PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Brother Oni
2020-09-30, 12:08 PM
Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XXIX

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)
Thread XXVIII (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?589405-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVIII)

Brother Oni
2020-09-30, 12:12 PM
Previously in this thread: discussion of muskets, rifles, rifle-muskets and the transitional period thereof.

fusilier
2020-09-30, 09:03 PM
The examples in question are illustrative of trends, not proof entire. And just as individual examples may be misleading, so too can any number of mathematical arguments.

Yes. But, the only studies to actually look at and analyze large numbers of battles in a systematic way, did not find those trends. That's the strength of Griffith's et al's argument. It's not based upon reasoning from a series of assumptions, it's based upon reasoning from the battlefield evidence. Is that potentially flawed? -- of course, but I'm not aware of any other theories that have been able to work from the evidence and come to radically different conclusions for the actual battlefield effectiveness.


3. Artillery is drawn substantially further back, even when using the same cannon as you’d find in Napoleonics.

What is the evidence for this? Is this based upon actual battlefield reports, or an assumption about the increased range of rifle-muskets? (I'm not trying to pick on you, I know these theories don't originate with you). There were cases in the Civil War where artillery was rushed forward to decisively fill a gap, while at Waterloo the French artillery bombarded the allied lines at long range. Theory may have stated that artillery should be sent forward to support the infantry and cavalry -- but how often did it happen in practice? Did Civil War commanders fail to live up to the theory more than their predecessors? [Griffith and Hess say no they didn't]

Gnoman
2020-09-30, 11:31 PM
I can't remember the details, but I know I've read several accounts of officers detailing picked men to push forward a bit and harass enemy artillery with accurate rifle fire. Which could easily lead to the guns being pulled further back.


That said, the assertion that the cannon of the ACW were fundamentally the same as those used by Napoleon is correct - if you are talking about Napoleon III. They were far, far more capable than those used by Bonaparte.

fusilier
2020-10-01, 12:01 AM
I can't remember the details, but I know I've read several accounts of officers detailing picked men to push forward a bit and harass enemy artillery with accurate rifle fire. Which could easily lead to the guns being pulled further back.

I've read accounts from the Napoleonic Wars of the same thing, although with smoothbore muskets (some of them at surprisingly long ranges). Skirmishers can absolutely harass artillery, but they can be driven off by cavalry or other infantry. That's why the theory states you should support your artillery. Again, theory and practice aren't always the same.

I don't know if my point is being lost. Griffith's and Hess's works are based on looking at the battle reports of many battles, and seeing if they confirm or dispute claims made about the effect of rifle-muskets on battle tactics. Griffith started it, and others who have tried to add more datapoints, found those datapoints only reinforced Griffith's position. I can't remember whether or not they provide alternate theories. For example the terrain of American Civil War battlefields is often listed as a reason why they didn't use the same tactics as Europeans, although I'm not entirely convinced of that.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-01, 08:02 AM
Well I have an easy explination for why cavalry was used the way it was in the ACW. Because most American Commanders considered the European Lancer (they aren't real lancers but I'm not gonna keep saying Charge with Sabers Drawn) was kinda dumb. And it made a lot of sense from where they were sitting.

Cavalry was for Scouting, Harrassing, Raiding, and maybe being Dragoons and that's about it, because in all the wars they fought that's mostly what cavalry really could do. There wasn't a whole lot of large units in the Seminole wars, and so the cavalry being much closer to Dragoons makes sense.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-01, 01:22 PM
So, looking for Paddy Griffith. I can find his napoleonic stuff, his WWI stuff, and some desert WWII. Does he have an off-brand name for the ACW study?

Concerning artillery, napoleonic manuals dictated employing artillery 100-150m in front of the infantry on the defense, and the French tactics often relied on moving their guns into short range on the offense. (Kiley, artillery of the napoleonic wars). In many cases artillery was deliberately brought less than 250 meters from the enemy on the offense, with some examples bringing attacking batteries as into 50-60m, or within the typical range of musket vollies.

While the ACW sees several cases where a defending battery ends up under 100 meters from attacking infantry by dint of misfortune or desperation, I cannot easily find examples where even light-medium smoothbore napoleons are brought forward under fire to deliver canister offensively.

Mike_G
2020-10-01, 04:56 PM
I'm not entirely sure what point we're arguing here.

Were rifled muskets better than smoothbores? Yes, in just about any measurable way, with the exception of the use of buck and ball, which was useful at close range only. Rifles with Minie bullets let you have rifle accuracy and range with the a rate of fire of a smoothbore

Did they make much difference on the battlefield? Probably not really.

But this is simply because the full value of the new technology wasn't going to be realized without a new doctrine that took advantage of those improvements. An accurate rifle or an inaccurate musket that a raw recruit points through the smoke in that vague direction of the enemy is probably gonna miss, either way. So both weapons require many, many rounds to produce a casualty.

Much like tanks in WWI. They probably could have been a game changer, but they weren't deployed in large enough numbers and the doctrine hadn't evolved to take advantage of the new weapon. So they made a modest difference ion a few battles, but probably didn't change very much. A massive tank breakthrough followed closely by infantry, and even cavalry might have blown the front wide open, but the commanders were learning how to use a new weapon, and probably didn't want to risk the whole tank corps in one push if things went badly.

fusilier
2020-10-01, 06:58 PM
So, looking for Paddy Griffith. I can find his napoleonic stuff, his WWI stuff, and some desert WWII. Does he have an off-brand name for the ACW study?

Concerning artillery, napoleonic manuals dictated employing artillery 100-150m in front of the infantry on the defense, and the French tactics often relied on moving their guns into short range on the offense. (Kiley, artillery of the napoleonic wars). In many cases artillery was deliberately brought less than 250 meters from the enemy on the offense, with some examples bringing attacking batteries as into 50-60m, or within the typical range of musket vollies.

While the ACW sees several cases where a defending battery ends up under 100 meters from attacking infantry by dint of misfortune or desperation, I cannot easily find examples where even light-medium smoothbore napoleons are brought forward under fire to deliver canister offensively.

The book by Paddy Griffith is called Battle Tactics of the Civil War. Although, you might want to check up something by Hess as it would be more recent.

As mentioned before, there's a difference between theory and practice. For clarification, for artillery on the defensive, are they talking about placing their artillery 100-150m in front of their own infantry? (i.e. infantry should support the artillery at that distance).

fusilier
2020-10-01, 07:08 PM
Earl Hess's more recent work is Civil War Infantry Tactics: Training, Combat, and Small-Unit Effectiveness
EDIT -- an earlier work of his, which probably covers this issue directly, is The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth -- EDIT

I haven't read it, but there's a lecture about it here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?416997-4/civil-war-infantry-tactics-weapons

I have some issues with the comments on tactics (I think mainly his terminology is a bit off for a reenactor who's familiar with the details), but I think it's generally ok. He gets to weapons around minute 25.

EDIT 2 -- at 57:30 he answers a question about artillery (and cavalry). Hess admits that he's not sure of it, but is currently working on a book about the subject. He points out that some European historians have claimed that it was very rare in the Napoleonic Wars for artillery to be used at close range. Similar musings about cavalry.

Gnoman
2020-10-01, 07:14 PM
Much like tanks in WWI. They probably could have been a game changer, but they weren't deployed in large enough numbers and the doctrine hadn't evolved to take advantage of the new weapon. So they made a modest difference ion a few battles, but probably didn't change very much. A massive tank breakthrough followed closely by infantry, and even cavalry might have blown the front wide open, but the commanders were learning how to use a new weapon, and probably didn't want to risk the whole tank corps in one push if things went badly.

Probably not. Defensive firepower was only one of the major reasons breakthroughs were so hard to come by in WW1. The other (and far larger) one was logistics. Not only was a huge amount of supply transport still horse-drawn (after leaving the trains), but the attacker's supply lines would be crossing what had just previously been No Man's Land, and was barely crossable. Worst of all, the supply lines would be getting longer and longer. Meanwhile the defenders would be bringing up their supplies on much better ground (out of range of most of the guns, and aerial bombing was too new and light to make a real impact), and getting steadily shorter.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-02, 12:24 AM
As in the guns were placed in front of their own infantry.

Anyhow, I grabbed the newer Hess book on Kindle and am reading, but from the intro it looks like his argument is fundamentally:

A: The rifle musket did not actually get used beyond 100m effectively
B: Battles had similar casualty rates

Therefore

C: The rifle musket did not actually have a dramatic effect

On top of which:

D: linear tactics had many other valuable facets (this actually goes on, but isn’t central to our discussion)

Therefore

E: The tactics of line and column were appropriate until the introduction of the breech loader.

BUT

E: American techno-fetishism and ingrained disdain for linear tactics which seem culturally repulsive to an individualistic society blinds us to this.

———

So, basically the foundational argument that we’ve been going for/against for the last few posts.

I’m not sure that logic holds as a whole - most small arms fire in Berlin was under 100m, and the casualties were roughly proportional to Gettysburg, I wouldn’t say that means that clearly the weapons had no dramatic change in effect on the battlefield.

But I’ll give it a read and check back in in a week or so.

Martin Greywolf
2020-10-02, 09:37 AM
The other (and far larger) one was logistics. Not only was a huge amount of supply transport still horse-drawn (after leaving the trains), but the attacker's supply lines would be crossing what had just previously been No Man's Land, and was barely crossable. Worst of all, the supply lines would be getting longer and longer. Meanwhile the defenders would be bringing up their supplies on much better ground (out of range of most of the guns, and aerial bombing was too new and light to make a real impact), and getting steadily shorter.

Well, yes and no. The real reason is that there is no single reason. WW1 was what is best called a paradigm shift in warfare on literally every possible level. It's not that you can't overcome the logistical problems enough to get a breakthrough and exploit it, the problem is that there was no one around who knew that.

Breakthrough of a frontline was achieved somewhat routinely on western front, the trouble was, no one knew to make proper followup plans, or even what they are. People like to say that's because the high command was rigid and aristocratic, but that's only partly true. In older battles, breakthroughs were exploited by the same people who broke through, but now you had dozens of kilometers of battlefield over several weeks, as opposed a few kilometers over maybe a few days.

That means all your planning and army organization needs to change completely. Add to that the little issue of being at war, and the pressure of if you screw up once, you're out, and if you screw up really badly, you'll cist us the war, and you can see why there was considerable reluctance to make any large changes and moving away from "old and proven" things. Especially since new things very, very often didn't work - French were actually the first to use chemical weapons in the war, but the Germans didn't even notice it.

This war is one of those that would change completely if you managed to get one guy with proper know-how into the past and have him be listened to. Which he probably wouldn't be, because switching an entire army from essentially Napoleonic organization to combined arms takes time. Most armies (most notably British) weren't done until mid-WW2.

Vinyadan
2020-10-02, 11:32 AM
That said, the assertion that the cannon of the ACW were fundamentally the same as those used by Napoleon is correct - if you are talking about Napoleon III. They were far, far more capable than those used by Bonaparte.
That's actually in the American moniker for the cannon: 12-pounder Napoleon, after Napoleon III.

fusilier
2020-10-02, 03:56 PM
As in the guns were placed in front of their own infantry.

Anyhow, I grabbed the newer Hess book on Kindle and am reading, but from the intro it looks like his argument is fundamentally:

A: The rifle musket did not actually get used beyond 100m effectively
B: Battles had similar casualty rates

. . .

Which book are you reading? I think the one about infantry tactics only references those points, and doesn't really lay out the case.

There is a third point to take into account: the tactics didn't fundamentally change either. If we accept the evidence for these points, then it's hard to conclude that rifle-muskets effected a revolutionary change in warfare.

It's good to be skeptical, the data is invariably incomplete, and the analysis could be flawed. But I don't think it's useful to reject data because it doesn't fit the expected conclusion. We know that on the range the rifle clearly shows more accuracy (this was well tested at the time). But that alone is not enough to reject the data. If we can't find a flaw within the data itself, then we have to ask if there was something else on the battlefield that negated the superiority of the rifle musket. A couple obvious candidates arise almost immediately: 1. a complete absence of marksmanship training, and 2. volley tactics that didn't give any time to actually "aim" the weapon.

Max_Killjoy
2020-10-02, 04:18 PM
Regarding ACW artillery.

There was a unit from near where I grew up, a Union light artillery battery that had been a volunteer militia unit before the war, equipped with six 10-lb Parrot rifles once the war started.

They were more than once positioned to hold the end of the Union line, and in at least one instance the Confederate dead were said to have literally been piled up within 100 yards of the their muzzles. They were assigned to knock out Confederate artillery batteries at long range more than once, and are said to have routinely put the first or second shot on target from well over a mile away, including one time that took the Confederates completely by surprise as they had assumed they were out of effective artillery range at that moment.

fusilier
2020-10-02, 06:19 PM
Regarding ACW artillery.

There was a unit from near where I grew up, a Union light artillery battery that had been a volunteer militia unit before the war, equipped with six 10-lb Parrot rifles once the war started.

They were more than once positioned to hold the end of the Union line, and in at least one instance the Confederate dead were said to have literally been piled up within 100 yards of the their muzzles. They were assigned to knock out Confederate artillery batteries at long range more than once, and are said to have routinely put the first or second shot on target from well over a mile away, including one time that took the Confederates completely by surprise as they had assumed they were out of effective artillery range at that moment.

I'm kind of amazed by how accurate cannon fire could be. The Civil War artillery reenactors I know, who have lived fired their cannons, tell some impressive stories. Even with little mountain howitzers, they can expect to hit something the size of a tent at 600 yards (over half of its effective range). I know historically, they trained a lot, learned to judge distances, etc. I've been told that a smoothbore piece wears in, from the cannonball bouncing down the barrel. After so many shots, the wear will be established, and the gun will fire consistently -- the ball is still bouncing down the barrel, but, as long as the cannon is loaded consistently, it bounces consistently each time. So the artillerists learn how the gun shoots. (Eventually the gun wears out, and the fire becomes inconsistent again).

There's a story from the Battle of Fredericksburg, on the Union left, not the attack on Marye's Heights, about a union battery commander. He was seated on his horse talking to another officer, when a confederate shell flew by their heads and exploded a limber behind them. Responding "that was unkind," the battery commander dismounted, walked over to a nearby gun that had just been loaded (I think it was a 3" ordnance rifle), took charge of the gun, very carefully aimed it, then stepped back and instructed the gunner to fire. A few seconds later a Confederate artillery caisson(!) exploded in a huge fireball. Troops fighting on the battlefield felt this huge explosion, and the fighting in that section of the battlefield kind of petered out.

Gnoman
2020-10-02, 06:22 PM
That's actually in the American moniker for the cannon: 12-pounder Napoleon, after Napoleon III.

Right, but a lot of people think it refers to Napoleon I of the Napoleonic Wars. Mostly because the later Napoleons are much less famous.

Mike_G
2020-10-02, 06:22 PM
If we can't find a flaw within the data itself, then we have to ask if there was something else on the battlefield that negated the superiority of the rifle musket. A couple obvious candidates arise almost immediately: 1. a complete absence of marksmanship training, and 2. volley tactics that didn't give any time to actually "aim" the weapon.

I think those two factors are plenty.

Misereor
2020-10-05, 04:03 AM
Does anyone have examples of words describing arms and armor having changed over time?
Example: "Harness" originally meant something worn on the body. During the middle ages, it described a complete set of armor. Today it describes gear worn by types of domestic animals.


Besides that, I would just like to add my appreciation to everyone who has contributed to this amazing series of threads.

rrgg
2020-10-05, 07:22 PM
Does anyone have examples of words describing arms and armor having changed over time?
Example: "Harness" originally meant something worn on the body. During the middle ages, it described a complete set of armor. Today it describes gear worn by types of domestic animals.


Besides that, I would just like to add my appreciation to everyone who has contributed to this amazing series of threads.

Alrighty! here's some of the stuff that I think i've sorted out when it comes to ~16th century english:

Starting with "arms and armor" - "arms" could refer to both weapons and armor but back then tended to lean more towards meaning armor in usage. i.e. you more often read "armed and weaponed" than "armed and armored", or you might see soldiers in an army categorized as "armed men" or "unarmed men" referring to respectively armored soldiers and unarmored soldiers.

- "Men-at-arms" in the 1500s treatises use to refer to a specific type of noble/professional heavy cavalry soldier, see the french ordinance gendarmes of the previous century, who were supposed to wear complete plate armor head to toe, carry a lance, sword, and mace, and also have armored barding for their horse. Though increasingly in practice even soldiers who were nominally men-at-arms seem to have been preferring to go into battle with less complete arming even when horse armor was available somewhere in their baggage train.

- On that note "barbed horses" or "barbed lances" = cavalry on horses with armored barding, not actual barbs.

- "Javelin" seems to have more often referred to a type of long, lightweight spear with a point at each end sometimes used from horseback, while dedicated throwing spears were just called "darts". Usually spelled "Iavelin" because the letter j wasn't invented yet, and other possible names may have included "punching staves", "lancegays", "zagayas", or "spears".

- infantry spears were called "half-pikes"

- a "corselet" referred to a complete infantryman's armor including the curiass, tasses, pauldrons, vambraces, gorget, burgonet, and sometimes gauntlets.

- "curiassiers" were cavalry who wore 3/4ths armor, not just a curiass

- "lancers" and "demilancers" Sir Roger Williams says are the same thing, were generally armed the same as the men-at-arms but with no horse barding, no greaves/foot armor, more likely to have a pistol or two instead of the mace, and typically has far fewer spare horses and servants with him. Sometimes, especially in translations of french and spanish sources, this type of cavalry continued to be referred with just the title "light horsemen", even at times when they had be come the most heavily-armed type of cavalry still in use.

- Conversely in Elizabethan english armies, "light horse" might be more likely to refer to cavalry drawn from the anglo-scottish "boarder reivers" an even lighter, usually mail-clad cavalry armed with light lances or spears, also known as "boarderers", "spear men" or "northern spears". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Image_of_Irelande_-_plate09.jpg

- "musket" originally referred specifically to infantry firearms so large and heavy they required a forked rest to fire. The lighter guns were just called "arquebuses" using many different spellings, or for a time in the late 1500s "calivers" after a series of wacky misunderstandings.

- As the musket and caliver became the more common infantry weapons the different spellings of "arquebusier"/"harquebusier" came to refer specifically to a type of light cavalry who carried a wheellock or flint-striking arquebus that could be used from horseback. It should be noted that this cavalry would usually be differentiated from "dragoons", who initially were not true cavalry but mounted infantry.

- "short swords" were swords roughly around 3 feet long

- "long swords" were this thing everyone writing military treatises seems to have hated and said no one should ever use

- a "battle" often referred to to a large formation of soldiers, a large pike square, or sometimes an echelon made up of small "battalions"

- a "spontoon" according to Robert Barret was "a small long instrument of iron, sharpe at the ende, to thrust thorough anie loade of haie, straw, or such like, to proue if any souldiers lie hidden within the same." here are some of his other definitions: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A04863.0001.001/1:17?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

I can probably come up with more later but hopefully that's a start

fusilier
2020-10-06, 12:56 AM
- a "corselet" referred to a complete infantryman's armor including the curiass, tasses, pauldrons, vambraces, gorget, burgonet, and sometimes gauntlets.

It could also refer to the person who wore such armor (at least in some Spanish sources -- they were paid more than the unarmored pikemen). That list is a good start.

I'll add another one:

Captain was more of a title than a rank. Anybody in charge of a "company" of soldiers was a captain (although before the late 1400s, purely infantry companies, a lower status, were commanded by "constables"). A mercenary company could be 50 men, or a 1,000 lances (3-4 men) and a few hundred infantry. It was basically anything the Captain could raise and get paid for. The captain in charge of an army, was called a "Captain-General."

In the Spanish tercios of the 1500s, the companies had become more standardized, but Captain was still kind of a title. The commander of a tercio (approximately 10-12 companies) was the captain of the 1st company, and was also called a "coronel". The captain of the 2nd company was also the "Sergeant-Major", who was responsible for organizing the tercio on the battlefield.

Clistenes
2020-10-06, 04:12 AM
It could also refer to the person who wore such armor (at least in some Spanish sources -- they were paid more than the unarmored pikemen). That list is a good start.

I'll add another one:

Captain was more of a title than a rank. Anybody in charge of a "company" of soldiers was a captain (although before the late 1400s, purely infantry companies, a lower status, were commanded by "constables"). A mercenary company could be 50 men, or a 1,000 lances (3-4 men) and a few hundred infantry. It was basically anything the Captain could raise and get paid for. The captain in charge of an army, was called a "Captain-General."

In the Spanish tercios of the 1500s, the companies had become more standardized, but Captain was still kind of a title. The commander of a tercio (approximately 10-12 companies) was the captain of the 1st company, and was also called a "coronel". The captain of the 2nd company was also the "Sergeant-Major", who was responsible for organizing the tercio on the battlefield.

Actually, the commander of a Tercio was a "Maestre"; coronels would command other units, like German and Walloon regiments...

Max_Killjoy
2020-10-06, 09:05 AM
Captain was more of a title than a rank. Anybody in charge of a "company" of soldiers was a captain (although before the late 1400s, purely infantry companies, a lower status, were commanded by "constables"). A mercenary company could be 50 men, or a 1,000 lances (3-4 men) and a few hundred infantry. It was basically anything the Captain could raise and get paid for. The captain in charge of an army, was called a "Captain-General."

In the Spanish tercios of the 1500s, the companies had become more standardized, but Captain was still kind of a title. The commander of a tercio (approximately 10-12 companies) was the captain of the 1st company, and was also called a "coronel". The captain of the 2nd company was also the "Sergeant-Major", who was responsible for organizing the tercio on the battlefield.


This can be seen a few times in the LotR trilogy, when characters are referred to as "captains", or references more generally to "the captains" are made.

E: Also, slightly outdated "captains of industry". Or a "team captain".

Mike_G
2020-10-06, 09:24 AM
That's still kind of a thing in the Navy. The captain of a ship is just the person in charge. A Lieutenant Commander who is in in command of the ship is addressed as Captain.

Of course, there's an actual rank of Captain in the Navy, which is confusingly equivalent to a Colonel in the Army or Marines

rrgg
2020-10-06, 02:13 PM
Actually, the commander of a Tercio was a "Maestre"; coronels would command other units, like German and Walloon regiments...

Yeah, the "Maestre del Campo" is what Williams and Barret said the spanish coronels were called. Somewhat confusingly though in english the "Camp-master" or "Master of the camp" would instead usually refer to something like a regimental-level or army-level quartermaster.


It could also refer to the person who wore such armor (at least in some Spanish sources -- they were paid more than the unarmored pikemen). That list is a good start.

I'll add another one:

Captain was more of a title than a rank. Anybody in charge of a "company" of soldiers was a captain (although before the late 1400s, purely infantry companies, a lower status, were commanded by "constables"). A mercenary company could be 50 men, or a 1,000 lances (3-4 men) and a few hundred infantry. It was basically anything the Captain could raise and get paid for. The captain in charge of an army, was called a "Captain-General."

In the Spanish tercios of the 1500s, the companies had become more standardized, but Captain was still kind of a title. The commander of a tercio (approximately 10-12 companies) was the captain of the 1st company, and was also called a "coronel". The captain of the 2nd company was also the "Sergeant-Major", who was responsible for organizing the tercio on the battlefield.

That's true, the spanish would use "corselets" for what the english listed as "armed men" or "armed pikes." I think Melzo's cavalry manual also uses "corselets" as the name for pistoliers/curiassers.

Regarding the captain thing, I think the comparison to ships like Mike_G points out kind of makes sense. You might have many different sizes of ships, some with several hundred men and some with only a couple dozen, but each one has its own captain. The difference is that when preparing for a battle on land you might frequently do the equivalent of lashing a bunch of smaller ships together to create one really big ship, or lashing a couple of very different ships together to balance out their strengths and weaknesses. When this happens you would then have to elect one of the captains to be the head captain overall who steers the entire mass of ships at once, likely based on seniority, ability, or social status.

You'd then usually assign things for all the other captains to do temporarily so they don't get bored. For instance you could assign them roles that might normally be done by a lesser officer such as putting one captain in charge of all the cannons on one side of the ship and another captain in charge of the other side's cannons, you might have some of the captains serving as advisors or relaying orders, or you might just mix a bunch of the extra captains into the front rank of the boarding party since they all have good weapons and armor as well as good motivation.

Once the battle is over though you then have to split everything back up into all the original ships each with their original captains and crews so that they can each sail back home to their individual home ports.

fusilier
2020-10-06, 06:46 PM
Actually, the commander of a Tercio was a "Maestre"; coronels would command other units, like German and Walloon regiments...

I stand corrected. Coronels also commanded an earlier, smaller unit, a coronelia.

The other thing about captains, is that their status depended upon multiple factors, usually the bigger the company they commanded (in the mercenary structures) the higher status they were granted. So they weren't viewed as being "equal" in rank.

VonKaiserstein
2020-10-08, 04:54 AM
That's still kind of a thing in the Navy. The captain of a ship is just the person in charge. A Lieutenant Commander who is in in command of the ship is addressed as Captain.

Of course, there's an actual rank of Captain in the Navy, which is confusingly equivalent to a Colonel in the Army or Marines

Equally confusing, if you are a captain in the Marines, then while on board a navy ship you are socially promoted to Major purely to avoid the confusion of there being more than one Captain on the ship. This promotion does not last once you get to shore.

Mike_G
2020-10-08, 08:45 AM
Equally confusing, if you are a captain in the Marines, then while on board a navy ship you are socially promoted to Major purely to avoid the confusion of there being more than one Captain on the ship. This promotion does not last once you get to shore.

Naval tradition is really odd sometimes.

Brother Oni
2020-10-08, 04:54 PM
Naval tradition is really odd sometimes.

And sometimes very politically incorrect and cool. For example, it's still a standing tradition that UK submarines fly the Jolly Roger (yes, the pirate flag) when returning to port from successful missions.

The flags were often altered to reflect the crew's accomplishments, for example ship silhouettes for each ship sunk. In true British style, sometimes the additions are self-deprecating; HMS Sickle (P224) had an ace of spaces on their flag, reflecting the time near Monte Carlo when one of their torpedos missed a target, struck a cliff and the explosion subsequently shattered all the windows in a nearby casino.
HMS Proteus (N29) had a can opener on theirs, reflecting the time the submarine survived an attempted ram by an Italian destroyer after damaging it with the sub's hydroplanes.

Modern subs have modernised features these days to recognise their achievements, for example tomahawk axes when returning from a mission where they fired Tomahawk missiles at targets.

I also remember seeing a documentary of an Allied exercise with an Australian submarine playing OPFOR against an American fleet. The Australians snuck up on one of the USN ships, scored a 'kill' with a torpedo and got away scot free. They celebrated by playing Men at Work's Down Under (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfmxO-HQ5rU) over the radio. :smallbiggrin:

In short, Navy traditions are weird and bubbleheads are even weirder.

Vinyadan
2020-10-08, 06:21 PM
I also remember seeing a documentary of an Allied exercise with an Australian submarine playing OPFOR against an American fleet. The Australians snuck up on one of the USN ships, scored a 'kill' with a torpedo and got away scot free. They celebrated by playing Men at Work's Down Under (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfmxO-HQ5rU) over the radio. :smallbiggrin:


This reminds me of that time in 2006, when, during an exercise, a Chinese sub snuck in the middle of a carrier battle group, and surfaced in torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk.

The Chinese were not part of the exercise, however.

Pauly
2020-10-08, 08:29 PM
I also remember seeing a documentary of an Allied exercise with an Australian submarine playing OPFOR against an American fleet. The Australians snuck up on one of the USN ships, scored a 'kill' with a torpedo and got away scot free. They celebrated by playing Men at Work's Down Under (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfmxO-HQ5rU) over the radio. :smallbiggrin:

In short, Navy traditions are weird and bubbleheads are even weirder.

https://youtu.be/nqFVOL7mLd4

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-10-09, 02:09 AM
Alrighty! here's some of the stuff that I think i've sorted out when it comes to ~16th century english:
Good list, thanks!


- "curiassiers" were cavalry who wore 3/4ths armor, not just a curiass
*Cuirass and cuirassier, if we're doing spelling anyway. Although I'll happily believe that both forms and more occured at the time, because the 16th century generally didn't bother with formalized spelling. I'm not sure about English, but 16th century Dutch is often held as harder to read than earlier medieval versions. Must be that in the middle ages most writing was done by professional scribes and monks, while these days someone like a sea captain can write.


- As the musket and caliver became the more common infantry weapons the different spellings of "arquebusier"/"harquebusier" came to refer specifically to a type of light cavalry who carried a wheellock or flint-striking arquebus that could be used from horseback. It should be noted that this cavalry would usually be differentiated from "dragoons", who initially were not true cavalry but mounted infantry.
A fusil is another slightly later word for a lighter musket. I don't know why the new term was needed/what differentiates them.



As for the captain thing: funny, I always thought the navy standardized to "skipper" precisely to avoid this. I learn something every day.

Brother Oni
2020-10-09, 01:17 PM
https://youtu.be/nqFVOL7mLd4

That's the one. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: I just watched it again and there's a really funny bit I missed - they played the song over the ship's speaker not the radio, so the USN DD ASW guys could pick it up on their hydrophones. :smallbiggrin:

fusilier
2020-10-10, 02:04 AM
A fusil is another slightly later word for a lighter musket. I don't know why the new term was needed/what differentiates them.

In English, I've seen the term fusil defined as a "smoothbore rifle" -- which is, obviously, an oxymoron. But it does convey an idea: something built like a civilian rifle, but smoothbore (i.e. a light musket). In other languages the term fusil basically replaced musket. But then it became the term for the standard infantryman's weapon; the French Lebel bolt action rifle was officially, Fusil Modčle 1886, and an assault rifle is a Fusil d'Assaut.

