to hunt them is long piercing weapons that can punch through the hide and deep into the meat or even into the vital organs, or to pepper them with projectiles that cut the skin and cause them to slowly bleed out. Which also happens to be the main way predators like lions kill things like rhinos and hippos, lots of lacerations and bites until if falls to the ground from a mixture of bloodloss and exhaustion.

If I was going for realism I'd probably work out some kind of bleed mechanic or find a way to represent the ability for spears to be driven deep into an animal's body.

Brother Oni
2019-06-27, 03:44 PM
Logical a blunt weapon would likely be good on an exoskeleton that makes sense to me.

Wouldn't you want something with an armour piercing beak rather than a bludgeoning weapon for something with an exoskeleton?

Assuming magic allowing for giant invertebrates to be just scaled up versions of current critters, their internals tend not to be be as 'squishy' as mammals, plus the fairly uniform structure of their exoskeleton may just dissipate the force of the blow throughout the whole body segment comparatively harmlessly, rather than allowing the force to be concentrated enough to crack the segment.

Depending on the hardness/thickness of the chitin, you may want to treat them as the equivalent of plate harness, with all the standard tactics to defeat them (two handed weapons with armour defeating spikes, long pointed daggers to slip inbetween the joints, etc)


Blows to the legs of things like horses are meant to work well though, so maybe they could do a lot to a rhino's shin as well.

I've had the pleasure of being less than 3 metres away from a big rhino at Longleat safari before. The thing was bigger than my car and there's very little opportunity to hit the legs from the front due to the massive head and horn in the way.

Their legs are also substantially thicker and since the animal is not as tall as a horse, they're also shorter. In my opnion, big spears and any sort of deadfall traps would be the way to go as rhinos are rumoured to be mean grumpy critters and one of them charging would test the morale of even the strongest warrior.

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/8e/12/c0/rhino-on-the-loose.jpg

SleepyShadow
2019-06-27, 03:46 PM
@Mike_G: M1 Carbine sounds like a good idea, at least for a while. Maybe they'd start using SMGs and so forth once they've got a better handle on how to fight in the jungle.

KineticDiplomat: I'm happy to answer whatever questions might get thrown around. The PMCs are mainly corporate soldiers, with the higher-ups being the sort of old war dogs who didn't know what to do with their lives during peacetime. Both groups have about 15,000 total troops available, and both are reliable so long as they keep getting paid.

@Beleriphon: I suppose you make a fair point. More paranoia means more fun :smallamused:

awa
2019-06-27, 03:54 PM
Wouldn't you want something with an armour piercing beak rather than a bludgeoning weapon for something with an exoskeleton?



honestly I think either would work.

in regards to rhino legs vs horse legs

horse have relatively long thin legs, while rhino have shorter thicker legs. I mean its probably more effective then trying to bludgeon the things body but I suspect its a lot harder to hurt a rhinos legs.

Storm Bringer
2019-06-27, 03:55 PM
@Mike_G: Thanks so much! This really helps out with what I'm trying to go for. I definitely think pack mules will come in handy. Why would the squads have different weapon types instead of all having the same loadout?

@Pauly: Yeah, they're specifically fighting in the jungle. The PMCs are being funded by the two countries with the strongest economies in the game, so they would have close to the best gear available for the time period. Would it be worth the time and money to even bother with mortars, given the problems discussed?

@KineticDiplomat: We're looking at no later than 1953, if that helps. Any vehicle recommendations for evac?

@Storm Bringer: The reason the PMCs are fighting in the jungle is because the area is allegedly rich in oil. Both of the major powers in the world want control of the region without officially putting their own troops into a country they are technically allied with. The country where the fighting is taking place doesn't have the manpower to eject the PMCs from the area because of an ongoing civil war (instigated by one of the major world powers as a distraction).

Oh, kind of an important question I forgot to ask earlier. How likely would it be for the PMCs to mistake my group's characters for enemy combatants?

Thanks for the help, everyone!

well then, the jungle still isn't valuable per se, what is valuable is the oil under it, and the roads/rivers into and out of the area.

Since its only "allegedly" got oil, I'm guessing that this is a very recent discovery and that no oil wells have yet been dug. Thus, the primary objectives will be the access routes. these may be different for the two sides, if they are both being supplied form their parent countries, but basically what the PMCS need to control is the civilian roads into and out of the oil bearing area, because they are what any drilling teams are going to be using to establish a oil field. they also need to control their own supply lines, but thats a relative thing.

The "deep" jungle is not really worth fighting over, and a lot of the fighting is going to be occurring within weapons range of the main roads, which makes vehicles suddenly more important (given the time frame, I think WW2 surplus half tracks would be ideal). a secondary objective would be securing ground for a pipeline (or control over a few pinch points where the pipeline must pass though).

for a proper military to secure control over a road like that, they'd set up a series of firebases along it, or on nearby terrain that dominates the road (like a hillside), each of which has some form of artillery in it ("normally" a battery of light howitzers or heavy motars in the 80-120 MM range). the firebases are strung out so that each firebase can provide supporting fire on the two either side of it (i.e if you attack one, you get hit by the fire of that base, and the base to the left and the base to the right), and also sited so they can drop fire along any point on the road. then, between the major firebases, you build a string of much smaller blockhouses or Sangers, again sited for mutual support. A sanger is basically a fortified watchtower, and it will provide observation along the route and be able to direct fire missions for the guns. then, youd have vehicle mounted patrols running along between firebases.


but that all takes manpower, firepower and money, all of which a PMC don't have in the same amounts as a formal army. So they'd take a more limited approach, and build a base site at only one or two chokepoints, then push a patrol out every so often if they need to clear the road.


time and space permitting, they might build a light airstrip next to their bases (something that can take small planes), for both spotting, and for light transport duties (or even limited air support)


obviously, this all assumes that the host nation is indeed incapable of intervening or otherwise imposing its will over these "rebel" (for that is surely what they will be called) groups working in its country.

genderlich
2019-06-27, 03:57 PM
Hey all, I am working on a "swords and science" setting for use with the Numenera system--think a medieval technology level society built on the ruins of an incredibly advanced civilization that left remnants of its amazing nanotechnology behind which the current world considers magic. So their manufacturing capability is roughly 17th-18th century with steel and gunpowder weapons (flintlock firearms); anything more advanced than that would have to be found rather than made, since they don't really understand the tech.

My question is, I have been trying to figure out a hand grenade-type weapon to put in the equipment lists that is low enough in technology level for them to manufacture. Being in the "future" I think they could have knowledge of what we consider modern explosives, but they don't have much in the way of chemistry or engineering, so I feel like a modern frag grenade or anything along the lines of C-4 isn't within their capabilities. I am trying to figure out a pre-World War I explosive they could make that would actually be effective. Black powder and dynamite are the most likely candidates but their historical use in warfare seems pretty limited by my basic research, both being unreliable as explosives. Is there anything I missed that would make a simple thrown bomb work at this technology level, or do I have to invent something fictional?

AdAstra
2019-06-27, 04:21 PM
For a .45 ACP submachine gun in 1953, US M3s are probably your best bet if you can get them. Cheaper, lighter, more compact, and a lower rate of fire so that it's more controllable. Marginally less reliable than the Thompson, due to a number of factors, including the single-fee magazines, but overall superior performance in pretty much every other category. The Thompson is heavy, easily as much so as a Garand.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-27, 04:25 PM
For a .45 ACP submachine gun in 1953, US M3s are probably your best bet if you can get them. Cheaper, lighter, more compact, and a lower rate of fire so that it's more controllable. Marginally less reliable than the Thompson, due to a number of factors, including the single-fee magazines, but overall superior performance in pretty much every other category. The Thompson is heavy, easily as much so as a Garand.

I was thinking more of a .45ACP "automatic rifle", lighter and slower firing than the Thompson, but more robust than the M3. Again, just the "what if" part of my brain that never shuts up.

AdAstra
2019-06-27, 04:27 PM
Hey all, I am working on a "swords and science" setting for use with the Numenera system--think a medieval technology level society built on the ruins of an incredibly advanced civilization that left remnants of its amazing nanotechnology behind which the current world considers magic. So their manufacturing capability is roughly 17th-18th century with steel and gunpowder weapons (flintlock firearms); anything more advanced than that would have to be found rather than made, since they don't really understand the tech.

My question is, I have been trying to figure out a hand grenade-type weapon to put in the equipment lists that is low enough in technology level for them to manufacture. Being in the "future" I think they could have knowledge of what we consider modern explosives, but they don't have much in the way of chemistry or engineering, so I feel like a modern frag grenade or anything along the lines of C-4 isn't within their capabilities. I am trying to figure out a pre-World War I explosive they could make that would actually be effective. Black powder and dynamite are the most likely candidates but their historical use in warfare seems pretty limited by my basic research, both being unreliable as explosives. Is there anything I missed that would make a simple thrown bomb work at this technology level, or do I have to invent something fictional?

During this period there were absolutely grenades and launchers in use, that's generally the period when the term grenadier came into widespread use. There was apparently a decline in the early 18th century, but that was followed by their repurposing for assaults requiring elite troops. Cast-iron or even glass spheres filled with gunpowder with a fuse could be used quite effectively against fortifications and dug-in troops.

tyckspoon
2019-06-27, 04:28 PM
Is there anything I missed that would make a simple thrown bomb work at this technology level, or do I have to invent something fictional?

I think fusing would be the main tricky part here? Making something blow up isn't hard, making it blow up reliably when you want it to can be. If you can make a working impact sensor (goes off when it smacks into the ground/hard cover object) or a reliable timer-based ignition charge (ie 'pull pin, count to three, throw, it'll go off at or very near to the end of the toss') then you've solved a lot of the potential problems with throwing bombs. If the best you can do is stick a match cord in it and say 'this will explode somewhere between 5 to 10 seconds after you light it' and you can't necessarily guarantee it'll even light or that you have a ready source of flame to set it off, well, your viable uses for that are a lot slimmer.

Storm Bringer
2019-06-27, 04:49 PM
Hey all, I am working on a "swords and science" setting for use with the Numenera system--think a medieval technology level society built on the ruins of an incredibly advanced civilization that left remnants of its amazing nanotechnology behind which the current world considers magic. So their manufacturing capability is roughly 17th-18th century with steel and gunpowder weapons (flintlock firearms); anything more advanced than that would have to be found rather than made, since they don't really understand the tech.

My question is, I have been trying to figure out a hand grenade-type weapon to put in the equipment lists that is low enough in technology level for them to manufacture. Being in the "future" I think they could have knowledge of what we consider modern explosives, but they don't have much in the way of chemistry or engineering, so I feel like a modern frag grenade or anything along the lines of C-4 isn't within their capabilities. I am trying to figure out a pre-World War I explosive they could make that would actually be effective. Black powder and dynamite are the most likely candidates but their historical use in warfare seems pretty limited by my basic research, both being unreliable as explosives. Is there anything I missed that would make a simple thrown bomb work at this technology level, or do I have to invent something fictional?

as others have said, Hand grenades were a thing in the 17th and 18th century.


basically, imagine the classic cartoon bomb (https://www.pinclipart.com/pindetail/hwiwbJ_bomb-bomb-cartoon-clipart/), scaled to hand sized (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=33724&stc=1). the big issue with them was basically quality control on the fuse, which gave very inconsistent burn times for the match. but they still found a role as a specialist and niche weapon in the gunpowder era.

they'd fallen out of general use sometime before the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century, but the specialist assault troops that were trained in their use, the grenadiers, remained the premier infantry of most armies. they wore a distinctive tall hat (https://www.wbritain.com/product-store/44th-regiment-of-foot-british-grenadier-1755---french--indian-war) nicknamed the mitre (after the hat of a bishop), as opposed to the tricorne hats worn by the regular infantry. the idea was that it had no brim to interfere with overhand throwing. they often also wore a "slow match" (a lit fuse that slowly smouldered for several hours) on a special sash on their chests.

the Grenadier Guard of the British Household Division (ie the guys who guard the queen) date back to 1656, so its well within your planned time frame for grenades to be available.

grenade launchers were a thing then as well. googled them, they are clockpunk as hell.

SleepyShadow
2019-06-27, 04:56 PM
well then, the jungle still isn't valuable per se, what is valuable is the oil under it, and the roads/rivers into and out of the area.

Since its only "allegedly" got oil, I'm guessing that this is a very recent discovery and that no oil wells have yet been dug. Thus, the primary objectives will be the access routes. these may be different for the two sides, if they are both being supplied form their parent countries, but basically what the PMCS need to control is the civilian roads into and out of the oil bearing area, because they are what any drilling teams are going to be using to establish a oil field. they also need to control their own supply lines, but thats a relative thing.

