Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. V [Archive] - Page 2

AJCSIV

2008-07-23, 05:43 AM

Okay, guns I don't know about. Medieval and ancient weapons I do {I've had 5 years experience and own and been trained in most types of weapon} and regarding the question before about slashing with a glaive...

The first thing to know about practically every polearm - whether you're coming from an Asiatic or European backgroud of style - is that they're basically all just specialised variations of quaterstaff. Okay, that's incredibly dulled down, but basically a quaterstaff can do anything any other polearm can do but the type of blade dictates the manner of use. For example, a spear can be used to thrust, obviously it's primary use, however it can also be wielded similar to a poleaxe using the end to 'hack' at the opponent, it's just nowhere near as good as it as a poleaxe {and frankly worse than a quarterstaff if you're opponent is wearing any sort of armour}. As for a Glaive...

It is not a slashing weapon. Yes I know it's listed as such but that's not it's primary use. However, it can slash. The way in which you do this is via effective draw cuts {you hit your opponent with a hacking blow that pulls the blade across their body thus massively opening the wound rather} and also if you thrust low at someone, you can very easily disable someone by thrusting, missing, bringing the head low and pulling the blade back across the leg so that basically you hook them from behind and pull, thus tearing their leg veins open which in real life if untreated would kill them in 3 minutes. However, having said that, if you class a polearm that can do that as a slashing weapon, then a spear is a slashing weapon as well {I've had it done to me with, even with a blunt spear head it's not fun} and frankly some varieties of two handed axes can do the same, but a glaive does it better.

In short, your original summise was right. A Glaive is NOT a slashing weapon, but it can be used as one more effectively and the main difference between it and other poleweapons is that it does incoroprate a 'slash' or 'drawcut' in practically all it's attacks. Assuming that there is someone on the WOTC staff who know's their weapons {Which considering the rapier I honestly don't think there is}, they figured they needed a polearm that can slash and the Glaive is the best suited to that role out of the weapons on offer.

By the way this is my first post on the forums so if I'm not meeting an etiquete like say, short posts, please tell me, prefferably via PM rather than cluttering the boards.

By The By: The only weapons I really consider slashing weapons are Asian swords {including the Katana, Banshee etc}, the scimitar, the sabre and most other originally cavalry weapons. If you know anything about these weapons you'll notice they're all curved. There's a reason for that but that's a different subject. And in defence of the Glaive, it is the closest polearm equivalent to these weapons.

Dervag

2008-07-24, 12:16 AM

Wasn't there also something about revolvers not being as gas tight as lever actions?Well, among other things there is always a gap between the cylinder of the revolver and the barrel of the gun; that's a potential gas leak point right there.

The Wiki article on revolvers mentions this in the context of silencing a revolver. With a gas leak built into the structure of the gun, you can't really silence it.

Fhaolan

2008-07-24, 10:28 AM

The first thing to know about practically every polearm - whether you're coming from an Asiatic or European backgroud of style - is that they're basically all just specialised variations of quaterstaff.

That depends on how you're using the term 'polearm'. Many people also include pikes, spetums, ranseurs, etc. in the term polearm, and these are definately not used in the same manner as a quarterstaff... In fact, many call these long poleweapons weapons variations of the fullstaff, which is a relatively new made-up term which would confuse medieval people no end. Nobody really knows what a quarterstaff is actually a quarter of. Likely it's a distorted anglization of the real term which has nothing to do with quarters.

So, I tend to break up poleweapons into two sub-groups, the short ones like glaives, halberds, poleaxes, etc. which were popular in tourney duels and were used in supporting roles in mass formations, and the long ones like pikes, spetums, etc. which were the mainstay for mass formations.

Shademan

2008-07-24, 11:56 AM

Storm Bringer

2008-07-24, 12:54 PM

well, on the basis of precisely zero firsthand knowledge......

just read that the lamellar was superior to the brigandine in the amrs and equipment guide and i thought "wow... that cant be true!"

why can't it be? Why would stitching a series of plates together be any more inheritly weaker than taking a simmilar set of planes and nailing them onto a soft backing material? brigandine armour was normally attached to canvas or soft leather, whoose ability to add extra protection on top of that of the metal plates is rather doubtful.

All I can say is that lamellar was created first, and was used heavily in parts of the world until well into the gunpowder era. Brigandine, as far I can tell, is a much later invention, only appearing in the 14th century, and lasting until some point in the 16th. I have no reason to belive that either was inheritly a better form of protection to the other, and i think the quality of manufacture would have more to do with it.

Swordguy

2008-07-24, 02:25 PM

what is superior?
the brigandine or the lamellar?
just read that the lamellar was superior to the brigandine in the amrs and equipment guide and i thought "wow... that cant be true!" but since i live in a primitive country without access to medieval stuff i cant do the research meself.

Offhand, I'd guess it to be the opposite. Lamellar has plates overlapping - a blow that slides off of one plate will hit the next. Brigandine has gaps between the plates, which are absolutely wide enough for a thrust that's sliding off of a plate to slip through.

Now, birgandine is lighter and generally more flexible - but that's the standard tradeoff (flexibility and weight for protection) that all armor has.

Raum

2008-07-24, 06:09 PM

what is superior?
the brigandine or the lamellar?.Superior how? Lamellar links plates in a matrix (often using silk cords in Eastern armors) and is vulnerable to having the linking material cut or damaged. Brigandine is essentially reversed scale - the plates are attached on the inside of some other material and overlap significantly vertically but not as much horizontally. Brigandine is easier to repair, you can do so a plate at a time. With lamellar you'd need to relink a series of plates even if only replacing one.

WhiteHarness

2008-07-25, 03:55 AM

Offhand, I'd guess it to be the opposite. Lamellar has plates overlapping - a blow that slides off of one plate will hit the next. Brigandine has gaps between the plates, which are absolutely wide enough for a thrust that's sliding off of a plate to slip through.

Now, birgandine is lighter and generally more flexible - but that's the standard tradeoff (flexibility and weight for protection) that all armor has.
Not true. Brigandine plates do indeed overlap. I have yet to see a surviving example in which this was not the case.

Storm Bringer

2008-07-25, 05:15 AM

an internal view of a 15th century italian brigandine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brigandine%2C_Italian%2C_c1470%2C_Royal_Armo ury%2C_Leeds_%28internal_view%29.JPG) It is are front opening garment, so the central part of the opened suit is actaully the back plates.

I have to say, thier are not actaully any gaps in that save for missing plates.

Modern reconstruction of Lamellar armour using leather scales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SCH1577ac.jpg)

Is it me, or is the laced differently than you would expect? I would have assumed that you would lace the scales to overlap with the bottom of one scale on top of the top of one below, rather than top of one on top of the bottom of the one above. That way, downward blows wouldn't catch on the scales and be more likey to slide off, right? It just seems like an odd way to lace it.

Shademan

2008-07-25, 05:29 AM

thanks fer all the answers.
uh, the Arms and equipment guide have the following stats fer lamellar and brigandine:armour bonus:+4 max dexterity bonus:2
lamellar: armour bonus:+5 max dexterity bonus:3+

i dont think thats right... imean, if it were the crafty europeans would prolly have copied the lamellar soon after the first crusade and when they tested the brigandine on "perfect weapon" (on national geographic) the guy couls move and act with almost no penalty to speed or mobility.
still, i dont know much about lamellar...

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 05:33 AM

Fhaolan, you're right even if you don't realise precisely what for.
1. I was defining polearms as any staff weapon. IE, any weapon on a wooden pole under 7ft
2. Under that definition I should have used the term shortstaff instead of quaterstaff. A proper medieval quarterstaff was always at least two feet taller than the wielder and generally 7ft or more, the short staff was under 7ft.
3. The reason it is called a quaterstaff is not because it is a quater of something, in fact I don't actually know where you got that idea. The reason it is called a quaterstaff is because of the way you weild it, you put one hand at the halfway point {or 1 third up if it's particularly long or you're weilding it slightly differently} and your other hand a quater of the way down the length. Thus you hold a quarter of the staff while you fight with the rest, the quarter that is below your hand is what you use to defend youself with at short range and can use to whack the other guy if they get too close.

So if you want to seperately classify them say staff weapons for the shorter ones. The longer ones... I probably wouldn't actually classify them as polearms since you can't really 'weild' them as a weapon, they tend to be more static items, but if you want to classify them as something I don't know what the official term is, I'll see if I can find out.

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 05:44 AM

As for the question on Lamellar...

http://http://forums.armourarchive.org:80/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=52942&highlight=byzantine+sleeve (http://forums.armourarchive.org:80/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=52942&highlight=byzantine+sleeve)

That's a suit made by a friend of mine, the current emperor of one of my re-enactment groups. Now, don't quote me on this because this is what I recall being the answer to your question on direction of lamellar lay but some parts of it I'm not certain, in the sense of I think I recall the 'actual/original' reason being something else and the things I list simply being other benefits.