This sometimes leads to bad translations, with fusils being called rifles, although in context they should be muskets.

EDIT -- Originally, fusil referred to a flintlock, and fusiliers were simply those armed with one (when the matchlock was still common). They usually had a specialist function at that time. Later when flintlocks were common, the terminology shifted.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-10-10, 05:51 AM
.

Nice, we have an expert in the house.

Well, yeah, me too, but I meant a fusilier expert. :smallbiggrin:

rrgg
2020-10-10, 04:17 PM
Good list, thanks!


*Cuirass and cuirassier, if we're doing spelling anyway. Although I'll happily believe that both forms and more occured at the time, because the 16th century generally didn't bother with formalized spelling. I'm not sure about English, but 16th century Dutch is often held as harder to read than earlier medieval versions. Must be that in the middle ages most writing was done by professional scribes and monks, while these days someone like a sea captain can write.


A fusil is another slightly later word for a lighter musket. I don't know why the new term was needed/what differentiates them.



As for the captain thing: funny, I always thought the navy standardized to "skipper" precisely to avoid this. I learn something every day.

The cuirassier thing is probably just me being bad at spelling.

Yeah, the fusil I think was originally a french word for "flintlock" that later sort of turned into its own weapon. Aside from fusils being assigned to guard artillery and ammunition wagons since that was considered a bit safer than having lit matches around gunpowder, the main perceived advantages of the flintlock early on tended to be it's usefulness in ambushes, sneaking around, night operations, etc. so it generally made sense for the lighter, more agile sorts of long guns to become flintlocks first while the slightly heavier, "standard battle-line" weapons continued to stick with a much simpler, more reliable matchlock mechanism. You can find some examples of this in the english colonies in america which generally developed a very high demand for more flexible guns with flintlock mechanisms. One list of arms for 100 men setting sail for plymouth around 1630 for instance called for "80 bastard muskets with snaphaunces and without rests", and just "10 full muskets with matchlocks and rests", in addition to another 10 assorted fowling pieces.

Fowling pieces and other privately purchased hunting weapons also tended to more often be flintlocks so that animals wouldn't be frightened off by the sight and smell of a burning match.

Over the course of the 1600s muskets generally became lighter where they no longer needed the rest. Additionally, the reliability of flintlocks seems to have been improving to where many soldiers and captains were preferring to switch out matchlocks for flintlocks in general. Eventually the matchlock largely disappeared and it seems the english continued calling their standard infantry weapon the "musket" while the French instead kept calling their flintlocks "fusils".

Blackhawk748
2020-10-10, 06:36 PM
Ok, so I've been playing a bunch of Warhammer Total War and watchigng some lovely videos about Pike and Shot warfare, and my mind has, of course, wandered off to mixing the two.

Now, I don't know muhc about the Spanish Tercos other than it's layout and basic composition, so I'm rather curious what the thread thinks their eficacy against the Vampire Counts or Beastmen would be? I would assume they'd be pretty good, cuz Pikes are great against masses of infantry and guns are great against, well, pretty much everything but I'm curious if there's some sort of flaw I'm missing.

Vinyadan
2020-10-10, 07:11 PM
I think that fusil is a loanword that entered French from Italian (fucile) around the time the weapon was introduced, and substituted the older French term for the fire striker, foisil. As a time reference, I see that foisil is still used in a dictionary from 1678.

Fucile ultimately has the same origin as foisil, from a derivative of FOCUS = fire (maybe a form like FOCILIS; Italian also used to have focile, same meaning as fucile).

Erudite Latin developed its own word for the rifle, fugillus, which I don't think is the word from which foisil and focile are derived, and may have been built after them on the basis of Spanish fuego.

I've found an interesting explanation for musket. Many guns, like falconets, take their names from birds of prey. The It. moschetto, Fr. mouchet, was the sparrowhawk, so one of the smallest of the birds of prey. In Italian, smeriglio was the name of both a gun and the merlin.

In German the males of the sparrowhawk are called Sprinz, which could have been the origin for the springald's name (if it isn't just a relative of "spring", which I deem more likely). The springald itself has changed meaning within a military context, as it initially was a siege engine used to throw stones, and later became a gun.

Since nothing is ever simple, the springald and large ballistae threw ammo also known as moschette or moschetti in Italian.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-10-11, 03:26 AM
Ok, so I've been playing a bunch of Warhammer Total War and watchigng some lovely videos about Pike and Shot warfare, and my mind has, of course, wandered off to mixing the two.

Now, I don't know muhc about the Spanish Tercos other than it's layout and basic composition, so I'm rather curious what the thread thinks their eficacy against the Vampire Counts or Beastmen would be? I would assume they'd be pretty good, cuz Pikes are great against masses of infantry and guns are great against, well, pretty much everything but I'm curious if there's some sort of flaw I'm missing.

I'm mostly unfamiliar with Warhammer, but I'm still going to try and answer this one.

Pike and shot at its core is an anti-cavalry tactic. That's the biggest real world reason for doing it. Cavalry use hit and run tactics. Pikes deal massive damage on first contact, something you don't want to hit and run against. And while horses are big enough to eat some damage, pikes deal bonus damage based on the enemy's speed, and they are pretty good against large creatures in general as well. Pikes would be a brilliant defense against something like dinosaurs. The shot component is added because pikemen are slower than cavalry. A pure pike square can still be targeted by hit and run tactics, just use pistols or carbines (another word for shorter muskets, /crosstopic). Due to how much easier it is to raise large numbers of infantry though and how much closer you can pack those guys together, an infantry formation including a large number of pikes can still carry more firepower then a cavalry formation. And that advantage grows because the infantry can use full size muskets. And that's a good thing for the infantry, because their advantage shrinks because the cavalry can afford better armor, both money and weight wise. So charging is suicide, and attacking from a distance is still a bad idea, as long as the formation maintains cohesion. The fact that pikes are so horribly effective is also probably the main reason that over the time these tactics are used the percentage of pikemen used steadily goes down, to 1/3 or even as low as 1/4 of the formation using pikes by the time plug bayonets turn the landscape upside down. As long as there are enough pikes they're not going to charge, and as long as they're not charging you want maximum firepower.

Now, just because at its core this is an anti-cavalry tactic that doesn't mean it's bad versus infantry. Pikes still do that massive damage upon first contact. Small loose formations can be easily kept out with a forest of pikes pointing at them and large ordered formations basically skewer themselves. Of course if those orderly formations are using pikes you're skewering yourself as well. Formations of just ranged attackers do well against a pike and shot formation, be they skirmishers on foot, dragoons dismounting into action or artillery pounding the formation from afar. But all those formations share a key vulnerability to your own supporting cavalry, which need something to do now that they can't charge the main opponent formations anyway. So skirmishers and dragoons and such usually can't stick around to actually deliver a killing blow. (The pike and shot formations often also have a group of halberdiers on board. They mostly do stuff like protecting the officers and plugging holes in the formation, but they could conceivably run out at skirmishers if they feel invulnerable and get too close.) Which means that in the end the "game" of pike and shot tactics usually ends up being around using skirmishers, dragoons, artillery, maybe some cavalry maneuvering and your own pike and shot blocks firing to destabilize and demoralize the enemy pike and shot formations, and then sending your own pike and shot blocks in for the "push of pike". If you didn't do a good enough job and the enemy maintains cohesion it's going to be a massacre on both sides, but if you did do a good enough job you only lose your first few rows or something in the initial contact, upon which they break into a panic and hundreds of men start breaking formation and making themselves easy targets to be picked off by pursuers of pretty much any kind.

Now, on to the fantasy armies. The vampire lords apparently have no ranged capabilities, that's a good start. They depend upon hordes of zombies and skeletons controlled by magic, that's great too, because there is no way these units are individually controlled very well, so they're big dumb infantry formations with I'm assuming not a lot of pikes of their own, which are going to squash very nicely. They are also easy pickings for the supporting cavalry, the skirmishers, the artillery and basically any other unit. Seriously, who uses zombies? The problem comes in the shape of their special units. They have ghosts that are almost immune to physical damage, flying dragons and magic users. They apparently officially have no ranged units, which really makes me question how their magic and their dragons work. If they do have some short ranged ranged stuff they might still do pretty well. And they can probably choose to sacrifice a dragon by just crashing it into a formation, disrupting it to the point of an easy rout. They can also try to outmaneuver the pike blocks, luring them out, then bypassing them and going straight for the objective/artillery. They will still have to deal with the supporting cavalry, which is no joke and will have to be dealt with quickly to prevent the infantry from catching up, but it's better than jumping onto those pikes. So a smart vampire warlord could still do pretty well with their main forces being pretty much out of the fight. But if we assume the pike and shot guys are from the same universe, they ain't afraid of no ghost and their commanders have some familiarity with vampire tactics I give the general advantage to the pike and shot guys, because their infantry demolished the opposing infantry for being dumb blocks of HP. The lack of ranged options on the vampire side really hurts them as well, as it often leaves them with no options but charging pikes, getting shot or running away.

The beastmen seem to be like a biological mixture of infantry and cavalry, bigger, stronger and faster than regular men, with their special units being even bigger, stronger and faster. Did I notice pikes have a bonus against faster enemies and do at the very least just fine against large ones? They also seem to use primarily melee weapons, so the closest real world comparison really is mounted lancers, which almost entirely disappeared from the battlefield during the pike and shot days, because they are so completely hard countered by the basic pike and shot formation. Although to be fair, because beastmen are bipedal and don't have to control any horses they pack together a lot closer than regular Earth cavalry, which could help them a bit here. They are also apparently cleverer than their enemies are willing to admit, but they're going to have to be pretty clever to survive this match up. I'm probably missing several things, but the main essence of this faction mostly just gets slaughtered by pike and shot squares. Although as long as there is room to outmaneuver them they could still do well against all the side units.

So yeah, I think I agree with the premise of your post, pike and shot tactics would do great against these armies.

If you want to get more of a feel for pike and shot tactics, I can recommend grabbing the turn based tactics PC game Pike and Shot from Byzantine Games/The Lordz Game Studio/Slitherine next time you see it for a price you like in a Steam sale or on a bundle site. I've seen it come up a few times. It's fun to play around with a bit to get a sense of the warfare of the period.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-11, 09:51 AM
Now, on to the fantasy armies. The vampire lords apparently have no ranged capabilities, that's a good start. They depend upon hordes of zombies and skeletons controlled by magic, that's great too, because there is no way these units are individually controlled very well, so they're big dumb infantry formations with I'm assuming not a lot of pikes of their own, which are going to squash very nicely. They are also easy pickings for the supporting cavalry, the skirmishers, the artillery and basically any other unit. Seriously, who uses zombies? The problem comes in the shape of their special units. They have ghosts that are almost immune to physical damage, flying dragons and magic users. They apparently officially have no ranged units, which really makes me question how their magic and their dragons work. If they do have some short ranged ranged stuff they might still do pretty well. And they can probably choose to sacrifice a dragon by just crashing it into a formation, disrupting it to the point of an easy rout. They can also try to outmaneuver the pike blocks, luring them out, then bypassing them and going straight for the objective/artillery. They will still have to deal with the supporting cavalry, which is no joke and will have to be dealt with quickly to prevent the infantry from catching up, but it's better than jumping onto those pikes. So a smart vampire warlord could still do pretty well with their main forces being pretty much out of the fight. But if we assume the pike and shot guys are from the same universe, they ain't afraid of no ghost and their commanders have some familiarity with vampire tactics I give the general advantage to the pike and shot guys, because their infantry demolished the opposing infantry for being dumb blocks of HP. The lack of ranged options on the vampire side really hurts them as well, as it often leaves them with no options but charging pikes, getting shot or running away.

They use Zombies because they are cheap on magical energy which means you can bring a truly moronic amount of them to a fight. Skeletons are better, though still worse than live fighters, you just get more of them again.

As for ranged, it's pretty much Terrogheists (giant murder bat wyvern things that scream so loud they kill things. SO pretty short range, maybe 15 yards?), Banshees (the do the same thing as Terrogheists just on a smaller scale) and whatever the mage in question can hurl around and in Warhammer.... that's a lot. Now, and in universe Empire of Man Pike and Shot army would have Battle Wizards so they can fight back at least, but the magic advantage would go to Vamps.


The beastmen seem to be like a biological mixture of infantry and cavalry, bigger, stronger and faster than regular men, with their special units being even bigger, stronger and faster. Did I notice pikes have a bonus against faster enemies and do at the very least just fine against large ones? They also seem to use primarily melee weapons, so the closest real world comparison really is mounted lancers, which almost entirely disappeared from the battlefield during the pike and shot days, because they are so completely hard countered by the basic pike and shot formation. Although to be fair, because beastmen are bipedal and don't have to control any horses they pack together a lot closer than regular Earth cavalry, which could help them a bit here. They are also apparently cleverer than their enemies are willing to admit, but they're going to have to be pretty clever to survive this match up. I'm probably missing several things, but the main essence of this faction mostly just gets slaughtered by pike and shot squares. Although as long as there is room to outmaneuver them they could still do well against all the side units.

Beastmen's only ranged units are Cygors (who have a magical eye laser and throw rocks), Ungor Archers, Centigors (centaurs with javelins and stuff) and Mages again. So, my original thought process of Pike and Shot wrecking Beastmen was correct. Thank you.

Grim Portent
2020-10-11, 12:40 PM
I will point out that Beastmen generally prefer to fight in terrain that suits them and against enemies that aren't properly prepared, and due to a lack of infrastructure to defend are hard to force into a fight. They also use a lot of psychological warfare. Various monsters who along with the rank and file beastmen will happily start eating the living and dead soldiers of any unit they defeat right there on the battlefield, trophies made of rotting corpses, their own rampant mutation, nighttime attacks, the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It's a pretty demoralizing experience.

Vampires have similar strengths. They don't tire, they aren't particularly impaired by darkness or dangerous terrain, if a necromancer or vampire is ready with then the undead can more or less endlessly stand back up and any defeated enemies can be brought back to fight for them.

Both also have creatures that can fly in their ranks, bats, harpies, dragons, jabberslythes. Jabberslythes are theoretically the worst, looking at one can drive most people to immediate insanity.

In a 'normal' battle they'd both be relatively easy for late medieval tactics to beat, but neither are normal opponents.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-12, 12:29 PM
While still reading Hess before rebutting (for a man who claims rifling didn’t change anything, he has significant numbers of statements like attacks in columns were no longer practical by the civil war with the reduction in firepower, and talking about the self same falling apart at the first volley 100 yards away...but I digress), pikes and magic stuff!

When it comes to pikes, the psychological factors are substantial in both directions. When a block of pike charges (hard to do) if you’re on the other side there’s a significant “that is a impenetrable wall of spearheads racing towards me; if I’m near the front of this formation, I’m going to die without even a chance to fight” that causes a great deal of the shock effect before the first pike head hits anything, followed by the actual shock of several ranks of pike heads being driven home with the force of charging men. Attacking pikes, or being the on the end of a “walk forward slowly and then stop to poke, maybe walk forward a little more, then finally engage in a push of pike” offense, requires being willing to try to break through a forest of spearheads.

And then deal with the halberds etc once you’re through. Basically, the shock effect of being charged or of having to close was often enough to break or deter formations. The physical damage was high, but the morale effect was massive - the renaissance equivalent of running right at the stream of tracers.

The flip side is that pike formations were also very vulnerable to morale failures. Well disciplined and in tight formation, they may be the ultimate shock weapon on the field, but disordered the impenetrable hedge of pike heads becomes penetrable after all as gaps open up, pikes get tangled, men lose the space inside their formation needed to operate their weapons, etc.

While people didn’t actually get in close with pikes too often, when they did it became what was known as “bad war”. If you can imagine shield wall style fighting in a tight press, only without shields to protect you, you have the idea. This is not for the faint of heart.

————

So, what’s that mean for vampires? Well, send in the undead. Unlike mortal men, they won’t ball at the fact that their front ranks are going to be savaged by the leading edge of pikes. Arguably if you can get a zombie to simply grab a pike and keep it in his body and then fall to the ground, you’ll break up the formation pretty quick. The “men” behind them just close in to bad war. Hurrah. Allow the face to face, high ferocity, low skill killing begin. And that’s assuming you didn’t use any number of other items to break up the formation to begin with.

As for beastmen, well, one of the human answers to breaking pikes was to get a bunch of brave, big, bloody minded men with great weapons and have them chop their way in. I feel like this would be something you could find quite a lot of in beastmen land.

Now, this being said, war hammer isn’t noted for its realism to begin with. So saying “yeah, you could break a pike square” is not the same as saying “see, the devs grounded their decisions in solid military thought”

Gnoman
2020-10-12, 04:24 PM
Pikemen were generally heavily armored, and would usually carry a sword for close in defense. Even if a zombie or skeleton did manage to break through the forest of pikes (far from easy, as that deadly sharp point is connected to a stout shaft of wood 18 feet long, a massive barrier in itself), they'd still find the pikemen to be tough to crack. This ignores that a slow-moving and dense horde is pretty much the dream of shot units, who would inflict massive damage as the horde closed - even if a bullet can't kill because MAGIC, you aren't going to be fighting too well when your limbs are shattered.

Grim Portent
2020-10-12, 04:48 PM
This ignores that a slow-moving and dense horde is pretty much the dream of shot units, who would inflict massive damage as the horde closed - even if a bullet can't kill because MAGIC, you aren't going to be fighting too well when your limbs are shattered.

Amusingly enough, zombies in WHF are so bad at fighting anyway that when they get damaged or killed the necromancers just crudely patch them back into something resembling useful and throw them into the next fight. Broken spines are fixed straight with planks, severed hands replaced with spiked fence railings, teeth and fingertips with iron nails or broken glass.

A zombie loses to basically anything one on one, but they are almost infinitely reusable and make a good way to keep an enemy infantry group engaged.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-12, 05:14 PM
Thanks everyone for pointing out some of the weirdness that come come out of these interactions. I really needed some more minds because of how odd WHFB can be. Like, I actually completely forgot about Jabberslythes and those do change things.

And by change I mean you shoot them with a Hellstorm Rocket battery and hope that works.

fusilier
2020-10-13, 12:59 AM
I think that fusil is a loanword that entered French from Italian (fucile) around the time the weapon was introduced, and substituted the older French term for the fire striker, foisil. As a time reference, I see that foisil is still used in a dictionary from 1678.

Fucile ultimately has the same origin as foisil, from a derivative of FOCUS = fire (maybe a form like FOCILIS; Italian also used to have focile, same meaning as fucile).

Erudite Latin developed its own word for the rifle, fugillus, which I don't think is the word from which foisil and focile are derived, and may have been built after them on the basis of Spanish fuego.

I've found an interesting explanation for musket. Many guns, like falconets, take their names from birds of prey. The It. moschetto, Fr. mouchet, was the sparrowhawk, so one of the smallest of the birds of prey. In Italian, smeriglio was the name of both a gun and the merlin.

In German the males of the sparrowhawk are called Sprinz, which could have been the origin for the springald's name (if it isn't just a relative of "spring", which I deem more likely). The springald itself has changed meaning within a military context, as it initially was a siege engine used to throw stones, and later became a gun.

Since nothing is ever simple, the springald and large ballistae threw ammo also known as moschette or moschetti in Italian.

I have heard that moschetto originally referred to a kind of light, long barreled cannon (like a falconet or robinet), later the term was applied to the more familiar heavy personal firearm. But by the end of the 19th century, the M1891 Carcano Moschetto was a light, short barreled carbine. (The long Carcano was called a fucile). :-)

AdAstra
2020-10-13, 10:03 AM
And thus the age-old lesson: language is a living, fluid, and fickle thing. It does as it wants. A word is rarely exactly what you think it is, it's merely close enough to work as a shared reference for a group of people.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-13, 05:48 PM
An extension of the pike and shot vs undead/beastmen question:

Assuming the shot in question is matchlocks, they fire one to two rounds a minute with a realistic range of 75-100 yards. Crossing one hundred yards in a minute doesn’t require even a particularly brisk walk.

In a world of men, the problem becomes one of convincing men to go forward into the hedge of pikes - which lets the shot conduct all sorts of evolutions under the safety of the pikes.

In our theoretical world of mindless zombies without fear, the horde isn’t a dream for the shot armed troops - it’s a nightmare where they get one or two shots off and then the pikes are being dragged down by selfless sacrifices and the face to face killing begins.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-13, 05:51 PM
An extension of the pike and shot vs undead/beastmen question:

Assuming the shot in question is matchlocks, they fire one to two rounds a minute with a realistic range of 75-100 yards. Crossing one hundred yards in a minute doesn’t require even a particularly brisk walk.

In a world of men, the problem becomes one of convincing men to go forward into the hedge of pikes - which lets the shot conduct all sorts of evolutions under the safety of the pikes.

In our theoretical world of mindless zombies without fear, the horde isn’t a dream for the shot armed troops - it’s a nightmare where they get one or two shots off and then the pikes are being dragged down by selfless sacrifices and the face to face killing begins.

They appear to be flintlocks from what I can see, which gets us about 3 shots instead of two.

And, interestingly, the Empire uses a lot of Halberdiers and handgunners as is, they just use them as separate groups instead of mixing them as a Tercios

Pauly
2020-10-13, 06:05 PM
On the Warhammer issue. Years ago there were Warhammer Historical Battles books released.

The ECW (Pike and Shot) is very good, and I used it extensively, running a Scots Covenanter army.

I can’t tell you how much I despise WFB, however once you strip away the special rules, half of which contradict each other, the basic game engine runs surprisingly well.

NRSASD
2020-10-14, 12:21 PM
Why do shotguns continue to exist in modern military arsenals? What advantages do they possess, or what situations are they better suited for, then the current generation of assault rifle?

The reason I ask is because of the existence of the M26-MASS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Modular_Accessory_Shotgun_System), which seems like a very ineffective shotgun.

Thanks for your input!

Edit: Regarding the Pike/Shot vs Zombies question, I'd give the advantage to the zombies. Pikes tend not to dismember their targets, only destroy their organs and inflict enough pain/blood loss to incapacitate their opponents. As zombies have no blood, feel no pain, and don't care if their kidney is impaled on the end of a pike, I think they'd give the pikemen a very bad time indeed.

Vinyadan
2020-10-14, 12:47 PM
There are two uses for a shotgun that I can think of: if you are on point and have to shoot someone from up close, and if you need to break a doorlock. People with more knowledge will probably tell you more.

Max_Killjoy
2020-10-14, 01:32 PM
Why do shotguns continue to exist in modern military arsenals? What advantages do they possess, or what situations are they better suited for, then the current generation of assault rifle?

The reason I ask is because of the existence of the M26-MASS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Modular_Accessory_Shotgun_System), which seems like a very ineffective shotgun.

Thanks for your input!


From what I've read:

Military police are issued shotguns for the same reasons civilian police are.

Marines are issued shotguns for shipboard and dockside security use because buckshot is less likely to penetrate walls than rifle rounds. These shotguns are often "marinized" versions using corrosion-resistant materials.

Engineers are issued shotguns both for added defensive firepower and for the ability to fire special munitions.

More generally, the ability to fire slugs, buckshot, flares, lockbreaking rounds, mini-grenades, "less than lethal" rounds, etc, etc makes them very useful.

Mike_G
2020-10-14, 04:41 PM
Why do shotguns continue to exist in modern military arsenals? What advantages do they possess, or what situations are they better suited for, then the current generation of assault rifle?


Well, as others have said, it can fire more versatile rounds, an buckshot is safer at CQB range in that it's less likely to penetrate the far wall of the room and endanger friendlies.

It has its place. In general the assault rifle will be a better choice, but having a few shotguns available to a platoon isn't a terrible idea.



The reason I ask is because of the existence of the M26-MASS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Modular_Accessory_Shotgun_System), which seems like a very ineffective shotgun.



It's probably a worse shotgun than what it's replacing. But it's an underbarrel accessory weapon, so you still have your M 4 ready after you breach the door with the shotgun, rather than having one guy in the fire team with a shotgun and thus one less assault rifle ready to go.

It's an interesting concept. Not sure how useful it is, but I can see the thinking behind it.



Edit: Regarding the Pike/Shot vs Zombies question, I'd give the advantage to the zombies. Pikes tend not to dismember their targets, only destroy their organs and inflict enough pain/blood loss to incapacitate their opponents. As zombies have no blood, feel no pain, and don't care if their kidney is impaled on the end of a pike, I think they'd give the pikemen a very bad time indeed.

I have to agree with you. Musket balls and pikes probably won't be as deadly to zombies, since making holes in bodies won't stop zombies (depending on the source material for your zombies, not sure how WH thinks of zombies) I would think you'd need to dismember them of burn them or something.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-14, 04:45 PM
It's probably a worse shotgun than what it's replacing. But it's an underbarrel accessory weapon, so you still have your M 4 ready after you breach the door with the shotgun, rather than having one guy in the fire team with a shotgun and thus one less assault rifle ready to go.

It's an interesting concept. Not sure how useful it is, but I can see the thinking behind it.

Pretty sure it's for blowing open doors so they don't waste C4


I have to agree with you. Musket balls and pikes probably won't be as deadly to zombies, since making holes in bodies won't stop zombies (depending on the source material for your zombies, not sure how WH thinks of zombies) I would think you'd need to dismember them of burn them or something.

In WH they're animated entirely by magic so ripping off ones head will probably drop it, but that's more because you've interrupted the flow of magic and less because it lost its head, so just inflicting bucket loads of damage will work.

The issue is that the Necro just brings them back up with a dose of more magic which means taking them out is top priority.

Martin Greywolf
2020-10-14, 05:11 PM
Why do shotguns continue to exist in modern military arsenals? What advantages do they possess, or what situations are they better suited for, then the current generation of assault rifle?

Specialist slugs have already been mentioned. As for why not just have a dedicated shotgun guy, if you are in narrow places, you may not have room enough for two people, and if the shotgun guy has loaded specialist rounds, he will not be as useful as he could be.

Another reason is stopping power - there is a ton of BS when it comes to it, and terms like hydrostatic shock are bandied about a lot, but the short of it is this. If you have something like an AK or an AR, with intermediate cartridges, odds are you need to hit someone multiple times to take them down quick. Sure, one good hit will kill them eventually, maybe even in a few seconds, and being hit just once is usually enough for them to retreat.

But. That is only the case when you are engaging over a sizeable distance - once you are inside a building, those three seconds they get before they die are enough for them to pull the trigger on you, and at those distances, odds are good they will hit you. Shotguns not only make larger wounds, or more of them, they have more mass behind their projectile. That means it moves slower, and is therefore terrible at armor penetration, but it also means it will physically jostle you more.

So, a shotgun is more likely to inflict immediately debilitating wound and if it doesn't, it's more likely to throw off aim of whoever it hit. Thing is, that is a tradeoff that's usually not really worth the loss of AP capability and rate of fire. But, if you have a specialized team that will only really fight indoors (some SpecOps operations, police) or a team that needs those specialized shotgun rounds anyway, you may as well give them a shotgun.



The reason I ask is because of the existence of the M26-MASS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Modular_Accessory_Shotgun_System), which seems like a very ineffective shotgun.


There is a logistical reason for wanting everyone to have the same general weapon - if you have a shotgun guy, he needs standard buckshot or slugs for his shotgun, if you have everyone with underbarrel shotties, you only need a few of those specialist rounds. And once you have that underbarrel shotgun, it sure would be logistically neat if all you needed to do to turn it into a shotgun (fro those specialized teams) is add a stock.

Pauly
2020-10-14, 05:13 PM
I have to agree with you. Musket balls and pikes probably won't be as deadly to zombies, since making holes in bodies won't stop zombies (depending on the source material for your zombies, not sure how WH thinks of zombies) I would think you'd need to dismember them of burn them or something.

I think you are misunderestimating just how much damage a soft lead .75 cal. ball does.

The reason why amputation was so prominent in treating battlefield wounds in the musket era is that if a musket ball hit a large bone, such as a femur, it completely shattered about 3 inches of bone. Limbs got amputated not because they were broken, but because there was nothing left to re-attach the pieces together. Gut shots were famously deadly in that era too because of the massive tissue damage and spread of infection.

It’s not like a modern small caliber high velocity copper jacketed round poking nice neat holes in someone. The ball deformed and transferred all of its kinetic energy across a relatively wide area.

In WFB terms the zombie or skeleton is rendered non functional because it no longer has a functioning sword arm, or it’s vertebral column suddenly has 3 inches missing

Mike_G
2020-10-14, 05:39 PM
I think you are misunderestimating just how much damage a soft lead .75 cal. ball does.

The reason why amputation was so prominent in treating battlefield wounds in the musket era is that if a musket ball hit a large bone, such as a femur, it completely shattered about 3 inches of bone. Limbs got amputated not because they were broken, but because there was nothing left to re-attach the pieces together. Gut shots were famously deadly in that era too because of the massive tissue damage and spread of infection.

It’s not like a modern small caliber high velocity copper jacketed round poking nice neat holes in someone. The ball deformed and transferred all of its kinetic energy across a relatively wide area.

In WFB terms the zombie or skeleton is rendered non functional because it no longer has a functioning sword arm, or it’s vertebral column suddenly has 3 inches missing

I'm in no way underestimating a musket ball.

I'm just saying that blowing an inch wide hole out of the chest or abdomen of a redcoat advancing up Bunker Hill will stop him cold, and it won't bother a zombie or skeleton. To disable a skeleton or zombie or whatever, to mechanically damage the body to where it can't walk or fight, you have to hit bone, and you have to hit bone pretty dead center to shatter it to where it won't work, and it has to be a bone that matters for moving and fighting, not a rib or sternum or scapula or something like that. So, just a bit less effective on a zombie than a flesh and blood human who cares about his aorta being blown out his back.