The "deep" jungle is not really worth fighting over, and a lot of the fighting is going to be occurring within weapons range of the main roads, which makes vehicles suddenly more important (given the time frame, I think WW2 surplus half tracks would be ideal). a secondary objective would be securing ground for a pipeline (or control over a few pinch points where the pipeline must pass though).

for a proper military to secure control over a road like that, they'd set up a series of firebases along it, or on nearby terrain that dominates the road (like a hillside), each of which has some form of artillery in it ("normally" a battery of light howitzers or heavy motars in the 80-120 MM range). the firebases are strung out so that each firebase can provide supporting fire on the two either side of it (i.e if you attack one, you get hit by the fire of that base, and the base to the left and the base to the right), and also sited so they can drop fire along any point on the road. then, between the major firebases, you build a string of much smaller blockhouses or Sangers, again sited for mutual support. A sanger is basically a fortified watchtower, and it will provide observation along the route and be able to direct fire missions for the guns. then, youd have vehicle mounted patrols running along between firebases.


but that all takes manpower, firepower and money, all of which a PMC don't have in the same amounts as a formal army. So they'd take a more limited approach, and build a base site at only one or two chokepoints, then push a patrol out every so often if they need to clear the road.


time and space permitting, they might build a light airstrip next to their bases (something that can take small planes), for both spotting, and for light transport duties (or even limited air support)


obviously, this all assumes that the host nation is indeed incapable of intervening or otherwise imposing its will over these "rebel" (for that is surely what they will be called) groups working in its country.

Great stuff to know. Thanks :smallsmile: I was wondering about how the PMCs would go about setting up bases, and this satisfies my curiosity nicely. The poor host nation is going to be tied up for a while dealing with the internal organization trying to destabilize the government. Right now, they aren't too concerned about the PMCs as long as they are only interested in fighting each other.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-27, 05:30 PM
Nearly missed your evac question. If you can afford it, as Bellerphon pointed out, the first light helicopters exist. You don't really hear about them being used in Korea outside of MASH, but they exist. Chances are that a surplus jeep or deuce and a half is going to be your evacuation platform of choice. There are specialized ambulances, but getting up the nearest trail with some morphine and life saving equipment on board is going to matter more than having the best option that is stuck on the gravel two miles away.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-27, 06:07 PM
Incidentally, 15,000 is quite a few troopers. That's a short division by western standards, and a full division by soviet standards (they tended to centralize support stuff higher).Massive amount for a PMC, so they are going to have a lot more ass than you typically associate with modern mercenaries. Artillery, transport, probably multiple battalions of logistics and maintenance guys alone, weapons companies with heavy machineguns, field hospitals - one or two that can actually support trauma surgery besides the line ones. Finance detachments, possibly internal police, a small platoon of lawyers in all likelihood for when they aren't fighting in third world hellholes. Hell, they probably have guys whose whole job is booking the shipping that gets them to wherever their next contract is. And while it's unlikely the governments of the world would look fondly on them having an air force...they might have a cactus air force of light transports and recon planes. So, on one side the players are going to have all sorts of goodies and support on call.

Just not the ones they think they will. At that scale, standardization of arms and equipment, normalizing logistics, these are going to be the orders of the day. Sure, new-guy "I want to be a badass" thinks he needs precisely THIS gun, but what he's going to GET is whatever the corporation can buy in standard lots by the thousands, and can buy ammunition for. Reliably, from a supplier who can produce in bulk and who is tacitly politically alright with selling a mercenary division these guns. And if the corporation armed it's people before the most recent jungle contract, they aren't shelling out for 5-10,000 new weapons if they are already equipped.

Once you get to that scale, the quality difference in small arms needs to be close to generational for it to really tip the balance. What seem like major differences to the man using it are producing much smaller impacts to the people running the war. Take Vietnam. The M-16 of the time was not well beloved. It was finicky, hard to keep clean in the jungle, it's rounds were light, and it seemed to jam a lot. It's easy shooting and aiming didn't matter much in those tight fights. The AK-47 was, for the environment, a better weapon by literally every factor. None the less, the balance of other arms meant that uncle Ho was probably closer than he would have liked with his prediction. Casualties were disproportionately in favor of the US.

Even without heavy supporting arms, only around 30% of US deaths were to small arms...mines and booby traps ran a close second. All of which pointed out to the men in charge, and may point out to your PMC shareholders and leaders, that the guns they have are good enough. They don't care if Jimmy wants a carbine and Sammy wants an SMG and bob thinks shotguns are best. A squad will do squad work.


Now, your players can, of course spend entire sessions scrounging, bartering, wheedling supply sergeants and armorers, exchanging casks of local brew for items to be written off as combat losses...

Misery Esquire
2019-06-27, 09:24 PM
...
Oh, kind of an important question I forgot to ask earlier. How likely would it be for the PMCs to mistake my group's characters for enemy combatants?


Do your lads wear uniforms? Are your uniforms a lot like A.) the PMC's, B.) the enemy's, C.) neither? Are they so noticeably different as to be identified quickly without colour or via silhouette (at night)? Are the PMC and enemy's equally recognizable?

Even if your answer is "Just like the PMCs, and their uniforms are unique by day or night!" you will occasionally still have someone accidentally shoot you when they weren't expecting you to be there, or if they panic.

Clistenes
2019-06-28, 03:31 AM
A question for all of you as I am not well versed enough in these topics to really say. Bludgeoning weapons such as hammers and such are useful against heavy plate armor compared to swords and other slashing weapons. Would such an advantage also hold for creatures with thick hide like Rhinos in real life or similar magical beasts in a fantasy setting? Bludgeoning weapons would probably still be very effective against invertebrates and other magical creatures with giant exoskeletons but I was mostly unsure about thick hide type armor.

The context for this is I am doing a bit of game design and was wondering from a realism perspective if a weapon with an advantage against armor would also apply to creatures with high natural armor.

Probably not.

Big animals haven't just thick hides, they have thick bones too; you won't do much damage with a warmace... Plus their internal organs are protected by thick layers of skin, fat, muscle and bone...

Also, when you compare the strength of your puny human arm to that of rhinos or buffalos charging at each other, or of bears raking at each other... that's not very impressive...

And anyway, thick skin isn't the same as thin, rigid metal plates... why would a mace do a better job against flexible hide and muscle when compared to a spear that can punch through them and reach the internal organs?

I don't think it is impossible... the karateka Mas Aoyama killed bulls with his fists, there are reports of bears being killed by a lucky hit to the eye, and in some cultures a maul was used to sacrifice cattle... but it would be far less effective than using a spear...

snowblizz
2019-06-28, 04:05 AM
and in some cultures a maul was used to sacrifice cattle... but it would be far less effective than using a spear...
Maul and a spike to the head is essentially how we used to and still do slaughter cattle.

Unlike a spear it doens't tear up the skin and meat unnecessarily.



This isn't like WWII where an Asian guy fighting in France by default is on the Allied side of the conflict.


Yang Kyoungjong (https://www.historyhit.com/the-strange-stories-of-soldiers-who-fought-for-both-sides-in-world-war-two/) wouldn't agree. Or maybe he would. (Just wanted to bring that guy up because was recently reminded of it. Crazy stuff.)

Clistenes
2019-06-28, 05:33 AM
Maul and a spike to the head is essentially how we used to and still do slaughter cattle.

Unlike a spear it doens't tear up the skin and meat unnecessarily.


Yep, but we are speaking about fighting something like a charging rhino or buffalo, not of slaughtering a cow that is standing still...

awa
2019-06-28, 07:12 AM
Definitively at that point were talking about a coup de grace often with a weapon to inefficient to be used in normal combat.

Pauly
2019-06-28, 09:02 AM
A question for all of you as I am not well versed enough in these topics to really say. Bludgeoning weapons such as hammers and such are useful against heavy plate armor compared to swords and other slashing weapons. Would such an advantage also hold for creatures with thick hide like Rhinos in real life or similar magical beasts in a fantasy setting? Bludgeoning weapons would probably still be very effective against invertebrates and other magical creatures with giant exoskeletons but I was mostly unsure about thick hide type armor.

The context for this is I am doing a bit of game design and was wondering from a realism perspective if a weapon with an advantage against armor would also apply to creatures with high natural armor.

One thing to remember. In the gunpowder era big game hunters shooting dangerous game (Lions, Tigers, Cape Buffalo et al) using high power large caliber guns (such as the nitro express series of cartridges) took heart/lung shots and avoided head shots. I’ve read an account by Jim Corbett where a tiger he hunted recovered from having a 2 inch diameter hole punched out of its cranium.

Blunt trauma weapons’ easiest kill shot is the brain. Nature has evolved a massively armored box with naturally high levels of sloping to protect the brain. Some animals such as the crocodile are considered to be almost immune from head shots because of the thickness and slope of the armor protecting the brain.

gkathellar
2019-06-28, 10:03 AM
Under what circumstances was a one-handed axe the weapon of choice? Was it a main weapon or a sidearm? What sort of weapons was it well-suited to competing with? Did any period writers discuss the one-handed axe, or its techniques, in any detail?

hymer
2019-06-28, 10:32 AM
Under what circumstances was a one-handed axe the weapon of choice? Was it a main weapon or a sidearm? What sort of weapons was it well-suited to competing with? Did any period writers discuss the one-handed axe, or its techniques, in any detail?
Best used along with a shield, fighting enemies in mail armour or lighter protection. Hooking is useful vs. enemies with shields. Economy is a factor, in that axe prevalence in Europe dips when swords become cheaper and more common.
It could be a main weapon or a side arm. There is very little textual evidence for how they were used.

Edit: Oh, Captain Context to the rescue!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LM-kBOw920

Kiero
2019-06-28, 11:21 AM
Under what circumstances was a one-handed axe the weapon of choice? Was it a main weapon or a sidearm? What sort of weapons was it well-suited to competing with? Did any period writers discuss the one-handed axe, or its techniques, in any detail?

It was quite often a sidearm of opportunity in a naval context, given axes are useful for cutting lines and clearing broken masts. That's where the Native American tomahawk came from, naval axes traded to the natives.

It was also prized in the frontier context, since it's shorter and more tool-useful than a sword. In Rogers' Rules of Ranging, he expected every man to have a hatchet:


1. All Rangers are to be subject to the rules and articles of war; to appear at roll-call every evening, on their own parade, equipped, each with a Firelock, sixty rounds of powder and ball, and a hatchet, at which time an officer from each company is to inspect the same, to see they are in order, so as to be ready on any emergency to march at a minute's warning; and before they are dismissed, the necessary guards are to be draughted, and scouts for the next day appointed.

Lastly, the Vikings liked an axe.

SleepyShadow
2019-06-28, 11:28 AM
@KineticDiplomat: I figured 15,000 would be on the high end, but I was aiming for something that made the PMCs a legitimate threat without sliding into the realm of absurdity. The contract the PMCs had previously was definitely not jungle warfare. Rolling hills, rocky coastlines, and minor amounts of urban combat. So I totally agree with you that "what we've got is good enough" would be the mentality for a good while early on. Thanks so much for the help; I really appreciate it.

@Misery Esquire: The PMCs both have reasonably distinct uniforms, though certainly some of that distinction will be lost in foliage and darkness. At least initially the players aren't affiliated with either side. They're starting the campaign off working for a relief foundation trying to provide medical assistance to the rural civilians caught up in the conflict. So it'd be pretty reasonable that either of the PMCs might mistake them for hostile targets?

Beleriphon
2019-06-28, 01:01 PM
@Misery Esquire: The PMCs both have reasonably distinct uniforms, though certainly some of that distinction will be lost in foliage and darkness. At least initially the players aren't affiliated with either side. They're starting the campaign off working for a relief foundation trying to provide medical assistance to the rural civilians caught up in the conflict. So it'd be pretty reasonable that either of the PMCs might mistake them for hostile targets?

Like the Red Cross/Crescent? Generally speaking the giant red symbol and white outfits are a dead give away they aren't the enemy. That's the point of the Red Cross, make it immediately apparent that they aren't there to fight, be highly visible to avoid accidentally drawing fire, and running away when actual fighting starts.

You might be able to pull off a more UNish type group who wear uniforms and only immediate distinguishing feature might be a helmet that's a distinct colour such a bright orange or yellow. The the thing with aid agencies is they tend to be civilian non-combatants who if needed hire security from the locals (such as PMCs), or rely on something like UN peacekeepers to protect them in potential combat zones.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-28, 04:07 PM
Oh man, THAT is going to be an eye opener. In the nasty brush war type of thing that's probably happening, food, medical supplies, free mosquito nets - these are all power and currency with the people. And no one wants an uncontrolled source of power running about...I think you're going tot give them a hell of a gam.

Gnoman
2019-06-28, 11:07 PM
@KineticDiplomat: I figured 15,000 would be on the high end, but I was aiming for something that made the PMCs a legitimate threat without sliding into the realm of absurdity.

You're using Bolivia as a model, so we'll look at that for a ballpark. The largest war Bolivia's ever fought (also the largest-scale 20th century South American war) was the Chaco War against Paraguay. This war (fought in the 30s over rumored oil deposits) lasted 33 months, and had around 200,000 men on one side and 150,000 on the other. This means that your suggested PMCs are around 10% of the largest historical armies in the region. A more typical war, the Saltpeter War of 1879-1883, pitted around 37,000 men against 41,000 (late in the war). This means that the PMCs suggested would make up a third to a half of a full-scale army. Or, in other words, in any but the largest conflicts, a 15,000 man PMC would be large enough (especially if well-armed) that "Why don't we just take over the country ourselves?" is a valid question.