1. Lamellar was primarily worn by cavalry. This is why the armour doesn't go all the way down to the waist, you're supposed to be able to sit in it.
2. When you're on a horse people tend to strike up at you, thus the laying of the leather/metal are designed to assist in glancing off their blows upwards instead of catching them and-oh I remember now.
3. I they were facing down then any upward stroke would catch the strings behind the leather/metal plates that tie them together, sever the strings and the armour breaks. When they're going up the angle of most sword strikes will not actually slip in between the leather/metal and so the armour will remain intact.
4. Also I think it was slightly stronger going upwards rather than down, though I'm not entirely certain of that one and as far as I know it is purely theoretical and hasn't been actively tested.

Spiryt

2008-07-25, 05:49 AM

i dont think thats right... imean, if it were the crafty europeans would prolly have copied the lamellar soon after the first crusade and when they tested the brigandine on "perfect weapon" (on national geographic) the guy couls move and act with almost no penalty to speed or mobility.
still, i dont know much about lamellar...

It's never that easy to "copy" something. Besides, scale armor, similar to lamellar were known in Europe, it's not like it's very complicated invention. As far as I know rich Viking were sometimes using leather or even steel scales as additional protection.

In Crusade era Europeans rich enough to wear armor were wearing their fauvorite heavy padding + mail.

Matthew

2008-07-25, 06:09 AM

what is superior?
the brigandine or the lamellar?
just read that the lamellar was superior to the brigandine in the amrs and equipment guide and i thought "wow... that cant be true!" but since i live in a primitive country without access to medieval stuff i cant do the research meself.

As with any sort of medieval armour discussion, it's pretty much impossible to say anything definitively. Certainly, there are a number of contemporary historians who will sing the praises of lamellar armour and consider it better and more thorough protection than mail or brigandine.

The up and down of it is that all three armour types were worn by men with access to all three.

AJCSIV: I don't think Fhaolan was saying a Quarterstaff was named for being a quarter of something, rather he was alluding to the fact that we don't really know where the word has come from. If you have some evidence that it was called a quarterstaff because it was held a quarter of the way up, I would be interested to hear it.

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 06:12 AM

Actually vikings mostly wore leather, not mail or other metal armour. Think about it, sailing across the sea, salty water, all that metal? 1. it's going to rust 2. Your increase the ship's weight and thus likelihood to sink. Also, you're raiders, mail slows you down especially when you want to run after the peasant's and monks who are carrying the valuables.

Though during the crusades and a couple of major organised battles that were not a result of raiding yes mail etc is right. Padding and metal, yeah, and other stuff but that's a longer conversation not suited so much for this topic.

Also don't think that copying is easy, take a look at the lamellar armour we have just been discussing. Most of the evidence we have for that style armour is visual and artistic, not archarological, and people today are still debating as to whether they rivetted the lamellar pieces or knotted them in. The visual evidence could go either way, there on most images you will see a sort of round bolty looking thing then a line up. Now this could be a rivet and the line being artistic license, or it could be a knot with a bit of the string going up over the top of the plate. Now, granted, having an actual set of armour in front of you is a slightly different matter, but let's say you don't know how they forged the metal plates or made leather {there is a process of bee'swax involved}... How easy do you think it would be to copy without some background knowledge on its construction beforehand?

Also random sidenote, the Egyptian royals used to have crocodile scale armour. Hands up who wants a suit of that!

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 06:15 AM

AJCSIV: I don't think Fhaolan was saying a Quarterstaff was named for being a quarter of something, rather he was alluding to the fact that we don't really know where the word has come from. If you have some evidence that it was called a quarterstaff because it was held a quarter of the way up, I would be interested to hear it.

Early 1600 late 1500s weapons manuals that definition comes from. I think I got that specifically from George Silver though I'm not entirely certain.

And hey look, I just learnt how to quote.

Matthew

2008-07-25, 06:37 AM

Early 1600 late 1500s weapons manuals that definition comes from. I think I got that specifically from George Silver though I'm not entirely certain.

And hey look, I just learnt how to quote.

Yeah, that's likely folk etymology, which is to say it could be true, but it's not universally accepted and the evidence is slight.

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 06:37 AM

Oh, and on the topic of superior armour and weapons... {Sorry about the tripple post people}
KATANAs are NOT better than EUROPEAN SWORDS. They are in fact worse. Much worse. I say this purely on the basis of technological level. The Katana is made of folded steel, yes, but that is not better than the European forged weapons. We have evidence that in the dark ages Europeans could fold steel, even after the fall of Rome. Why didn't they do it? Because cold steel forging made a much stronger weapon. The forging process of Europe vs Japan was much better and produced a much stronger blade. And if that's not enough to convince here's a couple more points.
1. European swords were made of iron ore, or bog ore, found in swamps. Large clumps of iron from which they would then remove the carbon content to create steel. Japanese swords were made from iron extracted from, guess, sand. Who thinks that sand would be stronger?
2. The Japanese folded their steel because they HAD to. The ammount of carbon in their metal was so high that the only possible way they could turn it into an effective weapon was to fold the steel lots of times. As I said above, Europe used to fold steel until they found a better way of doing things.
3. The best katana ever made, acknowledged by Japanese swordmakers {whatever that term is, sorry don't know it} at the time, was made in the early 1900s, made out of Russian Railroad tracks.

...

Anyone still think that the katana was a better weapon? No? Good.
On that note two things, one, most katana made today are made using European forging techniques with European iron and then after that folding the steel. So most modern katana are not actually made in the original forging style {If they are they still use European iron, no katana as far as I am aware use iron from Japan}. Secondly, if a katana was made from European metals, I would then reconsider my position and begin discussing advantages and disadvantages of the different type of blade and styles of use, but historically, Europeans win.

Matthew

2008-07-25, 06:41 AM

To my mind, that's going way too far. Katana are just swords, some were rubbish, some were excellent.

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 06:44 AM

I would say that one of the most eminent weaponmasters of the early 1600s would know what he was talking about. However, if you want to make that argument.
1. It matches the way in which the quaterstaff was used, you always held it a quarter of the length up. So it makes sense etymologically there.
2. The quarterstaff was a weapon in its own right, the weapon itself is not a quarter of anything.
3. I know of no other standing theory that actually contests it. I know of a lot of people who don't know why it's called that but there is, as far as I am aware, no other explanation, there is an explanation from within the medieval period {okay it's renaisance but still within the considered medieval period} and that's the one from training manuals written by the best weaponsmaster in England at the time.

Matthew

2008-07-25, 06:48 AM

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 06:48 AM

Yeah sorry for the almost mindless insertion of that, but katana fanboys can be annoying at times, no offence to any of you out there it can just get a tad irritating.

Also that's kind of the point, the katana was rubbish as the basic materials used in making them were immensly inferior. High carbon vs low carbon. Doesn't matter how excellently you make the katana it's still really bad quality materials in comparison. However they did serve their puropse in Japan which was all that mattered for them. It's not like they ever fought Europeans until after rifles were invented.

Now as I said, if they were both made of the same materials and brought against each other I would change the argument, but historically this didn't happen until after guns had already replaced them in Japan.

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 06:50 AM

I am not saying it's not plausible, I am saying it's not universally accepted. It's just a matter of who you want to believe. Even 'eminent weaponmasters' have to get their information from somewhere; I would certainly have more faith in him if he was an eminent etymologist.

Excellent response. But, you did ask, there is an answer and there is the answer. It may be later than you'd like but it's within what I believe were the parameters of your question {aka, the time period in which they were in use and hadn't become simply a sport}. Still. Well said. *claps*

Matthew

2008-07-25, 07:07 AM

Yeah sorry for the almost mindless insertion of that, but katana fanboys can be annoying at times, no offence to any of you out there it can just get a tad irritating.

Don't worry, you won't find any fanatics here; there have been some fairly interesting and lengthy discussions vis a vis comparisons of swords, bows, etc... The general consensus with regard to Katana is that the material they were made from was poor, which necessiated a difficult process of construction to create something 'good'. How exactly that compares to pattern welded swords, 'Damascus' swords, or Spanish swords is up for debate, but the differences (when comparing 'good' versions) are not likely to be very great.

Excellent response. But, you did ask, there is an answer and there is the answer. It may be later than you'd like but it's within what I believe were the parameters of your question {aka, the time period in which they were in use and hadn't become simply a sport}. Still. Well said. *claps*

Sure, and it's a good bit of evidence. Exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to hear. Since the first recorded instance of 'Quarterstaff' is only 1550 (according to the Online Etymological Dictionary), it's probably the most credible explanation going.