You can find photos of plenty of dead Civil War soldiers with all their limbs attached.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-15, 12:02 PM
Re: Shotguns.

This one of those area where the theory and the practice are somewhat divergent. For a sort of combination of all the reasons listed, the average US infantry company keeps some shotguns in its arms room. And they tend to be very mechanically easy to use ones, so the training premium is pretty low.

Buuuuttt....

Their infrequent use creates a circular effect where they are harder to use for anything but niche roles.

The system is not set up to pump shotgun shells forward in the manner of 5.56 and 7.62, and "specialty" shells are unlikely to be available in most common circumstances. Every guy with a shotgun is not running around with a slug, buck, less-than-lethal and the like in a shell gourmets choice to pull from his large selection. He likely has a small belt/harness on his kit with a handful of buckshot quick to hand. Some, but not firefight sustaining quantities of the stuff.

And if he should happen to have a specialty use - less-than-lethal let's say - even in normal counter-insurgency he won't have many, they might be in his assault pack or gun truck, or they may be sitting back in the company trains for "when we need them". Which may be bureaucracy, and may just be sensible not wanting to add another pound of ammunition you'll only use once in a blue moon to the 60 pounds of minimum fighting load already being carried. And who knows when more of this rare ammunition will work it's way forward. Maybe the deliberate riot response units in the Balkans will have those rubber rounds in abumdance, but not a random patrol in Kandahar.

Then the gun itself is obnoxious. It's not as if the man carrying it only has a shotgun - his primary weapon is still his rifle. So the gun is either in a truck, or on an extra sling, or if the go-to-war-money has been particularly bountiful in a special shotgun back sheath. (This, incidentally, is the reasoning behind the under-attachment theory). You can imagine that carrying the damn thing around is extra weight and one more awkward bundle - and almost never in a position where the shooter isn't just going to use his rifle unless it's deliberate. Between "in my hands and one thumb switch away from shooting" versus "let go of rifle, draw shotgun, probably load shotgun (loaded shotguns bouncing and jangling in random directions off a moving soldier, the ground, etc are maybe not a great idea for him or his mates), then use shotgun" you can imagine which one wins.

So then we get to breaching. The shotgun is in a really fine niche here. You are basically blasting a pattern so that the lock no longer is held tightly by the door. Which implies that the door itself is of lighter construction. A great many doors can be breached quicker and easier by non-shotgun methods, such as "testing if they are open", "breaking a window and reaching through", "just lift it off it's hinges" and of course "get the big guy to do it." Those that can't in many cases are not susceptible to a shotgun breach to begin with - and sometimes metal lockplates send a bunch of bits of buck flying back out and around the courtyard in ways that make everyone cringe. The line between "kick" and "we need to hit this with real breaching tools or demo (or the ever popular find/make a different entrance)" doesn't hold a lot of shotgun space, no matter how cool it seems.

And then we get to CQB. The theory of this is "shotgun, close range, brilliant." But....first, there's that whole part about still having a rifle. And that most people are trained (at least summarily) in shooting said rifle for CQB, while they almost certainly aren't beyond point-pull for the shotgun. And since good CQB involves your own side flowing through the building/trench/whatever with a decent tempo rather than getting bogged down in a firefight (you'll lose), there's a decent chance that there are friendlies in the area you're aiming. If you are aiming three feet off their nose, they are going to be way happier if it is with a rifle you trained with rather than a shotgun you haven't. And since in a military context anyone standing up in said room/trench/etc. is probably getting shot four to eight times as each man tracks his weapon through his sector and fires twice on the way...the stopping power of an individual small cartridge becomes less of an issue. Plus, ammo. When attacking a trench, lots of bullets get sent down the trench just to make sure no one decides to pop around the corner or even consider using that bend - then the frag goes over, and the you move down the next bend. Repeat. You almost certainly aren't carrying enough shotgun ammo to do that, nor is the magazine size large enough for a sustained advance.

So - shotgun theory, hot. Shotgun execution - less practical than video games and individual theory would think.

SleepyShadow
2020-10-15, 12:38 PM
Got a problem coming up in the next session of my weekly game, and I'm hoping the lovely geniuses on this thread can help me out. Thanks in advance!

A coalition of disparate troops totaling 10,000 soldiers plus their respective support units is required to take a heavily fortified mountain fortress. The coalition force does not need to maintain control of the fortress, they just need to get in, destroy a critical target, and get out. The coalition force is made up of highly trained soldiers, but the individual groups that make up the army have not worked together before, and a few have been enemies in the recent past. The troops are primarily close-quarters infantry, with only about 700 total troops equipped for long ranged combat.

The defenders number about 5,000 total troops. They are well trained and highly organized. They are almost exclusively equipped for ranged combat, and have several artillery batteries at the ready. They also have two A7V tanks. Moral is low due to standing guard at a very remote location, but retreat won't be an option since they have nowhere to go.

The attackers will have to pass through a half-mile long mountain pass to reach the fortress. The pass in only 60 feet wide. The defenders have dozens of bunkers and pillboxes along the pass, but are not expecting an attack, as their scouts did not detect the attacker's approach. The battle will be taking place at midnight.

So, that's a long-winded way of me asking for help figuring out how all of this is going to go down :smallsmile:

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-15, 01:22 PM
So...circa 1918-1919 for technology, organizations, etc?

Brother Oni
2020-10-15, 03:38 PM
With regard to shotguns, I was reading a reddit post by an infantryman armed with one for CQB work during Iraq. Aside from the specialist rounds and breaching, you could also 'bounce' the shot off smooth concrete walls and floors, enabling you to hit targets from unexpected angles.

Someone who's just had their ankles smashed out from under them, isn't going to putting up much of a fight for next few seconds, giving your team time to get in and kill/secure them.

With a bit of wear and tear and some 'modifications', he could get the firing pin to protrude, resulting in the weapon being able to slam fire (ie when you **** the weapon, the shell discharges, rather than needing the trigger to also be pulled), thus he could maintain the necessary rate of fire for when things go loud.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-15, 03:56 PM
With regard to shotguns, I was reading a reddit post by an infantryman armed with one for CQB work during Iraq. Aside from the specialist rounds and breaching, you could also 'bounce' the shot off smooth concrete walls and floors, enabling you to hit targets from unexpected angles.

Someone who's just had their ankles smashed out from under them, isn't going to putting up much of a fight for next few seconds, giving your team time to get in and kill/secure them.

With a bit of wear and tear and some 'modifications', he could get the firing pin to protrude, resulting in the weapon being able to slam fire (ie when you **** the weapon, the shell discharges, rather than needing the trigger to also be pulled), thus he could maintain the necessary rate of fire for when things go loud.

Huh, interesting that he needed a modification (however small) for that. I know a fair few shotguns where you can do that by just holding down the trigger and working the pump

Martin Greywolf
2020-10-15, 05:06 PM
Got a problem coming up in the next session of my weekly game, and I'm hoping the lovely geniuses on this thread can help me out. Thanks in advance!

A coalition of disparate troops totaling 10,000 soldiers plus their respective support units is required to take a heavily fortified mountain fortress. The coalition force does not need to maintain control of the fortress, they just need to get in, destroy a critical target, and get out. The coalition force is made up of highly trained soldiers, but the individual groups that make up the army have not worked together before, and a few have been enemies in the recent past. The troops are primarily close-quarters infantry, with only about 700 total troops equipped for long ranged combat.

There are several odd thing here already. My first thought is, where's the artillery? It was the critical component of a WW1 era armies, and unless we're dealing with something like colonial troops, there should be plenty of it to go around.

I'll assume there is arty present, because without it, the attackers have no real chance of taking that fortress.



The defenders number about 5,000 total troops.

Well, in that case my strategy would be to siege the fort. 2:1 are terrible odds if you are attacking a fortified position. Sure, battles like Verdun didn't need this disparity in numbers, but those were fought with odzens of divisions, and heavily fortified positions were suppressed and surrounded, creating a local outnumbering/defeat in detail. We're dealing with a sub-division scale here.

If the attackers have to attack, they are at a disadvantage and have exactly one shot at it, if they fail, odds are their manpower will be low enough to be routed by counterattack.


They are well trained and highly organized. They are almost exclusively equipped for ranged combat,

What is ranged vs close combat anyways? WW1 infantry has rifles almost exclusively, with only some LMG support (not even mortars, at least not universally), with some small assault trooper units getting submachineguns. Everyone also has some sort of bayonet or melee weapon. So, our standard, run of the mill infantryman has capability to engage from bayonet range to half a click away (well, in theory, battlefield marksmanship usually stops at 100-200 meters).



and have several artillery batteries at the ready.


This may not help at all if the attack really is a surprise, at least not for the biggest arty pieces. At this time, you get pre-aimed artillery and balloon or landline observers, and that's it. You can't exactly react to sudden developments with great agility.


They also have two A7V tanks.

These are almost irrelevant, they are effectively just another pillbox. Tanks were not meant for defense, they are there to bust through trenches specifically. If you want defenders to have some sort of agile counterattack response, go with armored cars instead.


Moral is low due to standing guard at a very remote location, but retreat won't be an option since they have nowhere to go.

Well, what about surrender? Especially with that low morale.


The attackers will have to pass through a half-mile long mountain pass to reach the fortress. The pass in only 60 feet wide. The defenders have dozens of bunkers and pillboxes along the pass, but are not expecting an attack, as their scouts did not detect the attacker's approach.

How close tot hat pass can the attackers get before they get spotted? Are the defenders not running extensive patrols? Because that's a supremely bad idea, but the morale is low, so...


The battle will be taking place at midnight.

This is not a good idea, you need soldiers specifically trained in night combat to do even halfway decently at it, especially at this time.

If the initial attack fails, attackers will descend into chaos. There is no night vision yet except flares, and no man-portable radios.


So, that's a long-winded way of me asking for help figuring out how all of this is going to go down :smallsmile:

Well, the absolute best bet the attackers have is to creep as closely as possible, initiate a counter-battery arty barrage to supress all pillboxes they possibly can, and then swiftly storm the fortress. This is still a bad idea that will result in absolute hell of an urban fight as they go deeper and deeper into the fortress - all sorts of grenades and chemical weapons will be used.

The plan for the attackers is to hit the fortress so quickly and so hard that the defenders, already at low morale, simply surrender - the night concealing the attacker's low numbers will also help in that regard. If the initial attack fails, or you don't want an immediate orgy of violence, attackers could try for some psyops shenanigans where they attempt to make their numbers and equipment seem better than it is - parading troops in a circle and so on.

If that initial attack fails, the defenders will launch a counterattack that will destroy opposing forces - they may not kill that many, but they will capture or wound a lot of them, rout them and loot a lot of equipment. And probably also get a morale boost. The defenders will have to play defensive roles from now on, as the attackers now outnumber them and have a strong point to retreat to.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-15, 07:20 PM
So, the good news is that given the lower troop densities, the attackers actually have quite a few options because this isn't "lines in flanders" it's a 360 degree strongpoint in the mountains.

The first and foremost would be to simply bypass the pass. It's only half a mile. You aren't going to outrun your artillery support or your logistics. You have well trained troops high on human capital. Great. March right over those mountains, use the backsides to shield your approach from direct fire and artillery while small detachments make sure no one is coming up the slopes. You may even own the high ground by the end, and be plunging fire into the fortress - building anything more than field fortifications on the very tops of mountains is rarely practical unless you actually dig out the mountain as it's own fort. And hey. why not knock out the artillery while you're back there? Artillery requires big patches of semi level ground to work on (again, assuming you haven't just hollowed out the mountain and gone full Maginot/North Korea). Set up some machineguns and rake those firing positions but good.

At the very least the defenders have to consider withdrawing to the fort main rather than holding the pass - and then you can bring up your heavy stuff.

----

Even if you decide to go up the gut for the drama plot, assuming you have your own artillery and the enemy is conveniently in a box with not that many semi-level open areas where artillery could stage...well, you care going to offline his batteries pretty early in the game. You know where they are, WWI batteries don't displace quickly and if they do they lose most of their commo and accuracy. So smash those guys down with HE and short persistence chemicals. Slime the tanks while you're at it.

If he is actually only defending a few hundred meters wide in a known position, you can roll a pretty intense barrage right over the bulk of his forces easily enough. There was a reason the Germans stopped holding the forward trenches with heavy troop concentrations. Opening barrages will never kill everything, but enough shells on known targets in a small area kills quite a few people none the less.

Or siegfried line it. Suppress his heavy stuff. Probe forward. Bunker shoots. Gunners leisurely identify and destroy bunker from unanswered long range with direct fire. Repeat until you're in Germany. (Or, in this case, the fortress).

fusilier
2020-10-15, 08:28 PM
The coalition force does not need to maintain control of the fortress, they just need to get in, destroy a critical target, and get out.

This might suggest some sort of small commando raid, and not a full fledged attack. Perhaps with the main force creating a distraction to draw some of the garrison out? Although, if it just puts the garrison on alert it may make it harder for the infiltration team. If the defenders' morale is low, it may be hard to draw them out of their fortifications.

Otherwise, if the fortress is not sufficiently manned, it may be possible to storm it. But I'm guessing 5,000 men can easily defend the perimeter? If there are too many defenders, then besieging the fortress may starve them into surrendering quickly, especially if morale is low. A siege would be relatively low risk, and wouldn't require much coordination among the coalition forces*, but would be more time consuming.

Surprise is then the next best option for storming. If the coalition can move their forces over the mountains as KineticDiplomat suggested, avoiding the well defended pass, and get them in position without being detected, then maybe they could achieve surprise. Depends upon their intelligence of the terrain around the fort.

There's always the old fashioned, bribe the commander to leave the fort. But I suspect you want something more climactic than that! ;-)

*Perhaps it would be better to say that a siege is usually easy to coordinate. Whereas a complicated battle plan can be more difficult.

DrewID
2020-10-15, 09:48 PM
I have to agree with you. Musket balls and pikes probably won't be as deadly to zombies, since making holes in bodies won't stop zombies (depending on the source material for your zombies, not sure how WH thinks of zombies) I would think you'd need to dismember them of burn them or something.

One thing pikes can do, if fitted with a cross bar (like a boar spear, and for the same reason) is keep the foe at a distance. They could be used in a combined arms block with whatever weapon type is effective against zombies.

DrewID

Kaptin Keen
2020-10-16, 01:15 AM
Got a problem coming up in the next session of my weekly game, and I'm hoping the lovely geniuses on this thread can help me out. Thanks in advance!

A coalition of disparate troops totaling 10,000 soldiers plus their respective support units is required to take a heavily fortified mountain fortress. The coalition force does not need to maintain control of the fortress, they just need to get in, destroy a critical target, and get out. The coalition force is made up of highly trained soldiers, but the individual groups that make up the army have not worked together before, and a few have been enemies in the recent past. The troops are primarily close-quarters infantry, with only about 700 total troops equipped for long ranged combat.

The defenders number about 5,000 total troops. They are well trained and highly organized. They are almost exclusively equipped for ranged combat, and have several artillery batteries at the ready. They also have two A7V tanks. Moral is low due to standing guard at a very remote location, but retreat won't be an option since they have nowhere to go.

The attackers will have to pass through a half-mile long mountain pass to reach the fortress. The pass in only 60 feet wide. The defenders have dozens of bunkers and pillboxes along the pass, but are not expecting an attack, as their scouts did not detect the attacker's approach. The battle will be taking place at midnight.

So, that's a long-winded way of me asking for help figuring out how all of this is going to go down :smallsmile:

If this is the full picture, I'd expect the attackers to get a bloody nose, very very quickly, and retreat. What you describe is a classic death trap, which your attackers intend to walk into with no plan. They fail, at best they retreat quickly - at worst, they are killed to the last man.

Misereor
2020-10-16, 03:08 AM
So, that's a long-winded way of me asking for help figuring out how all of this is going to go down :smallsmile:

One fairly smart way of going about conflict is not doing what your enemy wants you to.

At Alesia Vercigetorix wanted Caesar to perform a head on assault, and then slip out the back once he had bled the attackers as much as he could.
Having previously been a victim of that ploy, Caesar instead flipped the script and forced the Gauls to assault a defensive position of his choosing.

At Tyre, the defenders had built an invincible fortress by placing it on an island and being on the same side as the greatest fleet around.
Alexander flipped the script by making the island into a peninsula and subverting said navy.

In countless wars from the beginning until today, defenders have built fortifications that it would just be too expensive to attack head-on.
The job of attackers has always been to flip the script. By digging underneath the defenses and collapsing them. By inventing siege weapons. By infiltrating. By cutting off supplies. By demoralizing.

So are your attackers smart enough to flip the script?
Whatever the answer, just make it play out in an amsuing and exciting fashion. Go where story takes you.

AdAstra
2020-10-16, 09:43 AM
Got a problem coming up in the next session of my weekly game, and I'm hoping the lovely geniuses on this thread can help me out. Thanks in advance!

A coalition of disparate troops totaling 10,000 soldiers plus their respective support units is required to take a heavily fortified mountain fortress. The coalition force does not need to maintain control of the fortress, they just need to get in, destroy a critical target, and get out. The coalition force is made up of highly trained soldiers, but the individual groups that make up the army have not worked together before, and a few have been enemies in the recent past. The troops are primarily close-quarters infantry, with only about 700 total troops equipped for long ranged combat.

The defenders number about 5,000 total troops. They are well trained and highly organized. They are almost exclusively equipped for ranged combat, and have several artillery batteries at the ready. They also have two A7V tanks. Moral is low due to standing guard at a very remote location, but retreat won't be an option since they have nowhere to go.

The attackers will have to pass through a half-mile long mountain pass to reach the fortress. The pass in only 60 feet wide. The defenders have dozens of bunkers and pillboxes along the pass, but are not expecting an attack, as their scouts did not detect the attacker's approach. The battle will be taking place at midnight.

So, that's a long-winded way of me asking for help figuring out how all of this is going to go down :smallsmile:

You could look to real-world conflicts for inspiration. In World War 1, there was a lot of fighting in the Alps, especially between the Italians and Austro-Hungarians. Research there is likely to be fruitful, as it's pretty much an exact match for the sort of situation you describe in terms of tech and environment.

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

Things of interest:

-Avalanches, both natural and those triggered by artillery, intentional or not. This killed thousands of soldiers.

-Absolutely brutal close-in fighting. Fewer ways to bypass strongpoints (though it was very much possible) means ramming through an enemy defense is horrible. Taking a mountain fortress instead of bypassing or demolishing it means pushing your way through prepared killzones and trying to bust in and through labyrinths of tunnels in the hard rock. If you do the obvious, you will lose. By the end of the war the elite Italian Alpini had counted 114,948 casualties, over 50,000 of which were killed or missing.

-Everything is harder on the mountains. Less oxygen means you get exhausted quicker. Rapid elevation changes are treacherous and energy-intensive. And you need to drag all your supplies with you. Without roads.

-A need for special troops is apparent. From the Italian Alpini to the Austro-Hungarian Imperial-Royals, you need people specially trained to deal with these rigors, especially if you don't want to grind your army to a paste in direct frontal assaults. Engineers and artillery are also critical, to destroy mostly immobile fortresses and infantry, and demolish whole mountains, which might entail tunneling and placing explosives deep beneath.

Now, not all of these things are a factor if this is an isolated strongpoint, but if this is a proper conflict on the peaks? There are a lot of considerations.

rrgg
2020-10-16, 03:40 PM
One thing pikes can do, if fitted with a cross bar (like a boar spear, and for the same reason) is keep the foe at a distance. They could be used in a combined arms block with whatever weapon type is effective against zombies.

DrewID

https://i.imgur.com/RinFLxD.gif

Pauly
2020-10-16, 03:58 PM
Got a problem coming up in the next session of my weekly game, and I'm hoping the lovely geniuses on this thread can help me out. Thanks in advance!

A coalition of disparate troops totaling 10,000 soldiers plus their respective support units is required to take a heavily fortified mountain fortress. The coalition force does not need to maintain control of the fortress, they just need to get in, destroy a critical target, and get out. The coalition force is made up of highly trained soldiers, but the individual groups that make up the army have not worked together before, and a few have been enemies in the recent past. The troops are primarily close-quarters infantry, with only about 700 total troops equipped for long ranged combat.

The defenders number about 5,000 total troops. They are well trained and highly organized. They are almost exclusively equipped for ranged combat, and have several artillery batteries at the ready. They also have two A7V tanks. Moral is low due to standing guard at a very remote location, but retreat won't be an option since they have nowhere to go.

The attackers will have to pass through a half-mile long mountain pass to reach the fortress. The pass in only 60 feet wide. The defenders have dozens of bunkers and pillboxes along the pass, but are not expecting an attack, as their scouts did not detect the attacker's approach. The battle will be taking place at midnight.

So, that's a long-winded way of me asking for help figuring out how all of this is going to go down :smallsmile:

As others have said a stright attack is doomed to fail.

The options for the attackers are
1) Psyops. Convince the defenders that they are a vanguard of a much more significant force and that it’s best to just surrender now.
2) Find an undefended route in to the fortress. Like the British at the Battle of Quebec, scale an unsaleable cliff and get behind the defenses.
3) Lure the enemy out where they can be defeated. What would induce a demoralized force to come out of their fortress is the difficult part, they aren’t going to send a large part of their forces out to attack a small group of enemy.

tyckspoon
2020-10-16, 06:09 PM
What is ranged vs close combat anyways? WW1 infantry has rifles almost exclusively, with only some LMG support (not even mortars, at least not universally), with some small assault trooper units getting submachineguns. Everyone also has some sort of bayonet or melee weapon. So, our standard, run of the mill infantryman has capability to engage from bayonet range to half a click away (well, in theory, battlefield marksmanship usually stops at 100-200 meters).


Equipment like shotguns, SMGs, and carbine-like designs over more traditional rifles? But it sounds like the terms of engagement (crowded spaces and poor visibility, especially if it is carried out as a night battle) will make it so that any potential range advantage the defenders might have will be largely irrelevant .. outside of the attackers being dumb enough to march into an obvious killing field with floodlights on it or something.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-16, 06:10 PM
https://i.imgur.com/RinFLxD.gif

I'm gonna assume I'm looking at a basic diagram of a huge Pike formation?

fusilier
2020-10-17, 02:26 AM
Equipment like shotguns, SMGs, and carbine-like designs over more traditional rifles? But it sounds like the terms of engagement (crowded spaces and poor visibility, especially if it is carried out as a night battle) will make it so that any potential range advantage the defenders might have will be largely irrelevant .. outside of the attackers being dumb enough to march into an obvious killing field with floodlights on it or something.

Arditi were armed with a dagger and hand grenades (realistically an offensive grenades), and these were considered the main offensive weapons. They were supported by machine guns and SMGs, and used carbines on the defense.

Yora
2020-10-21, 01:04 PM
So the German Army has three divisions. The 1st Armored Division, the 10th Armored Division, and the Rapid Response Division.

Within these are 7 Tank Battalions. Which are numbered the 93rd, 104th, 203rd, 363rd, 393rd, and 414th Tank Battalions, and the 8th Mountain Tank Battalion.

Seems like they are missing at least 7 Divisions and 407 Tank Battalions. Where those all scrapped after the Cold War? Did they ever exist?

Max_Killjoy
2020-10-21, 02:02 PM
So the German Army has three divisions. The 1st Armored Division, the 10th Armored Division, and the Rapid Response Division.

Within these are 7 Tank Battalions. Which are numbered the 93rd, 104th, 203rd, 363rd, 393rd, and 414th Tank Battalions, and the 8th Mountain Tank Battalion.

Seems like they are missing at least 7 Divisions and 407 Tank Battalions. Where those all scrapped after the Cold War? Did they ever exist?

As general notes, not specific to the Bundeswehr.

1) Units often retain numbers for purposes of tradition.
2) Some militaries don't re-use numbers across different unit types. So there'd be a 93rd Tank Battalion, but not a 93rd Infantry or 93rd Engineers or whatever.

Vinyadan
2020-10-21, 02:13 PM
So the German Army has three divisions. The 1st Armored Division, the 10th Armored Division, and the Rapid Response Division.

Within these are 7 Tank Battalions. Which are numbered the 93rd, 104th, 203rd, 363rd, 393rd, and 414th Tank Battalions, and the 8th Mountain Tank Battalion.

Seems like they are missing at least 7 Divisions and 407 Tank Battalions. Where those all scrapped after the Cold War? Did they ever exist?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Truppenteile_der_Panzergrenadiertruppe_d es_Heeres_der_Bundeswehr#Panzergrenadierdivisionen Here's a list of the historical and active Bundeswehr Panzer granadier divisions, with the dates of their disbanding or integration or conversion in a different unit (like tank divisions). Lower there is a table with a list of the Panzergrenadierbattalionen, which were disbanded or turned into Panzer battalions.

Yora
2020-10-21, 04:01 PM
For those who are curious but can't read the German article:

The 2nd to 9th divisions did exist anymore but once did, and the 10th division was not renamed. The West German Army had 36 divisions (1st to 36th) and the East German Army 6 divisions (which became the 37th to 42nd).
They really downsized after the Cold War and once conscription was suspended. (From 360,000 in the 80s to 60,000 now. Which means the sizes of the three remaining divisions doubled.)

Batallion numbers are codes that list both the battalion and its brigade one level up. 391st to 399th battalion would all be battalions of the 39th brigade, of which only the 393rd is a tank batallion.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-21, 06:07 PM
Most European powers retain comparatively small militaries. Frankly, most powers in general retain smaller militaries than they had at the zenith of industrial war writ large. So units keep famous designators. The 82nd airborne still exists in the US, as does the 25th Infantry Division, in an army that can field 10 active divisions...theoretically. (Realistically readiness rates mean getting more than six out the door would mean stripping a lot of the globe. )

Anyhow, was it ‘91 or ‘03 where the British ground force commander basically got a letter from the national leadership saying “what you have is what we got, no more is coming, and any tank or helicopter you lose won’t be replaced for a good long while. So if you lose it, GB just won’t have it anymore.”

Brother Oni
2020-10-22, 11:08 AM
As general notes, not specific to the Bundeswehr.

1) Units often retain numbers for purposes of tradition.
2) Some militaries don't re-use numbers across different unit types. So there'd be a 93rd Tank Battalion, but not a 93rd Infantry or 93rd Engineers or whatever.

3) Deliberate misinformation to potentially hostile foreign nations.

As an example - SEAL Team Six (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Team_Six). At the time, there wasn't actually 5 other SEAL Teams (there was 1 other), but the numbering kept the Russians guessing.

Saint-Just
2020-10-22, 11:43 AM
3) Deliberate misinformation to potentially hostile foreign nations.

As an example - SEAL Team Six (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Team_Six). At the time, there wasn't actually 5 other SEAL Teams (there was 1 other), but the numbering kept the Russians guessing.

AFAIK Russians engaged in that themselves. There was, obviously, significant downsizing of the military after the WWII ended, and some regiments kept their famous numbers, but even newly-formed units sometimes were numbered out of sequence with the same aim - keep "potential enemy" guessing.

Khedrac
2020-10-22, 01:30 PM
3) Deliberate misinformation to potentially hostile foreign nations.

This one is more important than one might think. In WW2 the germans used sequential numbering on their tanks. When one of the new varieties was rolled out the allies only encountered a handful, but using statistics they calcuated the probable size of the total production to date (no, I don't know how the maths works, though I think I did once) and they got it approximately correct. Random issuing of serial numbers for some things is actually quite important.

fusilier
2020-10-22, 04:35 PM
This one is more important than one might think. In WW2 the germans used sequential numbering on their tanks. When one of the new varieties was rolled out the allies only encountered a handful, but using statistics they calcuated the probable size of the total production to date (no, I don't know how the maths works, though I think I did once) and they got it approximately correct. Random issuing of serial numbers for some things is actually quite important.

Ah, the "German Tank Problem" --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem

I'm not sure if the Germans were so careless as to sequentially number the tanks themselves, but they did sequentially number some of the components, like gearboxes. (Wikipedia says that the chassis and engine numbers were used in analysis too, but they were more "complicated.") Also the wheels indicated a limited number of molds were used. It was from these that the Allies were able to perform a statistical analysis to get quite an accurate estimate of the number of tanks produced in a month. Which was confirmed after the war by looking at the official documentation. This statistical approach was far more accurate than the intelligence estimates, which greatly overestimated the number being produced.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-10-22, 04:51 PM
This one is more important than one might think. In WW2 the germans used sequential numbering on their tanks. When one of the new varieties was rolled out the allies only encountered a handful, but using statistics they calcuated the probable size of the total production to date (no, I don't know how the maths works, though I think I did once) and they got it approximately correct. Random issuing of serial numbers for some things is actually quite important.
Randall Munroe ("the XKCD guy") explained that one. Here's the post (https://what-if.xkcd.com/65/). He mentions Seal Team Six and the German tanks, too.

Here's the relevant bit (for someone who encounters a German tank in the field, that is):

With one sample [...] the best strategy is probably to take the number you've seen and double it. [...]

The idea is that you're likely to be somewhere in the middle of the range—there's only a small chance that you're looking at one of the first or one of the last movies.

Yora
2020-10-22, 05:03 PM
For a single known registry number, that's the case. It becomes much more interesting when you have a couple more numbers. If you have 14, 26, 31, and 37, which you assume to be a random sample, there's a statistical method that can get you a pretty good estimate of the total number range.
Obviously, a range of 1-60 seems much more likely than a range of 1-100. And even intuitively you'd be really surprised if the highest number turns out to be something like 200 or 300. Statistics is rarely intuitive, but here it's fairly easy to see.