Set the sizes at 2000-4000, and you'll fit the ""dangerous but not overpowering" level much better, with the added benefit that the "lean, mean mercenary machine" notion is less of a stretch.

Storm Bringer
2019-06-29, 03:47 PM
You're using Bolivia as a model, so we'll look at that for a ballpark. The largest war Bolivia's ever fought (also the largest-scale 20th century South American war) was the Chaco War against Paraguay. This war (fought in the 30s over rumored oil deposits) lasted 33 months, and had around 200,000 men on one side and 150,000 on the other. This means that your suggested PMCs are around 10% of the largest historical armies in the region. A more typical war, the Saltpeter War of 1879-1883, pitted around 37,000 men against 41,000 (late in the war). This means that the PMCs suggested would make up a third to a half of a full-scale army. Or, in other words, in any but the largest conflicts, a 15,000 man PMC would be large enough (especially if well-armed) that "Why don't we just take over the country ourselves?" is a valid question.

Set the sizes at 2000-4000, and you'll fit the ""dangerous but not overpowering" level much better, with the added benefit that the "lean, mean mercenary machine" notion is less of a stretch.

spilt the difference.

both sides have a "core" of 2000-4000 men, able to go wherever and to what is needed and fully equipped. around these cores their is a loose collection of local tribesmen, foreign guns for hire, host nation "rebels" and such, that technically pushes their numbers in the 10,000 range but for the most part are only nominally under their control, with many of them tied to their home villages or unwilling to engage in offensive action. this helps lead to a stalemate, as both sides can call on much more manpower for defence than attack, making assaults hard.


it also makes it possible for the PMCs to occasionally hire the PCs for the odd mission

SleepyShadow
2019-07-01, 06:04 PM
First session went off without a hitch. Thanks everyone for the help!

snowblizz
2019-07-03, 03:52 AM
Like the Red Cross/Crescent? Generally speaking the giant red symbol and white outfits are a dead give away they aren't the enemy. That's the point of the Red Cross, make it immediately apparent that they aren't there to fight, be highly visible to avoid accidentally drawing fire, and running away when actual fighting starts.

It is also a dead give-away that here are people we can rob and kill.

Sadly when one or both sides are unscrupulous the red cross is more of targeting aid than deterrent.

A brushwar with PMCs sounds exactly like the place for that to happen. Like not too long ago in Kongo (or whatever it is calling itself this week).

gkathellar
2019-07-03, 10:42 AM
Most estocs I've seen closely resemble longswords. Why is this? Is the longsword simply the sword with the most anti-armor options in its design? Are there estocs based on other types of sword?

In addition, is there any merit whatsoever to the notion of a "war rapier?" I've seen the term bandied about, but can't find much of substance related to the idea.

Mike_G
2019-07-03, 11:20 AM
Most estocs I've seen closely resemble longswords. Why is this? Is the longsword simply the sword with the most anti-armor options in its design? Are there estocs based on other types of sword?

In addition, is there any merit whatsoever to the notion of a "war rapier?" I've seen the term bandied about, but can't find much of substance related to the idea.

Some soldiers carried rapiers as sidearm into battle, especially if they carried them in civilian life. And there were rapier style hilts put on shorter, broader blades that would have been better cutters and those were certainly used in a military capacity. Sometimes they are referred to as "sword rapiers."

Swords exist on a continuum. Some are clearly broadswords, and some are clearly rapiers, some are clearly smallswords or sabres, but there are weapons in the middle where they are...something else. The need to categorize them, and the fairly arbitrary nature of the names can lead to a lot of confusion and generalizations.

Clistenes
2019-07-03, 11:40 AM
Most estocs I've seen closely resemble longswords. Why is this? Is the longsword simply the sword with the most anti-armor options in its design? Are there estocs based on other types of sword?.

Estocs looked like longswords because they evolved from longswords. It was a gradual process, and you got some swords that are estoc-like longswords or longsword-like estocs.

The Koncerz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz) is a kind of estoc that doesn't look like a longsword.


In addition, is there any merit whatsoever to the notion of a "war rapier?" I've seen the term bandied about, but can't find much of substance related to the idea.

There wasn't a "war rapier"... By definition, a rapier is a weapon you carry when dressed in civilian clothes... that's what makes it a rapier...

It is true that, once armor went out of fashion, people who used them as civilians often carried short rapiers or smallswords to battle (the longer versions of the rapier would be too much of a hindrance in a battlefield) as a sidearm in case they had to defend themselves at close quarters, but these weren't specialized war weapons, they were civilians weapons you were used to and you took with you to battle rather than using a specialized war weapon you weren't used to...

It is also true that early rapiers weren't so different from contemporary military swords...

Broadswords, espadas terciadas, hangers, cutlasses, sabres, spadrooms and colimarches were better fits is you looked for a specialized side weapon to use in a battlefield...

EDIT: And the weapon taken to the battlefield was often called just "sword".

Clistenes
2019-07-05, 12:43 AM
I have checked the terminology most commonly used in Spain when rapiers were popular:

"Espada de marca": A sword with a blade 114 cm long, or a bit longer.

"Espada terciada": A sword with a blade 80 cm long, or a bit shorter. They were often sturdy, wide weapons.

"Espada ropera" (rapier): A long blade with a complex guard, fit to be worn while dressed in civilian clothes.

High command demanded that soldiers use swords with blades under 90 cm long.

Pauly
2019-07-05, 03:09 AM
I have checked the terminology most commonly used in Spain when rapiers were popular:

"Espada de marca": A sword with a blade 114 cm long, or a bit longer.

"Espada terciada": A sword with a blade 80 cm long, or a bit shorter. They were often sturdy, wide weapons.

"Espada ropera" (rapier): A long blade with a complex guard, fit to be worn while dressed in civilian clothes.

High command demanded that soldiers use swords with blades under 90 cm long.

Just for a bit of context.
Most katanas are in the region of 65cm length blades.
The Nodachi, roughly equivalent to a European great sword, used in combat have blade lengths of 100-110cm. It is important to remember that most nodachi were built as objects to be displayed in temples and relatively few were built as war swords and from what I have seen the longest versions are all ceremonial objects.

gkathellar
2019-07-05, 12:26 PM
The Koncerz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz) is a kind of estoc that doesn't look like a longsword.

Huh, interesting. That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

Hazzardevil
2019-07-07, 12:38 PM
Welcome to weapon terminology! Where all the names are made up, contradictory, refer to several different unrelated weapons and never make sense!

And a couple of rapier related questions. Does anyone know much about the training given to Soldiers using "Rapiers?" I'm thinking particularly of the ones used by Spanish Cavalry and the Swedish Caroleans, with blades the length of the normal thrust focused rapier. I'm imagining very basic cuts and thrusts with a handful of guards, but that's just based on my knowledge of the British methods of training cavalry.

Clistenes
2019-07-07, 04:47 PM
Welcome to weapon terminology! Where all the names are made up, contradictory, refer to several different unrelated weapons and never make sense!

And a couple of rapier related questions. Does anyone know much about the training given to Soldiers using "Rapiers?" I'm thinking particularly of the ones used by Spanish Cavalry and the Swedish Caroleans, with blades the length of the normal thrust focused rapier. I'm imagining very basic cuts and thrusts with a handful of guards, but that's just based on my knowledge of the British methods of training cavalry.

As I said in my post, a rapier isn't a military weapon, much less a cavalry weapon. A cavalry sword's blade would be more similar to a broadsword, a schiavona or a mortuary sword than to a rapier.

A rapier-like weapon would be too fragile. Also, a cavalry sword needed to be able to slash infantry soldiers trying to approach and grab the horseman, and to cut the reins of mounted foes. And anyways, you can't use fencing techniques while on a horse, so there is no point in using a rapier...

The sword was a secondary weapon for the Spanish cavalry and other contemporary armies. The main weapon was the lance or the pistol, the sword being a weapon of last resort if you got surrounded. When fighting infantry they would just hit their heads. When fighting other horsemen, they were told to try to cut the reins and stab the horse in order to make it go mad, rather than aiming for the rider...

The Swedish cavalry was more offensive. While other other armies used their retiers or pistol armed cavalry to harass the enemy with pistol shot and their lancers to pursuit retreating enemies or to exploit a breaches their lines, the Swedish cavalry charged at the enemy infantry head on, using their swords as lances, extending their arms in front of them.I have heard their swords being called "rapiers" but they weren't... they looked like this:

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.k-4Cvyw-MuntOTYnw6VAPgHaFo
A fine sample of early 17th century Swedish military "cut-and-thrust" swords. Note the variety of blade forms (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr/heymr04_lg.jpg)

The Polish cavalry was very aggressive too: They would use long lances (kopia) that would usually break upon impact, and they would then unsheath their korcerz estocs and keep charging. They also used palasz broadswords and szabla sabres as sidearms (and sometimes maces, axes, pistols and carbines too...). Their main tactic was to charge head on and try to break though the whole enemy army, literally cutting it in two.

I don't think they bothered giving any of these soldiers much fencing instruction. Cavalry soldiers probably were expected to learn it by themselves... they didn't need it to fulfill their role in the battlefield.

As for infantry, they favored relatively short cut-and-thrust swords (shorter than 90 cm at least, often shorter than 80 cm...), since a longer blade would hinder the soldier (swords were sidearms that spent most of the time hanging from the belt), too slow to draw, and hard to use in close quarters.

Infantry received a very basic fencing instruction, since most fencing techniques were useless in a packed battlefield... As a matter of fact, some captains may not bother to teach them anything, focusing on training with the musket, arquebuss, halberd and pike...

Kiero
2019-07-07, 06:17 PM
I can see why fencing might not be of much use to a cavalryman, but was the an equivalent to singlestick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlestick)anywhere else in Europe?

That has lots of techniques applicable to the sabre or broadsword on horseback.

Pauly
2019-07-07, 09:55 PM
And a couple of rapier related questions. Does anyone know much about the training given to Soldiers using "Rapiers?" I'm thinking particularly of the ones used by Spanish Cavalry and the Swedish Caroleans, with blades the length of the normal thrust focused rapier. I'm imagining very basic cuts and thrusts with a handful of guards, but that's just based on my knowledge of the British methods of training cavalry.

The answer to that questions depends on who, when and where.

Generally speaking in the early modern era (1600+) training was in the hands of the unit commander, and it could vary considerably between units.
As time progressed training became more standardized. By the Napoleonic era most training regimes were standardized across the army. Although reserve units could have varying levels of training. The unit commander’s focus and dedication also varied with some units being more focused on marching and uniforms and other units spending more time on martial training.
Officers generally paid for their own sword training and went to fencing schools. Soldiers followed drills published in books with a smaller set of standardized moves.

Kiero
2019-07-10, 05:05 AM
I can see why fencing might not be of much use to a cavalryman, but was the an equivalent to singlestick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlestick)anywhere else in Europe?

That has lots of techniques applicable to the sabre or broadsword on horseback.

Anyone? Was this practised in some form outside of England?

Apparently the French canne de combat is similar (though it didn't appear til the 19th century - singlestick comes from at least the 16th century in England), and the Portuguese/Galician jogo do pau is possibly older than singlestick; were there other analogues all across the Continent?

heavyfuel
2019-07-10, 06:17 AM
Was there ever a weapon that was used both as an axe and as a dagger / small sword?

I don't know if this included in the goal of the thread, but what I'm asking for is a weapon that would fit both the Axes and the Light Blades weapon groups in Pathfinder 1.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-10, 06:46 AM
Was there ever a weapon that was used both as an axe and as a dagger / small sword?

I don't know if this included in the goal of the thread, but what I'm asking for is a weapon that would fit both the Axes and the Light Blades weapon groups in Pathfinder 1.

A kukri, maybe?

Kaptin Keen
2019-07-10, 07:04 AM
Was there ever a weapon that was used both as an axe and as a dagger / small sword?

I don't know if this included in the goal of the thread, but what I'm asking for is a weapon that would fit both the Axes and the Light Blades weapon groups in Pathfinder 1.

Isn't that basically the textbook definition of a machete?

Kiero
2019-07-10, 08:22 AM
There are lots of forward-weighted choppers that fall in that same category as the kukri, like the kopis/machaira. That came in longer cavalry variants, and very short infantry ones favoured by the Spartans, for example.

Cygnia
2019-07-10, 09:01 AM
Can a bastard/hand & half sword be used with a shield or buckler?

I admit, I'm never actually sure if I'm using the term "bastard sword" even correctly.

Kiero
2019-07-10, 09:07 AM
Can a bastard/hand & half sword be used with a shield or buckler?

I admit, I'm never actually sure if I'm using the term "bastard sword" even correctly.

Short answer, yes.

Also note small shields like bucklers can be used with a weapon in that hand, Highland-style (claymore, dirk and targe). No reason you couldn't use that hand to get two hands on a longer hilt.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-10, 09:28 AM
Can a bastard/hand & half sword be used with a shield or buckler?

I admit, I'm never actually sure if I'm using the term "bastard sword" even correctly.

As Kiero notes, yes.

("Long sword", "bastard sword", "hand-and-a-half sword" all work for the same basic idea of a sword that can be used either with one or two hands, even they're all terms that are more retroactively applied more than period-accurate. "Long sword" to describe a a one-handed sword that's bigger than a gladius is the one that's just flat wrong outside of Gygaxian D&Dism.)