Raum

2008-07-25, 08:07 AM

Katanas have come up in earlier threads and, yes, the Japanese folded weapon steel to minimize the effect of impurities in poor iron ore. There are a couple of good essays on The Arma - There Is No Best Sword (http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm) has been posted before. A newer article, Longsword and Katana Considered (http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html) compares the katana with the European longsword.

And then there's the essay on Hype (http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm) which discusses the 'fanboy' syndrome as much as the weapons themselves. :smallwink:

Shademan

2008-07-25, 08:19 AM

i think we should travel back in time and abduct a knight and a samurai and make them fight to death!
who's with me!?

(oh, and i would like one of them alligator armours. size Medium minus i reckon)

Spiryt

2008-07-25, 08:38 AM

i think we should travel back in time and abduct a knight and a samurai and make them fight to death!
who's with me!?

Knight vs Samurai is ... let's say popular thread on certain polish historical forum. Some stupid things said there were really epicly stupid.

Memories :smallwink:

Shademan

2008-07-25, 09:06 AM

hmm, sounds like a good idea for a short comic...

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 09:19 AM

I'm placing my bets on the knight. Reason one, he has armour that's not made of wood or bamboo. Plus he has a shield.

Spiryt

2008-07-25, 09:33 AM

I'm placing my bets on the knight. Reason one, he has armour that's not made of wood or bamboo. Plus he has a shield.

Erg. Generally, making statements like that is completely pointless, as "Samurai vs Knight" is one big stereotype.

Knights and Samurai's were whole social classes for over 1000 years if not more. In Japan they only could be from different regions, in Europe from different countries. They could be poor or rich. There could be killling machines, or fat guys who generally prefered not to leave their castless.

And so on, and so on.

Anyway, if it's supposed to be Katana vs Longsword duel between some solidly equiped guys in XVth century, I also bet on knight.
Good longsword is certainly capable of getting around samurai's armor (even though it would be certainly damn hard work), while katana, is completely, absolutely pointless weapon against full plate armor.

But again, something like that must be done under assumtion that, those guys are really similar in skills, size, strenght et cetera. Beacuse always wielder wins, not the weapon. At least if it's not sword vs AK 47, of course.

Crow

2008-07-25, 12:17 PM

I have heard that a quarterstaff is classified by being the height of the wielder plus 1/4. So 1 1/4 the wielder's height.

And you make steel by adding carbon, not by removing it. Otherwise you just end up with iron.

Dervag

2008-07-25, 01:27 PM

Oh, and on the topic of superior armour and weapons... {Sorry about the tripple post people}
KATANAs are NOT better than EUROPEAN SWORDS...You do realize that this issue has been addressed over and over on earlier versions of this thread? It's very unlikely that you'll see any of the frequent posters to this thread claiming that katanas are categorically better than European swords. A new visitor might claim such a thing, but would quickly be brought under converging fire from people such as me and... Swordguy, I think. Maybe someone else.

Katanas are, I gather, very good at the thing they were most commonly used to do- making big cuts in an unarmored man. Katanas were good weapons for dueling and for use as a 'sidearm' against lightly armored peasant soldiery. They have a really sharp edge, hence the good cutting. Within that limited domain, they may very well be better than most European swords (many of which were designed for things other than being the ultimate meat cleaver).

However, on most other counts, they are as you say inferior. This is why samurai trained heavily at things like horseback archery and the use of polearms, rather than focusing entirely on swordsmanship. You can see references in this even in that classic text of Japanese swordsmanship, the Book of Five Rings.

Note that other people on this thread are far more authoritative on the subject than I am. Much of what I know comes from them.

Knight vs Samurai is ... let's say popular thread on certain polish historical forum. Some stupid things said there were really epicly stupid.

Memories :smallwink:My bet's on the knight. Especially on a Polish knight.

Knights and Samurai's were whole social classes for over 1000 years if not more. In Japan they only could be from different regions, in Europe from different countries. They could be poor or rich. There could be killling machines, or fat guys who generally prefered not to leave their castless.

And so on, and so on.Yes, but in a martial context "knight" and "samurai" imply a specific weapons mix as well as a social class.

Skjaldbakka

2008-07-25, 01:30 PM

Jumping in here with a new question. I'm working on a suit of chain and plate, which, to my understanding, the japanese 4-in-1 chainmail weave was designed for. I haven't been able to find any images of Japanese chain and plate to base my pattern off of however. Was I misinformed, or is my google fu mearly weak?

Spiryt

2008-07-25, 01:37 PM

Yes, but in a martial context "knight" and "samurai" imply a specific weapons mix as well as a social class.

My point is that Samurai vs Knight is like " Plane vs tank". Without thinking about : "what tank?" "what plane? " "who are the pilot/crew?" and hundred other things.

And without thinking that Samurais and Kinghts where just some guys, human beings. They're treated like some super stereotypical war robots with some fixed qualities.

* Bzzzzz katana attack, overhead, velocity 5m/s, left low appenage - froward as well Bzzzz *

Skjaldbakka

2008-07-25, 01:41 PM

Tenadros

2008-07-25, 02:50 PM

Perhaps a more intersting conversation would be legendary figures.

Take Excalibur vs. Masamune instead of Longsword vs. Katana, or Lancelot vs. [insert legendary samurai here] instead of knights vs. samurai.

Kensai Miyamato Musashi. (not precise on the transliteration) would be the individual you are most likely looking for. Or possibly Yagyū Jūbei Mitsuyoshi, aka. Jubei.

Fhaolan

2008-07-25, 02:58 PM

3. The reason it is called a quaterstaff is not because it is a quater of something, in fact I don't actually know where you got that idea. The reason it is called a quaterstaff is because of the way you weild it, you put one hand at the halfway point {or 1 third up if it's particularly long or you're weilding it slightly differently} and your other hand a quater of the way down the length. Thus you hold a quarter of the staff while you fight with the rest, the quarter that is below your hand is what you use to defend youself with at short range and can use to whack the other guy if they get too close.

*laugh* Okay, I think I may not have been clear.

I've heard *all* the stories about the quarterstaff name. All of them are what is called 'folk entymology'. Meaning there is no proof whatsover about where the name came from. I've heard the grip bit, I've heard about three different kinds of 'staff' measurements, one of length, one of diameter, and another of weight, I've heard about it being a 'non-lethal' weapon which therefore automatically 'gives quarter'... Oh, and that the quarterstaff is made from a quartering of a tree... which has got to be the most nonsensical one I've ever run across.

Most sources do not differentiate between a 'staff', a 'shortstaff', or a 'quarterstaff'. For example Silver's Paradoxes of Defense uses the terms interchangably.

Weapon and armor terminology and etymology is very confusing and convoluted, and it's honestly not worth spending a lot of time on it unless it's a particular hobby of yours. I've been doing this kind of thing for twenty years now, and it's still a matter of 'Whatever you think you know for sure is wrong.' :smallbiggrin:

Skjaldbakka

2008-07-25, 03:49 PM

heh, I was just reading a book on entymology myths this afternoon. :smallsmile:

Matthew

2008-07-25, 04:32 PM

The branch of biological science that deals with the study of insects?

Raum

2008-07-25, 04:55 PM

I'm placing my bets on the knight. Reason one, he has armour that's not made of wood or bamboo. Plus he has a shield.Armor construction (both European and Asian) changed over time. Also, are you implying the samurai's armor would have been "made of wood or bamboo"? It wasn't. Plate was uncommon (at least partially due to poor quality iron ore) but forms of brigandine, lamellar, chain, and scale were used.

Jumping in here with a new question. I'm working on a suit of chain and plate, which, to my understanding, the japanese 4-in-1 chainmail weave was designed for. I haven't been able to find any images of Japanese chain and plate to base my pattern off of however. Was I misinformed, or is my google fu mearly weak?This site (http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/page2.html) may help.

Adlan

2008-07-25, 05:00 PM

AetherFox

2008-07-25, 05:49 PM

Sorry if this has already been asked, but does anyone know what a check toee, Tharizdun's favored weapon, actually is?

Spiryt

2008-07-25, 06:00 PM

Sorry if this has already been asked, but does anyone know what a check toee, Tharizdun's favored weapon, actually is?

Ugh, "Check toee"? I played a PC game, but I don't recall anything about Tharizdun...

ANy chance for details? Screens?

Swordguy

2008-07-25, 06:14 PM

Sorry if this has already been asked, but does anyone know what a check toee, Tharizdun's favored weapon, actually is?

/facepalm

It's an editing thing. His weapon wasn't decided by the time the book went to print. It's actually saying to "check the Table of Equipment".

AetherFox

2008-07-25, 06:26 PM

That's actually pretty funny. I think I might have to homebrew a "check toee".

Matthew

2008-07-25, 06:26 PM

/facepalm

It's an editing thing. His weapon wasn't decided by the time the book went to print. It's actually saying to "check the Table of Equipment".