If you have something like a hundred samples (which are assumed to be random), you can get a really good estimate, even when the numbers you got range from 80 to 23.000. I believe it's not even a very complicated equation.


3) Deliberate misinformation to potentially hostile foreign nations.

As an example - SEAL Team Six (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Team_Six). At the time, there wasn't actually 5 other SEAL Teams (there was 1 other), but the numbering kept the Russians guessing.

The German Border Guard did used to have eight regular Groups (7 land, one sea), which made the later introduced counter-terrorism unit Group 9.
The Border Guard has since been transformed into the Federal Police and been restructured, but the unit is still called GSG9 because it's famous.

Brother Oni
2020-10-25, 09:35 AM
Another instrument to add to our list of battlefield music: Aztech Death Whistle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9QuO09z-SI&feature=emb_logo).

Mike_G
2020-10-27, 02:26 PM
Hypothetical for those black powder experts on the board.

Is is plausible to blast open a old fashioned lock, (Victorian Age or older. Picture the lock on a cell door in a western movie) by pouring gunpowder into the keyhole and setting it off with a long match?

If so, how much powder, and how big a boom, for purposes of safe distance do you think?

Yora
2020-10-27, 02:33 PM
Not an expert expert, but that seems extremely unlikely to me. Old locks aren't tightly sealed and you wouldn't really be able to tightly pack the powder inside the keyhole. You'd probably get a flash and woosh, but that would be it.

Blackhawk748
2020-10-27, 07:47 PM
Not an expert expert, but that seems extremely unlikely to me. Old locks aren't tightly sealed and you wouldn't really be able to tightly pack the powder inside the keyhole. You'd probably get a flash and woosh, but that would be it.

And even if you do get a bit of a bang I doubt it'd be enough to really damage the lock all that much.

Mike_G
2020-10-27, 09:46 PM
And even if you do get a bit of a bang I doubt it'd be enough to really damage the lock all that much.

I can't imagine a simple door lock is stronger than the barrel of a gun, and you can blow those up if you load them wrong.

I can see a poor seal creating more of a flash than a contained explosion.

Like I said, this is hypothetical. It sounds plausible to me, but I have no real first hand black powder experience. I know it's not C4, but *how* not C 4 is it?

PhoenixPhyre
2020-10-27, 11:48 PM
I can't imagine a simple door lock is stronger than the barrel of a gun, and you can blow those up if you load them wrong.

I can see a poor seal creating more of a flash than a contained explosion.

Like I said, this is hypothetical. It sounds plausible to me, but I have no real first hand black powder experience. I know it's not C4, but *how* not C 4 is it?

I'm no expert, but one big difference is that black powder burns much slower than c4. Enough so that many don't consider it a primary explosive. It needs a sealed container to create an explosion. C4 doesn't. It creates its own shock wave.

rrgg
2020-10-28, 02:36 AM
well, Petards could be used to blow open an entire castle gate. Don't know how much gunpowder would be needed to blow open just a lock though.

AdAstra
2020-10-28, 04:42 AM
The powder charge would both need to be large enough and tightly packed enough to burst the lock before all the pressure escapes out all the holes. If the lock was loose and could be jiggled/finagled, you could probably manage it, but if the lock was set into the door? Might not be possible to pack enough powder in tight enough.

Yora
2020-10-28, 05:10 AM
well, Petards could be used to blow open an entire castle gate. Don't know how much gunpowder would be needed to blow open just a lock though.

A black powder bomb to destroy a lock certainly seems plausible. But using the body of a lock to turn itself into a lock seems very unlikely.

Mike_G
2020-10-28, 08:22 AM
OK, in this hypothetical scenario, we need to get a door open and not take all day doing it. We have no axe, no battering ram, nothing else obviously better, but we have a musket and ammunition. The suggestion is to take a paper cartridge, which historically (based on the Brown Bess) contained 165 grains of powder (sources differed, but the low end was 110, and the high end closer to 200. 165 was mentioned specifically as the musket charge, so the lighter ones might have been for carbines) so about .37 ounces, rip it open, pour the powder into the lock and improvise a fuse (which I suppose you could do with the rest of the paper if nothing else.)

If the issue is just tightly packing the powder and eliminating an air gap, I imagine you could do that by plugging the hole with the wadded up cartridge paper.

And, isn't one of the dangers in loading a musket a greater chance of blowing up the barrel if you have a gap between the powder and a ball? Like that's why they emphasize ramming the ball down and making sure you have it seated on the powder charge?

Yora
2020-10-28, 09:07 AM
I think the best shot (hehe...) would be to try shooting your musket at the lock.

The issue is that there's a lot of empty space in old lock, and sticking some paper into it won't really seal it in any meaningful way. As someone mentioned earlier, black powder is not really an explosive. It just burns very quickly and produces a lot of gas in the process. It's only when the gas pressure builds up within a confined space to the point where it bursts the container that you get an explosion.
Here is a pretty big brass cartridge filled with black powder burning with no proper seal. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmfDpQT6ncc) This is what I would expect from pouring black powder into an old lock.

I never heard of an air gap between powder and ball damaging the barrel. And I can't think of a mechanism by which that would happen. What I would expect is to just lose some power on the ball being shot from the barrel.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-10-28, 09:39 AM
I think the best shot (hehe...) would be to try shooting your musket at the lock.

That would probably work.

If you have the time and munitions maybe load it with shot/buck(/buckshot), several slightly smaller balls rather than one big one. One regular musket ball might still have enough energy left to hurt the user after bouncing off the breaking lock, and at least intuitively it feels like shot would lower that chance (although it does add extra projectiles, so your mileage may vary there.) With shot you could even try aiming at the wood near the lock rather than the mechanism itself and maybe damage that far enough that you can kick the door in.

Alternatively, use a window.

Setting off blackpowder inside a lock seems like similar to setting off a firecracker after breaking it open. There's going to be a lot of burning powder, and you might even damage the lock with the heat applied directly into the mechanism. But there's no explosive force there to pop it open.

Mike_G
2020-10-28, 10:02 AM
I never heard of an air gap between powder and ball damaging the barrel. And I can't think of a mechanism by which that would happen. What I would expect is to just lose some power on the ball being shot from the barrel.

I don't understand it either, I've just seen a lot of people who know more than I do emphasize the need to seat the ball fully on the powder charge, with warnings that failure to do so could be very bad.

All my shooting has been done with brass cartridge ammo, so I am admittedly unschooled in the alchemy of black powder.

This forum discusses the problem of poorly seated projectiles. I'm taking their word for it, owing to my lack of experience.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/why-does-an-improperly-seated-ball-cause-blown-barrels.454853/

Max_Killjoy
2020-10-28, 11:13 AM
I thought poorly seated projectiles would be a problem because a gap would leave room for the powder to burn without generating pressure to accelerate the projectile. IIRC powder doesn't detonate, it deflagrates.

Brother Oni
2020-10-28, 12:39 PM
I don't understand it either, I've just seen a lot of people who know more than I do emphasize the need to seat the ball fully on the powder charge, with warnings that failure to do so could be very bad.

All my shooting has been done with brass cartridge ammo, so I am admittedly unschooled in the alchemy of black powder.

This forum discusses the problem of poorly seated projectiles. I'm taking their word for it, owing to my lack of experience.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/why-does-an-improperly-seated-ball-cause-blown-barrels.454853/

Oh, I see what they're on about.

When the ball is seated on the charge properly, you have a known volume between the charge and the shot. When the powder ignites, the generated gas fills up this volume until the pressure is enough to overcome the friction between the ball and the barrel and push the ball down the barrel. Since the ball is seated on the charge, it accelerates as fast as the charge burns and everything is happy.

However gas is compressible; if you have an improperly seated shot, you have a bigger volume for the generated gas to fill. This means that depending of the speed of the burn, the pressure at the end of the barrel with the charge can potentially exceed the maximum pressure rating of the barrel before the pressure at the other end of the barrel, is great enough to push the ball down the barrel and release all that pressure.
In addition, since an improperly seated bullet doesn't see a uniform rate of acceleration (it just gets hit by the pressure wave), it might not be able to accelerate down the barrel fast enough to relieve the pressure, resulting in a burst barrel.

The example given in the linked forum is pushing a car with another one. If they start out bumper to bumper, then the pushing car could floor it and both vehicles can get up to quite a fast speed. It's a very different situation if the pushing car starts flooring it from several metres away.

Mike_G
2020-10-28, 12:51 PM
Oh, I see what they're on about.

When the ball is seated on the charge properly, you have a known volume between the charge and the shot. When the powder ignites, the generated gas fills up this volume until the pressure is enough to overcome the friction between the ball and the barrel and push the ball down the barrel. Since the ball is seated on the charge, it accelerates as fast as the charge burns and everything is happy.

However gas is compressible; if you have an improperly seated shot, you have a bigger volume for the generated gas to fill. This means that depending of the speed of the burn, the pressure at the end of the barrel with the charge can potentially exceed the maximum pressure rating of the barrel before the pressure at the other end of the barrel, is great enough to push the ball down the barrel and release all that pressure.
In addition, since an improperly seated bullet doesn't see a uniform rate of acceleration (it just gets hit by the pressure wave), it might not be able to accelerate down the barrel fast enough to relieve the pressure, resulting in a burst barrel.

The example given in the linked forum is pushing a car with another one. If they start out bumper to bumper, then the pushing car could floor it and both vehicles can get up to quite a fast speed. It's a very different situation if the pushing car starts flooring it from several metres away.

OK, that makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for explaining it. I really didn't see how that worked before. I figured more space between the powder and ball would create a lower pressure.

Martin Greywolf
2020-10-28, 04:53 PM
The thing about historical doors and locks is that they aren't very good. Most of the time, you'll likely be able to lift the things up their hinges or use any number of simple exploits, because they just weren't designed to be able to resist entry if no one was guarding them - the expense was too great, and metallurgy not quite there. Locks especially will be simple things, and you should be able to pick them with minimal practice.


https://www.historicallocks.com/Other/Historical%20Locks/Articles/History%20of%20Padlocks/Vasa%20Renaissance/Vasaren%c3%a4ssans_7b.jpg
https://www.historicallocks.com/Other/Historical%20Locks/Articles/History%20of%20Padlocks/Vasa%20Renaissance/Vasaren%c3%a4ssans_8b.jpg


The real "you can't open this" device was the bar - you basically have to destroy the door to get past that, if they are seated properly. Locks often just locked some sort of a bar or latch in place.


https://www.historicallocks.com/Other/Historical%20Locks/Articles/Locks%20of%20wood%20and%20iron/Pin%20tumbler%20locks/Fallstiftl%c3%a5s_4_liten.jpg
https://www.historicallocks.com/Other/Historical%20Locks/Articles/Locks%20of%20wood%20and%20iron/Pin%20tumbler%20locks/Fallstiftl%c3%a5s_5_liten.jpg


Gunpowder in the lock will not work, and not just because there's not enough of it. Even if you do have enough to damage or break the lock, odds are you just broke the smaller parts that made the thing openable, bent the stuff blocking the door from moving, and basically jammed the whole thing shut. Most locks in pre-modern times are made of iron, not steel, and iron is much easier to bend than crack.

So, your best bet to disable the lock is probably either splinter the door itself by force (kicking, bashing it with a pommel/halberd) or disassemble the lock using a dagger as improvised screwdriver. Unless the lock is bolted to the wood, which is pretty likely, then it's brute force o'clock either way.

Barring that, a wire should enable you to either pick the lock or lift the latch.

KineticDiplomat
2020-10-28, 10:31 PM
Black powder has, roughly, a 0.55 explosive equivalency to TNT. A steel cutting charge to deform/blast through a 2 inch piece of steel 1/4 inch thick requires 0.2 lbs of tamped TNT. Or a little over a third of a pound of black powder when properly set. Cast iron is generally considered far weaker due to its brittle nature, though no one really does calculations on that - p for plenty and all that.

Enjoy your lock blowing.

fusilier
2020-10-28, 11:39 PM
OK, in this hypothetical scenario, we need to get a door open and not take all day doing it. We have no axe, no battering ram, nothing else obviously better, but we have a musket and ammunition. The suggestion is to take a paper cartridge, which historically (based on the Brown Bess) contained 165 grains of powder (sources differed, but the low end was 110, and the high end closer to 200. 165 was mentioned specifically as the musket charge, so the lighter ones might have been for carbines) so about .37 ounces, rip it open, pour the powder into the lock and improvise a fuse (which I suppose you could do with the rest of the paper if nothing else.)

If the issue is just tightly packing the powder and eliminating an air gap, I imagine you could do that by plugging the hole with the wadded up cartridge paper.

And, isn't one of the dangers in loading a musket a greater chance of blowing up the barrel if you have a gap between the powder and a ball? Like that's why they emphasize ramming the ball down and making sure you have it seated on the powder charge?

Gunpowder was used to blow the locks on safes, before nitroglycerin became the preferred explosive of choice. (You can see advertisements for "gunpowder proof locks" on safes).

Musket powder is going to be too coarse for the limited space, I would try to grind it as fine as possible (you can do this with the butt of the musket), and pack the lock with as much powder as I can find. If the lock is particularly loose, then you might want to try to seal off gaps with some gum or something. The intention is to prevent powder from leaking out, as I doubt you could get much resistance to it. That said, when firing blanks, people can hear the difference between a load with paper wadding and and one without. It may have more to do with preventing the powder from "spreading out" inside the barrel, but sometimes I notice a little more recoil with wadding too.

As others have said, the difficulty here is getting enough pressure for the gunpowder to work -- finely ground and tightly packed will cause a faster burn (packing serpentine powder was necessary in ancient cannons to get a proper burn, otherwise they just fizzled). Old locks aren't terribly sophisticated, so you may be able to damage it sufficiently that it can be easily forced.

If you have enough powder, and the design of the lock is such that it won't simply direct the blast out the keyhole, you might destroy the lock. I've seen people serious injured by overloading muskets with blanks with no wadding at all . . . add enough gunpowder, and it can be bad. I've seen the fore stocks on repro Sharps carbines blown off: the Sharps has a design problem, when the tail of the paper cartridge is cut off, some powder can escape, and collect in a hollow in the fore-stock. Eventually enough collects there and a flash will set it off.

Honestly, it might not require that much gunpowder to break a lock. It's the kind of thing that Mythbusters could have proved.

Musket charges: The last American smoothbore musket used a 110 grain charge (.69 caliber). Generally speaking as the windage became smaller, the charge decreased. Also the switch from flintlock to percussion usually reduced the charge by about 10 grains (as the pan no longer needed to be primed). But there could be national variations (e.g. French seemed to use a heavier charge and less windage than a similar American musket). 165 grains sounds right for a Brown Bess -- which had a fairly large windage -- the Mexican Army was known to overcharge their Bess's, apparently in the opinion that more powder could make up for poorer quality powder . . .

I too have heard that a musket can explode if the ball is not firmly seated on top of the powder. Perhaps it has something to do with the pressure and burn rate of the propellant increasing, before it acts on the projectile? It does seem to be a documented problem, and it can be a serious issue in undercharging blackpowder metallic cartridges.

Mike_G
2020-10-29, 06:29 AM
Gunpowder was used to blow the locks on safes, before nitroglycerin became the preferred explosive of choice. (You can see advertisements for "gunpowder proof locks" on safes).

Musket powder is going to be too coarse for the limited space, I would try to grind it as fine as possible (you can do this with the butt of the musket), and pack the lock with as much powder as I can find. If the lock is particularly loose, then you might want to try to seal off gaps with some gum or something. The intention is to prevent powder from leaking out, as I doubt you could get much resistance to it. That said, when firing blanks, people can hear the difference between a load with paper wadding and and one without. It may have more to do with preventing the powder from "spreading out" inside the barrel, but sometimes I notice a little more recoil with wadding too.

As others have said, the difficulty here is getting enough pressure for the gunpowder to work -- finely ground and tightly packed will cause a faster burn (packing serpentine powder was necessary in ancient cannons to get a proper burn, otherwise they just fizzled). Old locks aren't terribly sophisticated, so you may be able to damage it sufficiently that it can be easily forced.

If you have enough powder, and the design of the lock is such that it won't simply direct the blast out the keyhole, you might destroy the lock. I've seen people serious injured by overloading muskets with blanks with no wadding at all . . . add enough gunpowder, and it can be bad. I've seen the fore stocks on repro Sharps carbines blown off: the Sharps has a design problem, when the tail of the paper cartridge is cut off, some powder can escape, and collect in a hollow in the fore-stock. Eventually enough collects there and a flash will set it off.

Honestly, it might not require that much gunpowder to break a lock. It's the kind of thing that Mythbusters could have proved.

Musket charges: The last American smoothbore musket used a 110 grain charge (.69 caliber). Generally speaking as the windage became smaller, the charge decreased. Also the switch from flintlock to percussion usually reduced the charge by about 10 grains (as the pan no longer needed to be primed). But there could be national variations (e.g. French seemed to use a heavier charge and less windage than a similar American musket). 165 grains sounds right for a Brown Bess -- which had a fairly large windage -- the Mexican Army was known to overcharge their Bess's, apparently in the opinion that more powder could make up for poorer quality powder . . .

I too have heard that a musket can explode if the ball is not firmly seated on top of the powder. Perhaps it has something to do with the pressure and burn rate of the propellant increasing, before it acts on the projectile? It does seem to be a documented problem, and it can be a serious issue in undercharging blackpowder metallic cartridges.

Thanks. I appreciate it. I know this is more your wheelhouse than mine

Yeah, this falls under the category "just has to seem plausible" not "best way to open doors."

rrgg
2020-10-29, 12:47 PM
regarding unseated musket balls. Come to think of it, I've come across a lot of instructions for digging mine chambers that mention making them fairly high relative to their width with the gunpowder placed at the bottom because that's supposed to help redirect the blast upwards and make it more destructive.

"After you haue made a myne platte according to this doctrine or in any other manner, you must instruct the Pyoners to vndermine deepe within harde grounde, and to make the way of the myne three foote in breadth, and sixe foote in heigth, and to digge the sayd Ouen and place of greatest effect sixe or seuen foote in breadth, and nine or tenne foot in heigth, to this ende that the gunpowder laide in that place may make his vent vpwardes, and that the ayre which is within the saide holloe place may ayde the gunpowder to open and ouerturne the ground which is right ouer it."

Brother Oni
2020-10-31, 07:25 AM
I figured more space between the powder and ball would create a lower pressure.


I too have heard that a musket can explode if the ball is not firmly seated on top of the powder. Perhaps it has something to do with the pressure and burn rate of the propellant increasing, before it acts on the projectile? It does seem to be a documented problem, and it can be a serious issue in undercharging blackpowder metallic cartridges.

When the ball is seated correctly, the pressure starts up high, which immediately starts moving the ball. As more powder burns and increases the pressure, the already moving ball moves faster to make more space, thus the pressure remains relatively constant until the ball exits the barrel and all the gas is vented.

A bigger gap between the ball and the powder gives rise to possibility of a pressure gradient down the barrel, with the pressure at the high end exceeding the tolerances of the barrel, since the pressure at the low end doesn't hit the necessary level to push the ball out of the way fast enough to let the pressure vent off.

From reading up on other forums and about catastrophic misfires, you can achieve much the same effect with using smokeless powder in a black powder weapon - the smokeless powder burns too fast for the weapon and the pressure buildup exceeds the weapon's tolerances:

https://cdn.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/12/outdoorhub-never-swap-powders-muzzleloader-explodes-like-grenade-takes-shooters-fingers-2014-12-16_17-25-07.jpg
The associated story says that the man had run out of black powder and decided to cut up 20 gauge shotgun shells instead - he put 75 grains of smokeless powder in the muzzle loader (which is the equivalent of 300 grains of black powder), effectively turning his weapon into an impromptu pipe bomb.

Saint-Just
2020-10-31, 08:40 AM
From reading up on other forums and about catastrophic misfires, you can achieve much the same effect with using smokeless powder in a black powder weapon - the smokeless powder burns too fast for the weapon and the pressure buildup exceeds the weapon's tolerances:

https://cdn.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/12/outdoorhub-never-swap-powders-muzzleloader-explodes-like-grenade-takes-shooters-fingers-2014-12-16_17-25-07.jpg
The associated story says that the man had run out of black powder and decided to cut up 20 gauge shotgun shells instead - he put 75 grains of smokeless powder in the muzzle loader (which is the equivalent of 300 grains of black powder), effectively turning his weapon into an impromptu pipe bomb.

I know that even having a different pressure profile can ruin the gun (enough manufacturers of civilian arms in the late 19th/early 20th centuries have stamped some variant of "nitro proof" or "black powder only" on the weapon itself and many more included booklets or whatnot saying the same with a gun), but in this case amount is surely more important (if you poured 300 grains of BP in it from the muzzle end and then tightly seated the bullet over it maybe results would be a little bit less spectacular but I do not think that the weapon would remain functional)

Gnoman
2020-10-31, 12:51 PM
No, that's very much a "wrong kind of powder" kaboom. 300 grains of BP would be pretty close to a "proof" load - quite possibly enough to deform or otherwise ruin a gun, not enough to kaboom it

comicshorse
2020-11-10, 10:23 AM
Due to COVID I've been in the house a lot more and so have been watching some of my old DVD's again. Including an old favorite the TV series 'Robin of Sherwood'

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086791/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

What I've noticed is often the heroes when using long bows (which they all do) don't have arrow heads on the arrows, they just have sharpened the wooden shaft to a point
While this makes sense that a group who live entirely as outlaws in the depths of Sherwood Forest would have trouble getting ahold of arrow heads I did wonder how effective would these arrows actually be ?
(Their enemies are generally the Sherrif's troops who are clad in chain mail but as they tend to fight in the forest they are obviously firing at close range)

Mike_G
2020-11-10, 04:43 PM
Due to COVID I've been in the house a lot more and so have been watching some of my old DVD's again. Including an old favorite the TV series 'Robin of Sherwood'

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086791/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

What I've noticed is often the heroes when using long bows (which they all do) don't have arrow heads on the arrows, they just have sharpened the wooden shaft to a point
While this makes sense that a group who live entirely as outlaws in the depths of Sherwood Forest would have trouble getting ahold of arrow heads I did wonder how effective would these arrows actually be ?
(Their enemies are generally the Sherrif's troops who are clad in chain mail but as they tend to fight in the forest they are obviously firing at close range)

I've used arrows with no points, largely when I've had points come off and I wanted to keep shooting. They fly differently, because of weight distribution, but they will still drive deep into the target. It's a pointy stick moving very fast, so it's dangerous. And I'm using a 50 lb recurve, not a 100+ lb longbow.

I think it would have a tough time penetrating armor or even gambeson. I think at close range it might be effective against unarmored targets.

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-10, 06:18 PM
While this makes sense that a group who live entirely as outlaws in the depths of Sherwood Forest would have trouble getting ahold of arrow heads

Not really. This is medieval Englands, with mandated archery practice, arrowheads are a dime a dozen here, you could get some from every blacksmith. Sure, for the heat-treated fancy ones, you need a specialist, but a simple iron bodkin is doable. Hell, you can even improvise it yourself in a pinch and make some from knives and such.

And even if our outlaws somehow started with no iron and no disguises to go buy/steal some, you can always loot it from your enemies, in proud tradition of assymetrical warfare.


how effective would these arrows actually be? (Their enemies are generally the Sherrif's troops who are clad in chain mail but as they tend to fight in the forest they are obviously firing at close range)

The thing about forest ambushes is that armor matters a lot less if you do them right. If your targets are under ~50 meters, you can just aim at their soft, unprotected face and not any chainmail they may or may not have. At that point, arrowheads almost don't matter.

If you hit gambeson alone, your wooden tip will behave much like a metal one would have - if it is bodkin-shaped, it will have some trouble getting through that fiber (but at short range and from a longbow, it will get through by sheer force alone), if it is mimicing a broadhead, it will cut the fibers. Yeah, it will be dulled much faster than a metal one, but that matters a whole lot less when it comes to arrows.

If you hit a chain mail or plate, that's when you get problems. Not only is wood easier to break, the arrow tip is directly connected to the shaft. That means a big enough force will crack or splinter the entire shaft, and both eat up energy, and that means less energy delivered to target. If the entire arrow splinters, it now has several smaller splinters that spread the impact over a large area, so unless your guy is supremely unlucky and catches a splinter in the eye, he's gonna be fine.

Metal heads don't entirely avoid the splinter problem, but they move the thresholds quite a bit higherm especially since a slightly bent arrowhead mamy still kill you if it gets through - as plintered arrow, not so much.

And let's not forget that the main anti-chain mail arrowhead is actually a broadhead and therefore also increases wound profile and makes extraction of arrow from person a lot more difficult. That also explains why you don't see hunting without arrowheads all that often.

All that means that, while wooden tips will do in a pinch, they are best avoided.

A final note on wooden arrowtips - if you have to make them, you shouldn't just sharpen the shaft like a pencil. Take your shaft and put the tip of it into a fire until its surface is charred, then take it out. Sharpen ithe resulting product into a screwdiver-like tip and then do your best to flatten it into a broadhead-like cross-section. The burning makes the wood harder, and this sharpening gets you best bang for your buck out of it. You won't see this done anywhere outside of stone age reenactment or survival guides, though, metal tips are just that much better.

Duff
2020-11-10, 09:16 PM
Re gunpowder bursting locks, while it seems unlikely that the lock would seal well enough, what would be the effects of the sudden heat of the burn?
Could the sudden heating crack it? (I think probably not, but I'm no blacksmith)
Could it make the lock so brittle that a hard blow would then break it?
How much clay/mud would you need to effectively tamp a black powder bomb to destroy the lock?

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-11, 05:07 AM
Re gunpowder bursting locks, while it seems unlikely that the lock would seal well enough, what would be the effects of the sudden heat of the burn?
Could the sudden heating crack it? (I think probably not, but I'm no blacksmith)
Could it make the lock so brittle that a hard blow would then break it?

No effect, pretty much. When it comes to heating things, you need two things: heat and time. Gunpowder has enough heat to mess with an object -gun barels can be heated to glowing red by firing alone - but not enough time. You'd actually be better off by burning it rather than exploding, but there's little of it to fuel a long fire.



How much clay/mud would you need to effectively tamp a black powder bomb to destroy the lock?

This won't work for two reasons. Firstly, if the lock is in a closed door, you don't have access to its other side, and that means there are gaping holes for the pressure to escape from, at least with old locks.

Second problem is mud, it's soft and easily deformable, an explosion will deform or splatter it far before it builds pressures high enough to break metal. This can, however, be solved by putting clay specifically on the lock and making a pottery-contained explosive. At this point, however, you're probably better off finding a rock.

VoxRationis
2020-11-15, 03:26 PM
Continuing the discussion on gunpowder, but on a different tangent: is there any sort of technological prerequisite which would prevent a Bronze Age society from developing black powder? My cursory knowledge of the topic doesn't suggest any real reason why it was invented when it was other than historical accident, but as I said, that knowledge is cursory, and I might be missing something.

Gnoman
2020-11-15, 04:24 PM
Sulfur, saltpetre, and charcoal all appear in nature. Arguably, Stone Age people could have stumbled on black powder (though they'd have had a hard time using it for anything without at least pottery). The ability to produce it gets much greater with widespread animal herds (one source of saltpetre is dungheaps, though guano's been the primary source for a long time), and there's advances in chemistry that make extraction of saltpetre easier, but there's pretty much no time in human history that black powder couldn't have been discovered.

Now, there's the argument that the sort of alchemical experiments that lead to the discovery woudln't have been undertaken in earlier eras, so you might consider specific modes of thought as a prerequisite technology.

KineticDiplomat
2020-11-15, 06:52 PM
Mostly it’s a matter of what technologists have taken to calling them Adjacent Possible. In essence, innovative ideas about things that can then be practically applied require certain developments and mindsets to be in place before they are discovered/invented even if they are technically possible between both natural law and some off-purpose use of then existing technology.

Black powder would definitely qualify as one of those things that was technically possible from almost the earliest point in recorded history but was not an Adjacent Possible until much later.

In theory there’s nothing saying that a human living near the calorie poverty line wouldn’t witness some extremely unlikely natural occurrence where in all the three elements made a fast burn/slow explosion, imagine in his head that this could not only be useful, but consistently reproducible and controllable, imagine how that would be applied in a practical sense to warfare that seemed better than fire (better be a big boom he sees, or why bother?) extrapolate that it was those materials that caused it, realize that it wasn’t specifically those materials so much as the elements witthin, begin an empirical process greatly hampered by a lack of chemistry being a thing yet where he determined exactly what the right composition is, find a way to reliably obtain those materials in a society where excess productivity is low and trade is often limited to more luxury items by bulk constraints, obtain the capital needed to produce consistent and reliable black powder in more than trace amounts in an age where credit/banking is primitive, demonstrate that black powder to a local leader who frankly hasn’t seen significant technological change in his life, get him to visualize the possibility of employing it militarily (while assuring said leader that his elite status as a warrior or gentleman planter won’t change), find a new set of capital to actually set up production facilities, train a work force (who come from...somewhere?) prior to the concept of most items being craftsman work, establish a supply chain (again, in a pre-capitalist world), and then go through the whole process again to make that into anything more than a pot of black powder that will probably need to be remixed on site.

Or he sees a flash in the dark where the guano was, asks Zeus for protection, and gets on counting his sheep.

Mike_G
2020-11-15, 09:36 PM
Continuing the discussion on gunpowder, but on a different tangent: is there any sort of technological prerequisite which would prevent a Bronze Age society from developing black powder? My cursory knowledge of the topic doesn't suggest any real reason why it was invented when it was other than historical accident, but as I said, that knowledge is cursory, and I might be missing something.