Willie the Duck
2019-07-10, 10:47 AM
Can a bastard/hand & half sword be used with a shield or buckler?

I admit, I'm never actually sure if I'm using the term "bastard sword" even correctly.


As Kiero notes, yes.

("Long sword", "bastard sword", "hand-and-a-half sword" all work for the same basic idea of a sword that can be used either with one or two hands, even they're all terms that are more retroactively applied more than period-accurate. "Long sword" to describe a a one-handed sword that's bigger than a gladius is the one that's just flat wrong outside of Gygaxian D&Dism.)

Truth. It should also be noted that, at least in some versions of D&D, the term buckler is misapplied to something that straps to your forearm but leaves your hand free, whereas historically the term was used for a small shield you held.

Pauly
2019-07-10, 03:03 PM
Was there ever a weapon that was used both as an axe and as a dagger / small sword?

I don't know if this included in the goal of the thread, but what I'm asking for is a weapon that would fit both the Axes and the Light Blades weapon groups in Pathfinder 1.

Assuming you mean a weapon axe, not a tool axe.

The classic medieval weapon that fits this bill is the falchion. The Kukri is another famous example. The Greek kopis is another well known design.

Hazzardevil
2019-07-10, 05:59 PM
Truth. It should also be noted that, at least in some versions of D&D, the term buckler is misapplied to something that straps to your forearm but leaves your hand free, whereas historically the term was used for a small shield you held.

At that point you're wearing armour.

And for a dagger/short-sword axe thing, there's machetes and other curved blades. Importantly you'd want a point heavy blade. Which is why machete's work. So you could potentially describe people as using dark-age or earlier swords. Which were much blade heavier than the later medieval blades you probably think of when somebody say sword.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-11, 08:02 AM
At that point you're wearing armour.

??? I was discussing terminology, as that was pertinent to the discussion I referenced. I honestly have no idea how your comment relates to mine.

Pauly
2019-07-11, 03:00 PM
At that point you're wearing armour.



You’re missing the fundamental difference between armor and a shield. The difference isn’t how it’s attached to the body.

A shield is an object that makes it harder to hit the the target. Armor is a a covering that negates the effect of a blow.

Gideon Falcon
2019-07-11, 11:24 PM
Hey, all, I've got a weapon idea in one of my stories that I wanted to shoot past you guys to check for verisimilitude- I've been incorporating stuff I've learned from Skallagrim and Shadiversity, but obviously it's not super likely they'd get back to me on how well I'd done so.

So the weapon in question is a longsword of the sort one would normally consider impractically large- not in Buster Sword territory, but maybe four to five feet long with another foot for the hilt, and with a rather hefty blade as well- maybe six inches wide or so, and an inch or two thick (estimates are to be taken with a grain of salt, I haven't really sat down to proportion it out accurately). So again, not as insane as some anime/video game swords, but much larger than normally considered practical. That's where I've been putting in so much thought- how to make it work as something you could imagine being used.

So the two big things that contribute in-story to this design are the material of the blade and the character the sword is made for. The sword is made later on, after the character loses their more conventional longsword and the material used in the sword is obtained.

The character is basically a Warforged stripped of game mechanics and setting details- an elite golem warrior that mysteriously obtained self-awareness in a process which has started to lead to poorly understood mystical abilities. Practically, this means that he is much stronger than a normal person, but also a good deal heavier, something repeatedly noted as something that would help with oversized weapons, but also part of the original enchantments included into his design are 'sticking' effects in his hands, feet, and back that increase his traction, grip strength, and act as a convenient place to store his weapons while marching. This means that he is even better equipped to weild a heavier weapon, as he has magic keeping him from loosing balance or grip while swinging the darn thing around.

The material of the weapon is a mysterious alloy originally made by the Mysterious Ancient CivilizationTM, this variety being known well for their supernatural metallurgy. The metal is essentially Adamantine- supposedly indestructible, but this has quite notably been shown to have limits. How? By this character's afore-mentioned developing powers. So while the metal is extremely durable and extremely strong, the weapon is being made for the one person known to be able to break it, so they don't want to go the route Shad discusses in his latest video about magical materials- they want to prioritize durability. Thus, in addition to making it big enough for a golem to use, they make it bulky enough to make sure it'll survive that use. For balance's sake, this also justifies some ornamentation on the hilt, in order to make the center of gravity more similar to a normal sword.

Now, the other problem with big weapons is the cutting ability, again something that would normally encourage thinner blades in both dimensions. My thought process here, which is the one I'm not as confident of, is that the unconventional design weighs in to the somewhat different use of a larger sword over a smaller one. I heard it said once that longswords and Zweihanders and such could almost be considered a kind of polearm, and that really got my mind going- in practice, essentially, this sword works more like a really big axe. It has the much larger blade length of a sword, but the weight and heft of it mean that it focuses more on chopping than slicing- if it can't cut as well, it will transfer its kinetic energy very well. This is still a trade-off, but people did make battleaxes in real life, right? With the unique properties of its wielder's grip, the wide blade also works as a good hand-hold for half-swording in a pinch. In regular combat, though, the typical sweeping, circular style I recall being recommended for big swords would be devastating with that much momentum behind it, and the alternate combination of traits would make it very good for fighting giant monsters as well.

Most debatably, one might consider that the wideness of the blade could allow it to be used as an impromptu buckler of sorts, as it is still very durable and the increased surface area would at the least make blocking in melee a bit easier.

So, how well have I figured things out here? Am I way off base, or have I made something that you could believe a sane blacksmith would make for this kind of character? Did I not include sufficient Machicolations?

Brother Oni
2019-07-12, 02:07 AM
So the weapon in question is a longsword of the sort one would normally consider impractically large- not in Buster Sword territory, but maybe four to five feet long with another foot for the hilt, and with a rather hefty blade as well- maybe six inches wide or so, and an inch or two thick (estimates are to be taken with a grain of salt, I haven't really sat down to proportion it out accurately). So again, not as insane as some anime/video game swords, but much larger than normally considered practical. That's where I've been putting in so much thought- how to make it work as something you could imagine being used.


Single edged or double edged blade?

If it's single edged, it's not too far off a Chinese two handed dao, although a lot thicker. I presume that 1 inch measurement is the centre of the blade and it tapers to an edge?

I would also take advantage of sword making techniques to reduce the weight of your weapon - fullers for example make the weapon lighter for no real reduction in blade integrity.


With the unique properties of its wielder's grip, the wide blade also works as a good hand-hold for half-swording in a pinch. In regular combat, though, the typical sweeping, circular style I recall being recommended for big swords would be devastating with that much momentum behind it, and the alternate combination of traits would make it very good for fighting giant monsters as well.

Unless your character is much bigger than a human or has oversized hands, your blade is too thick for effective halfswording as you can't wrap your hand around the blade to get a good grip.

For examples of how such a large weapon could be used, see this Miao Dao (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKlNdF3xoKM) variant although probably ~2" off in blade width and on the shorter end of your scale.
Moving back to European traditions, there's a number of longsword techniques which can be scaled appropriately for your weapon; for example there's this Adorea longsword duel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36Pb8z3yI)

The main purpose of such fighting styles is use of the weapon's reach to fend off multiple attackers or being able to stop cavalry - the latter would probably be useful for giant monsters.

Edit: Man at Arms made replicas of Cloud's Buster Sword (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xogheZdAO18) (although at 12" wide, the blade is twice as wide as your one) and Gut's sword from Berserk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nwh8yWh5WU) (which seems to have your exact required dimensions).


Most debatably, one might consider that the wideness of the blade could allow it to be used as an impromptu buckler of sorts, as it is still very durable and the increased surface area would at the least make blocking in melee a bit easier.

This is a trade-off between coverage (the wider the blade, the more you have to hide behind) and manoeuverability (the weapon needs to be fast enough to move into position). At the moment, you're way over into the coverage side of the scale, so it's easy to hide behind but you can't move your blade quickly, unless you're so ridiculously strong to compensate for the blade's inertia, in which case you're better off using a club or throwing stones. You can use magic to compensate but you're going to have to handwave it a bit, since trying to flesh it out leads to madness (e.g. Mass Effect style of mass manipulation would make the weapon easy to handle, but would reduce its cutting power as you won't have the same momentum).

Mike_G
2019-07-12, 09:22 AM
Hey, all, I've got a weapon idea in one of my stories that I wanted to shoot past you guys to check for verisimilitude- I've been incorporating stuff I've learned from Skallagrim and Shadiversity, but obviously it's not super likely they'd get back to me on how well I'd done so.

So the weapon in question is a longsword of the sort one would normally consider impractically large- not in Buster Sword territory, but maybe four to five feet long with another foot for the hilt, and with a rather hefty blade as well- maybe six inches wide or so, and an inch or two thick (estimates are to be taken with a grain of salt, I haven't really sat down to proportion it out accurately). So again, not as insane as some anime/video game swords, but much larger than normally considered practical. That's where I've been putting in so much thought- how to make it work as something you could imagine being used.

So the two big things that contribute in-story to this design are the material of the blade and the character the sword is made for. The sword is made later on, after the character loses their more conventional longsword and the material used in the sword is obtained.

The character is basically a Warforged stripped of game mechanics and setting details- an elite golem warrior that mysteriously obtained self-awareness in a process which has started to lead to poorly understood mystical abilities. Practically, this means that he is much stronger than a normal person, but also a good deal heavier, something repeatedly noted as something that would help with oversized weapons, but also part of the original enchantments included into his design are 'sticking' effects in his hands, feet, and back that increase his traction, grip strength, and act as a convenient place to store his weapons while marching. This means that he is even better equipped to weild a heavier weapon, as he has magic keeping him from loosing balance or grip while swinging the darn thing around.

The material of the weapon is a mysterious alloy originally made by the Mysterious Ancient CivilizationTM, this variety being known well for their supernatural metallurgy. The metal is essentially Adamantine- supposedly indestructible, but this has quite notably been shown to have limits. How? By this character's afore-mentioned developing powers. So while the metal is extremely durable and extremely strong, the weapon is being made for the one person known to be able to break it, so they don't want to go the route Shad discusses in his latest video about magical materials- they want to prioritize durability. Thus, in addition to making it big enough for a golem to use, they make it bulky enough to make sure it'll survive that use. For balance's sake, this also justifies some ornamentation on the hilt, in order to make the center of gravity more similar to a normal sword.

Now, the other problem with big weapons is the cutting ability, again something that would normally encourage thinner blades in both dimensions. My thought process here, which is the one I'm not as confident of, is that the unconventional design weighs in to the somewhat different use of a larger sword over a smaller one. I heard it said once that longswords and Zweihanders and such could almost be considered a kind of polearm, and that really got my mind going- in practice, essentially, this sword works more like a really big axe. It has the much larger blade length of a sword, but the weight and heft of it mean that it focuses more on chopping than slicing- if it can't cut as well, it will transfer its kinetic energy very well. This is still a trade-off, but people did make battleaxes in real life, right? With the unique properties of its wielder's grip, the wide blade also works as a good hand-hold for half-swording in a pinch. In regular combat, though, the typical sweeping, circular style I recall being recommended for big swords would be devastating with that much momentum behind it, and the alternate combination of traits would make it very good for fighting giant monsters as well.

Most debatably, one might consider that the wideness of the blade could allow it to be used as an impromptu buckler of sorts, as it is still very durable and the increased surface area would at the least make blocking in melee a bit easier.

So, how well have I figured things out here? Am I way off base, or have I made something that you could believe a sane blacksmith would make for this kind of character? Did I not include sufficient Machicolations?

The issue I see is that this thing is going to be all about the inertia.

With that much mass, stopping it will be very difficult. So that's good for offense, as it will be hard to block, hard to make armor good enough to stop it, it will be able to shear through the flesh of huge creatures, etc.

The problem is also that it will be hard to stop. If you swing and miss, it will take all day to stop that much mass with that much momentum to make another cut or to block. This will be terrible at defending against anything even a little quick, because once you start it moving to parry, changing direction if that was just a feint is going to be very very hard. Great strength will help, but only so much. A semi has a bigger engine than a sports car, but it still takes a while to get that mass moving. Or to stop it moving.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 09:34 AM
There are reasons most swords actually used in combat were within a certain weight and size range, going all the way back to the oldest bronze swords.

KineticDiplomat
2019-07-12, 11:03 AM
To our rapier question, quite randomly today I happened upon an answer. I was visiting the Swedish Army Museum and happened upon what looked like a stiff, narrow, hand and a half sword meant for thrusting. The blade was quite long and had a narrow taper, but was less wide than most of their one handed swords on display.

They had it labeled as a “Varja”, which they translated to English as “Rapier” and dated in the mid 1500s.

I suspect there may have been an alternate naming convention in some parts of Europe that did not use “Rapier” to envision a flexible one handed fencing piece that we think of today, but instead these larger and much stiffer thrusting swords. Which incidentally, probably would have been better for a battlefield. Hence “war Rapier”

I would post photos, but for some reason my phone won’t let me copy them here.