I suspect that is a note to the author to "Check Temple of Elemental Evil".

Swordguy

2008-07-25, 06:49 PM

I suspect that is a note to the author to "Check Temple of Elemental Evil".

Again, /facepalm. I even found the errata in which that specific thing was said, and mistranslated it over to here.

Jesus - between this and the clusterfark at work today, my day has been a complete failure. I'm going back to bed.

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 07:45 PM

Got a Quote to Support that?

And I think he was reffering to vikings as warriors of the viking Age, and ergo includes Anglo Saxons, Normans and Scandanavians, who were not 'Vikings' at the time. Vikings, as a term, has come to mean any North western european warrior of that era, and they most definately did wear Mail.

As for the QuaterStaffe Busisness, the real origin is lost in the mists of time. But there were weights and measures that were just Quaters, a Quater of Wheat, a Quater of Cheese. Without there ever being a whole.

If you want to put that definition on it I'd start agreeding with you {except on the suggestion of Anglo Saxons as Vikings, unless your referring to after 1066 after which time you'd more likely clasiffy them as either English or Norman rather than Viking depending on which level of society they stem, commoner or nobility. I was purely referring to the vikings as Scandinavians who mostly fought with leather for the reasons aforementioned. There are instances when they fought with mail or even plate armour {In fact plate wasn't all that uncommon when they had a choice} but these instances were in land campaigns or defending their country against German invasion through Denmark or it was after they had joined the European nobility and stopped raiding. In war they wore metal, as raiders looters and pillagers they wore leather.

Also I'm guessing that the colloquialised term of viking meaning anyone of effectively northern descent hasn't reached us in Australia yet as no historian, student or re-enactor that I have worked with and the topic has come up has used it as such. But then Australia is donkey's ages from anywhere so that's probably understandable.

And goodnight Swordguy.

Crow

2008-07-25, 08:39 PM

Nevermind, it's no bother.

Iruka

2008-07-25, 08:43 PM

AJCSIV

2008-07-25, 09:19 PM

That's actually a good question. Unfortunately it's not my field but I would imagine you would hold it on the blade {the throwing dagger I believe is designed to be weighted so that the centre of gravity is in the middle of the blade and it's easier to throw if you don't hold the midpoint} and then toss. My advice would be if you can't get ananswer here or get your hands on an actual throwing dagger, throw pens around the room. You'll learn the physics of it at least.

Raum

2008-07-25, 09:52 PM

Iruka

2008-07-26, 05:30 AM

thanks a lot
I think this is just what I was looking for

Fhaolan

2008-07-27, 03:29 AM

How do you use throwing daggers? Which end do you hold with your fingers, how do you aim, where do you aim at and so on...
I'm supposed to teach somebody in a pbp game and want to avoid talking nonsense.

Just as an interesting note, large knives and machetes seem to be thrown underhand normally. At least all the people I know who make a hobby of throwing machetes do it underhand.

One of the fellows has a Russian army shovel that was designed to be a throwing weapon as well. It's strange sometimes what people come up with.

AJCSIV

2008-07-27, 04:25 AM

A throwing shovel? Can we convert that into D&D?

Adlan

2008-07-27, 04:31 AM

Not in this Thread.

Swordguy

2008-07-27, 04:41 AM

One of the fellows has a Russian army shovel that was designed to be a throwing weapon as well. It's strange sometimes what people come up with.

Yeah, that's a neat Spetsnaz trick. It amazed me the first time I heard that they actually went out of their way to train to throw a sharp shovel...

Deadmeat.GW

2008-07-27, 10:28 AM

I presume you have seen the poster from the Motivational posters thread :)?

I have to get that out, give me a sec :).

Fhaolan

2008-07-28, 10:55 AM

Yeah, that's a neat Spetsnaz trick. It amazed me the first time I heard that they actually went out of their way to train to throw a sharp shovel...

It's like someone on the Spetsnaz procurement team sat down with the aprophism 'Everything can be a weapon', and then proceeded to make sure that *everything* the guy was going to carry was designed to be used as a weapon. Can you imagine:

"Here's your gun, your knife, and oh yes, your shovel."

"For digging latrines, yes."

"No, for throwing at people."

"You are joking, right?"

"When in Spetznas, we have no sense of humor that we are aware of."

"Then... why?"

"Ah, and your explosive canteen, and tranquilizer dart-firing matchbook."

"I withdraw the question. I did not realize I had signed up to be a James Bond villain."

"It is a common mistake."

Construct

2008-07-29, 05:04 AM

Yeah, that's a neat Spetsnaz trick. It amazed me the first time I heard that they actually went out of their way to train to throw a sharp shovel...
*pictures camo'd russkies, freshly-strangled bear corpses draped around their broad muscular shoulders, furtively darting from tree to tree as they hurl their shovels to the far horizon*

:smallbiggrin:

Course, if you're carrying an entrenching shovel *anyway*, may as well sharpen the edges and have yourself a better melee weapon than a knife. And if it's already in your hand - having been used for completely innocent purposes - and you're surprised by a gun-wielding assailant - out to harm you for no explicable reason - then throwing the thing might at least buy you enough time to reach cover or draw a more appropriate weapon.

Heck, next to the knives with the spring-propelled blade (which will silently pierce kevlar) or single-shot gun in the handle and titrium sights (again silent, thanks to a captive-piston round) that shovel pretty much registers as sane. Or awesome. Whichever is the good one; I forget.

Construct

2008-07-29, 06:00 AM

...Japanese swords were made from iron extracted from, guess, sand. Who thinks that sand would be stronger?...If they are they still use European iron, no katana as far as I am aware use iron from Japan
Yes, because it makes so much difference if your rocks are pre-crushed or not. Perhaps I should pop down to the Glenbrook Steel Mill and tell them to stop making the steel from teh ironsandz? Or were you assuming that low-quality ore meant low-quality steel?

There is one traditional smelter operating in Japan. All of its steel (known as tamahagane) goes to the few heavily-regulated Japanese swordsmiths and the odd foreign one.

Fhaolan

2008-07-29, 07:33 AM

Yes, because it makes so much difference if your rocks are pre-crushed or not. Perhaps I should pop down to the Glenbrook Steel Mill and tell them to stop making the steel from teh ironsandz? Or were you assuming that low-quality ore meant low-quality steel?

There is one traditional smelter operating in Japan. All of its steel (known as tamahagane) goes to the few heavily-regulated Japanese swordsmiths and the odd foreign one.

You can get good quality steel from low-quality ore. But it takes a *lot* of effort, and you don't get much steel out of it per pound of ore.

Which is why once Japan opened itself up for import/export, it imported a relatively massive amount of steel. Most Japanese swords past a certain time are made from Spanish steel, as it was much higher quality steel at a much lower price than anything that could be made in Japan. In fact many of the big names in Japanese swordsmiths at the time moved to Spain in order to be closer to the source of this good steel.

Raum

2008-07-29, 07:44 AM

Or were you assuming that low-quality ore meant low-quality steel?For much of history it meant exactly that.

Spiryt

2008-07-29, 08:07 AM

You can get good quality steel from low-quality ore. But it takes a *lot* of effort, and you don't get much steel out of it per pound of ore.

Which is why once Japan opened itself up for import/export, it imported a relatively massive amount of steel. Most Japanese swords past a certain time are made from Spanish steel, as it was much higher quality steel at a much lower price than anything that could be made in Japan. In fact many of the big names in Japanese swordsmiths at the time moved to Spain in order to be closer to the source of this good steel.

The funny thing I heard, from a guy who is educated in material stuff - from the point of modern technology, sand ores are considered very good. We just have proper methods of cleansing them.

Dervag

2008-07-29, 09:43 AM

Construct, I'm curious about where you want to go with this argument.

Do you mean to say:
"The Japanese had good iron ore to work with,"
"The Japanese had no trouble making good steel despite having bad ore to work with,"
"The Japanese had trouble making good steel but did so anyway,"
...
or something else?

I mean, clearly you disagree with the tone of AJCSIV's statements, and think he's being too dismissive of medieval Japanese steelmaking. But what else are you trying to say here? Your post feels a little unfinished to me as it is.

Fhaolan

2008-07-29, 12:37 PM

The funny thing I heard, from a guy who is educated in material stuff - from the point of modern technology, sand ores are considered very good. We just have proper methods of cleansing them.

From the point of modern technology, yes.

The techniques necessary to refine good quality steel from ironsands were first developed in an experimental form in 1918, but it wasn't really viable. Small-scale production became reasonable only with electric blast furnaces in 1950 or so. Large-scale production techniques were developed in the early 1970s.

Yeah, I'm a chemical engineer. Why do you ask? :smallbiggrin:

Pretty much any time before 1970... steel produced from sand sucked.