While others have mentioned the unlikelihood of stone age people figuring it out, a bronze age civilization is quite plausible. To make bronze you need an infrastructure, you need to be able to mine and smelt ores, so an accidental discovery of explosive would very probably lead to further experimentation. And I'm pretty confident the ancient Egyptians or Greeks could figure out a use for gunpowder.

AdAstra
2020-11-15, 09:52 PM
While others have mentioned the unlikelihood of stone age people figuring it out, a bronze age civilization is quite plausible. To make bronze you need an infrastructure, you need to be able to mine and smelt ores, so an accidental discovery of explosive would very probably lead to further experimentation. And I'm pretty confident the ancient Egyptians or Greeks could figure out a use for gunpowder.

We might've seen more rocket-swords. History could've used more rocket-swords.

I kid, but the rocket-swords were legitimately impressive, also coming in incendiary and explosive variations, and were the inspiration for the British Congreve rockets.

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

KineticDiplomat
2020-11-16, 12:00 AM
To Mike G’s point, again, the issue wasn’t the theoretical technical capability to harness natural law. If you can smelt and practice Bronze Age medicine, you almost certainly have the theoretical capability for black powder. Then again, you have the theoretical capability for a steam engine, an early electric grid, and a great deal of what we think of as industrial revolution tech.

The gap between the theoretical and the practical can be enormous, and the gap between the obvious ability to do a thing in hindsight and the ability to even conceive of such a thing being done, let alone harness enough of society to the idea, can often be wider. We have Greeks mapping the solar system in models...it’s not like they lacked the math, or the metal, to accomplish most of what you could have found in the late renaissance and parts of the industrial revolution. But that’s a long way from saying it was in any way likely.

Mike_G
2020-11-16, 09:16 AM
Well, the original question was is there a technological reason that a bronze age civilization couldn't have developed gunpowder.

I think the short answer is "no."

Saint-Just
2020-11-16, 03:10 PM
I definitely agree that is not impossible for a bronze age civilization to invent the gunpowder, but I think there is a need for a caveat: while incendiaries and explosives are not improbable, firearms are.

To elaborate: firearms need advances in metallurgy, which (if we are talking about anything like historical Bronze Age civilization) wasn't there yet. Bronze metallurgy necessary for firearms is very different from that required for swords, it took significant amount of time to figure it out after gunpowder was already there. Iron is even trickier - cannons continued to be made primarily from bronze for even longer time, because making a large, sufficiently homogeneous inclusion-free casting is really hard.

Explosive pottery vessels of all sizes can be used, however concussion is likely to be a primary damaging factor. Making a hand grenade with good fragmentation took a long time IRL, higher ductility of a bronze will make it even worse. Mines, petards, fougasses and other "engineering" explosive charges can be in theory made really early. Incendiaries of all kinds (carcass bombs lobbed by the catapults, fire lances, fire arrows, incendiary rockets) can be made about as effective as their IRL counterparts, assuming they are used at least once in a while to be refined based on practical experience.

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-16, 06:11 PM
Continuing the discussion on gunpowder, but on a different tangent: is there any sort of technological prerequisite which would prevent a Bronze Age society from developing black powder?

Very technically no, but it's one thing to invent it and quite another to do anything useful with it. Firearms have already been discussed as impossible on account of metallurgy, so let's focus on other uses.

Grenades

Well, first of all, it will take you quite a bit of time before you get ones that are safe to carrry, convenient to use and so forth. Clay pot with some powder does not a good weapon make, you need at least some string to set it off, and that string has to not go out as you throw it. Also consider that early gunpowder isn't terribly explode-y in the first place and has a lot of inefficiency - some of that can be mitigated by prepareing it the right way (mix with water and dry into flakes, granulation etc), but all of that costs resources.

Much more damningly, what are you using them against? Yeah, sure, you do get the occassional civilization with large enough standing armies to make it practical, but that will not be the case everywhere. At this point, you're investing a lot of time and money into a weapon that will maybe be useful at some point.

Incendiaries

Gunpowder isn't all that great at setting things on fire either. Yeah, there are receipes for incendiary arrows that use gunpowder, but the most effective ones don't use just that - instead, gunpowder is there to provide initial kick that will not get snuffed out by arrow flight, and resin is what does the lasting burn that sets things on fire. Fire pots work much the same way.

Sure, gunpowder will work, but that's mostly true if you already have a massive amount of it because you need it for cannons and muskets, since incendiary devices are a very niche thing anyway.


To Mike G’s point, again, the issue wasn’t the theoretical technical capability to harness natural law. If you can smelt and practice Bronze Age medicine, you almost certainly have the theoretical capability for black powder. Then again, you have the theoretical capability for a steam engine, an early electric grid, and a great deal of what we think of as industrial revolution tech. [...] it’s not like they lacked the math, or the metal, to accomplish most of what you could have found in the late renaissance and parts of the industrial revolution. But that’s a long way from saying it was in any way likely.

This is, for the most part, a myth that came from the worship of classical era, or to be more charitable, from some historian seeing a greek steam engine and getting excited without understanding the engineering side of things.

Industrial revolution has a single bottleneck requirement - metallurgy good enough to manufacture boilers capable of holding high pressures. If you don't have that, you can make some steam tech, but it won't be able to do much. Electrical grid is even worse, since most of its uses need some advanced manufacturing tech (lightbulbs with glassmaking, vacuum sealing, engines need electromagnets).

VoxRationis
2020-11-17, 01:14 AM
I definitely agree that is not impossible for a bronze age civilization to invent the gunpowder, but I think there is a need for a caveat: while incendiaries and explosives are not improbable, firearms are.

To elaborate: firearms need advances in metallurgy, which (if we are talking about anything like historical Bronze Age civilization) wasn't there yet. Bronze metallurgy necessary for firearms is very different from that required for swords, it took significant amount of time to figure it out after gunpowder was already there. Iron is even trickier - cannons continued to be made primarily from bronze for even longer time, because making a large, sufficiently homogeneous inclusion-free casting is really hard.

Explosive pottery vessels of all sizes can be used, however concussion is likely to be a primary damaging factor. Making a hand grenade with good fragmentation took a long time IRL, higher ductility of a bronze will make it even worse. Mines, petards, fougasses and other "engineering" explosive charges can be in theory made really early. Incendiaries of all kinds (carcass bombs lobbed by the catapults, fire lances, fire arrows, incendiary rockets) can be made about as effective as their IRL counterparts, assuming they are used at least once in a while to be refined based on practical experience.

What's the limiting factor on cast bronze cannon? Cast bronze pieces of substantial size go back quite a ways (such as Shang ceremonial pieces), and could in the right contexts be made very durable (such as naval rams, which were cast in one piece and built to absorb a dramatic shock).


This is, for the most part, a myth that came from the worship of classical era, or to be more charitable, from some historian seeing a greek steam engine and getting excited without understanding the engineering side of things.

Industrial revolution has a single bottleneck requirement - metallurgy good enough to manufacture boilers capable of holding high pressures. If you don't have that, you can make some steam tech, but it won't be able to do much. Electrical grid is even worse, since most of its uses need some advanced manufacturing tech (lightbulbs with glassmaking, vacuum sealing, engines need electromagnets).

This was the main reason for my question; I knew this and that industrial technologies typically have significant hurdles that appear in small ways not obvious to the modern layperson, and was wondering if one applied to the manufacture of gunpowder.

AdAstra
2020-11-17, 01:34 AM
What's the limiting factor on cast bronze cannon? Cast bronze pieces of substantial size go back quite a ways (such as Shang ceremonial pieces), and could in the right contexts be made very durable (such as naval rams, which were cast in one piece and built to absorb a dramatic shock).



This was the main reason for my question; I knew this and that industrial technologies typically have significant hurdles that appear in small ways not obvious to the modern layperson, and was wondering if one applied to the manufacture of gunpowder.

Basically, no. Every ingredient in gunpowder is something that could conceivably have been produced in the Bronze Age. The chance of someone actually discovering it would be very low, but the technical capacity was there.

-Saltpeter/Potassium Nitrate in mineral form was being extracted as early as 300 BC in India. Extraction from things like Bat guano is also not a particularly complicated process.

-Sulphur can be found near volcanos in pretty much pure form, so that's not a major concern.

-Charcoal is charcoal.

Fuses merely require a different formulation of gunpowder that burns slower. They require no additional ingredients other than something to hold the powder. Slow matches only require the nitrate.

Even if you couldn't manufacture full-sized cannons, you could make rockets out of bronze or bamboo, and use that to make fire arrows or things similar to the Mysorean Rockets. That should be of use, especially in combination with incendiary agents that were available at the time.

VonKaiserstein
2020-11-17, 12:03 PM
Forgive me if this is a distraction from the thread, for I offer no real world explanation. But the topic seems to have gone to what various levels of societies are capable of with different technologies- to that end, I'd recommend a few novel series in the subgenre of military history with advanced knowledge in primitive worlds.

The Belisaurius series, by David Drake and Eric Flint lets the Romans fight a militarized India that goes up through armored Steamships and primitive tanks.

The Safehold Series by David Weber spends a lot of time on cannon development of bronze and iron, and the limitations of various materials.

And in more brief form, The Empire of Man series by David Weber and John Ringo talks a bit about the requisite industries required to create mass produced military firearms.

Enjoy!

Saint-Just
2020-11-17, 05:07 PM
What's the limiting factor on cast bronze cannon? Cast bronze pieces of substantial size go back quite a ways (such as Shang ceremonial pieces), and could in the right contexts be made very durable (such as naval rams, which were cast in one piece and built to absorb a dramatic shock).


Disclaimer: I am not a metallurgist, not even an amateur one (though would a modern metallurgist know what kinds of metals and techniques were available in the particular point in the past, or is it more a history of technology?)

I suppose that there is no absolute limiting factor on cast bronze cannons, but a multitude of small ones. One I know about: impurities which made bronze-age bronze softer or brittler than Early Modern bronze. It's not as if it was impossible to produce purer bronze (or purer bronze constituents before making them into bronze) but some technologies wasn't there, and some were known but were highly uneconomical. Rams mostly needed to survive compressive stresses instead of tensile stresses. So maybe people who could make ram could make a cannon or maybe they couldn't, too much uncertainties to speculate. Since Shang ceremonial pieces are, well... ceremonial they also do not prove or disprove the ability to make cannons.

I have just looked at the history of the naval ram and found a bigger problem: ram seems to be invented well after the Bronze Age collapse, so properly speaking it was not a Bronze Age technology. This points me to a possible confusion: guys in bronze armour do not a Bronze Age make. Bronze was used in niche applications - large single-piece plates (including breastplates, greaves), corrosion-resistant fittings for marine applications (including rams), springs (including some ballistae springs), cannons - well after the end of the Bronze Age.

So if you ask what a civilization or a world with very little iron can achieve - I have no idea. Given sufficiently favorable other conditions and a lot of time - probably anything up to and beyond IRL technology. But if you are talking about something resembling Bronze Age IRL - I'd say give up on practical firearms or bronze-cased explosives. Grenades, mines, fougasses, petards, fire pots, fire arrows, fire lances, incendiary rockets, kinetic rockets (like hwacha), and that should be about it. And that is being optimistic - Martin Greywolf's criticisms while not insurmountable are grounded in reality.

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-17, 05:41 PM
Fuses merely require a different formulation of gunpowder that burns slower. They require no additional ingredients other than something to hold the powder. Slow matches only require the nitrate.


That's a big only, since you have to essentially invent gunpowder twice, once for fuses and once for the powder itself. It's trivial today, when everyone that manages to complete basic education has a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, but without that, we're looking at a lot of time spent chasing false leads.



Even if you couldn't manufacture full-sized cannons, you could make rockets out of bronze or bamboo, and use that to make fire arrows or things similar to the Mysorean Rockets. That should be of use, especially in combination with incendiary agents that were available at the time.


What's the limiting factor on cast bronze cannon? Cast bronze pieces of substantial size go back quite a ways (such as Shang ceremonial pieces), and could in the right contexts be made very durable (such as naval rams, which were cast in one piece and built to absorb a dramatic shock).

These are both sort fo related, and come down to lack of a reason to develop this.

First use of cannon was siege warfare, and for that to be useful, you need to have a kind of opponent that forces you to engage in it a lot. Renaissance Europe was uniquely saturated with all sorts of fortifications, but it was more of an exception. Rome, Egypt or China didn't have these to the degree of Europe, and that means they were often perfectly happy with starving out the things they needed to siege. Try that in Europe, and you'll get horrifically bogged down, as the Mongols found out when they couldn't quite conquer Hungary in two years after defeating their field army decisively.

So, while a cannon or a rocket - former against walls, latter as incendiary - are pretty useful in this one situation, it's not a situation you really need to solve just yet.

Second use of cannon and rockets is in ship battles, and here, they would both be incredibly useful at any time, even somewhat primitive bronze cannon. Trouble is, shipping is a very small portion of a given civilization's armed forces at this time, for a wide variety of reasons. You'd need age of sail ships to change that - mostly because they need vastly less crew and therefore can operate over much longer distances. Maybe if you had an ancient civilization that went that way for some reason? I know only bare basics about the age of sail ship construction, so there may be a reson why that won't work.

Anyhow, unless you increase proportion of naval forces, then there is no reason to invest massively into naval-specific technologies, as ROmans demonstrated when their naval tech was centered around the idea of "how do we fight the same on sea as we do on land".

Third use is against massed units, and that also has a problem - there aren't any. Largest pre-medieval armies come up to about 200 000 soldiers (Rome, Cao Cao) if you take the lower estimates. But that's not what really matters, because you rarely had the capability of deploying all of those in single battle. Taking Cannae for a pretty well researched large battle, it was 80k against 60k, and that was noted as massively large. You usually see numbers around 50k in logistically well-developed states, and falling as low as 30k for medieval armies without the dedicated logistics support.

Now compare that to Napoleon's army to invade Russia, which had almost 700k troops. In one army.

A good turning point is perhaps the battle of Mohacs (70k vs 40k) or Domazlice in Hussite wars (100k vs 50k), this time not as a large exceptions to the rule, but as standard armies of the given sides. This shows that the army size at which cannon was starting to be useful is, while not necessarily larger than possible, only very rarely achieved in pre-renaissance times. And you don't want to develop weapons for the exception, especially not if they also come with a host of disadvantages - like slowing you down or draining manpower and bronze.

Finally, bronze alone is not enough, neither is large bronze, you need to make it uniform and strong, and there's definitely a trick to that, which you will need to figure out. Cannon makers were a respected and lucrative profession, after all.

But, let's say we have a kingdom we're developing for a novel, and they were lucky enough to stumble into gunpowder, and we want to give them the best case scenario. They have bronze age, maybe early iron age tech otherwise, so what can they do with it? Well, rockets as occassional incendiaries and expensive fireworks, much like the Chinese did. If they realize that cannons are possible, there will be some wooden and bronze ones, but will likely be limited to a very small number, with the strong possibility of the necessary formula for making them (metallurgical and chemical) being a greek fire-like secret. Gunpowder will certainly not be deployed on a wide scale until someone figures out a musket, and for that, we need good steel. Steel to save on bulk, good steel because no one is going to put that thing near their face if it explodes 1 times out of 20. If someone is really brainstorming about using this new weapon, then you may start to see some early mortars, as a weapon that is somewhat man-portable - but then and again, maybe not, it really depends oin whether there is a need for it.

That would mean muskets in early medieval era, maybe as late as high medieval, provided that secret isn't lost or declared so sacred any experimentation is stopped. You can then go all the way up to bolt actions over a few centuries, but they will be horrendously expensive until industrial revolution hits because making machines that precise out of steel is a lot of work - think wheellocks but even worse. You will not be able to get self-loaders until smokeless powder, so no jumping the gun there.

fusilier
2020-11-17, 07:05 PM
Fuses merely require a different formulation of gunpowder that burns slower. They require no additional ingredients other than something to hold the powder. Slow matches only require the nitrate.

Fuzes can be made by simply taking gunpowder and putting it in a paper cone. Quick match can be made by gluing powder to slow match (or a string). However, why do you need a fuze? A powder train can suffice in many cases. Early guns were set off with a heated wire, rather than slow match (the invention of slow match made guns significantly more portable).

Corning of gunpowder, i.e. the forming of gunpowder into grains rather than a simply incorporated powder, was a pretty significant development, and opened up many different avenues of development.

fusilier
2020-11-17, 07:19 PM
What's the limiting factor on cast bronze cannon? Cast bronze pieces of substantial size go back quite a ways (such as Shang ceremonial pieces), and could in the right contexts be made very durable (such as naval rams, which were cast in one piece and built to absorb a dramatic shock).

There are some pretty serious issues with casting bronze cannons -- the earliest known depictions of cannons show small bronze "vases."

Getting the alloy correct is part of the problem. Also when the bronze cools the impurities tend to drift (and I think some of the alloyed metals?), on a large cannon the quality of the bronze can vary across the cannon, as different parts cool at different rates. Furthermore the weight of the metal can cause the bronze to be denser at different places. By the 16th century it became common (but not universal) to cast the cannon muzzle up. This meant the breech of the cannon, which underwent the greatest stresses, was also where the metal was most dense. Longer cannons (like culverins) gained a reputation for being safer, probably for this reason.

Using stone as the projectile has many benefits, chiefly you can use lower pressures to reach the same velocity as an iron cannon ball of the same weight. So stone throwing cannons became very large, pretty quickly. Nevertheless, I think it's telling that many early, large, cannons of the 14th century were made from iron using the "hoop and stave" method, rather than cast bronze. Casting large bronze cannons was a process that developed mainly during the 15th century (I think).

Vinyadan
2020-11-17, 08:35 PM
A slight correction to Martin Greywolf: as far as I know, the Romans generally tried to end sieges by storming the city, rather than waiting for starvation. Alesia is the obvious exception. But we know that they made a rampart to get in Masada, breached the walls of Jerusalem, scaled those of Syracuse, and told stories that digging a tunnel beneath those of Veii had been key to success.

They still did try to starve the defenders, though. But they probably had many reasons to want to end things more quickly: the army was a target (compare Alesia), maladies were a concrete possibility (compare the last Punic war), and the siege could be just a step in a wider campaign, one you wanted done as fast as possible. The fact that fortifications back then weren't too great probably helped set this mindset, since, at least in theory, the quality of the walls doesn't change the quantity of food you can store behind them.

EDIT: I think I get now what you meant -- that the Romans would have had fewer things to besiege, compared to later Europe, where there was a castle at every corner.

Gnoman
2020-11-17, 11:14 PM
a local leader who frankly hasn’t seen significant technological change in his life, get him to visualize the possibility of employing it militarily (while assuring said leader that his elite status as a warrior or gentleman planter won’t change),

While the rest of your post is pretty solid, both of these two bits are really not. First, we tend to think of days long past as not having rapid change in technology, but that has more to do with the way we only interact with their technology in a final, finished form. Bronze Age tech might not have advanced with the same breakneck speed as today (because there's no mass communication means that allows ideas to metastasize within days), but over the course of a decade or two there would be significant and notable differences.

Likewise, technological change alone never had the widespread social ramifications we associate with them. Most "this weapon was banned to keep the peasants in line" stories are myths.

KineticDiplomat
2020-11-18, 12:16 AM
I would cite Harari, Tridimas, and Kaufman as those who would back that general technological progress was slow to stagnant through many parts of human history - even when certain sciences are academically advancing, so to speak - with practical advancements being nearly so limited or small as to be seen as little more than a minor qualitative increase. Enough that our gentleman planter would certainly not have the modern mindset of inventing/alternate exploitation/discovering that we almost take for granted as part of the whole hacker-backer-manager triangle.

AdAstra
2020-11-18, 06:27 AM
Fuzes can be made by simply taking gunpowder and putting it in a paper cone. Quick match can be made by gluing powder to slow match (or a string). However, why do you need a fuze? A powder train can suffice in many cases. Early guns were set off with a heated wire, rather than slow match (the invention of slow match made guns significantly more portable).

Corning of gunpowder, i.e. the forming of gunpowder into grains rather than a simply incorporated powder, was a pretty significant development, and opened up many different avenues of development.

Having a fuse helps a lot for making the resulting weapon actually practical. You're right that it's hardly essential, but it's something you could do, and it would be a great help.

My main point is really that there is no technological barrier, merely barriers in the form of no reason to actually be playing around with all these things in the first place, and few people actually doing this kind of research.

Thiel
2020-11-18, 06:46 AM
I can't help but notice that we're showing our gaming biases pretty heavily in this thread by focusing entirely on the military uses of black powder.
Black powder would be incredibly useful for mining for example. Being able to produce a loud bang and a cloud of noxious smoke would be quite handy for hunting. And then there's the religious aspect. Humans as far back as the neolithic have gone to extreme length building religious/ceremonial structures. I see no reason to believe they wouldn't go to the same lengths with their ceremonies.

AdAstra
2020-11-18, 11:49 AM
I can't help but notice that we're showing our gaming biases pretty heavily in this thread by focusing entirely on the military uses of black powder.
Black powder would be incredibly useful for mining for example. Being able to produce a loud bang and a cloud of noxious smoke would be quite handy for hunting. And then there's the religious aspect. Humans as far back as the neolithic have gone to extreme length building religious/ceremonial structures. I see no reason to believe they wouldn't go to the same lengths with their ceremonies.

I think part of the issue is getting enough black powder to really allow you to use it that way. Fireworks for high-profile events, sure, but I doubt most Bronze Age societies are going to have blackpowder available or cheap enough to use in hunting. As for mining, does anyone know roughly how much gunpowder would be used in a typical blasting charge? That might give us an idea of how viable it would be.

As a reference, the first recorded use of gunpowder for mining was in 1627 (Hungary), despite its use in firearms as early as the 14th century.

EDIT: Okay, found another useful reference. The Box Tunnel was constructed in the mid-19th century, being close to 3 km long and taking 3.5 years to construct. A 2400 ft. stretch of that was blasted out with gunpowder, taking one ton of gunpowder per week over two years. So that single tunnel section consumed somewhere around 100 tons of gunpowder.

Pauly
2020-11-19, 06:38 PM
I can't help but notice that we're showing our gaming biases pretty heavily in this thread by focusing entirely on the military uses of black powder.
Black powder would be incredibly useful for mining for example. Being able to produce a loud bang and a cloud of noxious smoke would be quite handy for hunting. And then there's the religious aspect. Humans as far back as the neolithic have gone to extreme length building religious/ceremonial structures. I see no reason to believe they wouldn't go to the same lengths with their ceremonies.

Hunting:
In the age of exploration animals that weren’t exposed to European hunting were known to be easily shot until they learned big loud bangs were dangerous. The same applied to indigenous tribes. Fire does the job of flushing animals out only better and cheaper.

Mining
Labor was cheap and powder expensive. Processing facilities and transportation were limited, so greatly increasing how much you can dig doesn’t help until you can move enough of it and turn it into something useful. In pre-modern economies a huge percentage of overall production capacity was needed for food production, which limits the amount of labor you can divert to mining and refining.

Talakeal
2020-11-20, 02:16 AM
With all the recent talk about boob-plates, one thing that I haven't seen addressed is this article's claim that if you trip while wearing a molded breastplate you will shatter your sternum, likely fatally.


https://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/44297707605/doobie-doobie-doo-wop-why-do-you-hate-the-shape


To me, this seems a difficult claim to swallow, and if true I think people would bring it up more. Does anyone have any knowledge on that subject?

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-11-20, 08:50 AM
With all the recent talk about boob-plates, one thing that I haven't seen addressed is this article's claim that if you trip while wearing a molded breastplate you will shatter your sternum, likely fatally.


https://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/44297707605/doobie-doobie-doo-wop-why-do-you-hate-the-shape


To me, this seems a difficult claim to swallow, and if true I think people would bring it up more. Does anyone have any knowledge on that subject?

That sounds like a thing that should be avoidable, honestly. The idea is that armor takes an impact that happens on a single point and spreads the force out over a larger area. If armor does exactly the opposite it's bad armor. This is the one area though were being the outer shell being form fitting should actually help. You should be able to make the force spread out well enough with simple padding. Sure, the hard bits on your body are still going to get a little more force transferred into them than the soft bits, because the soft bits bend away, but an impact across the entire breastplate should still not fracture let alone shatter your sternum. Also note that simply tripping and falling does not usually result in an incredibly hard impact. Sure, there's some weight and gravity behind it, but between your legs trying to complete their steps, your knees landing and your hands going out in a reflex the actual force on your torso is usually not that big. This would mean that you could also letally shatter the sternum of someone in this armor by kicking them in the chest, or by landing a solid blow with most main battlefield weapons. You might be able to make armor like that, but I'm thinking you're going to need to put poisoned needles on the inside of it or something.

I don't particularly like boob plate from a practical armor perspective, I figure there are ways to get more protection from less material. But it doesn't come across to me as something that's worse than fighting naked. Far from it. It's more like having a sword with a bit of a too ornamental blade. It might be a little heavier or less durable than a simpler design, but it's still a sword, not an active danger to the wielder.

Max_Killjoy
2020-11-20, 09:54 AM
With all the recent talk about boob-plates, one thing that I haven't seen addressed is this article's claim that if you trip while wearing a molded breastplate you will shatter your sternum, likely fatally.

https://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/44297707605/doobie-doobie-doo-wop-why-do-you-hate-the-shape

To me, this seems a difficult claim to swallow, and if true I think people would bring it up more. Does anyone have any knowledge on that subject?


While the specific claim is dubious (why doesn't the wearer do anything to turn or brace to avoid falling flat on their face?), the basic idea that the molded shape runs exactly counter to multiple design requires for armor is true.

First, armor is supposed to spread out impact, not focus it.

Second, the angles may form an "arrow trap" that could send fragments towards the neck and chin, or underarm, of the wearer. (This was already a problem that lead some armor to having that little V-shape piece affixed right below the collar level.)




I don't particularly like boob plate from a practical armor perspective, I figure there are ways to get more protection from less material. But it doesn't come across to me as something that's worse than fighting naked. Far from it. It's more like having a sword with a bit of a too ornamental blade. It might be a little heavier or less durable than a simpler design, but it's still a sword, not an active danger to the wielder.


Yeah, better than no armor, but worse than well-designed, practical armor.

And here's the thing about "boob armor"... as far as I know, we have zero historical examples across many cultures, and yet we know that in some of those cultures women did engage in combat and sometimes go to war. So the arguments that grasp at some notion of realism for "boob armor" come down to a pair of counterfactuals -- "Women didn't fight" and "but if they had, their armor would have had cups on it".

Vinyadan
2020-11-20, 10:01 AM
It depends on whether the armour is built in such a way that only the breast keeps it in place when you fall forward. In other words, do the belly and the sides and the shoulders give a lot of leeway for the armour to move?

If things go wrong, I personally wouldn't worry about a broken sternum, and more about the way your sternum can travel backwards and hit what's behind it. Some people die from a headbutt this way. It's something an irked physician observed after Zidane headbutted Materazzi.

Saint-Just
2020-11-20, 12:29 PM
With all the recent talk about boob-plates, one thing that I haven't seen addressed is this article's claim that if you trip while wearing a molded breastplate you will shatter your sternum, likely fatally.

To me, this seems a difficult claim to swallow, and if true I think people would bring it up more. Does anyone have any knowledge on that subject?

Like in many other situations if people think that idea is bad (and this one is genuinely bad) they will try to find more flaws than there are. If I squint just right then maybe it would incredibly rarely happen if you wear such a breastplate with no padding at all... but wearing plate armour of any shape with no padding is idea comparable in stupidity with the boob-plate.

Obviously metal boobs are an additional weight and expense for no gain, and there are examples of historical "barrel chested" breastplates made for men, whose design can in principle accommodate even unusually large breasts if tweaked a little, so there is no reason for a boobplate to exist as anything other than ornamental piece, but there is a world of difference between "it is a feature which makes it worse than normal product" and "it makes a product with that feature worse than nothing" (though in some situations even normal armour is worse than nothing, but that has nothing to do with the boobplate).



If things go wrong, I personally wouldn't worry about a broken sternum, and more about the way your sternum can travel backwards and hit what's behind it. Some people die from a headbutt this way. It's something an irked physician observed after Zidane headbutted Materazzi.

I am not a doctor (though I have played one in an RPG), but this is a peculiarity of the brain physiology, AFAIK. I do not see how sternum can sufficiently damage internal organs without being detached and\or broken. Now, cardiac arrest may result from a sudden hit, but even boobplate shouldn't make it worse than being hit by the same blow without armour.

AdAstra
2020-11-20, 06:30 PM
If the boob plate is really poorly designed, the center divot could very well crunch your torso like a wedge in the event of a serious impact. Even without that, better to just leave the area between the breasts raised up, as that serves as a better "crumple zone", in addition to providing superior ventilation and being easier to make/fit.

At best, boob plate is unnecessary and weird-looking to many people

The Mandalorian armor wasn't particularly egregious (only marginally different from the cartoon, which also was hardly excessive), except for one aspect that applies to all mando armor. The torso plate being split into two sections in the middle. It's completely unnecessary for the design and creates a weak point in exactly the place where you don't want or need weak points. It's not just a ridge either, it's either a gap or a very deep furrow. There are armor designs that have a similar gap, but those are armors that are already made of multiple smaller plates, or muscle cuirasses that have a pretty shallow crevice there. There's no reason for the cuirass-like unitary chestplate to be constructed that way except for aesthetics. Given how overpowered Mandalorian Iron is, you can probably afford a little extravagance, but it irks me because it doesn't even look good IMO.