Clistenes
2019-07-12, 05:55 PM
To our rapier question, quite randomly today I happened upon an answer. I was visiting the Swedish Army Museum and happened upon what looked like a stiff, narrow, hand and a half sword meant for thrusting. The blade was quite long and had a narrow taper, but was less wide than most of their one handed swords on display.

They had it labeled as a “Varja”, which they translated to English as “Rapier” and dated in the mid 1500s.

I suspect there may have been an alternate naming convention in some parts of Europe that did not use “Rapier” to envision a flexible one handed fencing piece that we think of today, but instead these larger and much stiffer thrusting swords. Which incidentally, probably would have been better for a battlefield. Hence “war Rapier”

I would post photos, but for some reason my phone won’t let me copy them here.

I have checked. The rapier is "rapir" in swedish. "Värja" means "smallsword..." which is weird, because the weapon you are describing sounds like a medieval estoc and not at all like a smallsword...

The swedish sword for estoc is "pansarstickare" (I think it comes from german "panzerstecher...").

But it's true that in many languages edgeless rapiers are sometimes called "estocs". In Spain thrusting swords without an edge are often called "estoques", and in England both rapiers and estocs were sometimes called "tucks".

Gideon Falcon
2019-07-13, 03:41 AM
Single edged or double edged blade?

If it's single edged, it's not too far off a Chinese two handed dao, although a lot thicker. I presume that 1 inch measurement is the centre of the blade and it tapers to an edge?

I would also take advantage of sword making techniques to reduce the weight of your weapon - fullers for example make the weapon lighter for no real reduction in blade integrity.

It's double-edged, but it does have a large fuller. And yes, of course the full thickness is at the center, don't worry it is actually sharp.
I do admit, the thickness of the blade is probably an artifact from before I started learning about sword design that I could shave off- make it more conventionall in


Unless your character is much bigger than a human or has oversized hands, your blade is too thick for effective halfswording as you can't wrap your hand around the blade to get a good grip.
That's what I was trying to say with the grip enchantments- it's like a low-key Spiderman- not quite good for climbing, but he doesn't need to wrap his hand around the blade to get a good grip.


For examples of how such a large weapon could be used, see this Miao Dao (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKlNdF3xoKM) variant although probably ~2" off in blade width and on the shorter end of your scale.
Moving back to European traditions, there's a number of longsword techniques which can be scaled appropriately for your weapon; for example there's this Adorea longsword duel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36Pb8z3yI)

The main purpose of such fighting styles is use of the weapon's reach to fend off multiple attackers or being able to stop cavalry - the latter would probably be useful for giant monsters.Awesome, thanks! Those are definitely the kind of thing I imagine- and it was certainly made with that same intended use as you said.


Edit: Man at Arms made replicas of Cloud's Buster Sword (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xogheZdAO18) (although at 12" wide, the blade is twice as wide as your one) and Gut's sword from Berserk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nwh8yWh5WU) (which seems to have your exact required dimensions). Oh, dang, Gut's sword is actually a really good approximation- this sword isn't quite so long, but it does have a similar width. That is a really good reference.


This is a trade-off between coverage (the wider the blade, the more you have to hide behind) and manoeuverability (the weapon needs to be fast enough to move into position). At the moment, you're way over into the coverage side of the scale, so it's easy to hide behind but you can't move your blade quickly, unless you're so ridiculously strong to compensate for the blade's inertia, in which case you're better off using a club or throwing stones. You can use magic to compensate but you're going to have to handwave it a bit, since trying to flesh it out leads to madness (e.g. Mass Effect style of mass manipulation would make the weapon easy to handle, but would reduce its cutting power as you won't have the same momentum).
Right. Good to note, I'll have to keep that stuff in mind. Again, I did figure that was the more shaky idea in the stack, so it's not too much a surprise.


The issue I see is that this thing is going to be all about the inertia.

With that much mass, stopping it will be very difficult. So that's good for offense, as it will be hard to block, hard to make armor good enough to stop it, it will be able to shear through the flesh of huge creatures, etc.

The problem is also that it will be hard to stop. If you swing and miss, it will take all day to stop that much mass with that much momentum to make another cut or to block. This will be terrible at defending against anything even a little quick, because once you start it moving to parry, changing direction if that was just a feint is going to be very very hard. Great strength will help, but only so much. A semi has a bigger engine than a sports car, but it still takes a while to get that mass moving. Or to stop it moving.
Okay, thanks. I had figured it would be like that. I will definitely incorporate that into the character's style, it's been mentioned in the videos I mentioned as well. Great info.

KineticDiplomat
2019-07-13, 04:34 AM
So, I am far from an expert when it comes to swords or sword naming. I’ll just post these here and let the more knowledgeable heads work on it:

https://ibb.co/rFqq3TK
https://ibb.co/94X0j8r
https://ibb.co/HN0sDYn

Brother Oni
2019-07-13, 07:50 PM
So, I am far from an expert when it comes to swords or sword naming. I’ll just post these here and let the more knowledgeable heads work on it:

https://ibb.co/rFqq3TK
https://ibb.co/HN0sDYn

From what I know of the critters, there's probably a really annoyed moose looking for its jaw bone right now...

Clistenes
2019-07-14, 09:50 AM
So, I am far from an expert when it comes to swords or sword naming. I’ll just post these here and let the more knowledgeable heads work on it:

https://ibb.co/rFqq3TK
https://ibb.co/94X0j8r
https://ibb.co/HN0sDYn

Looking at the handle, that totally looks like a medieval estoc...

gkathellar
2019-07-14, 02:59 PM
Looking at the handle, that totally looks like a medieval estoc...

It does, although if you compare it to the knives nearby it, it looks to be a one-handed variation. Given that, it's understandable how it could get classified as a rapier.

Clistenes
2019-07-14, 06:12 PM
It does, although if you compare it to the knives nearby it, it looks to be a one-handed variation. Given that, it's understandable how it could get classified as a rapier.

The design of the handle looks more like a hand-and-a-half sword... I think this is the same kind of weapon as this one... (https://myarmoury.com/review_mrl_estoc.html)
https://myarmoury.com/images/reviews/mrl_estoc_a.jpg

The one in the Swedish museum looks like it would be easier to use one-handed, though, given the smaller crossbar...

This one (https://www.dorotheum.com/en/l/5772097/) and this one (https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/211938.html#), both original pieces, may be even closer...

These estoc models look even more rapier-like... (http://guns.allzip.org/topic/79/1907201.html)

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-14, 06:57 PM
I need ideas for weapons and armor for a particular civilization, the People of the Waters.

Constraints:
* No good sources of iron[1], but plentiful ingredients for bronze.
* Jungle terrain. Similar to the Yucatan, without the limestone shelf (just normal, flat-ish jungle).
* Very hyper-organized society. Efficiency is their prime ideal. I'm thinking they do the Roman (post-reforms) model of building roads and forts and using standardized gear.
* Lots of slaves (taken from neighboring cultures).
* Very expansionist.
* Local opposition is similar to pre-columbian aztec/mayan indians, except not organized at all beyond the tribal level.
* Magic exists, but it's not super common here, at least at the military level.

I'm thinking stiffened, reinforced leather and cloth armor, wooden shields, and bronze spears and swords, with various missile weapons (javelins, bows, etc). Does that sound reasonable?

[1] the ancient[2] iron and coal mines are located in the hills, which are the current habitat of very nasty things that are pretty content to stay there, as long as they're not disturbed. The People of the Waters aren't stupid--they don't disturb them when they can avoid it.
[2] there was a major, civilized, high-medieval-tech (plus magic) nation here about 200 years ago, but that died catastrophically[3]. Not much remains, and the jungle has eaten most of the ruins.
[3] being the beach-head for an invasion of demons, plus the end of all magic for 50 years, plus massive natural disasters including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes lasting months, etc., all about the same time will do that.

Pauly
2019-07-15, 03:06 AM
I need ideas for weapons and armor for a particular civilization, the People of the Waters.

Constraints:
* No good sources of iron[1], but plentiful ingredients for bronze.
* Jungle terrain. Similar to the Yucatan, without the limestone shelf (just normal, flat-ish jungle).
* Very hyper-organized society. Efficiency is their prime ideal. I'm thinking they do the Roman (post-reforms) model of building roads and forts and using standardized gear.
* Lots of slaves (taken from neighboring cultures).
* Very expansionist.
* Local opposition is similar to pre-columbian aztec/mayan indians, except not organized at all beyond the tribal level.
* Magic exists, but it's not super common here, at least at the military level.

I'm thinking stiffened, reinforced leather and cloth armor, wooden shields, and bronze spears and swords, with various missile weapons (javelins, bows, etc). Does that sound reasonable?

[1] the ancient[2] iron and coal mines are located in the hills, which are the current habitat of very nasty things that are pretty content to stay there, as long as they're not disturbed. The People of the Waters aren't stupid--they don't disturb them when they can avoid it.
[2] there was a major, civilized, high-medieval-tech (plus magic) nation here about 200 years ago, but that died catastrophically[3]. Not much remains, and the jungle has eaten most of the ruins.
[3] being the beach-head for an invasion of demons, plus the end of all magic for 50 years, plus massive natural disasters including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes lasting months, etc., all about the same time will do that.

It sounds like the easiest way is to just ctrl-c ctrl-v the Incas. The basic difference between the tech and society you’ve mentioned is that the Incas developed from highland Andean plateaus, but they expanded well into the Amazonia. For The neighboring tribes ctrl-c ctrl-v the Aztec’s neighbors like the
Tlaxcalans.

The Incas were more into incorporating conquered people into the Empire, inspired by the wanting their neighbors to follow the sun god, but it isn’t that big of a twist to make them slavers. Since their society was formed along socialist lines with jobs and land allocated by government fiat you can argue that everyone was slaves.

snowblizz
2019-07-15, 04:01 AM
I have checked. The rapier is "rapir" in swedish. "Värja" means "smallsword..." which is weird, because the weapon you are describing sounds like a medieval estoc and not at all like a smallsword...


Any sword that would feels like you fence with it would be called "värja" in common Swedish. The definition is, literally, "blade you fence with". A "rapir" doesn't exist in Swedish (the dictionary doesn't know it), outside historical books or, I guess, specialized fencing lingo.

As opposed to a blade that would clearly be a sword.

Also, ofc, museum personnel aren't weapon experts necessarily and people who made blades and used them for real didn't generally engage in descriptive nomenclature.



From what I know of the critters, there's probably a really annoyed moose looking for its jaw bone right now...
Looking at the size of it, it's a quite small moose so no worries. Now had they taken the jaw of a 12, or god-forbid, an 18 pointer I'd be looking over my shoulder.

Clistenes
2019-07-15, 08:14 AM
I need ideas for weapons and armor for a particular civilization, the People of the Waters.

Constraints:
* No good sources of iron[1], but plentiful ingredients for bronze.
* Jungle terrain. Similar to the Yucatan, without the limestone shelf (just normal, flat-ish jungle).
* Very hyper-organized society. Efficiency is their prime ideal. I'm thinking they do the Roman (post-reforms) model of building roads and forts and using standardized gear.
* Lots of slaves (taken from neighboring cultures).
* Very expansionist.
* Local opposition is similar to pre-columbian aztec/mayan indians, except not organized at all beyond the tribal level.
* Magic exists, but it's not super common here, at least at the military level.

I'm thinking stiffened, reinforced leather and cloth armor, wooden shields, and bronze spears and swords, with various missile weapons (javelins, bows, etc). Does that sound reasonable?

[1] the ancient[2] iron and coal mines are located in the hills, which are the current habitat of very nasty things that are pretty content to stay there, as long as they're not disturbed. The People of the Waters aren't stupid--they don't disturb them when they can avoid it.
[2] there was a major, civilized, high-medieval-tech (plus magic) nation here about 200 years ago, but that died catastrophically[3]. Not much remains, and the jungle has eaten most of the ruins.
[3] being the beach-head for an invasion of demons, plus the end of all magic for 50 years, plus massive natural disasters including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes lasting months, etc., all about the same time will do that.

If they have bronze weapons they will probably have at least bronze helmets too...

Bronze scale armor was easy to do, and was created quite early in history... they could rivet or stitch rows of bronze scales over the leather and cloth armor...

Bronze breastplates, greaves and maybe manicas and/or spaulders wouldn't be too difficult to craft, either...

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-15, 08:32 AM
If they have bronze weapons they will probably have at least bronze helmets too...

Bronze scale armor was easy to do, and was created quite early in history... they could rivet or stitch rows of bronze scales over the leather and cloth armor...

Bronze breastplates, greaves and maybe manicas and/or spaulders wouldn't be too difficult to craft, either...

I'm worried about the longevity of bronze in a jungle environment. Especially since a large chunk is coastal, so you have salt. But I'm not too well versed on that metal chemistry, so I'm not sure it's a valid concern.

Grim Portent
2019-07-15, 08:50 AM
I'm worried about the longevity of bronze in a jungle environment. Especially since a large chunk is coastal, so you have salt. But I'm not too well versed on that metal chemistry, so I'm not sure it's a valid concern.

Bronze resists corrosion very well as metals go. If it's being used and maintained (oiled and so forth) then it won't be an issue and a sword could probably survive a few years in the ocean and still be serviceable.