Chronos

2008-07-30, 02:10 PM

Swordguy

2008-07-30, 02:16 PM

What, if anything, would one call a piece of armor designed to protect the top of the head, and composed of overlapping scales of metal? A friend and I were discussing it, and we think that a "coif" is more hood-shaped, and a "helmet" usually refers to a single rigid piece.

I ask because I have a hat adorned with a great many buttons, which is rapidly approaching armor status.

A helm or helmet would suffice. The dictionary defines a helm as

1 : a covering or enclosing headpiece of ancient or medieval armor 2 : any of various protective head coverings usually made of a hard material to resist impact

A similar historical example is the Japanese kabuto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabuto), which features a bowl around the head and a series of overlapping suspended plates protecting the sides of the head and neck. It's still a type of "helm".

Spiryt

2008-07-30, 02:16 PM

Wow. How does it look like? How scales are bound into a hat shape?

The " hat" that protects the top of the head can be a kettle hat (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_12_15_2006_11_09_24/1.jpg56929074-f9f3-4a27-b290-4ccfe4994dc7Large.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/228100&h=400&w=400&sz=31&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=0uMn89Q8pwqHJM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkettle%2Bhat%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26cli ent%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:pl:official%26sa%3DN), but it's not from scales.

Fhaolan

2008-07-31, 12:25 AM

Construct

2008-07-31, 03:49 AM

or something else?
*looks embarrassed* Sorry guys, AJCSIV raised my hackles and I childishly made an off-hand reply to two of the points he hadn't been called on. Which I badly mangled. In my defense, would the jury please note that I was defending nihonto. And that his avatar clearly shows him to be an elf.

'Steel made from sand is obviously weaker than steel made from rock' is a specious argument. It *was* true, as Fhaolan says, but it was true because of different compositions, not because one was sand and the other rock. Why, I may as well claim that no-one could make effective armour from linen or silk because, hey, 'obviously' they're fabric. Or that the tachi/katana remained essentially unchanged for so long because, hey, 'obviously' the Japanese had created the perfect sword. Or that McDonald's refuses to sell me breakfast after 10am because, hey, 'obviously' that would rupt...no, wait, that one's because of a trespass order. Childrens' playground, eh? I'm somebody's child, I tells ya!

'No one uses tamahagane any more' was just untrue. It may be poor steel and necessitate a lot of additional effort but it does have bragging rights.

I'm going to go sit in the corner now.

Edit: Dervag, that's exactly what I'm saying =)

Dervag

2008-07-31, 09:09 AM

*looks embarrassed* Sorry guys, AJCSIV raised my hackles and I childishly made an off-hand reply to two of the points he hadn't been called on. Which I badly mangled. In my defense, would the jury please note that I was defending nihonto. And that his avatar clearly shows him to be an elf.OK. Don't beat yourself up, just... keep your cool, OK? We're very lucky here in that we have a nice, civil discussion on a nice, civil board. We hardly ever get some idiot marching in and loudly denouncing everything under Heaven for poorly thought out reasons. It happens, but by and large this is a zone free of the loud idiots that plague so much of the Internet.

That being the case, it would be best if we all agree not to treat each other like idiots, right?

Besides which, we're mostly talking about medieval weaponry here. A topic more arcane and irrelevant to modern life would be difficult to find. It's interesting, but is it really important enough to get righteously indignant about?

'No one uses tamahagane any more' was just untrue. It may be poor steel and necessitate a lot of additional effort but it does have bragging rights.Thing is, from what I'm hearing the main reason people still use it is to produce historically authentic swords made from it. Not because you get a better sword that way, but because the traditions of making an authentic Japanese sword are now more important than the goal of making a good Japanese sword.

Which is sort of like saying old-style black powder guns are still OK because reenactors still use them. It's sort of true, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how well black powder matches up against other, more modern, gun propellants.

AJCSIV

2008-08-01, 04:14 AM

As Dervag said, don't beat yourself up. And the corners have been spiked to force people back into the debate.

Oh and the Byzantines did have such helms, if I can find the image I'll put it online but more likely I'll need to scan it in personally. Suffice to say, they did exist.

Emperor Tippy

2008-08-01, 04:38 AM

What are some of the more odd weapons that current militaries have done at least limited production runs of - such as throwing shovels?

Thiel

2008-08-02, 10:15 AM

arnoldrew

2008-08-02, 12:54 PM

Any information about bolas would be appreciated. How were they used? Where were they developed and used? What were they used for? What were they made of?

Storm Bringer

2008-08-02, 02:04 PM

Any information about bolas would be appreciated. How were they used? Where were they developed and used? What were they used for? What were they made of?

well, wiki has a bit on this:

bolas appear to be a south american invention, and not common else where (wiki says that the Inuits tribes used something simmilar, but other than that it appears to be a purely latin american thing).

They were normally used to either trip and hopefully immobilize medium/large sized animals (cows trying to bolt, for example). Wiki says the most common bola design was three balls, one lighter than the others and on a longer line. the user spun the bola holding this longer strand, then threw it, aiming at the legs of the target. the two heavy balls would hit either side of the legs, while the third ball would wrap around and hopfully trip the target.

Thier were one and two ball bolas out thier, but wiki gives little hitn on their use.

The materials used, according to wiki, were braided leather for the straps and either wood or stone filled leather pouches for the balls.

that help?

Dervag

2008-08-02, 08:27 PM

Have you ever seen one of those plastic ducks hunters use to lure the real ducks closer with?
Now imagine it with a battery powered engine, remote control and two handgrenades inside. The Danish froemaend (lit. frog men. Our version of Navy Seals) has a very limited number of those available. They were made to order by the army´s own ammunition plant.

Also, the sharp shovel was apparently very popular amongst the troops on both sides during the siege of StalingradIn almost any kind of battle where troops spend very long periods in trench or urban combat, you get all kinds of improvised hand-to-hand weapons. A lot of things like that appeared in World War One, as well.

Construct

2008-08-03, 12:54 AM

What are some of the more odd weapons that current militaries have done at least limited production runs of - such as throwing shovels?

Aww man, you mean I can't include private-purchase silliness?
The Russian knife with the silent cartridge firing out the pommel (the NRS-2) has been updated to have four such cartridges firing down the blade (the NRS-3).

Question: In countless war movies the heroes - in preparation for the upcoming firefight - take the magazine out of their gun, bang the base of it on their helmet twice and reinsert it. Um, why?

Norsesmithy

2008-08-03, 01:29 AM

Swordguy

2008-08-03, 02:14 AM

To seat the cartridges tightly to the rear of the magazine, to prevent feeding malfunctions.

Some people say to shake up the powder, for a better burn, but I have seen no evidence of this effect in all the thousands of rounds I have fired, though I have seen mags misfeed because a cartridge was seated to the front, dragging the tip of the bullet on the mag body.

Seconded. We were actually instructed to do so during BCT on the range, because other BCT soldiers were loading our magazines while not shooting (and thus could screw up the loading process).

However, it was more of an issue during WWII, where the sprung steep en bloc clip of the M1 Garand could occasionally push cartridges out of position, and on older magazines which had loose tolerances. with the greater machining accuracy of modern magazines, it's less of a problem.

Thiel

2008-08-03, 06:18 PM

In almost any kind of battle where troops spend very long periods in trench or urban combat, you get all kinds of improvised hand-to-hand weapons. A lot of things like that appeared in World War One, as well.

I once saw an interview with a German veteran who claimed that he had more kills with his shovel than he had with his MP40

Tam_OConnor

2008-08-03, 07:33 PM

Hey, sword question, late Renaissance and beyond.

The cavalry saber and the fencing saber are each rather specialized, the cavalry saber as a military weapon, the fencing as a dueling weapon. Are there any records of any particular type of saber being used for both military and civilian purposes?

Secondly, it seems that most of the civvy weapons were straight to aid the thrust; this follows with the modern fencing saber, which, at least according to this electronic monstrosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_%28fencing%29), are straight. Only the knuckleguard would lead me to believe that it is intended as a slashing weapon. So, my question, in this rambling way, is 'saber-fencing' called such mainly as an artifact of the style, not so much on the weapon used?

Storm Bringer

2008-08-04, 01:40 AM

More of less. sabre fencing is derived form the late 19th century swordmanship drills that cav used. It's perfectly possbile to make slashing attacks with one, and the rules allow you to score with shlashes as well. it's somewhat removed form combat sword drills, is you can granrantee that the the other duelist has the same weapon and basic style.

as too a 'civilian' slashing weapon......well, i'm not really sure how to define the term, frankly. Most swords were, for all intents and purposes, 'military'. the rapier and small-swords with devolved form it about the only swords i can think of that were clearly not ment for battlefeild use. Other than that, people just carried their battle swords if they needed to be armed, like the japanese samurai.