Talakeal
2020-11-20, 08:26 PM
Thanks for the replies; that's pretty much what I thought.

IMO both sides have minor points but overstate their claims on the issue of boob-plates; at it has kind of become a geek microcosm of the "anti-porn vs sex-positive" debates of second wave feminism.



Second, the angles may form an "arrow trap" that could send fragments towards the neck and chin, or underarm, of the wearer. (This was already a problem that lead some armor to having that little V-shape piece affixed right below the collar level.)

Wouldn't two bulges on the side be less likely to send an attack into the throat than the standard single bulge in the middle?

Pauly
2020-11-20, 11:48 PM
My knowledge on armor is fairly limited, but my understanding is:

Historically there have been women who fought or at least lead armies. The most studied being Joan of Arc. Where we have good evidence their armor is armor. i.e. Practical armor was non-gemdered.
Which means that
- The armor did not need to be modified for women.
- Any issues of discomfort were so minor as to not bother with the cost of modification, or no external modifications were needed.

Some ceremonial/‘cosplay’ Boobplate type armors that were obviously not meant for battle does exist.

For me boobplate would be like codpieces on 16th Century plate, Roman muscled cuirasses or horned samurai helmets. Something decorative and for psychological effect, not practical value. It would be the equivalent of a female CoD player having “Yougotkilledbyagirl” as a gamertag.

Mike_G
2020-11-21, 01:32 PM
Wouldn't two bulges on the side be less likely to send an attack into the throat than the standard single bulge in the middle?

I don't see how.

On boob plate, any hits to the inner slope of the "breast," so pretty much the center third of the chest, would deflect toward the cleavage, and then upward toward the neck. A standard breastplate would slope away from the centerline in both directions, so a hit on either side of that exact center would be directed off to the side, never toward the sternum. A hit high on the chest might be deflected upwards, but I don't see how boob plate would make that any worse, and the "valley" might actually lead more arrows that way, keeping arrows that might have been deflected high and sideways toward an 'over the shoulder' direction in the middle lane

Lapak
2020-11-21, 04:51 PM
The Mandalorian armor wasn't particularly egregious (only marginally different from the cartoon, which also was hardly excessive), except for one aspect that applies to all mando armor. The torso plate being split into two sections in the middle. It's completely unnecessary for the design and creates a weak point in exactly the place where you don't want or need weak points. It's not just a ridge either, it's either a gap or a very deep furrow. There are armor designs that have a similar gap, but those are armors that are already made of multiple smaller plates, or muscle cuirasses that have a pretty shallow crevice there. There's no reason for the cuirass-like unitary chestplate to be constructed that way except for aesthetics. Given how overpowered Mandalorian Iron is, you can probably afford a little extravagance, but it irks me because it doesn't even look good IMO.Clearly Beskar steel loses its fantastical properties if it is shaped more than about a foot square (unless it is drastically curved, like a helmet.)

AdAstra
2020-11-21, 09:51 PM
Clearly Beskar steel loses its fantastical properties if it is shaped more than about a foot square (unless it is drastically curved, like a helmet.)

See, the idea that the metal is difficult to create and shape in large plates would work (after all, steel was like this for much of history). Except we see beskar melted into a liquid state and cast. That too irritates me, for it deprives us of watching some nice hammering.

Sapphire Guard
2020-11-22, 07:37 AM
My understanding of plate armour was that combat was based around stabbing through eyeslits and underarms, and knocking someone over so you have the opportunity to get to the weak points.
There might technically be a structural weakness, but humans can't cut plate steel anyway.

Mike_G
2020-11-22, 09:55 AM
My understanding of plate armour was that combat was based around stabbing through eyeslits and underarms, and knocking someone over so you have the opportunity to get to the weak points.
There might technically be a structural weakness, but humans can't cut plate steel anyway.

It's not cutting through the steel that's the issue. It's that if the breastplate traps the point instead of deflecting it, the impact all gets transferred to the wearer. The force might knock you down, rather than sliding off to the side. Or the blade might ride the cleavage path up the breastplate to the throat.

And something really heavy, like a lance or a bolt from a heavy crossbow might punch through armor.

AdAstra
2020-11-22, 10:01 AM
My understanding of plate armour was that combat was based around stabbing through eyeslits and underarms, and knocking someone over so you have the opportunity to get to the weak points.
There might technically be a structural weakness, but humans can't cut plate steel anyway.

That's mostly if you have a weapon like a sword or a dagger which can't get a ton of inertia behind it. Historical plate armor was remarkably thin: 3 millimeters was considered high, and it's thickness varied quite a bit.

With weapons like warhammers, lucerne hammers, and poleaxes (even a sword being held by the blade to use as a makeshift hammer), you could leave a sizeable dent in plate (and ideally the person inside), or even punch through it. Against such brute force, often concentrated into small points, you really don't want armor to be too close-fitting if you can avoid it. The more you can deflect a blow away from you, the more of a "crumple zone" you have, the better.

Sapphire Guard
2020-11-22, 11:10 AM
Isn't that what the padding inside is for?

Seems like situations where the structural weakness makes enough difference to matter would be fairly small. Lethal strikes from things like heavy crossbows and lances seem like they would likely be lethal anyway.

I don't have a dog in this race particularly, but y'all tend to know these things.

Another open ended question that may not have a useful answer: If you're missing your ring and pinky fingers from one hand, how much of an obstacle is that likely to be when using firearms? Seems like it would make it very hard to hold steady, but I have no gun experience.

Obviously, this is another 'it depends' question, but how would someone optimise things so it would be as little an obstacle as possible? What would be the easiest or most difficult weapon to use?

Thanks. Not super important, just a question I've been wondering.

Vinyadan
2020-11-22, 11:10 AM
It's not cutting through the steel that's the issue. It's that if the breastplate traps the point instead of deflecting it, the impact all gets transferred to the wearer. The force might knock you down, rather than sliding off to the side. Or the blade might ride the cleavage path up the breastplate to the throat.

And something really heavy, like a lance or a bolt from a heavy crossbow might punch through armor.
About lances, jousting with boob plate looks like a terrible mistake. Many hits to the breast that would otherwise glance off to the side would have their force driven towards the centre, or glance towards your throat and chin. Lots of broken lances!

AdAstra
2020-11-22, 01:46 PM
Isn't that what the padding inside is for?

Seems like situations where the structural weakness makes enough difference to matter would be fairly small. Lethal strikes from things like heavy crossbows and lances seem like they would likely be lethal anyway.

I don't have a dog in this race particularly, but y'all tend to know these things.

Another open ended question that may not have a useful answer: If you're missing your ring and pinky fingers from one hand, how much of an obstacle is that likely to be when using firearms? Seems like it would make it very hard to hold steady, but I have no gun experience.

Obviously, this is another 'it depends' question, but how would someone optimise things so it would be as little an obstacle as possible? What would be the easiest or most difficult weapon to use?

Thanks. Not super important, just a question I've been wondering.

Padding helps, but it's better to have padding AND more space. Plus, more space means more room for padding.

Against things like powerful projectiles, lances, and powerful weapon strikes, the value of deflecting blows rather than meeting them directly is everything. If the hit connects cleanly, it will most likely hurt you. If it glances off, the vast majority of energy is lost (unless it's deflected into another body part, which you want to avoid). Deflecting a blow away from your body often means the difference between being knocked off-balance and getting a hole punched in you.

For firearms and missing fingers, it'll depend on the weapon and the hand. For a pistol, a hand with two fingers missing is going to be very inconvenient. You'd have the other hand to support it, but it would probably better to just learn to shoot with your non-injured hand and use the injured one to support.

But for rifles, it's not such a huge deal to be missing those two fingers in particular. When you're shooting a rifle, you've got three points of contact: your shoulder, your firing hand, and your supporting hand. Your shoulder is taking most of the recoil, and you can hold/fire a rifle with only three fingers. Is it ideal? No, but it's not even close to impossible.

Telok
2020-11-22, 02:47 PM
Does anyone know or have links to stuff about military "rules of thumb" or actual guides regarding how far away troops shpuld be able to spot & recognize tanks, planes, apcs, etc.?

I'm trying to set up a system agnostic set of tables for visual and audible detection and identification using real data. I've been searching for studies and experiments but it's slow going, there's lots of signal noise involving eye charts and autonomous vehicle systems. The eye charts are particularly annoying because it's everyone's frst recommendation but there turn out to be bias and cognition issues related to preparation, simple shapes, and high contrast static images.

The best stuff I've come across so far was a study of using different types of image degredation to mimic distance effects when using pictures to study vision & distance relationships (it included a beautiful charts of Y% correct identification of faces at X distance by different methods), and a paper about proving the accuracy of some visual distance measurement in air traffic control situations with images of aircraft at different angles (less useful as I'll have to spend a couple hours reading the paper to figure out which equation they're trying to prove, if it was proved, and if it's actually relevant to my needs).

Saint-Just
2020-11-22, 03:07 PM
Elaboration and concurrence on shooting with missing fingers.

First I want to note that I will not discuss possibility of shooting with freshly detached fingers. I am not sure if there is anyone who knows more than a few anecdotes about how much fresh open wounds hamper ability to shoot, and if someone knows more it's a very niche knowledge.

Also missing fingers on non-dominant hand should not affect accuracy significantly with a long arm as long as one has a time to adjust to it instead of getting into shooting war right after removing stitches on finger stumps. So further cases are about dominant hand

With a pistol: you are screwed. Mostly. I would not say it is impossible to hit a man at three meters but it should hamper shooting greatly, especially ability to go back on target after the first shot. Supporting mangled hand with intact off-hand is unlikely to be good enough. Retraining to shoot with your other hand is recommended if you have enough time.

With a long arm: nowhere near as bad as pistol, still bad enough, especially for ability to go back on target, especially without time to adjust. What can help significantly is adding more points of contact, by using a bipod, bracing a forend against something of appropriate height (make sure you don't have one of those guns which jam when a force is applied to the barrel\forestock), or using a shooting sling. Just in case - ability to fire heavy weapons from tripods will be affected not at all. Probably.

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-22, 04:42 PM
With all the recent talk about boob-plates, one thing that I haven't seen addressed is this article's claim that if you trip while wearing a molded breastplate you will shatter your sternum, likely fatally.

Boob plate as a concept won't shatter your sternum necessarily, but the most common execution definitely, absolutely will.

To make that clearer, the idea behind boob armor is to make it female-form-fitting for eye candy, and that is sonething that's fundamentally opposed to how armor works. We're not really talking about cuirass that has boobs on it but otherwise acts as a cuirass when it comes to what's under it (i.e. gap and padding), we're talking almost form-fitting plate of steel.

If that takes a strong hit from pretty much anywhere from the front, it will apply sudden leverage directly on your sternum, and the problem is, sternum (unlike, say, an arm) has nowhere to go. Most solid blows (and remember, this is armor fighting, so mace at a minimum, likely a pollaxe) porbably won't shatter it with immediately fatal results, just crack it, but that alone is likely to decide the fight. If you catch a lance? Game over.

Bolts and arrows don't have the necessary momentum (they do have the energy, but low momentum means they will be easily flipped or redirected) to break bones, so you'll be fine there, unless your boob plate redirects those straight under your chin. Which it will in some cases.


Deflecting a blow away from your body often means the difference between being knocked off-balance and getting a hole punched in you.

It's not just getting a hole punched in you, a lance impact is strong enough to break your neck, and blunt force trauma alone can bruise or tear off your organs. Armor being partially penetrated and blow being stopped short of your fleshy bits is actually better from blunt force perspective, because that penetration and subsequent deformation not only spend some of the blow's energy, they also spread the blow out over a longer timeframe, reducing the impulse of force. That latter part means the modern abaltive bulletproof vest isn't really analogous to how a plate armor functions in this regard, either.

Jousting especially involves extreme blunt forces being passed around - there are numerous accounts of a lance impact on the rider breaking the back of a horse. Put that kind of power anywhere near your neck, or into the middle of a boobplate, directly on top of your sternum, and, well...


Isn't that what the padding inside is for?

The important thing to remember is that padding is still heavy - I have two gambesons, one for under chain mail and one for standalone use, the standalone is made from looser padding, insanely protective and clocks at about 3-4 kilos. The under mail one has the same weight, but is significantly thinner when we measure from skin to top layer of gambeson, about 2-3cm when compared to 10-12cm.

The idea here is that you need some padding, but don't want to increase weight, and there is a point at which more padding doesn't matter, because you either stopped the blow or are getting shot at by cannons.

Then there is the issue of lessening the impulse of force I described above, but I'm unsure if anyone knew about that in the period, the equations for this sort of thing involve maths that weren't discovered quite yet, and there were no high-speed cameras. It is entirely possible that people just figured out that a gap works better than no gap, without really knowing why.

Finally, if you pierce a plate of steel and keep driving in, there is going to be friction between your piercing spike and edges of the hole. The bigger the distance it has to travel, the more force it will absorb. Combine this with we don't want to add weight approach, and gaps suddenly make sense.



I'm trying to set up a system agnostic set of tables for visual and audible detection and identification using real data. I've been searching for studies and experiments but it's slow going, there's lots of signal noise involving eye charts and autonomous vehicle systems. The eye charts are particularly annoying because it's everyone's frst recommendation but there turn out to be bias and cognition issues related to preparation, simple shapes, and high contrast static images.

Well, good luck. This is a topic that depends so much on time of day, place, weather, paint of target, foliage and many, many more - you will likely end up with "and then DM can apply a modifire that goes to just about +-100% of a value you have gotten".

For man-sized targets, you should probably talk to Ian from ForgottenWeapons YT channel, I remember him mentioning several times how difficult it was to identify a target at x yards in a three gun match. I don't really remember which videos it was in, so you can either watch a few of them or just send him a message.

For vehicles, only thing I can think of are warships, which are conveniently placed on a flat surface most of the time. There are some issues with camo paint, but looking at various pre-carrier battles should give you a good idea when it comes to at what range it is possible to spot a ship - Jutland, for example, has a spotting distance of 20-30 km.

Yora
2020-11-22, 06:46 PM
How many times did Julius Caesar build a wall to force a battle on his own terms? I know he did it at least twice, but I seem to remember he did it even more than that. (And there was also the time he build a giant bridge over the Rhine , just to make a point.)

KineticDiplomat
2020-11-23, 12:44 AM
Re: seeing things.

If you really want to read it, this sort of thing was a popular technical research subject back in the day. Long story short, humans can fairly consistently be observed at 100m or less in any terrain where they are not literally physically obstructed (e.g. very thick woods, jungle, or other areas where there is no actual line of sight), but by 300m the variables start coming in to play...detection in an open field remains easy, detection in a far wood line becomes extremely improbable.

So...that’s probably where your chart starts. In difficult conditions or terrain, you will not get a chance to observe a human until they close to under 300m. At 100m you detect by default unless they do some deliberate sneaky stuff.

Double that for “medium” terrain.

Double it again for “open” terrain.

In theory you can actually potentially visually resolve a human at nearly 5km, but 1200m “chance” and 400m “auto unless stealthed” in the plains seems fair to actually human mental acuity.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/753600.pdf

Telok
2020-11-23, 01:19 AM
I'm not looking less for just spotting things than for recognizing them and, ideally, how accurate people are at it. That's why the facial identification study (I'll try to get the link, I promise, when I can use an actual computer) was pretty much perfect. I'm not worried about obstructions, concealment, etc., yet. Just trying to find actual data on the basics for now.

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-23, 10:57 AM
I just remembered there was something perfect for your purposes, a WW2 wargame used by Brits Western Approaches Tactical Unit to very effectively counteract German submarines. It had to have rulesets for spotting and identification, and accurate ones, since it has proven to work almost flawlessly in real world. Unfortunately, ruleset seems top be lost to time, and only person who remembers it and is known to us is Prince Phillip. He probably won't answer your email.

Fortunately, the ruleset was based on wargames by Fred Jane, which are available. There's a couple of books out there - which I'm not spending money on, but you may want to - and there are some online files, for example this one (http://digitalexhibits.wsulibs.wsu.edu/items/show/8142), which gives sighting range at 20 miles. It also gives semaphore signaling distance at 12 miles and flags at 5, and since you need to identify those properly, it would give you what you need once you look up naval signal flag size.

AdAstra
2020-11-23, 11:54 AM
I'm not looking less for just spotting things than for recognizing them and, ideally, how accurate people are at it. That's why the facial identification study (I'll try to get the link, I promise, when I can use an actual computer) was pretty much perfect. I'm not worried about obstructions, concealment, etc., yet. Just trying to find actual data on the basics for now.

I mean, people are so good at recognizing faces that we frequently recognize faces where there are none, so that's a start. Generally, the way people spot other people is by recognizing a familiar shape, like a face, or body outline, which draws attention to our brains. Telling the difference between specific people will be a lot harder, but you can pretty much recognize a human at any distance where you'd spot the person to begin with.

Telok
2020-11-23, 11:02 PM
Sweet, thanks. The infantry time-to-spot also had a little daya point I could use and, importantly leads me towards a tanks/vehicle version of that paper.

There was a facial recognition one that I started with, great graphs summarising what I needed. It was done as part of studying criminal witness accuracy.

KineticDiplomat
2020-11-25, 12:13 AM
Vehicles mostly get treated for acquisition by other optics. For all you ever wanted to know about what platforms can detect a vehicle at what range and recognize it at another, the WEG is your go to. Or you can just assume acquire at 3600m and recognize at 2000m. This is a older one, but modern enough:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/weg.pdf

That does not cover the mark one eyeball however. Don’t quote me on it, but I believe the older concepts were that an unaided eye should be able to recognize a fighting vehicle in the open at 800m provided time and knowledge. To the degree that you could know “western tank or Russian tank” though probably not wild specifics.

Telok
2020-11-25, 01:31 PM
Haven't gotten to look at anything more since last post but found the facial ID file

faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/downloads/loftusharleydistance.pdf

Vinyadan
2020-11-29, 03:34 PM
Trivia question: whose hand is on the shoulder of this sailor as she shoots? Does it have a purpose? Is it a common thing to do? File:US Navy 080725-N-4236E-391 Fire Controlman Seaman Rachel Hubley fires an M4 carbine from the fantail of the guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf (CG 72).jpg - Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_080725-N-4236E-391_Fire_Controlman_Seaman_Rachel_Hubley_fires_an_ M4_carbine_from_the_fantail_of_the_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Vella_Gulf_(CG_72).jpg)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/US_Navy_080725-N-4236E-391_Fire_Controlman_Seaman_Rachel_Hubley_fires_an_ M4_carbine_from_the_fantail_of_the_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Vella_Gulf_%28CG_72%29.jpg/800px-US_Navy_080725-N-4236E-391_Fire_Controlman_Seaman_Rachel_Hubley_fires_an_ M4_carbine_from_the_fantail_of_the_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Vella_Gulf_%28CG_72%29.jpg

Yora
2020-11-29, 04:28 PM
My first guess would be a firearm instructor checking on how she is dealing with the recoil to give advice how her posture could be improved. Or as a signal to start and stop shoting when other noise makes hearing spoken instructions unteliable.

KineticDiplomat
2020-11-29, 11:15 PM
Who knows? Even for a propaganda shot, they laid that one on thick. I’m pretty sure that standing with a CCO and a gangster grip isn’t the stuff of match grade teaching. And it’s not like 5.56 is going to cause any recoil that you’ll notice.

Ajustusdaniel
2020-11-29, 11:37 PM
Is Pathfinder's sickle-sword (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/sickle-sword/) based on anything actually or quasi-historical? My searches just keep turning up the khopesh.

Zombimode
2020-11-30, 01:04 AM
Well for Sickle-swords there is the Shotel: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/c4/6c/ebc46ca9a7c1bd70be96b33cf64d1eb3.jpg

It lacks this "second grip" thingy, though.

Yora
2020-11-30, 05:04 AM
The description sounds completely unlike anything I've ever seen, and I have no clue how it is even supposed to work or look like.
Seems like the silliest fantasy "weapon" since the double ended flail.

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-30, 05:09 AM
Is Pathfinder's sickle-sword (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/sickle-sword/) based on anything actually or quasi-historical? My searches just keep turning up the khopesh.

It's not. The reasons are in three rough categories.

1) Too long

Most swords with weird curvatures tend to be fairly short, 3 1/2 feet is 105cm, which is the length of bastard swords and longswords if it's just the blade. If it's total, it's the upper end of arming swords, and remember, it curves, so it would be pretty unweildy.

2) How does it even curve

The description of it is remarkably bad, I can't really picture it in my head. It could be falcata, kopesh, yatagan, falmberge...

3) This is not how swords work

The only reason for a secondary grip is halfswording, and to my knowledge, while halfswording isn't exclusively European, secondary grips are. Unpredictably twirling it mid-fight is a good way to either get your hand chopped off, or to get stabbed because your reach is now reduced.


So, it could very well be based on something initially, but with a bad description and worse ability when in use, it's hard to tell.

Berenger
2020-11-30, 05:30 AM
The description sounds completely unlike anything I've ever seen, and I have no clue how it is even supposed to work or look like.
Seems like the silliest fantasy "weapon" since the double ended flail.

"If exotic weapons were any good, they wouldn't be exotic."

Ajustusdaniel
2020-11-30, 08:46 AM
About what I figured, but given that the Nine Branch Sword turned out to be based on an actual (ceremonial, non-battleworthy) weapon, and the urumi is apparently (somehow) a real historical weapon, I figure it never hurts to check in case there's some actual obscure artifact or technique these things are loosely based on.

For what it's worth, Pathfinder's core setting associates it with their Spooky Fantasy Russia culture, so maybe it's a bizarre attempt at fantastifying the Shashka?

Yora
2020-11-30, 09:02 AM
A shashka is just a pretty plain and straightforward cavalry saber.

As far as I am able to tell, there is no illustration for the Pathfinder sickle sword. Who knows what kind of abomination the writer might have imagined.

Saint-Just
2020-11-30, 09:06 AM
Well for Sickle-swords there is the Shotel: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/c4/6c/ebc46ca9a7c1bd70be96b33cf64d1eb3.jpg

It lacks this "second grip" thingy, though.

It's not a shotel, because Pathfinder have shotel as a separate weapon, and even gives it bonus for stabbing around shields in line with real-world use of shotel.


About what I figured, but given that the Nine Branch Sword turned out to be based on an actual (ceremonial, non-battleworthy) weapon, and the urumi is apparently (somehow) a real historical weapon, I figure it never hurts to check in case there's some actual obscure artifact or technique these things are loosely based on.

For what it's worth, Pathfinder's core setting associates it with their Spooky Fantasy Russia culture, so maybe it's a bizarre attempt at fantastifying the Shashka?

Unlikely. Shashka is not that weird, unusual, or distinct from other blades (with exception of the "handle goes into the scabbard" bit which is mostly associated with Caucasian shashkas and not Russian/Cossack shashkas).

Mike_G
2020-11-30, 09:24 AM
The "curves multiple times" could apply to the Yatagan, which curves forward like a Khopesh or Kukri at the center of percussion and then curves back as it nears the point, bringing the point more or less in line with the grip, so it's probably easier to stab with than other curved blades.

I've never heard of one with a secondary grip for half swording though.

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

Saint-Just
2020-11-30, 09:45 AM
Also wave-bladed swords. Flambards (two-handed swords), flamberges (one-handed swords), and krises (daggers/ short swords). Flambards even have a ricasso like many other two-handers, but none of these blades look even a little bit like sickles.

Yora
2020-11-30, 10:14 AM
I think I got it!

It's probably a twisted final fantasy interpretation of a bardiche with a short handle.

https://www.darksword-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1745_01_org.jpg

If you make the handle all metal and hammer it flat to fuse with the blade, it could kind of look like a sword. Still wouldn't work as described, but it would be one plausible explanation what the writer was thinking.

Max_Killjoy
2020-11-30, 10:28 AM
Could they be misinterpreting the falx?

Martin Greywolf
2020-11-30, 05:23 PM
Oh, I think I know what it's based off of. Once Yora's post suggested to not think of just swords, it hit me.

It's a mambele.

Mambele itself is a word used for two distinct weapon types, one a sword shaped a lot like horseman's pick/bec de corbin, the other a throwing dagger. If you heard mambele was a sword and then googled pictures for it, you'd get results of the dagger versions as well, and some of those are drawn very simplistically, which could make it seem like it has a secondary grip, if you know little about melee weapons.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=128818&stc=1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/A_selection_of_African_throwing_knives_in_room_25_ of_the_British_museum.JPG/544px-A_selection_of_African_throwing_knives_in_room_25_ of_the_British_museum.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Tibbu-waffen.JPG

I have no idea if the terminology for these on the web is correct or not, this area and period is really far outside of my area of interest.

Saint-Just
2020-12-01, 11:10 AM
Oh, I think I know what it's based off of. Once Yora's post suggested to not think of just swords, it hit me.

It's a mambele.

Mambele itself is a word used for two distinct weapon types, one a sword shaped a lot like horseman's pick/bec de corbin, the other a throwing dagger. If you heard mambele was a sword and then googled pictures for it, you'd get results of the dagger versions as well, and some of those are drawn very simplistically, which could make it seem like it has a secondary grip, if you know little about melee weapons.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=128818&stc=1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/A_selection_of_African_throwing_knives_in_room_25_ of_the_British_museum.JPG/544px-A_selection_of_African_throwing_knives_in_room_25_ of_the_British_museum.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Tibbu-waffen.JPG

I have no idea if the terminology for these on the web is correct or not, this area and period is really far outside of my area of interest.

Wow, I've seen those things in GURPS Low-Tech (as "Hungamunga or mongwanga") but because the picture there is mostly accurate I would never think about them as having a second grip.

Telwar
2020-12-01, 12:42 PM
It sounds like it's based off a scythe with a short grip, which would (I think) normally be a sickle. Which I guess is where they pulled the name from.

Saint-Just
2020-12-01, 12:52 PM
It sounds like it's based off a scythe with a short grip, which would (I think) normally be a sickle. Which I guess is where they pulled the name from.

Only if you apply the same logic that was suggested for bardiche: replace the haft with a blade, Because "its blade bears a small secondary grip partway up its length", and the second grip on a scythe is nowhere close to the blade.

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-02, 08:04 AM
Maybe a really misunderstood war scythe?

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/59aa8bee197aea4ad67f52ae/1504482853558-DN2157WYIAOQYY732MJ0/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kN1PZTbnxcU1xbi9vhT-tSNZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZamWLI2zvYWH 8K3-s_4yszcp2ryTI0HqTOaaUohrI8PI0sQkBEZ-O7laCKBNS6Kl-9kr8dSYx27gOKAhumUTfAM/warscythe.png?format=750w

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0554/1957/products/FNS8266a.jpg?v=1595614013
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0554/1957/products/FNS8266c.jpg?v=1595614005
Especially if you saw the first picture only and didn't read in description (https://www.faganarms.com/products/a-17th-century-german-or-swiss-war-scythe) it's 2 meters long


Edit: if anyone wants to know, the weird handle up there is for hooking shafts of other polearms, occasionally a sword or an axe. It can also be used to bind opposing blow in a pinch, but you're better served by batting that away. Oh, and it's also useful in storage, just hang that from a tree branch or a rope or something, or prop several of them together, musket-with-bayonet style.


Wow, I've seen those things in GURPS Low-Tech (as "Hungamunga or mongwanga") but because the picture there is mostly accurate I would never think about them as having a second grip.

Yeah, there are a bunch of different tribal names for them, but only one that conflicts with an actual sword name is mambele. As far as I know, which in this case isn't that far.

Matuka
2020-12-04, 06:25 PM
What would be the blast radius of a barrel full of gunpowder and how destructive are they? I'm planning on introducing gunpowder in a future campaign and I am rightfully concerned that they are both smart enough and chaotic enough to build a bomb, to Pandemonium with the consequences.

Vinyadan
2020-12-04, 08:14 PM
What would be the blast radius of a barrel full of gunpowder and how destructive are they? I'm planning on introducing gunpowder in a future campaign and I am rightfully concerned that they are both smart enough and chaotic enough to build a bomb, to Pandemonium with the consequences.
How big a barrel? Beer barrel? Oil barrel? Gun barrel?

This page contains a table with different sizes simplified as with creatures (medium etc.) as well as damage and blast radius, you can adapt the numbers as you see fit. Gunpowder (D&D equipment) - Hastur (http://hastur.net/wiki/Gunpowder_(D&D_equipment)) It looks easier than calculating per pound or kg.

fusilier
2020-12-04, 08:36 PM
What would be the blast radius of a barrel full of gunpowder and how destructive are they? I'm planning on introducing gunpowder in a future campaign and I am rightfully concerned that they are both smart enough and chaotic enough to build a bomb, to Pandemonium with the consequences.

The third edition of GURPS High-Tech had rules to figure this out. I'm sure it could be adapted to another system pretty easily. You'll have to figure out how many pounds of powder they are using and then go from there. You can probably find a copy of the third edition used and cheap. I'm not sure about the 4th edition, but I think it has much of the same information.

Telok
2020-12-04, 09:10 PM
What would be the blast radius of a barrel full of gunpowder and how destructive are they? I'm planning on introducing gunpowder in a future campaign and I am rightfully concerned that they are both smart enough and chaotic enough to build a bomb, to Pandemonium with the consequences.

Rule of thumb (from mining saftey I hit up while reasearching similar for cannons) is that to double the blast radius you 10x the explosives.

Matuka
2020-12-04, 09:57 PM
Rule of thumb (from mining saftey I hit up while reasearching similar for cannons) is that to double the blast radius you 10x the explosives.

Thank you and the two above, that really helped.

Telok
2020-12-04, 11:00 PM
Thank you and the two above, that really helped.