Kiero
2019-07-15, 09:25 AM
I'm worried about the longevity of bronze in a jungle environment. Especially since a large chunk is coastal, so you have salt. But I'm not too well versed on that metal chemistry, so I'm not sure it's a valid concern.

Bronze is much more durable than iron/steel when it comes to moisture in the environment. It isn't a coincidence that ships rams were cast in bronze, and marines often used bronze, rather than steel weapons because they resisted corrosion much better.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-15, 09:33 AM
Bronze resists corrosion very well as metals go. If it's being used and maintained (oiled and so forth) then it won't be an issue and a sword could probably survive a few years in the ocean and still be serviceable.


Bronze is much more durable than iron/steel when it comes to moisture in the environment. It isn't a coincidence that ships rams were cast in bronze, and marines often used bronze, rather than steel weapons because they resisted corrosion much better.

Good to know. Bronze weapons, helmets, and bronze scale for the line, with cloth/no armor for the cannon-fodder rabble if needed.

Kiero
2019-07-15, 10:10 AM
Good to know. Bronze weapons, helmets, and bronze scale for the line, with cloth/no armor for the cannon-fodder rabble if needed.

Well-worked bronze is the equal of the lower grades of steel that any non-modern civilisation is capable of producing. The only meaningful difference is that the same volume of bronze is about 10% heavier than the equivalent of iron.

It does take skill to make longer blades (see the Chinese, who were masters with bronze), otherwise you're limited to shortswords and spear/axe heads. As mentioned, larger plates are also pretty easy to make if you can already work bronze, so cuirasses, greaves and so on would be common. This isn't a metal-poor culture when it comes to equipment.

Grim Portent
2019-07-15, 10:11 AM
Good to know. Bronze weapons, helmets, and bronze scale for the line, with cloth/no armor for the cannon-fodder rabble if needed.

A good minimum loadout for militia/draftees and so on is an open faced helm, a shield (bronze or leather over wood) and a spear. Maximum defense for minimum expense and favoured by various armies of the past. Also lightweight and non restricting to wear or carry on long marches. Cloth armour would be hellish to wear in a jungle due to the humidity and heat, so I'd expect them to be mostly unarmoured other than the shield and helm.

Bows over javelins I think, dense jungle terrain favours more compact weapons and javelins can be quite unwieldy, plus there's no shortage of wood for making bows and arrows. The Incans used slings, but that was largely due to a lack of wood in their homeland, and a lot of South American tribes used blowguns, but those are only practical for hunting because of how big they are.

Jungles are also pretty bad for formation fighting so I'd expect to see a focus on skirmish and swarm tactics. It's not practical to cut down every tree in your way so you need to fight between them and focus on surprise or surrounding your enemies or just overwhelming them with numbers.

I'm going to advise against the scale armour proposed by others, I think it would be too hot and heavy for jungle terrain. A more encompassing helm, maybe a scale or chain covering around the neck and shoulders, but otherwise I'd keep the heavy soldiers in some sort of light tunic to keep them from overheating.

gkathellar
2019-07-15, 10:13 AM
One complicating factor (read: plot hook) with bronze is that the need for both copper- and tin-mining operations makes it more difficult to secure the resources needed to manufacture it.

Kiero
2019-07-15, 10:22 AM
One complicating factor (read: plot hook) with bronze is that the need for both copper- and tin-mining operations makes it more difficult to secure the resources needed to manufacture it.

This was certainly a concern in the real world, where copper and tin occurred in different places, and tin became rare as the old sources were tapped out. By contrast, iron ore often occurs very close to either coal or trees from which you make charcoal/coke.

Whether or not that's a concern is up to the setting creator.

One additional point to follow what Grim Portent said, for personal weapons, I think knives and/or short choppers would be common. The latter for clearing brush and cutting through the jungle. In the real world, non-tropical forests seem to make an axe the favoured tool, but in tropical ones it's the machete.

Brother Oni
2019-07-15, 11:23 AM
Cloth armour would be hellish to wear in a jungle due to the humidity and heat, so I'd expect them to be mostly unarmoured other than the shield and helm.

That's what you expect, but the Aztecs went heavily into ichcahuipilli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichcahuipilli), which was a quilted cotton armour and could be regarded as the equivalent of a gambeson in terms of protective quality.

If anything, they would be less likely to wear bronze armour due to the outermost non-breathing metal layer preventing heat loss to the environment (some conquistadors were reported as preferring to use the Aztec's armour rather than their own cuirass as the loss in protection was well worth the additional comfort).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Codex_Mendoza_folio_67r.jpg

I'd also say that it depends heavily on acclimatization - if you're used to living in a jungle environment, then wearing protective clothing wouldn't be as restrictive.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-15, 11:35 AM
That's what you expect, but the Aztecs went heavily into ichcahuipilli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichcahuipilli), which was a quilted cotton armour and could be regarded as the equivalent of a gambeson in terms of protective quality.

If anything, they would be less likely to wear bronze armour due to the outermost non-breathing metal layer preventing heat loss to the environment (some conquistadors were reported as preferring to use the Aztec's armour rather than their own cuirass as the loss in protection was well worth the additional comfort).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Codex_Mendoza_folio_67r.jpg

I'd also say that it depends heavily on acclimatization - if you're used to living in a jungle environment, then wearing protective clothing wouldn't be as restrictive.

Yeah, that was what I was thinking of. I remember seeing those illustrations (or similar ones) and since these guys are (in naming[1] and vague architecture[2] only) modeled on a mishmash of the Central American (plus a little Inca) civilizations, I figured it fit.

[1] The civilization is named Tlalocana, a play on the Aztec god of water, Tlaaloc. They're the People of the Water, originally the Water Serpent People, now because they (unknowingly) serve an Aboleth, via some mind-flayers, which for me are water-associated.
[2] step pyramids and jungles, mainly

Grim Portent
2019-07-15, 11:54 AM
I suppose it depends on resources. I don't recall much armour being used by South American cultures, but then I think the Aztecs had access to different textiles and a good coastline. Since they used saltwater to reinforce their armour that might have been the difference between being able to make armour thin enough to be practical in the climate and being unable to meaningfully protect yourself without getting heatstroke. Also the difference between wool and cotton I suppose. The Incas had more of the former than the latter, and the Aztecs had more cotton.

If they're coastal and more Aztec based then I concede that salt cloth armour makes sense.

Pauly
2019-07-15, 02:52 PM
One complicating factor (read: plot hook) with bronze is that the need for both copper- and tin-mining operations makes it more difficult to secure the resources needed to manufacture it.

The Spanish in Mexico ditched their metal armor, except for helmets, in favor of native quilted armor because of the heat.

Yes quilted armor is hot and heavy. Metal armor was worse.

Kiero
2019-07-15, 04:24 PM
I wonder how long textile armour lasted in a tropical environment, I'd imagine it would slowly rot off the wearer. I'm guessing it's service life wasn't measured in years?

I'm pretty sure the Egyptians in antiquity wore armour made of cotton, rather than opting for bronze.

Clistenes
2019-07-15, 06:23 PM
About armor: Aztec metallurgy wasn't advanced enough to make metal weapons or armor. The Peruvians knew how to make copper alloys and crafted some weapons and helmets of it (axes, hammers, spears and daggers, but not swords), but they didn't make armor besides some gorgets...

I think their metallurgy probably wasn't advanced enough...

But this fantasy culture are the renmants of a more advanced civilization that used iron and steel and probably forged metal armor... so if they have bronze, they will probably try to use it to make armor...


One complicating factor (read: plot hook) with bronze is that the need for both copper- and tin-mining operations makes it more difficult to secure the resources needed to manufacture it.

One of the premises we are given is that they have access to the needed resources to make bronze.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-15, 06:34 PM
About armor: Aztec metallurgy wasn't advanced enough to make metal weapons or armor. The Peruvians knew how to make copper alloys and crafted some weapons and helmets of it (axes, hammers, spears and daggers, but not swords), but they didn't make armor besides some gorgets...

I think their metallurgy probably wasn't advanced enough...

But this fantasy culture are the renmants of a more advanced civilization that used iron and steel and probably forged metal armor... so if they have bronze, they will probably try to use it to make armor...



One of the premises we are given is that they have access to the needed resources to make bronze.

Yeah. They depart from the historical analogues in that respect. A big part of their deal is that the aboleth mastermind is running an experiment about what would happen if silly mortals were "guided with a firm hand toward development." So techniques aren't an issue (although the aboleth himself isn't all that creative, being rather stuck in the past/traditions by his nature.

And yes, they have plenty of resources. Since my world is only earthlike on the surface[1], some of the exact resource challenges are different, this being one of them. Iron and coal aren't there, but bronze[2] is.

[1] it's based more on a classical element theory, not modern atomic theory, among other things. No chemical elements or molecules. But the surface phenomena, those observable without Industrial Revolution+ techniques and tools (basically), are the same. Just for different reasons. So they'd use different words to explain very similar behavior, close enough for descriptions to translate pretty well.
[2] Bronze is an alloy of metals with certain aspects, which are found together in nature somewhat more frequently than copper and tin are on Earth. But the basic idea and the properties are close enough for government work.

Pauly
2019-07-15, 09:44 PM
About armor: Aztec metallurgy wasn't advanced enough to make metal weapons or armor. The Peruvians knew how to make copper alloys and crafted some weapons and helmets of it (axes, hammers, spears and daggers, but not swords), but they didn't make armor besides some gorgets...

I think their metallurgy probably wasn't advanced enough...

But this fantasy culture are the renmants of a more advanced civilization that used iron and steel and probably forged metal armor... so if they have bronze, they will probably try to use it to make armor...



One of the premises we are given is that they have access to the needed resources to make bronze.

The Incas had fairly advanced metallurgy. The primary weapon was the sling, and the best armors against sling shots are ones that can take the impact and spread it out and slow it down. i.e. quilted armor. There are Spanish records from the conquest and revolutions that report Inca slingers being able to kill Spaniards with iron helmets through headshots. The primary sidearm was a mace. Bronze armor doesn’t defend that well against maces and slings so there is a good chance the Incas just didn’t consider bronze armor worth developing. They did have some ceremonial bronze armor, but that was so thin that it cannot have been intended for warfare.

Kiero
2019-07-16, 03:28 AM
[2] Bronze is an alloy of metals with certain aspects, which are found together in nature somewhat more frequently than copper and tin are on Earth. But the basic idea and the properties are close enough for government work.

Bronze is an alloy of copper and something else. Tin isn't the only potential partner to the copper, one used earlier was arsenic. That's where the myths of the "lame smith" come from, because working with arsenic is very unhealthy. So you've got potential license with what the other material(s) are.


The Incas had fairly advanced metallurgy. The primary weapon was the sling, and the best armors against sling shots are ones that can take the impact and spread it out and slow it down. i.e. quilted armor. There are Spanish records from the conquest and revolutions that report Inca slingers being able to kill Spaniards with iron helmets through headshots. The primary sidearm was a mace. Bronze armor doesn’t defend that well against maces and slings so there is a good chance the Incas just didn’t consider bronze armor worth developing. They did have some ceremonial bronze armor, but that was so thin that it cannot have been intended for warfare.

Again, there's bronze and there's bronze. Were the Incas up to the Chinese level of skill with bronze? Greeks and others fought very capable slingers like the Ligurians and Balearics (who used lead bullets, rather than pebbles or stones), and didn't seem to consider bronze armour insufficient.

King of Nowhere
2019-07-16, 04:00 PM
my players want to try a sort of net-thrower adapted from a cannon. my world has knowledge of gunpowder with weaponry that could be early 19th century. they wanted to put a net inside a cannon ammunition so that the net would unfold once shot, trap a target (possibly injuring it) and lock itself on the ground with spikes.
How feasible would that design be? would the net actually unfold and work as advertised?

Mr Beer
2019-07-16, 06:12 PM
Cannons generate a lot of heating in the barrel which would tend to ignite ropes.

More importantly, the velocities involved in a full charge of powder would rip apart nets which are designed to spread open as they exit the cannon. Or if they are not going to open up, fine, but then they don't do the job.

Note that chain shot was a thing, where you had two projectiles linked by chains. They could hold together but were used kind of like a giant flying knife to cut down ship rigging or in a pinch, chop attackers in half at close range.

My guess would be you would need a low power charge, very strong fire-proof rope and lots of experimentation to get a short-range net lobber. I would consider this plausible in a cinematic campaign.

The bit about self-locking into the ground is too ridiculous for my GM-ing style unless we're using magic or Loony Tunes physics.

KineticDiplomat
2019-07-16, 11:10 PM
Another thing to consider is the average size of a Napoleonic field piece. A standard 12 lb ball (the heaviest common field cannon) has a diameter of just over 120mm - 4.76 inches. Even if your net was perfectly compacted with absolutely no air gaps, and packed as a cylinder that caught the charge and stayed perfectly intact until shooting out (a sabot, perhaps?), the volume of the net will be a problem. With a two foot long shell (which is already quite large for a barrel less than 6 feet long) you would get....

Wait for it....

Half a cubic foot of net. You might give someone a mildly annoying hat?