In short, you'd find people armed with slashing weapons in civilian situations were slashing weapoms were the standard form of sword. arabic formal clothing (for example ottoman court dress) often includes simitars or yangatans as a dresss sword.

Fhaolan

2008-08-04, 10:27 AM

Secondly, it seems that most of the civvy weapons were straight to aid the thrust; this follows with the modern fencing saber, which, at least according to this electronic monstrosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_%28fencing%29), are straight. Only the knuckleguard would lead me to believe that it is intended as a slashing weapon. So, my question, in this rambling way, is 'saber-fencing' called such mainly as an artifact of the style, not so much on the weapon used?

Just to confuse you, there are many military cavalry sabres which were dead straight. Such as the Patton Sabre.

Sabre is one of those terms that gets thrown around alot as if it means something specific, when really all it means is 'cavalry sword'. :)

Storm Bringer

2008-08-05, 03:35 PM

Norsesmithy

2008-08-05, 03:54 PM

If you only look at the material condition of France, Germany's feat looks difficult, or even unlikely.

But the French were not mentally prepared (as a government, or a military command structure), at all, to react to what anyone did.

Had France been lead by a man prepared to make a decision in a timely manner, and had her officer staff been prepared mentally to react to the Germans, much less take initiative, they would have stood a much greater chance of success.

IMO, the best thing France could have done is to ATTACK Germany (that is to say, if they could, I do not know enough about the location or disposition of France's Armies, or enough about their logistical capabilities, at the time). They declared war when Germany attacked Poland, but then just sat there, maybe moving some units to shore up their already formidable defenses. If they had struck a blow to Germany's back, instead of waiting for her armies to turn around, they would have fought the Germans on their own terms, at the place of their choosing, even if the attack was unsuccessful.

Instead, they braced the door with their shoulder, and Germans jumped through the window.

Remember, it is the opinion of the Germans that in 1940, the French had better tanks and better artillery.

Subotei

2008-08-05, 06:13 PM

okay, one that I've wondered about:

Was frances defeat in the second world war 'inevitable'? Could france have won the fight with better leadership/intelligence/willpower/whatever?

I've seen people express the opinion that it was an 'inevitable end result of frances experiences in the first world war', and that it was 'merely a breakdown of willpower at the critical moment' that led to them folding when they still had enough fight to win left.

which is closer to the truth? was france doomed to fall, or was it just the way the dice went that sealed it's fate?

I find the 'it was the fault of the First World War' argument odd - Germany was the defeated power and yet managed to bounce back, so why couldn't France achieve as much, from a better position?

I would say defeat is never inevitable - it depends where you draw the start line. Churchill's opinion was that a show of military force when Germany occupied the Rhineland in 1936 would have prevented WWII. At that time the Nazi regimes military might was basically mostly propaganda. Hitler gained enormous credibility when France and England did nothing to oppose him, whilst strengthening his strategic military position, making any attack on Germany much more costly (and therefore unlikely) for the allies.

On the eve of the seizure of Czechoslovakia, there was a German military plot ready to overthrow Hitler, should he be opposed by the allies - however this was brought to nothing by the Munich agreement. Again his position was strengthened - another significant power neutralised and their industrial power provided to Germany. Everyone loves a winner.

Militarily, by 1940, there probably was little that could have been done to prevent the overthrow of France. On land, its probably safe to say the French and British were outfought (despite some flashes of quality), and were unfortunate not to have the vast space the USSR had to fall back into in 1941. French military codes had been broken so the Germans had an intelligence advantage, to add to their military machine. France was also still operating with a command and control system based on the last war - I recall reading that it took something like 6 DAYS for them to be able launch an attack from the time it was decided upon - given the speed of land warfare in 1940 this was woeful.

The total capitulation of France was unusual and costly - France had many over-seas colonies and could have kept fighting (as most of the occupied allies could and did do). The French fleet and colonial forces could've been a great help to the allied cause. However, the British, to maintain dominance at sea and in other strategic locations, spent considerable effort actually fighting the French forces to ensure the nazis couldn't benefit. It was only relatively late in the war that De Gaulle's Free French forces made any significant counter-contribution for the allied cause.

It is conceivable that, given the time taken to clear the North African coast in 1942 being unnecessary if France had fought on, there could have been an earlier invasion of the continent by allied forces. It's debatable whether this could've shortened the war though, as the North African campaign gave the allies warning of the poor training of the American troops involved, thereby possibly saving them learning the lesson at a later, more critical, stage of the war.

The contribution of the French fleet though could have been incalculable, given the allies chronic need for U-boat protection to accomplish all their goals.

Raum

2008-08-05, 06:13 PM

Was frances defeat in the second world war 'inevitable'? Could france have won the fight with better leadership/intelligence/willpower/whatever?Inevitable? No, not from a comparison of power based on equipment.

France suffered from poor leadership. As many other losing generals through history, they were fighting the 'last war' instead of the current. In France's case, they built the Maginot line and planned a static line war similar to the way WW I was fought. They got hit with a war of initiative and maneuver where fast moving tanks bypassed and cut off strong points. France's leadership didn't recognize the difference in time to change.

Post WW I, a general malaise overcame the French military. They were war-weary. They relied heavily on reservists and conscription instead of building the core of a professional army. This left a sharp difference in the way leadership viewed the army - the left saw the citizen army as a curb to too much military influence in civilian affairs while the right saw the army as politically unreliable and militarily ineffective. By the late 1920s, the military was a compromise between the principle of a citizen army and a professional force. They had approximately 100k regulars, 200k colonials, and 100k conscripts.

French offensive military doctrine still used Petain's tactics of wear down the enemy with artillery before attacking with infantry. It had worked at Verdun and Malmaison in 1917. Defensive positions were to be organized 2k - 4k yards in depth, less than two and a half miles. Certainly adequate in WW I when tanks moved 6 miles an hour and were prone to breakdown. Completely inadequate against Germany's Panzer divisions. France still saw the tank as an infantry support platform. They believed antitank weaponry and land mines would control or prevent any major push to use tanks for battlefield supremacy.

Source: West Point Military Series, The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean

Thiel

2008-08-05, 06:38 PM

Interrestingly enough, it can be argued that Germany, production-wise, was better equipped to fight the second world war because they lost WWI. This, of course, ignores the fact that there probably wouldn't have been a second world war if they hadn't.
When they lost, Britain claimed most of their machine park (milling tables, presses, spinning lathes and so on) as raparation, thus forcing Germany to rebuild it from scratch. Which they did, only better. As a result, in 1939 when the war started, the oldest steel press in Germany was probably made in the twenties, whereas the British equivalent would be from before the turn of the century.

Joran

2008-08-05, 08:25 PM

It's a pretty complicated question. One book I found particularly interesting was Arming Against Hitler (http://www.amazon.com/Arming-Against-Hitler-Military-Planning/dp/0700611096/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217984872&sr=1-1). The basic argument of the book was that military planning is pretty limited because of constraints placed by society, government, finance, and military institutions. For instance, French conscription service was cut from 3 years to 12 months, leading to a pretty ill-trained army. However, the military itself couldn't decide what length conscription was; this was something dictated by the government and society at large.

Personally, I like studying why they made the choices they made; why the choices made seemed like the right choices at the time, rather than criticizing the choices themselves.

It's possible that with a German organization to their army with an aggressive strategy, the French could have won the war. However, this was not route that the French could have taken for many reasons, just like the Germans took a reasonable strategy given their circumstances.

One nice quote from the book is "It was an army unready for war against the Wehrmacht in 1940, but it could not have been different and remained the army of the Third Republic."

As for whether or not it was inevitable, I don't really think it was. However, the French were really not in a good position at the onset.

Dervag

2008-08-05, 11:51 PM

okay, one that I've wondered about:

Was frances defeat in the second world war 'inevitable'? Could france have won the fight with better leadership/intelligence/willpower/whatever?

I've seen people express the opinion that it was an 'inevitable end result of frances experiences in the first world war', and that it was 'merely a breakdown of willpower at the critical moment' that led to them folding when they still had enough fight to win left.

which is closer to the truth? was france doomed to fall, or was it just the way the dice went that sealed it's fate?In 1939, France was probably screwed. They had too many problems on too many levels, and trying to fix them all would have caused so much chaos it would have made them easy meat for the Germans.

If the French had started systematically revitalizing their military along smarter lines some time in the early or mid-1930s... they might have been able to hold the Germans off. At least, I think so.

But France as it was when it entered the war had very little chance of permanently stopping the Germans. At best they could probably have avoided a humiliating rapid collapse, instead requiring multiple campaigns over the space of a year or so to defeat.

I think.

IMO, the best thing France could have done is to ATTACK Germany (that is to say, if they could, I do not know enough about the location or disposition of France's Armies, or enough about their logistical capabilities, at the time). They declared war when Germany attacked Poland, but then just sat there, maybe moving some units to shore up their already formidable defenses. If they had struck a blow to Germany's back, instead of waiting for her armies to turn around, they would have fought the Germans on their own terms, at the place of their choosing, even if the attack was unsuccessful.