You're welcome. Fast note that I worked up cannons & bombs for a D&D 3.5 setting. Tried to keep as close as possible to RL ranges & blasts as I could figure. Will post spreadsheet/text later when have real computer time. It should be reasonably convertible, although I added a negative effect modifier at amounts smaller than a kilo or so because I wanted cannons but not small arms in that setting.

Edit: Got file https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ZGqqJ6YgJE5Xbo3S0bF2geaHRENbNbS/view?usp=sharing

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-06, 12:10 PM
It also depends on what powder. Any tables you will find floating around are probably out of reach for your average medieval black powder, it took quite a while to figure out granulation after all. Even then, there is a pretty sharp upper limit on gunpowder explosions, or any slow burning medium explosions - once you get to certain size, the explosion near the fuse will throw powder away without really igniting it.

Black powder is inefficient enough for this to happen on a pretty small scale - I remember seeing a video where some guys loaded a black powder musket, and by loaded I mean stuffed the entire barrel save for the last 10 cm full of powder and set it off. The damage was about equivalent to a quintuple load IIRC, because a lot of the powder was ejected unlit.

That's not to say you can't have big gunpowder explosions - churches storing it went away after a lightning strike often enough - but the efficiency of adding more powder will start to decrease rather quickly.

AdAstra
2020-12-07, 11:52 AM
It also depends on what powder. Any tables you will find floating around are probably out of reach for your average medieval black powder, it took quite a while to figure out granulation after all. Even then, there is a pretty sharp upper limit on gunpowder explosions, or any slow burning medium explosions - once you get to certain size, the explosion near the fuse will throw powder away without really igniting it.

Black powder is inefficient enough for this to happen on a pretty small scale - I remember seeing a video where some guys loaded a black powder musket, and by loaded I mean stuffed the entire barrel save for the last 10 cm full of powder and set it off. The damage was about equivalent to a quintuple load IIRC, because a lot of the powder was ejected unlit.

That's not to say you can't have big gunpowder explosions - churches storing it went away after a lightning strike often enough - but the efficiency of adding more powder will start to decrease rather quickly.

Yeah, the main way you get REALLY big gunpowder explosions is when you have large numbers of containers and a confined space, where they can chain off each other. Especially if there’s a lot of powder in the air. Even things like coal dust and flour can cause huge explosions when dispersed in air.

But you will have a hard time getting that effect from a single charge.

fusilier
2020-12-07, 05:54 PM
Yeah, the main way you get REALLY big gunpowder explosions is when you have large numbers of containers and a confined space, where they can chain off each other. Especially if there’s a lot of powder in the air. Even things like coal dust and flour can cause huge explosions when dispersed in air.

But you will have a hard time getting that effect from a single charge.

Gunpowder can indeed be tricky, and involves many factors. Old serpentine powder (simple dry compounded powder) often requires careful packing (tamping) to get the desired effect. For granulated powder, the size of the grains can be used to slow down or speed up the rate of combustion. (GURPS covers different forms of gunpowders, but not with too much detail).

GURPS calculates damage based on distance from the explosion for concussion, although the damage can be enhanced if used in an enclosed space. Fragmentation damage in GURPS is consistent across the blast range, but the chances of being hit by a fragment decreases with distance. Fragmentation depends upon the container.

Max_Killjoy
2020-12-09, 01:39 PM
Persian chromium steel?

https://phys.org/news/2020-09-chromium-steel-ancient-persia.html

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-09, 02:24 PM
Persian chromium steel?

Clickbait title. What they actually found was medieval era crucible steel with some added chromium from a specific ore, something that doesn't break any records, really. Any pre-modern-chemistry manufacturing process was discovered by trial and error, and there were some... interesting things added to steel while it was made in crucible or heat-treated (e.g. blood of a buck in rut). The bit about deliberately adding a mineral with chromium content is mildly interesting.

And under no circumstances should this steel be confused with modern chromium steel, since it would have all the usual problems and impurities of pre-modern steelmaking.

I may as well claim that first combat divers were deployed in 1052, which is also technically correct, but falls apart in detail.

Max_Killjoy
2020-12-09, 04:57 PM
Figured I'd get a straight analysis here.

Thanks.

Vinyadan
2020-12-10, 09:36 AM
Huge arms and armour donation to the Met Museum
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/arts/design/ronald-lauder-arms-armor-met.html?action=click&module=Features&pgtype=Homepage

Contains a couple of nice photos, especially of a top class 1490 pair of gauntlets made for Maximilian I.

Gizmogidget
2020-12-10, 09:42 AM
How much power would a laser need to be to instantaneously blow a hole in a person like in TV and movies?

I'm thinking 10 nanosecond pulse, visible blue, about as wide as a Star Wars plasma shot.

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-10, 10:33 AM
How much power would a laser need to be to instantaneously blow a hole in a person like in TV and movies?

I'm thinking 10 nanosecond pulse, visible blue, about as wide as a Star Wars plasma shot.

Depends on what you mean by blow a hole through, lasers don't actually do that, they burn. According to a wonderful article (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/excerpts-from-the-mad-scientiste28099s-handbook-so-youe28099re-ready-to-vaporize-a-human/), it's


267 kJ to boil 1 kg of person
2.5 MJ to vaporize 1kg of person


Since we need to deliver that in 10 ns, or 1/100 000 000 of a second, the power (where 1 watt is one joule per second) is:


26,7 TW to boil 1 kg of person
250 TW to vaporize 1kg of person
2.5 TW is current global energy consumption


That is only necessary energy, though, and we aren't delivering that with perfect efficiency. Laser diode efficiency is, per this thread (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/laser-diode-efficiency/), about 50 percent, so we need double the energy in power source to get target energy in laser beam. Then you have things like diffraction, and with lasers of this high an energy, I have no idea how atmosphere in the way would react, you'd probably burn it away as well.

Also consider this:

Little Boy is 63 TJ
Tsar bomba is 245 PJ


What I'm saying is, you better hope whatever energy source you have doesn't have a failure, because you're walking with at least a low-yield nuke strapped to your gun.

Max_Killjoy
2020-12-10, 11:02 AM
That very short time to deliver the energy (10 nanoseconds) makes a huge difference.

There are lasers that can burn a hole in a missile in flight and ruin the inards, but they have to stay exactly on target for several seconds.

Saint-Just
2020-12-10, 11:17 AM
How much power would a laser need to be to instantaneously blow a hole in a person like in TV and movies?

I'm thinking 10 nanosecond pulse, visible blue, about as wide as a Star Wars plasma shot.

I do not think it is a question that can be answered with any meaningful precision. To start with Star Wars plasma shot is different depending on the weapon and the era of the film. Additionally all or almost of all of them seem wider than the muzzle of the weapon, which should not be the case if the shot can fly for hundreds of meters without dissipating. Finally even if we only look at, say Stormtroopers' blasters in A New Hope perception of those fast-moving never-seen-directly-from-the-front objects may vary.

And then we go to calculations of actual values, which are even more insane. Even if we have people well-versed in physics here it's like asking them to predict them how big a powder charge should be for a bullet to penetrate a person front-to-back if they have never seen or heard about firearms before. There so are so much unknown values (pressure profile of the powder, construction and materials of the bullet, even the ambient temperature - and that is assuming that we know bullet weight and the length of a barrel) that it is absolutely impossible to calculate except in the roughest possible terms ("500 grams is enough in any circumstances").

I will give you insanely lowball answer. Assume that width is 9 mm, like the actual Sterling SMG, and a depth of penetration required is 30 cm (about the depth of chest front-to-back). Assume that we need enough energy to boil a cylinder of water 9x300mm (insanely low, because energy will dissipate to the sides, and flesh is likely to require more energy, and vaporized anything will not go out of the way but will continue to absorb energy, oh and we ignore bringing it to the boil). This works out to 1.06 moles of water which require 43.1 kJ. Oh, and we assume 100% efficiency of energy conversion, of course.

I suspect that if we were building a real laser...thing we would actually need to know it's wavelength. But since we're in the ideal world with 100% efficiency we only need to know how much power will be needed to deliver 43.1 kJ in 10 ns. Which is 4.31 TW. And this with all uncertainties rounded down to probably lower order of magnitude.

The only laser weapon successfully deployed in the field as far as I know was THEL (and it was not adopted even then). Northrop Grumman claims it's a "megawatt-class" laser weapon. It was immobile, another Northrop Grumman "megawatt-class" thingamagic was mobile by the virtue of placing it on Boeing 747. US army currently "considers" systems that are supposed to be between 30 and (questionably) 150 kW.

It's not like you can't kill (maybe even instantly kill) a human with much lower amount of energy delivered by a laser, but it still doesn't really work for anything man-portable. Lasers causing prolonged or permanent blindness at a few hundred meters can be made today (Norinco was offering a blinding laser in the 90's) but open development of such weapons has been stopped by the UN Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons.



That very short time to deliver the energy (10 nanoseconds) makes a huge difference.

There are lasers that can burn a hole in a missile in flight and ruin the inards, but they have to stay exactly on target for several seconds.

If it is in a "tomorrow world" it would be hard to argue that it doesn't run afoul of aforementioned Protocol IV of CCWC, but even there is no legal problems, I think it's still likely to act less like a bullet and more like... let's say flamethrower, but with better range and requiring a direct hit. Since it's unlikely that all the pulses will fall in the same spot, or even close to same spot it will make many shallow holes, unlikely to immediately damage the vital organs but which may incapacitate the target with pain, or even with damage to the muscles well before he dies.

Gizmogidget
2020-12-10, 12:57 PM
Thanks to those who answered my question! I figured the required energy would be insanely high.

Though just in case this changes the answer what if the laser is pulsing on and off (something like 10 ns on, 10ns off, 10 ns on)? I'd heard continuous lasers can have trouble burrowing through a target versus pulse lasers because the layer of plasma created at impact acts as a reflector, where as if the laser flicks on and off it doesn't have to worry about the plasma because it has dissipated.

TheStranger
2020-12-10, 02:03 PM
What is the benefit of a laser weapon, anyway? It seems like bullets or explosives do far more damage to the target without a prohibitive energy requirement. So... why bother?

I guess there’s some theoretical advantage in the fact that a laser travels at the speed of light and therefore can’t be evaded, but it seems like if you’re firing at a range where that matters your laser’s effectiveness is going to be diminished by things like cloud cover or atmospheric dust.

And a laser doesn’t need ammo, but you have to go through an awful lot of ammo before you match the bulk and cost of your laser’s power source.

Is this just a case of people trying to apply Rule of Cool to real life, or are there real benefits that justify the ongoing research into this?

Gizmogidget
2020-12-10, 02:14 PM
What is the benefit of a laser weapon, anyway? It seems like bullets or explosives do far more damage to the target without a prohibitive energy requirement. So... why bother? ... Is this just a case of people trying to apply Rule of Cool to real life, or are there real benefits that justify the ongoing research into this?

I had an inkling that you'd need absolutely massive power outputs to use lasers the way you do in sci-fi (though IRL antipersonnel lasers exist), and that it'd be better in practice to just go for using railguns or something if you were thinking about raw numerical damage vs power required.

However a quick google search for laser weapons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZM-87), shows that the intent of these laser weapons is not to turn humans into fine red mist but rather to maim them (permanent blinding can occur with a "mere" 5 mw beam after all). Additionally the lasers the Navy uses to shoot down drones aren't nice awesome cinematic lasers, they're invisible lasers (and they light the drones on fire, not vaporize them).

IRL you don't actually need to do insane amounts of overkill damage to take out an enemy combatant, so there is no need to have a small-nuke strapped to your back.

Saint-Just
2020-12-10, 03:32 PM
Thanks to those who answered my question! I figured the required energy would be insanely high.

Though just in case this changes the answer what if the laser is pulsing on and off (something like 10 ns on, 10ns off, 10 ns on)? I'd heard continuous lasers can have trouble burrowing through a target versus pulse lasers because the layer of plasma created at impact acts as a reflector, where as if the laser flicks on and off it doesn't have to worry about the plasma because it has dissipated.

The greatest problem in your example was not pulsed/continuous laser but requirement to deliver that amount of energy in so little time. If you wanted to use a laser pulsing 0.1 ns on 0.1 ns off for 20 ns the required power would stay the same. Practical effectiveness may have been better but for our order-of-magnitude-calculations we have been already granting 100% effectiveness.

Now let's say you have a pulsing laser which is pulsing X ns on X ns off for 1 second. It's the same power requirement as continuous laser working for 0.5 second (practical-effectiveness-may-differ-but-we-are-already-granting-100%).

My benchmark (boil 1.06 moles of water, 43.1 kJ) requires 83.2 kW

Martin Greywolf's benchmark (boil 1 kg of human tissue, 267 kJ) requires 534 kW To the MG: I take the issue with idea that personhood is in any way relevant to the boiling temperature :P

Both require a lot of energy instead of insane amount of it. Maybe even something a little bit plausible if you look far enough in the future. But even in ideal situation unless the weapon is used on an immobilized person, the shots are not going to hit the same area. So you are going to see a lot of shallow wounds, burns etc, and a really low probability of a lethal hit. I already compared it with a flamethrower, but now I can give you even better comparison: shotgun slug vs a birdshot shell with 500 pellets (it's hard to kill people with birdshot that small). I do not mean it would have a worse range (it may even have a better range because each individual impulse is insufficient to turn atmosphere into plasma) but the wounding characteristics. So it's gonna be messy, unpleasant, will leave combatants crippled or dying a slow death where one tenth of that energy in any sort of kinetic projectile is more likely to produce "cleaner" either-dead-or-ok situation, and will be significantly worse vs any armour (even modern body armour, but if it's going to be a normal weapon and not screw-the-phhysics-I-am-a-mad-genius one-off you can bet there would be development in armour to stop lasers; in fact Chinese seem to already have a good vehicular anti-laser coatings). So it's kinda useless.

If you really want a directed energy weapon against humans I think microwave weapons are more useful. Current iterations for "non-lethal" employment are reported to be very painful while causing no identifiable damage (except maybe to the eyes, as usual). If you can crank the power up to actually cause damage the incapacitation may be very quick and it can fry electronics into bargain. And the weapon is already available vehicle-mounted and man-portable variants may follow in the nearest future. It also may have trouble with armour but it's unlikely to be worse than a laser.

If agony beam/crucio/algolizer is not how you imagine whatever you are trying to imagine, tough luck. Stick with kinetics and explosives, for now.

P.S. With the current electronic advancements if blinding lasers were to actually become a thing I feel that in the worst case the greatest military powers would soon go to a helmet with screen and cameras. Cameras can be made less sensitive, cameras can be replaced. Or even simpler, auto-darkening faceplates as used by the modern welding helmets (though I am not 100% sure that they can be made to react quick enough).

TheStranger
2020-12-10, 04:01 PM
I had an inkling that you'd need absolutely massive power outputs to use lasers the way you do in sci-fi (though IRL antipersonnel lasers exist), and that it'd be better in practice to just go for using railguns or something if you were thinking about raw numerical damage vs power required.

However a quick google search for laser weapons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZM-87), shows that the intent of these laser weapons is not to turn humans into fine red mist but rather to maim them (permanent blinding can occur with a "mere" 5 mw beam after all). Additionally the lasers the Navy uses to shoot down drones aren't nice awesome cinematic lasers, they're invisible lasers (and they light the drones on fire, not vaporize them).

IRL you don't actually need to do insane amounts of overkill damage to take out an enemy combatant, so there is no need to have a small-nuke strapped to your back.

Fair point about the feasibility of lower-powered laser weapons. But still, what’s the perceived advantage of using a laser instead of a gun, other than being awesome if you grew up in the 80s?

Mike_G
2020-12-10, 05:32 PM
Fair point about the feasibility of lower-powered laser weapons. But still, what’s the perceived advantage of using a laser instead of a gun, other than being awesome if you grew up in the 80s?

Looking at current or near future tech, there really isn't one. Assuming energy supply gets better and more portable, then it might get better as an option. As far as space weapons go, the fact that lasers are more or less unlimited range, and don't have to deal with bullet drop like traditional guns, which will need to be recalibrated in different gravity, if you take your standard ballistic firearm to another planet or the moon or on a ship in zero G, your earth sights will be way off. So, there's a theoretical advantage, if we assume the tech gets better.

Gizmogidget
2020-12-10, 06:12 PM
Fair point about the feasibility of lower-powered laser weapons. But still, what’s the perceived advantage of using a laser instead of a gun, other than being awesome if you grew up in the 80s?

Lasers are awesome no matter when you grew up. :smallbiggrin:

Saint-Just
2020-12-10, 06:14 PM
Looking at current or near future tech, there really isn't one. Assuming energy supply gets better and more portable, then it might get better as an option. As far as space weapons go, the fact that lasers are more or less unlimited range, and don't have to deal with bullet drop like traditional guns, which will need to be recalibrated in different gravity, if you take your standard ballistic firearm to another planet or the moon or on a ship in zero G, your earth sights will be way off. So, there's a theoretical advantage, if we assume the tech gets better.

Eh, without clarketech it's still unlikely to be as good as kinetics in converting power at the originating end to physical damage at receiving end, at least as long as we are talking anything remotely resembling infantry.

Sights are not a problem at all. 1) there are already sights auto-adjusting for atmospheric pressure, humidity, wind speed. adding a gravity sensor would be nothing (in fact it's smaller, cheaper and more reliable than atmosphere sensors). 2) Even for iron sights I am not sure what scenario you propose where infantry would not be able to use quick-swappable or quick-adjustable sights calibrated for different gravity strengths.


Lasers are awesome no matter when you grew up. :smallbiggrin:

Truth.

Lapak
2020-12-11, 09:26 AM
For man-portable weapons, there are only two possible things I can think of as an advantage.

Item one is stealth. Chemically-driven projectile weapons are generally loud; lasers are relatively quiet and invisible as well (though once you start talking enough energy to instantly disable/kill, both may become less true? As you turn atmosphere to plasma and/or convert water to vapor with enough speed to kinda explode.)

The other that I can think of being theoretically possible, but I don't have the physics chops to know if it can actually be true - that's the question of mass. If it's theoretically possible to have power generation and/or storage tech such that you can get more shots-on-target than you can by carting physical ammo around, but at the same time you are still dealing with issues of fuel-to-mass ratios in moving your ammunition supply around, then it might be more practical to be issuing lasers to your soldiers. But that's absolutely not the case with current or near-future tech.

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-11, 03:11 PM
Fair point about the feasibility of lower-powered laser weapons. But still, what’s the perceived advantage of using a laser instead of a gun, other than being awesome if you grew up in the 80s?

It really depends on where and for what you want to use them. Riot control is different than anti-infantry is different to ship-mounted.

First thing that bears mentioning, and that is the reason we will pretty much never see any sort of laser rifle tech, is atmosphere. Anything that blocks light will block lasers, so mist, rain, sandstorms and so on and so forth drastically reduce your possible range. That means that even if you had a laser rifle that would work ono a clear day, it would stop once that fog rolls in. That makes it unreliable and unusable in global terms, and that in turn makes it an absolute logistical nightmare to even attempt to deploy.

Which means that, no matter what, lasers will only be used if nothing else can do the job.

That said, all of these pesky problem disappear if you go into space, and there, lasers are actually a pretty good idea.

Okay, so, actual advantages. Stealth is not one of them, really, even if the beam itself is silent, the target certainly won't be. Screams aside, burning is bright and loud, and if you have enough power to turn air into plasma, well...

One potential advantage is ammunition supply. If you have the sort of energy tech necessary for lasers, odds are you can pack quite a few shots into a battery pack. For near future tech, this doesn't apply, because near future tech doesn't have man-portable lasers. However, one thing does apply - all you need to laser is electricity, so there are no pesky issues of right kind of bullet, one battery pack can power any laser weapon it has enough juice for, be it a sniper, SMG or a pistol. That would allow you to standardize quite a lot, and e.g. make HMG batteries made of several pistol batteries duckttaped together. And to top it off, if you are mounted on a vehicle that needs power, you will be able to just plug it into that, so any sort of, say, nuclear sub or carrier will be able to have them without needing space to store ammo. And will also be able to recharge smaller weapons on board - but that will only happen if you can mount lasers on things smaller than a Boeing 737 that can actually launch from carriers.

The big one is travel time. Lasers travel at just under the speed of light, so there is little need to lead most targets. If you need to shoot a hypersonic target, aim straight at it and pull the trigger. This is why lasers tend to be used in point defence systems - nothing else can really do that, maybe except microwaves.

Travel time, incidentally, also makes it trivially easy to walk your shots, if you have LoS on the target. That will also allow you to aim several lasers into the same spot fairly easily. There is no bullet deviation to take care of.

Finally, and this depends on how exactly you are producing the laser, you may not need long barrels or heavy lens to make it work. That could allow you to bring the size of a very powerful laser way, way down. With enough fingaling, you may also be able to make a variable power version, and in this case, the key is to imagine IJN Yamato where every gun on board of it (main, secondary, AA, ...):


has main gun capabilities
can hit small, fast targets as well
is capable of tracking aircraft because of small size, and therefore agility
doesn't need ammo storage, just a reactor


And that is what we call a whole lot of gun.

Saint-Just
2020-12-11, 03:33 PM
Okay, so, actual advantages. Stealth is not one of them, really, even if the beam itself is silent, the target certainly won't be. Screams aside, burning is bright and loud, and if you have enough power to turn air into plasma, well...

I was arguing that lasers are not going to be man-portable weapons, ever, but if they can be made stealth is a (little) advantage, for the same reason there are "silent" (captive piston) grenade launchers and mortars. Keeping the opposition guessing or disoriented for even a short period period of time is worthwhile.



The big one is travel time. Lasers travel at just under the speed of light, so there is little need to lead most targets.

I thought lasers travel at the speed of light, because they are, well, light. Are you talking about speed of light in the air being lower than speed of light in vacuum, or I am missing something?



Finally, and this depends on how exactly you are producing the laser, you may not need long barrels or heavy lens to make it work.

I cannot quickly find the source but I remember reading that with currently known technologies powerful lasers do not scale quite perfectly, and it would be easier to make a laser for the (Space Battleship) Yamato capable of taking down another Yamato than a laser for a TIE-Fighter capable of taking down another TIE-Fighter.

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-12, 08:07 AM
I was arguing that lasers are not going to be man-portable weapons, ever, but if they can be made stealth is a (little) advantage, for the same reason there are "silent" (captive piston) grenade launchers and mortars. Keeping the opposition guessing or disoriented for even a short period period of time is worthwhile.

Man portable are sort of grenade launcher-like, but if you can't have them replace mortars, because lasers can't fire indirectly. That means they are inferior to just about all of traditional ground artillery in what they can hit from where.



I thought lasers travel at the speed of light, because they are, well, light. Are you talking about speed of light in the air being lower than speed of light in vacuum, or I am missing something?


There is air vs vacuum, then there is possible rain or fog in the way, and there is also deplay between pulling the trigger and the weapon firing - while circuitry does function at near c speed, there may well be some delay before the necessary light/energy levels build up to fire, and there is also sensor input delay, even if you are aiming using naked eyes. This depends a lot on the details, if you have pulse laser or standard beam, how much time you have from target detection to target no longer being viable and so on.

In the end, you're not quite lightspeed, but can get pretty close.



I cannot quickly find the source but I remember reading that with currently known technologies powerful lasers do not scale quite perfectly, and it would be easier to make a laser for the (Space Battleship) Yamato capable of taking down another Yamato than a laser for a TIE-Fighter capable of taking down another TIE-Fighter.

By the time we have lasers capable of taking out armored warships, we're pretty far away in handwave land. Even so, I don't think there is quite as much of a difference between laser pistol and laser naval cannon as there is between a 9mm Glock and Yamato's main guns. Though that may depend on whether you're counting power source of the lasers into the equation.

Even then, lasers don't seem to need long barrels, which means you can give them a considerably higher rotational speed at lower power requirements when compared to naval guns, even if their weight is the same.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-12, 08:36 AM
The continued fascination with them in near future / development circles in their ability to consistently hit fast, fragile, and sometimes quite small given the distances involved, targets at longer ranges than traditional CIWS and at a lower cost per shot than the traditional missile - or at the very least, with ability to store more shots and fire them off rapidly.

Concepts have ranged from using them to shoot down artillery shells (the original THEL did this for a demo) to more traditional air/ballistic missile defense (a battery of air defense missile launchers might only have 12-24 missiles “loaded” , and long reload times - vulnerable to saturation with TBMs or a gorilla package), and nowadays there is some renewed interest in if it can be used as a cost effective drone counter (missiles like the Patriot or S300 use are millions of dollars a piece; a host of drones that live in the airspace where shorter range missiles would fall short are cheaper).

But almost all of those rely less on Star Wars esque pew-pew-boom and more on doing “just enough” damage to disable the target platform.

Brother Oni
2020-12-14, 09:51 AM
Martin Greywolf's benchmark (boil 1 kg of human tissue, 267 kJ) requires 534 kW

Except you don't need to boil 1 kg of a person to disable them, you just need to inflict 3rd degree burns to a centimetre or so of depth, which is a lot less flesh.

Looking at some papers, the specific heat capacity of flesh is 3.5 kJ/kg/K and you need to hit about 80C to cause a severe burn. Assuming a standard 34C for skin temp, that's (80-34)*3.5 = 161 kJ/kg.

Assuming a 9mm round equivalent to a depth of 2cm and a human flesh density of 1.1g/mL, that's (pi*(0.45^2)*2)*1.1) = 1.4g of flesh to heat, which is (1.4/1000)*161 = 0.2 kJ

There's a thermal transfer coefficient I haven't figured out yet (duration of laser contact, strength of laser, heat dispersion of human flesh, etc); this paper (link (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47435-7))seems to have the answer, although I need a couple days to recover from the Christmas crunch before I can science that hard in an unfamiliar field.

That said, one alternate weaponisation of 'burning a hole through things' that's popular, is causing plasma formation by ablating and boiling the outermost layers of the target, causing an explosion. On a human combatants, this is pretty much as effective as burning a hole in them.

There's also the potentially banned EM field generation by a similar mechanism, causing nerve excitation and extreme pain to humans, or the ever favourite 'microwave' laser (which has much the same effect).

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-14, 04:44 PM
Except you don't need to boil 1 kg of a person to disable them, you just need to inflict 3rd degree burns to a centimetre or so of depth, which is a lot less flesh.


Except we need to blast a hole the width of a Star Wars laser through a guy, as per the original question.



That said, one alternate weaponisation of 'burning a hole through things' that's popular, is causing plasma formation by ablating and boiling the outermost layers of the target, causing an explosion.


If you are turning a point of contact into plasma, I suspect you are also doing something weird to air in the way - sure, we do have real lasers in pettawatt range, but I don't think those send the beam through air. At this point you need to either invest several days of research into finding out, or try to ask a xkcd what if.

AdAstra
2020-12-14, 07:51 PM
Except we need to blast a hole the width of a Star Wars laser through a guy, as per the original question.



If you are turning a point of contact into plasma, I suspect you are also doing something weird to air in the way - sure, we do have real lasers in pettawatt range, but I don't think those send the beam through air. At this point you need to either invest several days of research into finding out, or try to ask a xkcd what if.

Nah it's possible to do that with somewhat practical tech (in an engineering sense). Particularly powerful laser ablation will turn stuff into plasma easy peasy, it just takes way more equipment than a person would want to carry, plus an external power supply.

Ablation of the target (or the atmosphere) into plasma is actually a major barrier to viable laser weaponry, since typically light that air is transparent to, plasma is not. That's the main appeal of pulse lasers. By using extremely powerful, short pulses, you give enough time for the plasma/vapor "cloud" to dissipate, allowing you to zap it again.

Brother Oni
2020-12-16, 04:13 AM
Except we need to blast a hole the width of a Star Wars laser through a guy, as per the original question.

True.


If you are turning a point of contact into plasma, I suspect you are also doing something weird to air in the way - sure, we do have real lasers in pettawatt range, but I don't think those send the beam through air. At this point you need to either invest several days of research into finding out, or try to ask a xkcd what if.

Explosive boiling by laser ablation is a real thing and doesn't require lasers in the power range you mention: link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234888604_Delayed_phase_explosion_during_high-power_nanosecond_laser_ablation_of_silicon).

The US Navy LAWS is a 30kW laser and does a good job of making things explode, although not in the same timeframe as a conventional ballistic weapon after making contact: see approx 0.59 onwards of the US Navy LAWS demonstration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjXXRfwrHg).

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-16, 09:49 AM
Explosive boiling by laser ablation is a real thing and doesn't require lasers in the power range you mention: link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234888604_Delayed_phase_explosion_during_high-power_nanosecond_laser_ablation_of_silicon).


To repeat myself. Can it blast a hole through a person? If not (and the linked paper has ablation depth of micrometers listed, so...), can the results of a particular study be scaled upwards to energy levels that can blast a hole through a person? A tennis ball behaves very differently at mach 1 and mach 20, how sure are we we aren't hitting a similar threshold.

The linked paper shows that increase from 10^11 to 10^12 in wattage gives us an increase of 12 micrometers. Scaling that up to human torso would get us absurd energies if we tried to ablate in one hit, and if we need repeat hits, we get about 25 000 individual hits before we get through 30 cm.



The US Navy LAWS is a 30kW laser and does a good job of making things explode, although not in the same timeframe as a conventional ballistic weapon after making contact: see approx 0.59 onwards of the US Navy LAWS demonstration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjXXRfwrHg).

No it doesn't. The first target looked like a mortar shell, so the laser is powerful enough to set off other explosives. Once they start to shoot at the drone, there is no explosion, only a fire. It seems to be great at taking out relatively fragile complex things, and at taking out things that explode if overheated enough. Which is why it is a point defense weapon, not a traditional secondary armament.