Gnoman
2019-07-17, 12:54 AM
Real net launchers the size of a bazooka exist. They fire from compressed air, have a range of around a dozen feet, and are only useful for catching small animals. This is with considerably better materials technology (nylon nets instead of rope ones), a very fine degree of control over the launching pressure, and industrial processes that produce precision far beyond what a medieval cannonmaker could do.


What your players want to make will not work.

Kaptin Keen
2019-07-17, 01:58 AM
Real net launchers the size of a bazooka exist. They fire from compressed air, have a range of around a dozen feet, and are only useful for catching small animals. This is with considerably better materials technology (nylon nets instead of rope ones), a very fine degree of control over the launching pressure, and industrial processes that produce precision far beyond what a medieval cannonmaker could do.


What your players want to make will not work.

That's patently untrue. I mean, it's entirely true that net launchers exist, but the materials available in a fantasy setting are way better than those available in real life. Mithril enhanced with elemental air motes, for instance, are not available to real life engineers.

Of course, this is the "Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question?!" thread - but since the question in this case is related to a roleplaying game, it seems entirely feasible real world limitations do not apply.

It seems worth mentioning that, to my knowledge, net launchers have a very specific range at which they work - at all other ranges, they do not work. In other words, say the net full unfolds in 30 feet. At less than 30 feet, it's not unfolded yet, and will not work. And at 30+ range, the net doesn't magically fly, fully unfolded, through the air (unless it's just that - magically). Rather, it will obey the laws of physics, and propably flail about randomly before it tangles up on itself and becomes a useless ball of flying stuff.

I'm ... not an expert on net launchers. This is knowledge gained from watching youtube videos. So, disclaimer! =)

Misereor
2019-07-17, 04:24 AM
my players want to try a sort of net-thrower adapted from a cannon. my world has knowledge of gunpowder with weaponry that could be early 19th century. they wanted to put a net inside a cannon ammunition so that the net would unfold once shot, trap a target (possibly injuring it) and lock itself on the ground with spikes.
How feasible would that design be? would the net actually unfold and work as advertised?

I would go with magic rather than technology for what you are describing.
- The weapon will have short range if the net is deployed right out of the barrel, so you would need some kind of unfolding mechanism (advanced technology or magic) to hit something more than a few yards away.
- The net need not to be ruined by the act of firing (either use catapult/ballista instead of cannon, invent an impact and fireproof net, or use magic).
- You need to hit your target (to hit roll or magic).
- Once unfolded the net needs to envelop the target (skill check to see if you timed it right or magic).
- Once enveloped, the net has to lock to the ground (definitely magic).
- I'm assuming they want to catch soemthing scary with this net, so it needs to be strong enough to hold it (advanced technology or magic).

I think the queston is if your players aren't trying to stomp ants with orbital warheads.
The kind of investment of time and energy needed to create such a device could probably be used more economically if their objective is simply to disable someone.

Kiero
2019-07-17, 06:28 AM
I'm struggling to find much information on Incan bronzesmithing, but I'm not sure they were all that advanced compared to the likes of the Chinese. They seem to have used copper and arsenical bronze, and while Peru is a source of tin, it doesn't appear to have been in widespread use. The absence of longer blades than knives/spearheads/axeheads is suggestive.

Clistenes
2019-07-17, 07:08 PM
I'm struggling to find much information on Incan bronzesmithing, but I'm not sure they were all that advanced compared to the likes of the Chinese. They seem to have used copper and arsenical bronze, and while Peru is a source of tin, it doesn't appear to have been in widespread use. The absence of longer blades than knives/spearheads/axeheads is suggestive.

They made some very interesting art, but their tools and weapons were quite lacking, when compared with Old World's Bronze Age cultures...

But I think the setting states that the Tlalocana have access to "real" bronze (that is, tin and copper alloys) and they have inherited some of the technical expertise of a more advanced civilization... the only reason they can´t use iron and steel if because monster shenanigans...


Bronze is an alloy of copper and something else. Tin isn't the only potential partner to the copper, one used earlier was arsenic. That's where the myths of the "lame smith" come from, because working with arsenic is very unhealthy. So you've got potential license with what the other material(s) are.

I just want to point that not all alloys containing copper are bronze... Yes, many copper alloys (with arsenic, phosphor, alluminium...etc.) besides "proper" bronze (which is copper, tin and maybe something else, usually arsenic) are called "bronze", but not all of them...copper-zinc alloy is brass, a copper-nickel alloy is cupronickel, a copper-nickel-tin alloy is gunmetal... etc.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-17, 08:22 PM
They made some very interesting art, but their tools and weapons were quite lacking, when compared with Old World's Bronze Age cultures...

But I think the setting states that the Tlalocana have access to "real" bronze (that is, tin and copper alloys) and they have inherited some of the technical expertise of a more advanced civilization... the only reason they can´t use iron and steel if because monster shenanigans...


Yeah. Technically, they'd prefer iron+, and are being fed all sorts of technical information. But them's some seriously nasty critters (and worse stuff). I haven't decided what, exactly, but I know that no one but the mind flayers themselves could walk in there and have any chance, and they'd be challenged for sure. And being focused on efficiency, they figure they can do just fine against the stone-age tribes around them the way they are.

Vinyadan
2019-07-22, 09:06 AM
In unrelated news, they have found a 500 years old tall ship on the bottom of the Baltic Sea. It was a merchant ship with swivel guns, some 17 m long, of uncertain property.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p8TH1tDvzk&feature=youtu.be

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/science/shipwreck-archeology-shipwreck.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Science

Cygnia
2019-07-22, 09:45 AM
I picked this knife up nearly 20 years ago in Lisbon, Portugal at a bazaar and I've been fascinated to know more about it if anyone can help. I didn't see any maker's mark on it. Wooden handle, wooden scabbard.

https://imgur.com/4IIZR2k
https://imgur.com/EKJUybx

Kiero
2019-07-22, 12:06 PM
Yeah. Technically, they'd prefer iron+, and are being fed all sorts of technical information. But them's some seriously nasty critters (and worse stuff). I haven't decided what, exactly, but I know that no one but the mind flayers themselves could walk in there and have any chance, and they'd be challenged for sure. And being focused on efficiency, they figure they can do just fine against the stone-age tribes around them the way they are.

Why would they prefer iron, though? Is it a status thing? Are there advantages in terms of creatures vulnerable to iron specifically? It's patently worse in a tropical climate than bronze.

Brother Oni
2019-07-22, 05:17 PM
I picked this knife up nearly 20 years ago in Lisbon, Portugal at a bazaar and I've been fascinated to know more about it if anyone can help. I didn't see any maker's mark on it. Wooden handle, wooden scabbard.

https://imgur.com/4IIZR2k
https://imgur.com/EKJUybx

I can't help you very much with the weapon, but the maker's mark (assuming it isn't a mass produced item and a blacksmith actually put it on) would normally be on the tang of the blade (the part that extends into the handle).

I don't advise trying to take off the handle to have a look though!

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-22, 05:47 PM
Why would they prefer iron, though? Is it a status thing? Are there advantages in terms of creatures vulnerable to iron specifically? It's patently worse in a tropical climate than bronze.

Because they have the tech to make really good steel, just not the raw materials. And from what I understand, steel > bronze ~ iron (at their fully-developed states).

Gideon Falcon
2019-07-22, 08:20 PM
So, I've been working on this question for a while, and have had help from the thread before- but there are aspects I still want to nail down.

I have a character that I'm trying to portray as a tactical genius, far ahead of his time. The thing is, from what the thread has said, a lot of the genius ideas that make or break a war come down to logistics; something that this character already has a leg up on from other factors. If I were to leave it to that, he'd just look like he was more effective merely because of those other factors, not due to any personal skill as a tactitian.

I know part of it also comes down to an understanding of long-term strategy through important capture points, unexpected targets, and so on that are too lengthy and too context-specific to really summarize here.

What I want to know are what kind of small-scale tactics, methods of conducting battles and skirmishes in a classical heroic fantasy landscape that would really differentiate him as the new Sun Tzu?

KineticDiplomat
2019-07-23, 12:06 AM
The answer is that small-scale fighting wouldn’t. Even in the modern day with less focus on The Great Captains and more on small unit combat, the likes of Skorzeny and Bagnold as small unit masters are not universally known. In the muscle powered era, strength of sinew and ferocity of character was worth more for small unit fame than tactical acumen. You get sagas about heroes and generals, but little in between until the modern day.

Part of this is because small unit combat is far less cerebral. It’s having an eye for terrain and intuitively knowing how it will play out. It’s understanding the craft of war at the spear-meets body level, and then being able to make quick decisions with little and often fuzzy information on how that is going to apply. It’s knowing your troops and trying to have a feel for theirs. It’s reading morale, and shock, and fatigue and trying to put it all together how that will work today.

It’s having the feel and knowledge about men, morale, weapons, and terrain to inform a decision; the quickness of mind to pick a decision while tired and nervous with no information formally presented, the quality of communication to tell people what they want to do in a way that hopefully won’t screw up what your decision actually was, having the mental courage to decide firmly what to do, and having the physical courage to see it done with yourself on the board.

Which is an entirely different skill set than that which can be recorded in sage books and broken into clean intellectual lines, or the skills to efficiently manage an organiation. And being good at one in no way means you’ll be good at the others.

hymer
2019-07-23, 02:23 AM
What I want to know are what kind of small-scale tactics, methods of conducting battles and skirmishes in a classical heroic fantasy landscape that would really differentiate him as the new Sun Tzu?
The obvious one would be about knowing your enemy and yourself. If your character knows the resistance, immunities, and vulnerabilities of every monster you face, and communicates these to the party in a timely manner, it will go a long way to making him seem clever. If he has thoguht ahead and has ways to handle these things effectively, so much the better.

Kiero
2019-07-23, 04:35 AM
Because they have the tech to make really good steel, just not the raw materials. And from what I understand, steel > bronze ~ iron (at their fully-developed states).

It's not that simple; and well-worked bronze is better than iron and the lowest grades of steel. Even then it depends what you're using it for, and again the climate matters. Steel rusts, bronze is much more durable in a moist environment.

What's the point of making equipment that rusts within a year or so, when bronze will last for years?

hymer
2019-07-23, 04:59 AM
It's not that simple; and well-worked bronze is better than iron and the lowest grades of steel. Even then it depends what you're using it for, and again the climate matters. Steel rusts, bronze is much more durable in a moist environment.

What's the point of making equipment that rusts within a year or so, when bronze will last for years?

The materials for steel are very easy to come by, though. There's iron pretty much all over the planet, whereas copper is much rarer and more localized. If you're equipping whole armies, you are likely to go with some variation of iron over a variation of bronze, even if it has its drawbacks. In the case of 'fully developed steel', presumably this includes full knowledge of how to take care of your steel and keep it from rusting unduly. It's not like the conquistadors switched to bronze in the tropics on arrival.

Edit: Just to put some numbers on it, about 5% of earth's crust is iron. Copper makes up less than 0.007%. That makes iron more than 700 times as common as copper.

jjordan
2019-07-23, 12:43 PM
So, I've been working on this question for a while, and have had help from the thread before- but there are aspects I still want to nail down.

I have a character that I'm trying to portray as a tactical genius, far ahead of his time. The thing is, from what the thread has said, a lot of the genius ideas that make or break a war come down to logistics; something that this character already has a leg up on from other factors. If I were to leave it to that, he'd just look like he was more effective merely because of those other factors, not due to any personal skill as a tactitian.

I know part of it also comes down to an understanding of long-term strategy through important capture points, unexpected targets, and so on that are too lengthy and too context-specific to really summarize here.

What I want to know are what kind of small-scale tactics, methods of conducting battles and skirmishes in a classical heroic fantasy landscape that would really differentiate him as the new Sun Tzu?
Sun-Tzu didn't much care about small scale tactics. His strategies were aimed at maneuver warfare which emphasized logistics and treated the troops as commodities to be kept in line with draconian discipline and organization that took advantage of pre-existing ties and motivators. It's easy to discount the skill it takes to do logistics well. You have to be able to compare multiple scenarios involving complex factors rapidly and effectively.

Do you send a troop of cavalry to assault that village which is likely to be a lightly defended supply depot? The war started on day x, the enemy probably started moving their troops on day y, which means they would be running out of supplies on day z, which means they will probably have a supply convoy at this location by day a. Of the troops at your command you've got three that might be able to do get there in time. Only one of those could certainly accomplish the mission but if the job is done well enough it might effectively eliminate one of the enemies main maneuver formations for a week which would allow your forces to concentrate against the other formation and inflict serious damage upon it. Lots of factors and people tend to discount this ability and be wowed by the guy who put his archers on top of a small hill behind some hasty fortifications and let the opposing forces charge headlong at him instead of cutting off his retreat and starving him into submission.

Gnoman
2019-07-23, 01:53 PM
So, I've been working on this question for a while, and have had help from the thread before- but there are aspects I still want to nail down.

I have a character that I'm trying to portray as a tactical genius, far ahead of his time. The thing is, from what the thread has said, a lot of the genius ideas that make or break a war come down to logistics; something that this character already has a leg up on from other factors. If I were to leave it to that, he'd just look like he was more effective merely because of those other factors, not due to any personal skill as a tactitian.