Instead, they braced the door with their shoulder, and Germans jumped through the window.Tricky. The problem is that the French didn't have a good angle to attack Germany through. Crossing the Rhine would be difficult and leave them in rough, noncritical terrain. The Germans could afford to fight a delaying action in Baden-Wurtemburg against France while troops were transferred from the Eastern Front.

Striking through the Saar would have similar problems, because the Germans were well dug in that area. They actually had a pretty stiff defensive line of their own opposite the Maginot Line, exactly to prevent the French from trying anything bold while they finished off the Poles. It wasn't heavily manned, but it was a good fortification.

Anything else would require the French to violate some nation's neutrality. Which really wasn't in the cards.

2008-08-08, 04:16 PM

Was frances defeat in the second world war 'inevitable'? Could france have won the fight with better leadership/intelligence/willpower/whatever?Absolutely. Other posters are perfectly correct in noting the general superiority of the Wehrmacht and the deep-rooted flaws in the French military command. However such a comparative analysis ignores the actual disposition of forces and features of the theatre of war. The central reason for the startling success of Fall Gelb is due to one man and one strategic decision - Adolf Hitler's insistence (which overruled OKH's repeated decisions to the contrary) that the thrust of the attack come through the Ardennes and be directed towards the Channel. Had Hitler bowed to pressure from his generals then Germany would have been committed to a repeat of WWI with years of bitter fighting in Belgium and a war effort that it could never hope to sustain

For all the talk of German innovation and French malaise it was that single decision that set the course for the rest of the war

In 1939, France was probably screwed. They had too many problems on too many levels, and trying to fix them all would have caused so much chaos it would have made them easy meat for the Germans.Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The French Army in 1939 had a host of issues to contend with but it was no basket case that would have suddenly buckled at first sight of a panzer formation. It was big enough and good enough that if the French High Command not completely screwed up their deployments (a partial result of the above German thrust) the Wehrmacht would have faced seriously stiff resistance

Tricky. The problem is that the French didn't have a good angle to attack Germany through. Crossing the Rhine would be difficult and leave them in rough, noncritical terrain. The Germans could afford to fight a delaying action in Baden-Wurtemburg against France while troops were transferred from the Eastern FrontWhich would have still pinned Germany between two fronts or, had Hitler insisted on crushing Poland, given the French two or three months free reign in western Germany. Let's remember that this is the 1939 Wehrmacht with a fraction of the resources that it would later command. For example, the Siegfried Line was held by a small number of reserve divisions with no real training or modern weapons (similar to what the French used to hold the Ardennes a few months later) and these could hardly be expected to hold out against a determined Allied assault

Once again another of Hitler's gambles paid off. Had either of those failed then Germany would surely have been forced to the negotiations table, a la WWI, within a matter of years at the very latest

Dervag

2008-08-08, 11:34 PM

Had Hitler bowed to pressure from his generals then Germany would have been committed to a repeat of WWI with years of bitter fighting in Belgium and a war effort that it could never hope to sustainI don't know. I think the Germans were good enough at maneuver warfare to break up the Allied armies in Belgium much as they historically broke up the Russian army. It would have been a lot harder if the French hadn't messed up their deployments. It might have taken as much as a year. But I'm pretty sure the Germans would have won.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The French Army in 1939 had a host of issues to contend with but it was no basket case that would have suddenly buckled at first sight of a panzer formation. It was big enough and good enough that if the French High Command not completely screwed up their deployments (a partial result of the above German thrust) the Wehrmacht would have faced seriously stiff resistanceThe problem was that the entire German operational method revolved around flanking, close air support, and other things that the French simply were not well prepared to deal with. Even if their army had been in the right place to meet the main German thrust, they would still have had to deal with the fact that they had no strategic reserve and were ill-prepared to stop a breakthrough.

Which would have still pinned Germany between two fronts or, had Hitler insisted on crushing Poland, given the French two or three months free reign in western Germany. Let's remember that this is the 1939 Wehrmacht with a fraction of the resources that it would later command. For example, the Siegfried Line was held by a small number of reserve divisions with no real training or modern weapons (similar to what the French used to hold the Ardennes a few months later) and these could hardly be expected to hold out against a determined Allied assaultGiven the terrain and that the French army's offensive doctrine was woefully lacking, I think they could have held long enough for the Germans to finish off the Poles. Again, the Germans had fortifications on that border, fortifications specifically designed to hold off a French attack. The French might have been able to push into Germany, but there is no good reason to expect that they'd have been able to make truly decisive inroads before the Germans could start transferring troops to that front.

2008-08-09, 06:04 AM

I don't know. I think the Germans were good enough at maneuver warfare to break up the Allied armies in Belgium much as they historically broke up the Russian army. It would have been a lot harder if the French hadn't messed up their deployments. It might have taken as much as a year. But I'm pretty sure the Germans would have wonManoeuvre where? The Wehrmacht would be attacking an Allied army that was well prepared and well entrenched along the KW-line. This would be a static war that would neuter all the advantages of the Wehrmacht and produce a repeat of the Great War. Meanwhile the French deployments, essentially betting everything on holding the Germans in Belgium, were spot on for this offensive... its only when Hitler decided to do the unexpected that everything fell apart

Note the comparisons with Russia - no strategic surprise, no disorganised enemy, no vast steppes in which to play, no opportunities for grand encirclements, and a fraction of later resources. If you really want a comparison then Kursk is probably the most apt

True, the Wehrmacht might have slogged through the mess of Belgium and conquered France in two or three years but at this point it has already lost the war. Both the USSR and USA would be fully mobilised (with no chance of a Barbarossa) with Britain cleaning up in N Africa. Then you have to factor in the domestic instability in both Germany and Italy. All in all Germany would emerge from such a 'victory' in a vaster weaker position than it did historically... if it did win at all

Incidentally it should be noted that along with the conservative nature of Halder's original plan, the German invasion of Poland was much less revolutionary than many continue to think. The Wehrmacht advance into Poland was very much a traditional one with mechanised units supporting an infantry advance - the intention being to create localised pockets rather than a schwerpunkt breakthrough - and it wasn't until the Ardennes offensive that the worth of panzer units operating at the vanguard was proven

Given the terrain and that the French army's offensive doctrine was woefully lacking, I think they could have held long enough for the Germans to finish off the PolesI disagree. French armies have been advancing through that part of Germany for centuries. Given that the border was held by a skeleton force of old men with virtually no weapons or training (fortifications or no fortifications) its very hard to see the French stalling for the weeks (months?) it would take to recall the Wehrmacht from Poland.

The French might have been able to push into Germany, but there is no good reason to expect that they'd have been able to make truly decisive inroads before the Germans could start transferring troops to that front.Oh quite probably. But a French advance into Germany in the early stages of the war would have significant effects. I've already noted the dilemma that it would place the German planners in with regards Poland but it would also tremendously boost French morale and seriously shake the Germans. The French Army might even be able to hold a sizeable chunk of Germany had setting a defensive line at the Neckar. Either way it a much better scenario than the historical cowering behind the Rhine

Adlan

2008-08-09, 06:11 AM

True, the Wehrmacht might have slogged through the mess of Belgium and conquered France in two or three years but at this point it has already lost the war. Both the USSR and USA would be fully mobilised (with no chance of a Barbarossa) with Britain cleaning up in N Africa. Then you have to factor in the domestic instability in both Germany and Italy. All in all Germany would emerge from such a 'victory' in a vaster weaker position than it did historically... if it did win at all

Don't forget, it would be an Entirely different War. If Germany had been bogged down in a slow conquest of France/Low Countries then they wouldn't have broken their non-Agression pact with the USSR, the US probably wouldn't have got involved, and we wouldn't of had a world war.

2008-08-09, 06:49 AM

Don't forget, it would be an Entirely different War. If Germany had been bogged down in a slow conquest of France/Low Countries then they wouldn't have broken their non-Agression pact with the USSR, the US probably wouldn't have got involved, and we wouldn't of had a world war.My point is that this war would be highly disadvantageous to Germany. Pearl Harbour is still going to happen and some form of conflict between fascism and Marxist-Leninism is pretty much inevitable (although Germany wouldn't have a hope in hell of reproducing the successes of '41 a year or two later). Even if we assume that an uneasy peace descends on Europe with the fall of France then Nazi Germany - a regime that remained highly dependent on the spoils of war - still needs further conquests to sustain its economy. Really any permutation that involves years of bloody fighting in France is going to be a Pyrrhic victory for Berlin

Dervag

2008-08-09, 11:43 AM

My point is that this war would be highly disadvantageous to Germany. Pearl Harbour...Well, maybe. One of the reasons the Japanese thought they could get away with their program of southern conquests was that the European powers were all either distracted or out of hte picture, while the US was at the least heavily distracted.