Brother Oni
2020-12-16, 01:26 PM
To repeat myself. Can it blast a hole through a person?

Except I wasn't stating it could blast a hole in a person, I was stating it was another way of incapacitating a person, much like my 'third degree burns' estimation.

Your previous post sounded like it was contesting the science of laser ablation causing boiling, to which I posted that paper. I wasn't trying to use laser ablation causing explosive boiling as an alternate means of blowing a hole through a person - it's overkill, pointless and I simply don't have the energy to crunch the math, so I conceded the point.


No it doesn't. The first target looked like a mortar shell, so the laser is powerful enough to set off other explosives. Once they start to shoot at the drone, there is no explosion, only a fire. It seems to be great at taking out relatively fragile complex things, and at taking out things that explode if overheated enough. Which is why it is a point defense weapon, not a traditional secondary armament.

I didn't say anything about the LAWS being a PD or traditional secondary armament, just whether the practicality of whether the LAWS can trigger explosive boiling. You seem to be setting up strawmen that don't have anything to do with the original post.

From other papers (https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1473862), 2x1010watts/cm2 (~20 gigawatts/cm2) seems to be the threshold to significantly make things go boom, so I concede the point that the LAWS has the wattage to make things explode like that, using the mechanism presented.

jayem
2020-12-16, 05:39 PM
How much of a distant obstacle is required to seriously impair a war arrows flight.
For example would a tent be enough to keep you basically safe (aside from the obscuring effects) or would it go through it without noticing. What is the minimum you'd need.
Canvas is obviously enough for 'fairground' archery but they are blunt and weak.

For the sake of completeness, I'll escalate the question up via guns. Although I know that can go through even things you think ought to protect you.

Gnoman
2020-12-16, 06:14 PM
I can't answer the arrow question, but I can do something with the expanded question.


Even at terminal ballistics, any military bullet that can still wound you will not balk at any cloth. It is theoretically possible for a bullet to have just enough energy left that punching through cloth will keep it from penetrating the skin, but that's highly unlikely. Hollowpoint bullets are potentially a different story - cloth can jam up the hollow and either keep them from expanding or expand them prematurely. Either would significantly change how the bullet performs.

To reliably stop any rifle bullet, you need several inches of wood, a significant amount of mild steel, or about a half-inch of hardened steel (or, of course, properly backed ceramics, but the question is more about environment). Nothing less will significantly matter except at very long range. If somebody's using AP ammo, you need significantly more of all such substances. Some light, fast bullets can be deflected by less, but slower and heavier bullets won't be.

Pistol rounds tend to have about half the penetration or less that rifles do, so about 2 inches of wood, an inch of mild steel, or a quarter-inch of hard stuff. Historical weapons such as muskets or other black powder rounds will perform similarly to pistols because they are in the same velocity range.

Saint-Just
2020-12-16, 06:56 PM
How much of a distant obstacle is required to seriously impair a war arrows flight.
For example would a tent be enough to keep you basically safe (aside from the obscuring effects) or would it go through it without noticing. What is the minimum you'd need.
Canvas is obviously enough for 'fairground' archery but they are blunt and weak.

For the sake of completeness, I'll escalate the question up via guns. Although I know that can go through even things you think ought to protect you.

I know very little about practical effects of arrows but I want to to ask one clarifying question: what exactly would you mean by "distant obstacle"? I interpret that as "obstacle which projectile passes through, so it will not save you if it's against your skin but which will save you if you are some distance behind it" but I may be wrong.

Any obstacle which is insufficient to stop a bullet but still can save you will do so by redirection/deflection. There are a lot of situations where material will not stop a bullet will redirect it. One example seen in the firefights in the cities: modern (very sloped) windshields of cars will not stop 9mm Parabellum (typical pistol round) but can (if fired at from the front) significantly change the trajectory. Modern intermediate cartridges are susceptible to that effect to a degree that shooting through the bush can result in bullets being deflected and even keyholing (when the bullet starts to rotate in abnormal direction, so sometimes it flies sideways). It will not save you if you are say 1 meter behind the bush, but it can result in a bullet missing you if you are 10 meters behind the bush, or if you have a body armor it may result in a keyholing bullet failing to penetrate the armor which the same bullet flying normally would penetrate with ease. All of the above says "may": it may or may not, it's pretty random. Heavier and slower are much less affected, I would guess that musketballs are practically not affected.

Pauly
2020-12-16, 07:53 PM
On the subject of obstacles that won’t stop a bullet but will deflect it is widely discussed in what are called “brush guns”. Any hunting forum will have a few threads dedicated to the subject and a significant number of youtube firearms channels have videos showing practical demonstrations.

Generally speaking high velocity small calibre jacketed bullets are more likely to be deflected and slower heavy lead bullets more likely to stay on target. So even if you have 2 rounds with the same energy both will behave very differently with respect to deflecting from obstacles.

In WWII in the Pacific and in VietNam there were many reports of soldiers reporting light fast rounds getting deflected by foliage and comparatively slow heavy rounds punching through.

Now getting back to arrows. Will a canvas tent stop/deflect a war arrow?
Stop - not unless you are at extreme ranges.
Deflect - depends a lot on the arrow head. My guess is that bodkin points will deflect more as the smaller hole will leave more canvas in contact with the shaft as it passes through and the initial hole will be a more uneven punch, a broad head will have a larger hole that will be more evenly cut and to my mind that should pass through with less deflection. Tests on penetration show that broadheads pass through gambeson better than bodkin points.

Vykryl
2020-12-16, 09:54 PM
One thing I remember from hunter's safety training was a demonstration using a large coffee can full of sand. It stopped a rifle bullet within the can. The arrow penetrated through the can and into the target behind the can.

I cant give caliber or grain weights as it was 25 or so years ago.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-16, 11:31 PM
Re: guns. Some of that will be considered by the yaw dependency of the bullet. Many newer rounds are less yaw dependent and so tend to deliver much higher average penetration despite a theoretical physical equivalency.

The current generation 5.56mm will go through cinder blocks at 50 yards, or a quarter inch of soft steel (or a 5mm hardened plate - basically double medieval “full plate”) at 400 yards. It will also go through a lot of light construction materials, but be tossed rather off course in the process. Which won’t matter if the guy is using a flipped over table for cover or some such.

Long 7.62mm (medium machine gun stuff) hasn’t been modernized, so it actually has less effective penetration of thin hard surfaces (read: steel), but tends to deal with thicker softer surfaces better. Still, you can forget the hole movie idea of hiding behind a car door, or for that matter anything other than the engine block - and it’ll go through several interior walls.

jayem
2020-12-17, 03:18 AM
I know very little about practical effects of arrows but I want to to ask one clarifying question: what exactly would you mean by "distant obstacle"? I interpret that as "obstacle which projectile passes through, so it will not save you if it's against your skin but which will save you if you are some distance behind it" but I may be wrong.

Any obstacle which is insufficient to stop a bullet but still can save you will do so by redirection/deflection.

Yes.

In the case of arrows I'd assume that would also include cases of significant rotation deflection (so it hits you edge on), however due to the higher parabola course the distances that are interestingly feasible are quite small.

Interesting to see the numbers, collations of stories. I'd seen the Top Gear where they 'armour' their car and it's utterly ineffective, and similar. So no major surprises.

Max_Killjoy
2020-12-17, 08:57 AM
I don't recall the name right now, but the cloth thing that billows out behind a mounted warrior when moving really will catch arrows and prevent them from penetrating the armor at all.

So if the cloth of a tent or banner or something has any give and any resistance, it's possible that it would do something similar.

Mike_G
2020-12-17, 10:58 AM
Arrows will shoot through sandbags

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPXLmUqxvAo&ab_channel=Tod%27sWorkshop

Yeah, it's a crossbow, but it's set up to shoot longbow arrows and mimic the energy. The guy isn't a professional archer but wants to test archery versus stuff. Poke around his channel for more interesting experiments with bows and slings and pila and plumbata and so on

And I rigged up a backyard archery range (because lockdown) and used an old carpet as a backstop, and my 45 pound recurve sent arrows with target points right through it. No there are no neighbors back there, just forest, so the backstop was more to keep me from losing arrows than endangering the neighborhood.

So I would say you'd need something substantial, or maybe as Max pointed out, something that has some give to catch them and tangle them up.

Saint-Just
2020-12-17, 11:18 AM
I don't recall the name right now, but the cloth thing that billows out behind a mounted warrior when moving really will catch arrows and prevent them from penetrating the armor at all.

So if the cloth of a tent or banner or something has any give and any resistance, it's possible that it would do something similar.

It's called horo (母衣) and while it is surprisingly effective against arrows I doubt any historical tent would be even half as effective at stopping arrows. Now, can some sort of frame or maybe even ropes with stakes attached at specific points provide a comparable resistance? Probably yes, but I doubt it was developed. Normal modus operandi would be not getting shot at by hiding, or by having a standing night watch which would awake you in case of attack.

jayem
2020-12-17, 04:39 PM
Arrows will shoot through sandbags

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPXLmUqxvAo&ab_channel=Tod%27sWorkshop

Yeah, it's a crossbow, but it's set up to shoot longbow arrows and mimic the energy. The guy sin;t a professional archer but wants to test archery versus stuff. Poke around his channel for more interesting experimanets with bows and slings and pila and plumbata and so on

And I rigged up a backyard archery range (because lockdown) and used an old carpet as a backstop, and my 45 pound recurve sent arrows with target points right through it. No there are no neighbors back there, just forest, so the backstop was more to keep me from losing arrows than endangering the neighborhood.

So I would say you'd need something substantial, or maybe as Max pointed out, something that has some give to catch them and tangle them up.

(I'd seen the channel before, but not the latest). That was a lot more 'obstacle what obstacle'. My prejudice would have expected it to be more akin to the way it stuck out the butt afterwards*, and for cloth to be anywhere somewhere hanging off the fletchings to a fair chance of lethality (partly because of examples like Max gave.)

*A combination of that and up and over, would have imo been a satisfactory explanation of the inspiration story, if t had been needed.

fusilier
2020-12-18, 03:59 AM
On the subject of obstacles that won’t stop a bullet but will deflect it is widely discussed in what are called “brush guns”. Any hunting forum will have a few threads dedicated to the subject and a significant number of youtube firearms channels have videos showing practical demonstrations.

Generally speaking high velocity small calibre jacketed bullets are more likely to be deflected and slower heavy lead bullets more likely to stay on target. So even if you have 2 rounds with the same energy both will behave very differently with respect to deflecting from obstacles.

The geometry of the bullet is also a factor. I've heard some hunters like 6.5mm Carcano for use in the brush. It is small caliber, jacketed, but round nose, instead of spitzer. The round nose design is "nose heavy" and less easily deflected than a sptizer round which is base heavy. Older, non-jacketed bullets, are usually round nose too.

fusilier
2020-12-18, 04:10 AM
How much of a distant obstacle is required to seriously impair a war arrows flight.
For example would a tent be enough to keep you basically safe (aside from the obscuring effects) or would it go through it without noticing. What is the minimum you'd need.
Canvas is obviously enough for 'fairground' archery but they are blunt and weak.

For the sake of completeness, I'll escalate the question up via guns. Although I know that can go through even things you think ought to protect you.

Musket balls were known to have a range at which point they were considered "spent." You'll hear reports of someone being hit by a "spent ball" at long range, which bruised them, but often didn't break the skin. You have to consider the amount of lead flying around a Napoleonic or American Civil War battlefield, some of which must have been fired at significant elevations, that this did happen from time to time. I think the standard explanation is energy loss due to aerodynamic drag, but I suspect many were also ricochets. Not sure if there is a study on what ranges this occurred at.

Yora
2020-12-19, 05:10 AM
It's called horo (母衣) and while it is surprisingly effective against arrows I doubt any historical tent would be even half as effective at stopping arrows.

I believe those would have been made of silk. Which supposedly is much better at resisting arrows than wool, cotton, or hemp. And below that, there would still be a solid iron cuirass and helmet.
It's not magic, but I can see it sometimes making a difference.

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-20, 04:44 AM
Concerning arrows.

If you have a tent wall, and the arrow is still in flight, it will probably get through with lethal force. Sandbags as tested by Tod's Stuff have already been mentioned, but keep in mind, those weren't proper, packed sandbags, and were sideways-on to arrow flight, which you shouldn't do when making anything out of sandbags. For what he was testing - a story from a civil war somewhere where arrows did just that - it was enough, since civil wars rarely see properly constructed barricades.

Now, as for horo and that canvas you see on fairgrounds. It doesn't matter that much what they are made of, what matters is how they are, or rather are not, attached. The idea here is that loose fabric like that will catch the arrow early and then, by virtue of being loosely attached, will flip it a little. That may not seem like much at first glance, changing impact angle by a few degrees, but remember that these aren't bullets.

An arrow flies in a given direction usually while pointing in said direction, and that means that it will deposit its energy pretty directly into the impact target. Make the arrow fly even a little bit sideways, and that direct energy transfer suddenly becomes vastly less efficient - in extreme case, we can talk about being slapped with side of an arrow rather than being shot with it. Being slapped with a bullet is, well, still being shot (unless we bring vests into the equation), but arrow going sideways will:


have very little force and momentum behind its head
spend considerably more energy on bending and breaking
will deliver this energy over a longer period of time as it rotates and slaps after a hit
possibly spend some of that energy by continuing on because of deflection



Horo has an additional advantage in its billowing, the canvas no longer relies on arrow motion alone to destabilize it, it also adds some movement of its own.

As for the original question, arrows will behave somewhat counterintuitively. Every obstacle slows them down, obviously, but that slow down depends on how well an obstacle grips the arrow. Thin wooden plank will probably reduce arrow speed a lot more than water, baceuse that wood will apply friction to entire length of arrow shaft. Loose cloth will also tend to destabilize arrows, potentially enough to make them non-lethal - but if you take the same cloth and put it on a tent, or make a roof with it, then it looses its arrow-stopping properties.

Khedrac
2020-12-20, 05:03 PM
When considering devices to slow/stop arrows we really need to consider what bows were used by the opponenets of the deployers of said devices.

There is a huge difference in the penetrating power of arrows loosed from the selection of bows used over history.

For example, in one of the early crusades the English troops marching on their way to Palestine were subjected to harassing archery by the locals whose lands they were marching through. This archery was so ineffective that the English foot (the ordinary soldiers not nobles) were able to completely ignore the arrows - they didn't even bother to pull them out of their kit most of the time! (The main objective of said archery was to get the column to break up and engage them which eventually 'worked' in that the templars who had rearguard were goaded into an attack.) That sort of technique (ignore) would never have worked against longbow arrows, hence the need to consider the type of bow and arrow a defense is supposed to be useful against.

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-22, 10:23 AM
When considering devices to slow/stop arrows we really need to consider what bows were used by the opponenets of the deployers of said devices.

There is a huge difference in the penetrating power of arrows loosed from the selection of bows used over history.

The thing about that is simply that late medieval English warbows are a major anomaly, but are so popular it's what most people keep talking about.

A good rule of thumb is thus:


you want to be using a bow with as little draw weight as possible to be able to shoot quickly or for long periods of time, therefore:
a culture with little need to penetrate metal armor will have bows in large game hunting range of 50-90 lbs, stone and most of bronze age archery falls here
a culture that needs to penetrate metal armor regularly will have bows in range of 90-120 lbs, this is where almost all archery in iron age belongs
only cultures dealing with comparetively high-quality steel plate will have bows in range of 120-160 lbs, this is pretty much a European-only thing
an archer can shoot a bow up to about 220 lbs
all of these cultures will have legendary heroes and unusually strong bows in a category that is a tier above what they generally use
you want to be using a bow with as little draw weight as possible to be able to shoot quickly or for long periods of time


As far as training goes, these days, you need people to train drawing anything above 50 lbs, but my experience with people who do physical labor for their day job suggests that they can go up to about 100 lbs without specific training. That means you will see effort to train up archers specifically once you hit metal armor in regular use.

Also note that all you need is having to deal with metal armor, availability of metal armor among your culture is irrelevant - which is the case with, for example, Mongols, who had little metal armor of their own (well, initially, after they capture China, they got), but had to go up against Chinese armies.


For example, in one of the early crusades the English troops marching on their way to Palestine were subjected to harassing archery by the locals whose lands they were marching through. This archery was so ineffective that the English foot (the ordinary soldiers not nobles) were able to completely ignore the arrows - they didn't even bother to pull them out of their kit most of the time! (The main objective of said archery was to get the column to break up and engage them which eventually 'worked' in that the templars who had rearguard were goaded into an attack.) That sort of technique (ignore) would never have worked against longbow arrows, hence the need to consider the type of bow and arrow a defense is supposed to be useful against.

To put a long story very short, most of those accounts are Crusaders going against Muslim light horse, with support of their own foot archers. There are three factors at play here.

First factor is that Crusader knights have heavier armor that is usual, using gambeson-mail-gambeson layers, and they pay the price for it as often as they gain the advantage. That much padding and weight plus Outremer sun does not a good combination make, and there are numerous examples of it massively hindering the knights. Hattin is definitely the most famous for it.

Second factor is Crusader archer support, that discourages Muslim horsemen from getting too close. Hitting a moving target at 50 meters is much harder than doing so at 20. There is significant evidence that shield wall used archers in back rows, hidden behind havily armored troops and their shields, to pop up and shoot anyone who got too close.

Third factor is that a lot of middle eastern archery was focused on range (one standard in mameluke archery was to hit a 1 meter diameter target at 75 meters). Their sources most often praise people on how far they were able to shoot, rather than on how strong a bow they could draw - compare that with Odysseus or Japanese legends of five-man bows. That seems to suggest the Musilm archery at this time was centered around range, and therefore used lighter arrows. Lighter arrows, even shot from a strong bow (and reproductions suggest pre-Ottoman bows are at about the 90-100 lbs range, post-Ottoman at the 110-160), will have significant difficulty penetrating metal armor.

And, well, it seems they adapted rather quickly. By the time of Third Crusade, Saladin's archers were able to seriously impede Richard's foot forces on march to Arsuf, to a point where they lost cohesion (this time approaching much closer, to a point where they could hit with javelins as well, so about 20 meters compared to mamelukes' 75), and at Hattin, Saladin's horse archers were able to counter mounted charges by shooting the knight's horses. By the time of Ottomans, there are no records suggesting their archery was less effective than the European standard - which is quite a feat, since European standard at this time includes English warbows and crossbows.

Saint-Just
2020-12-22, 08:41 PM
While we are at it is there enough examples of Japanese yumi longbows to gauge a draw weight for them? Especially 16th century and before, since I am not sure that bows would stay the same during the Edo period.

Pauly
2020-12-22, 11:06 PM
While we are at it is there enough examples of Japanese yumi longbows to gauge a draw weight for them? Especially 16th century and before, since I am not sure that bows would stay the same during the Edo period.

I live in Japan, but archery isn’t my interest. However Japanese people collect an amazing number of things and if they are from an important person they usually get donated to a temple. The number of weapons and suits of armor with full history of the maker and original owner is mind blowing.

I would be very surprised if there aren’t a large number of extant bows from which you could do the comparison.

Brother Oni
2020-12-23, 04:26 AM
I would be very surprised if there aren’t a large number of extant bows from which you could do the comparison.

Battlefield yumi have been estimated between 70-200 lb (approx 32-91 kg) draw weight, with the standard being 120 lbs (54 kg). This is based from experimental archaeology, the few yumi bowyers that still make such warbows and contemporary records of draw weight.

Like many things related to Japanese warfare, they did their own thing when it came to measuring their bows in terms of draw weight; rather than measuring the draw weight directly, they measured them in terms of how many men it took to string the bow, with a 'standard' warbow needing three men (a sannin-bari, 三人張り) to string it. The Kamakura period (~13th Century) 'The Illustrated Tale of Obusama Saburo' (男衾三郎絵詞) shows a 3 man bow being strung.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Obusuma_Saburo_emaki_-_part_7.jpg


Records of up to 10 man bows exist, although they're regarded as either impractical (much like the bow weights required for the Qing Military officer examinations) or exaggeration.
Practical recreations put the 5 man bow (gonin-bari, 五人張り) as the upper limit as any more than 5 people trying to string a bow just get in the way of each other.

Legendary archer Minamoto no Tametomo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamoto_no_Tametomo) (源為朝) was said to use a 5 man bow.

In this video (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP8d81jzQJc&feature=youtu.be), no English subtitles alas), some kyudo/kyujutsu practitioners test out some yumi on steel targets, including assessing the draw weight of a historical early Edo period 3 man bow at 5:18 (https://youtu.be/rP8d81jzQJc?t=318), getting a draw weight of 89 kg (89キロ in the captioning).

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-23, 06:00 AM
Battlefield yumi have been estimated between 70-200 lb (approx 32-91 kg) draw weight, with the standard being 120 lbs (54 kg). This is based from experimental archaeology, the few yumi bowyers that still make such warbows and contemporary records of draw weight.

These numbers are not quite representative. Most modern replicas of war yumi are around the 100-110 lbs mark, which is where I'd expect most of them to sit in their period, and I think this would be the two-man bows.



In this video (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP8d81jzQJc&feature=youtu.be), no English subtitles alas), some kyudo/kyujutsu practitioners test out some yumi on steel targets, including assessing the draw weight of a historical early Edo period 3 man bow at 5:18 (https://youtu.be/rP8d81jzQJc?t=318), getting a draw weight of 89 kg (89キロ in the captioning).

The thing to remember is that measuring bow power in men is extremely subjective and non-linear. You can have three burly dudes who can span a bow you normally need 5 people for, and the difference between 3 and 5 isn't the same as between 1 and 3. There are legitimately-looking records of some people using 5 man bows, so I'd say those are probably in the 200 lbs area.

All of that together places Japan circa Sengoku Jidai into the "has to deal with metal armor" 90-120 range, with the occassional stronger bow. After that, Edo hits and by the end of it, bows are firmly made obsolete by things like Martini-Henry. In an alternate history where Japan doesn't go isolationist and mostly peaceful, import of Portugese cuirasses continues (and maybe some domestic production with imported steel) and we would probably see a shift in bow weight up to anti-plate armor levels. Or just more guns, who knows.

KimberlyGarr
2020-12-23, 06:51 AM
Was the United States involved in the Rhodesian Bush War?

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-23, 09:25 AM
Oh, the answers you’ll hear...that was not a short war, or a well understood one, and it happened on the periphery of the Cold War with influences across a large chunk of Africa.

To keep it simple, the US never sent troops, it imposed sanctions on the minority government, and in the end was a player in the peace talks that ended Rhodesia - but at the same time it found itself caught on the horns of trying to support a perception of racial justice (or more cynically, win points with the newly empowered black voting block) in a war where the Soviets were backing rebel groups who were also ostensibly fighting for the same thing.

Add on top that quite a few Americans decided they disagreed with the government and went out as mercenaries to work for the Rhodesian minority government, South Africa has its hands in the pot and we still wanted to support the UK who wanted influence in South Africa....

Pretty much anyone involved can find SOMETHING to scream about how the US was actually doing them wrong via some item or another, usually before launching into a pro-whatever-their-side-is diatribe.

But, TLDR, mostly diplomatically and economically in support of majority rule.

Brother Oni
2020-12-23, 11:41 AM
These numbers are not quite representative. Most modern replicas of war yumi are around the 100-110 lbs mark, which is where I'd expect most of them to sit in their period, and I think this would be the two-man bows.

I found this picture of what I assume to be a two man bow, but no providence of the image.

http://www.xn--u9j370humdba539qcybpym.jp/net/yumiya/top004.jpg

Generally though, I can't find any record of anything less than a 3 man bow. Whether this is because of an imposed minimum standard for warfare (like with English archery) or anything less than a 3 man bow wasn't worthy of mention, I don't know.

I found an unsourced legend/myth/rumour that legendary figure Minamoto no Yo****sune (no link as the board censors it) was mocked for using a very light draw (by the standards of the time) 24kg draw yumi, which would barely be a 1 man bow.


The thing to remember is that measuring bow power in men is extremely subjective and non-linear. You can have three burly dudes who can span a bow you normally need 5 people for, and the difference between 3 and 5 isn't the same as between 1 and 3. There are legitimately-looking records of some people using 5 man bows, so I'd say those are probably in the 200 lbs area.

As I said, Japan did its own thing - I deliberately didn't put a poundage correlation to draw weight because of the massive variance; even if all those men were equally strong and could pull 50 kg each (for sake of argument), any bow between 101-150kg draw weight would be counted as a 3-man bow.

Mike_G
2020-12-24, 12:20 AM
Concerning arrows.

If you have a tent wall, and the arrow is still in flight, it will probably get through with lethal force. Sandbags as tested by Tod's Stuff have already been mentioned, but keep in mind, those weren't proper, packed sandbags, and were sideways-on to arrow flight, which you shouldn't do when making anything out of sandbags. For what he was testing - a story from a civil war somewhere where arrows did just that - it was enough, since civil wars rarely see properly constructed barricades.


So Tod did a follow up, comparing various arrows and crossbow bolts vs sandbag to guns vs sandbags. Every caliber from .22 LR up to .308, and the bullets did far worse against the same set up. Simple bag of construction sand set up the same way. The only round that made it through was the 7.62 x 39, and that had very little energy left. It was going sideways, went through a sheet of cardboard and dented the wood behind. Everything else (including 5.56 and .308) never made it through the bag.

So a single sandbag from Home Depot will stop most bullets, but not an arrow.

It seems that mass and momentum trumps velocity as far as penetrating sandbags.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNo5yDI7A1M&ab_channel=Tod%27sWorkshop

Clistenes
2020-12-24, 06:26 AM
Battlefield yumi have been estimated between 70-200 lb (approx 32-91 kg) draw weight, with the standard being 120 lbs (54 kg). This is based from experimental archaeology, the few yumi bowyers that still make such warbows and contemporary records of draw weight.

Like many things related to Japanese warfare, they did their own thing when it came to measuring their bows in terms of draw weight; rather than measuring the draw weight directly, they measured them in terms of how many men it took to string the bow, with a 'standard' warbow needing three men (a sannin-bari, 三人張り) to string it. The Kamakura period (~13th Century) 'The Illustrated Tale of Obusama Saburo' (男衾三郎絵詞) shows a 3 man bow being strung.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Obusuma_Saburo_emaki_-_part_7.jpg


Records of up to 10 man bows exist, although they're regarded as either impractical (much like the bow weights required for the Qing Military officer examinations) or exaggeration.
Practical recreations put the 5 man bow (gonin-bari, 五人張り) as the upper limit as any more than 5 people trying to string a bow just get in the way of each other.

Legendary archer Minamoto no Tametomo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamoto_no_Tametomo) (源為朝) was said to use a 5 man bow.

In this video (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP8d81jzQJc&feature=youtu.be), no English subtitles alas), some kyudo/kyujutsu practitioners test out some yumi on steel targets, including assessing the draw weight of a historical early Edo period 3 man bow at 5:18 (https://youtu.be/rP8d81jzQJc?t=318), getting a draw weight of 89 kg (89キロ in the captioning).

Those are pretty high draw weights for guys who were 155 cm/5 ft tall on average (based on the size of their armour), and were mostly vegetarians (only those who lived close to the sea could get proteins regularly from fish...). The draw weight of the longbows from the Mary Rose was of 100–185 lb (50-83 kg), and those were elites, the tallest, strongest men in England, with a height of around 175 cm (and, as usual among late medieval/renaissance elites, mostly carnivores with high protein, high calcium diets...).

Martin Greywolf
2020-12-24, 02:53 PM
Those are pretty high draw weights for guys who were 155 cm/5 ft tall on average (based on the size of their armour),

Shorter build also translates to shorter arms and shorter draw length. We like to talk about draw weight, but a bow doesn't have a draw weight, it has draw weight at a given distance. One major criticism of those draw weight measurements is that they were made with maximum length of arrows in mind, rather than size of archer. I'd be interested to see if that would change things.


and were mostly vegetarians (only those who lived close to the sea could get proteins regularly from fish...).

This is a complete lie, mostly coming from timespan around WW2 when Imperial Japan had several famines, and several foods were pushed as quintessentially Japanese, among them sushi and several types of sea grass, along with the idea of scarcity of meat being somehow traditional.

{Scrubbed}

Take this as a cautionary tale, when articles on the internet tell you something about historical whatever, be very sceptical until you find an academical paper confirming it.

Even if that were the case, I have no idea where the thought of "away from sea means no fish" comes from. Carp and lobsters are a thing, as is any number of fresh water fish, and fisheries were popular things to have worldwide.


The draw weight of the longbows from the Mary Rose was of 100–185 lb (50-83 kg),

Not representative. Mary Rose was full of elites, but their bows were in 150-160 range, with a few exceptions either way, which is a cautionary tale on how to handle statistics. A range rarely tells the whole story. Most non-elite bows are estimated to be in 120-140 range in this era.



and those were elites, the tallest, strongest men in England,

Not really. Elite soldiers yes, definitely, possibly chosen for ability to draw bows as well, but there was no formal selection pool. There were likely many stronger or better archers in England, perfectly happy to not serve in the navy.



with a height of around 175 cm (and, as usual among late medieval/renaissance elites, mostly carnivores with high protein, high calcium diets...).

Rice is high in protein. As for carnivore, not really, Japanese diet is not that different from European one when it comes to nobles, a solid amount of meat, lot of protein. I already discussed the myths on Japanese side, on European, far too many people look at what a ducal feast looked like and try to apply that to everyday life of your low-level noble, most of whom were quite cash-strapped.

The largest point of difference is that, in Europe, paesants had meat much more readily available to them when compared to their Japanese counterparts.