I know part of it also comes down to an understanding of long-term strategy through important capture points, unexpected targets, and so on that are too lengthy and too context-specific to really summarize here.

What I want to know are what kind of small-scale tactics, methods of conducting battles and skirmishes in a classical heroic fantasy landscape that would really differentiate him as the new Sun Tzu?

Tactics simply aren't that important or complex. We'd need to see exactly what kind of troops you're working with to be sure, but pretty much all tactics boil down to trying to attack somebody in the side or rear, sometimes creating a new side or rear to attack. Real genius is in the logistics and support factors, and anybody with knowledge will absolutely credit victories to those - and hail the victor as a genius for building up such a difficult and vital arm.

Storm Bringer
2019-07-23, 02:18 PM
one of the commentaries on Sun Tzu said that a truly great commanders were so good at stacking the odds in their favour, that many people did not recognise their greatness, because all their victories were "easy" ones with everything In their favour.

Pauly
2019-07-23, 07:55 PM
Tactics simply aren't that important or complex. We'd need to see exactly what kind of troops you're working with to be sure, but pretty much all tactics boil down to trying to attack somebody in the side or rear, sometimes creating a new side or rear to attack. Real genius is in the logistics and support factors, and anybody with knowledge will absolutely credit victories to those - and hail the victor as a genius for building up such a difficult and vital arm.

I profoundly disagree with this. For example in the Napoleon era it was the 2 Master tacticians, Napoleon and Wellington that dominated the battlefields. Now depending on era and equipment there can be more or less scope for tactics. Even in WWI which is famous for being non-tactical tactical geniuses such as Monash and Rommel (the same one who did alright for himself 20 years later) still stood out.

Gideon Falcon
2019-07-23, 09:34 PM
Tactics simply aren't that important or complex. We'd need to see exactly what kind of troops you're working with to be sure, but pretty much all tactics boil down to trying to attack somebody in the side or rear, sometimes creating a new side or rear to attack. Real genius is in the logistics and support factors, and anybody with knowledge will absolutely credit victories to those - and hail the victor as a genius for building up such a difficult and vital arm.

Hm. That does make things difficult- the character in question is a Necromancer, which is why I said the logistics were largely taken care of. The previous times I asked, the thread kinda got caught up in describing just how devastatingly effective undead troops would be due to the logistics of not worrying about food, water, shelter, or medical care.

The few ideas I was able to glean were basically that, for one, I might use more Iron Age battlefield conditions than Medieval (where the Roman Phalanx and other formations hadn't been invented yet and as such would be vastly superior), the use of what guerilla tactics could be transposed onto the setting through silent night-time raids and such, and the potential use of burrowing forms of undead as a method of, as you say, getting to the rear or side of the opponent, and maybe the use of flying undead to crreate primitive air forces.

These all still have problems- a lot of the plot has yet to be worked out, so I'm not certain who he'd be needing to lead large armies against, let alone what possible creatures he could hunt down to add to his ranks; What constitutes the burrowing undead, since the D&D specific creatures that inspired the character's original concept are not necessarily in the setting? If there are flying creatures big enough to be used in war, why haven't people domesticated them the way they did falcons for hunting? In terms of his opponents; are they even human? Do they have to worry about logistics? Would their abilities potentially invalidate certain tactics, or just make them irrelevant?
Some opponents could be your classic mostly mindless demonic hordes, but that would only require being smart enough to stop zerg rushes until you'd reanimated enough to even out the numbers.

I guess I might not have been able to make it clear, but I just want to be able to have specific scenes, where, in some suitably cinematic way, the character is able to win a battle in a way that makes the reader think 'Dang, this guy is smart,' whether said reader can't tell what's wrong with Hollywood tactics or is a regular on threads like this. The stories I'm writing are meant to be in a comic format, so it is especially difficult to pull that off with just the large-scale logistics.

fusilier
2019-07-23, 11:49 PM
I guess I might not have been able to make it clear, but I just want to be able to have specific scenes, where, in some suitably cinematic way, the character is able to win a battle in a way that makes the reader think 'Dang, this guy is smart,' whether said reader can't tell what's wrong with Hollywood tactics or is a regular on threads like this. The stories I'm writing are meant to be in a comic format, so it is especially difficult to pull that off with just the large-scale logistics.

Perhaps you can read descriptions of historical battles, and assemble elements from them for your battle scenes? Often times battles are reduced to a few general schema -- turning maneuvers, frontal assaults, deceptions, surprise attacks, etc. Maybe you can find a technique you like, and research battles that successfully used that technique? (Not that I'm aware of any resources that categorize battles like that)

Carl
2019-07-24, 12:32 AM
Hm. That does make things difficult- the character in question is a Necromancer, which is why I said the logistics were largely taken care of. The previous times I asked, the thread kinda got caught up in describing just how devastatingly effective undead troops would be due to the logistics of not worrying about food, water, shelter, or medical care.

The few ideas I was able to glean were basically that, for one, I might use more Iron Age battlefield conditions than Medieval (where the Roman Phalanx and other formations hadn't been invented yet and as such would be vastly superior), the use of what guerilla tactics could be transposed onto the setting through silent night-time raids and such, and the potential use of burrowing forms of undead as a method of, as you say, getting to the rear or side of the opponent, and maybe the use of flying undead to crreate primitive air forces.

These all still have problems- a lot of the plot has yet to be worked out, so I'm not certain who he'd be needing to lead large armies against, let alone what possible creatures he could hunt down to add to his ranks; What constitutes the burrowing undead, since the D&D specific creatures that inspired the character's original concept are not necessarily in the setting? If there are flying creatures big enough to be used in war, why haven't people domesticated them the way they did falcons for hunting? In terms of his opponents; are they even human? Do they have to worry about logistics? Would their abilities potentially invalidate certain tactics, or just make them irrelevant?
Some opponents could be your classic mostly mindless demonic hordes, but that would only require being smart enough to stop zerg rushes until you'd reanimated enough to even out the numbers.

I guess I might not have been able to make it clear, but I just want to be able to have specific scenes, where, in some suitably cinematic way, the character is able to win a battle in a way that makes the reader think 'Dang, this guy is smart,' whether said reader can't tell what's wrong with Hollywood tactics or is a regular on threads like this. The stories I'm writing are meant to be in a comic format, so it is especially difficult to pull that off with just the large-scale logistics.

Part of the issue is there's limited historical basis to work from. A big part of what makes even modern tactics work, (which i admit i know only a little about), is that we have more advanced communications. Effectively commanding units spread over a broad area was a huge issue in WW1 that caused all kinds of headaches for generals. And whilst various methods where found for getting around this as best they could the kind of complex tactical control possibble today wasn't a thing. There's also been a endancy at certain times, (and still is in many armies worldwide), for higher command not to trust the lower ranks so they don't put a great deal of effort into training them to think independently. They largely expect/ed a few major field commanders to give out minor modifications to some masterplan before the battle. The side that comes up with the better pre-battle plan, (all other things being equal), wins. Though again your necromancer if he can issue orders at a distance has the advantage here, he can sit back, watch the ebb and flow of the battle and modify the plan much more thoroughly on the fly, a not inconsiderable advantage. Add to that, tactics are seemingly quite hard to explain, (look at modern western militaries, every tom **** and harry knows something basic about the weapons systems employed, ask them about complex small unit tactics and they start to really struggle), so whatever there was we don't have good record on.

snowblizz
2019-07-24, 05:45 AM
What I want to know are what kind of small-scale tactics, methods of conducting battles and skirmishes in a classical heroic fantasy landscape that would really differentiate him as the new Sun Tzu?
Have you read Sun Tzu(*)?

I picked up a version at the library that was less than 50+ pages. It's terribly vague, generic and full of to some degree common sense statements. It's a bit like learning philosophy by reading a website with the world's greatest quotes. A lot of ti wasn't terribly helpful in a practical sense either.

(*) acknowledging there are probably dozens of variants not including various translations and expanded commented works, which may or may not also be labelled as Sun Tzu, and I'm also ignoring that to our best ability we can only say it was either written by Sun Tzu (of whom we know nothing) or some unknown person named "Sun Tzu".


The previous times I asked, the thread kinda got caught up in describing just how devastatingly effective undead troops would be due to the logistics of not worrying about food, water, shelter, or medical care.

I guess I might not have been able to make it clear, but I just want to be able to have specific scenes, where, in some suitably cinematic way, the character is able to win a battle in a way that makes the reader think 'Dang, this guy is smart,' whether said reader can't tell what's wrong with Hollywood tactics or is a regular on threads like this. The stories I'm writing are meant to be in a comic format, so it is especially difficult to pull that off with just the large-scale logistics.
The reason we got bogged down into the practicals is that they are the only things we can grasp at and actually discuss. Like Sun Tzu, generalist ideas are kinda wasted if the actual situation isn't exactly one where they could be applied.

For the other part I would suggest reading accounts of historical battles and then crib good ones with surprising turns and figure out how a Necromancer woulda done the twist.

Carl
2019-07-24, 04:38 PM
The reason we got bogged down into the practicals is that they are the only things we can grasp at and actually discuss. Like Sun Tzu, generalist ideas are kinda wasted if the actual situation isn't exactly one where they could be applied.

I think thats going a bit far, the essence of good tactics is to properly analyse what your opponent is going to do or is currently trying to do and then figuring out what you can do to mess that up. The hard part of course is defining those things, (and in a pre-modern setting communicating that to your troops). But the real reason we focus on the strategic stuff is, good tactics make good copy in the newspapers and that, but they usually have little if any effect on the outcome of a war.

Now if your trying t establish a characters individual rep and looking at a war from their viewpoint then it makes sense to focus on the tactical side of things. But from the PoV of what decided the war, it's generally pretty low on the list of factors.

Mike_G
2019-07-24, 04:57 PM
But the real reason we focus on the strategic stuff is, good tactics make good copy in the newspapers and that, but they usually have little if any effect on the outcome of a war.


That's a very rash statement.

Tactics can turn a battle and winning battles generally leads to winning a war.

This is all a matter of focus. On the smaller unit level, tactics matter a great deal. As you go higher up the chain, strategy and logistics matter more as the officer in question becomes more and more removed from the place where he can choose tactics.

A private needs to know how to use his weapon and co-ordinate with his team. A corporal needs to use his team effectively and co-ordinate with the squad. A sergeant needs to use multiple teams in a squad effectively and co-ordinate with the other squads in the platoon. At this level, strategy and logistics have no bearing on what they do. Logistics start to matter at the company level, but only as a matter of making sure you steal--er--requisition-- enough stuff so that your guys have sufficient supplies. Logistic stuff matters to majors on up. Strategy matters to generals.

Where you focus and what matters is all a matter of where in the chain you are.

Tactics matter a lot to the guy at the point of the spear who may or may not go home at the end of the patrol. There are good and bad tacticians. Sun Tzu's works are aimed at generals or army commanders.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-24, 05:01 PM
As mentioned a few times, one of the things that really limits battlefield tactics prior to the advent of portable radio gear is communications.

Out of sight and out of earshot means out of direct communication. You can send messengers, but your orders move at the speed of foot or hoof, and the messenger has to actually find the unit and then the leader that the message is for, in the chaos of battle, and avoid getting killed or captured or lost. Same thing with your scouts. The flow of information is slow and unreliable once you're past the point of seeing signals flags or hearing the drums and horns.

In a medievaloid fantasy setting, if one force or state or "race" or whatever has any means of reliable non-LOS communication, they're going to have a HUGE advantage over any opposing force that doesn't.

Carl
2019-07-24, 05:36 PM
That's a very rash statement.

Tactics can turn a battle and winning battles generally leads to winning a war.

This is all a matter of focus. On the smaller unit level, tactics matter a great deal. As you go higher up the chain, strategy and logistics matter more as the officer in question becomes more and more removed from the place where he can choose tactics.

A private needs to know how to use his weapon and co-ordinate with his team. A corporal needs to use his team effectively and co-ordinate with the squad. A sergeant needs to use multiple teams in a squad effectively and co-ordinate with the other squads in the platoon. At this level, strategy and logistics have no bearing on what they do. Logistics start to matter at the company level, but only as a matter of making sure you steal--er--requisition-- enough stuff so that your guys have sufficient supplies. Logistic stuff matters to majors on up. Strategy matters to generals.

Where you focus and what matters is all a matter of where in the chain you are.

Tactics matter a lot to the guy at the point of the spear who may or may not go home at the end of the patrol. There are good and bad tacticians. Sun Tzu's works are aimed at generals or army commanders.

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

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

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-24, 06:10 PM
Don't misunderstand me, tactics can change the outcome of a war in some cases. But to pick a classical and a modern example Neither Hannibal vs the Romans nor Japan vs the US ever had any hope of winning, the strategic factors where so stacked against them that they could win every battle yet never hope to win the war.

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

If Hannibal had received a modicum of support from back home, and been able to obtain the siege gear needed to lay siege to Rome, history might be very different.

Beleriphon
2019-07-24, 06:58 PM
If Hannibal had received a modicum of support from back home, and been able to obtain the siege gear needed to lay siege to Rome, history might be very different.

That's very true, but its a logistical obstacle for Hannibal. He didn't have the support or equipment so he in the end just couldn't win.