Even if we assume that an uneasy peace descends on Europe with the fall of France then Nazi Germany - a regime that remained highly dependent on the spoils of war - still needs further conquests to sustain its economy. Really any permutation that involves years of bloody fighting in France is going to be a Pyrrhic victory for BerlinOK, it's just that I honestly think the problems with the French Army's organization and doctrine would have almost guaranteed a decisive defeat within the first year of campaigning or so. Likewise if they had gone on the offensive across the Rhine or into the Saar. They might have made enough progress to worry the Germans, but a French army on the offensive would be vulnerable to entrapment and encirclement. The effect might have been comparable to what happened to the Russians at Kharkov in 1942*

*Yes, I know, the French didn't share all the Russians disadvantages, but they also didn't share some of the Russians advantages, such as having overwhelming numbers.

Even given the density of defended positions in Western Europe, it was still possible for an armored attack to find gaps in the enemy's defense. The French were very ill-equipped to deal with the possibility of this happening.

Construct

2008-08-10, 12:25 AM

My point is that this war would be highly disadvantageous to Germany. Pearl Harbour is still going to happen and some form of conflict between fascism and Marxist-Leninism is pretty much inevitable (although Germany wouldn't have a hope in hell of reproducing the successes of '41 a year or two later). Even if we assume that an uneasy peace descends on Europe with the fall of France then Nazi Germany - a regime that remained highly dependent on the spoils of war - still needs further conquests to sustain its economy. Really any permutation that involves years of bloody fighting in France is going to be a Pyrrhic victory for Berlin

You need to make a stronger distinction between 'good for Germany' and 'good for Germany's political leadership'. I'd like to think* that getting bogged down in France would have meant the installation of saner minds and a peace treaty acknowledging the creation of a Greater Germany from Germany, Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, the Sudetenland, parts of Poland, etc. It's not like the other powers weren't aware of how badly they'd screwed Germany after WWI, so such terms wouldn't have seemed unreasonable. Sure, Stalinist Russia would have made a grab for Eastern Europe, just as it did after the war, but now it would be a naked aggressor, a fading empire fighting with outdated tactics and materiel through uncowed westward-looking states who had long viewed it as a threat; why would it not be forced to retreat home to lick its wounds?**

* Hey, I'm an optimist =)
** Did I mention I'm an optimist?

Storm Bringer

2008-08-10, 03:18 AM

...

so you're suggesting the result of france holding out would be the plotline of the CnC: red-alert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNC_Red_Alert) games?:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

2008-08-10, 06:01 AM

Well, maybe. One of the reasons the Japanese thought they could get away with their program of southern conquests was that the European powers were all either distracted or out of hte picture, while the US was at the least heavily distractedJapan was in the same boat as Germany in that they needed expansion to sustain their economy (and thus political regime). Sitting still was not an option. Given that the Soviets had firmly closed the door on Siberia this left SE Asia as their only real avenue for expansion. In this the real danger/threat was always perceived by the Japanese, correctly BTW, to be the USA and all Imperial plans proceeded on the assumption that conflict between the two was inevitable

Anyways in this scenario both Britain and the Dutch are likely to be equally 'distracted' by European affairs as they were historically. Unless of course Hitler can conquer France and do a deal with London before '41

OK, it's just that I honestly think the problems with the French Army's organization and doctrine would have almost guaranteed a decisive defeat within the first year of campaigning or soTo my mind the defining feature of this war would be that it would be fought on French terms. That is, a static war of attrition with little scope for mobile warfare. Essentially it would pit the industrial base of the Allies against that of Germany. In such a conflict you'd have to fancy the French to at least drag the war out for a year or two... at which point German resources would probably be exhausted. You'd give the Wehrmacht better odds if they decided to shatter the French line with a classic Blitzkrieg but, as I noted above, this was not part of Halder's conservative plan

But of course all we can really do in these situations is discuss probabilities and hypotheticals

I'd like to think* that getting bogged down in France would have meant the installation of saner minds and a peace treaty acknowledging the creation of a Greater Germany from Germany, Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, the Sudetenland, parts of Poland, etcThe saner minds being...? By 1939 the only real political alternative to Hitler was the Junker military caste that had facilitated his rise to power. Aside from largely agreeing with Hitler's domestic (and racial) policies the military were enthusiastic supporters of the war

And frankly I find it hard to see how Berlin had any 'right' to rule these particular areas that it forcefully annexed

Sure, Stalinist Russia would have made a grab for Eastern Europe, just as it did after the war, but now it would be a naked aggressor, a fading empire fighting with outdated tactics and materiel through uncowed westward-looking states who had long viewed it as a threat; why would it not be forced to retreat home to lick its wounds?**1) Stalin would have been highly unlikely to launch a Red Alert style invasion of Europe. He was an innately conservative leader who, while happy to give into his Great Russian tendencies to snap up nations Hitler offered, tended to shun contact with the West and avoid taking open risks. A very insular personality altogether (see below for more on a possible alternative German-Soviet war)

2) The Red Army was one of the most modern in the world during the WWII period. Aside from its material advantages, supported by the incredible transformation of Russia into an industrial superpower, it was operating from an advanced doctrinal base that put much of the West (possibly including Germany) to shame. The disasters of '41 tend to give the Red Army a bad rep but its no coincidence that once it was given a chance to recover (and the poor leaders were replaced) that the Soviets were able to teach the Germans a lesson in mobile warfare. Towards the end of the war the Soviets were putting together operations that Guderian couldn't have dreamed of staging... never mind being on the receiving end of!

So far from being a 'fading empire' the USSR was very much a superpower on the rise. In almost every regard

so you're suggesting the result of france holding out would be the plotline of the CnC: red-alert games?The most likely scenario for a Nazi-Soviet war remains a German invasion. You can't underestimate how much the drive to the East (Drang nach Osten) had influenced German thinkers and policy makers. You could argue that securing lebensraum was the entire point of the war. A Soviet invasion would only really materialise if the rest of Europe had fought itself to destruction... Stalin was probably expecting another Franco-German war to result in the chaotic collapse of Europe that accompanied WWI. A scenario that might occur if the French do hold... at which point the Red Army waltzes in with virtually no opposition

Dervag

2008-08-10, 06:34 AM

To my mind the defining feature of this war would be that it would be fought on French terms. That is, a static war of attrition with little scope for mobile warfare. Essentially it would pit the industrial base of the Allies against that of Germany. In such a conflict you'd have to fancy the French to at least drag the war out for a year or two... at which point German resources would probably be exhausted. You'd give the Wehrmacht better odds if they decided to shatter the French line with a classic Blitzkrieg but, as I noted above, this was not part of Halder's conservative planIf the conservative plan failed to overpower the French quickly, it seems far more likely that Hitler would endorse a more aggressive Blitzkrieg plan. Also, remember that either way the example of the campaign in Poland would illustrate the value of concentrated armor formations and of trying to break through enemy lines and force the enemy into pockets.

2) The Red Army was one of the most modern in the world during the WWII period. Aside from its material advantages, supported by the incredible transformation of Russia into an industrial superpower, it was operating from an advanced doctrinal base that put much of the West (possibly including Germany) to shame. The disasters of '41 tend to give the Red Army a bad rep but its no coincidence that once it was given a chance to recover (and the poor leaders were replaced) that the Soviets were able to teach the Germans a lesson in mobile warfare. Towards the end of the war the Soviets were putting together operations that Guderian couldn't have dreamed of staging... never mind being on the receiving end of!This was true in large part because they had several times *more* of a lot of things. The Germans had to divert a large fraction of their industrial capacity to other tasks; the Soviets could afford to concentrate entirely on building up ground forces to support their counterattack against the Germans. As you say, they were a giant in terms of their heavy industrial base, but the fact that they had only a single enemy to be fought on a single front helped them a lot too.

In many ways, their doctrine was quite progressive. On the other hand, they had very serious logistical weaknesses that made offensive operations tricky.

2008-08-10, 08:14 AM

If the conservative plan failed to overpower the French quickly, it seems far more likely that Hitler would endorse a more aggressive Blitzkrieg planTrue, Hitler could quite possibly lose his confidence in his generals (never particularly strong to begin with) and entrust a fresh offensive to some bright young maverick. Which is what happened historically after all. But at this point the battle will have been raging for months, with heavy losses on both sides, and the initiative will have shifted to the Allies (with the BEF greatly increasing in force). A solid armoured thrust could still unhinge the entire front but German options and resources will be much more limited than when beginning the campaign

This was true in large part because they had several times *more* of a lot of things. The Germans had to divert a large fraction of their industrial capacity to other tasks; the Soviets could afford to concentrate entirely on building up ground forces to support their counterattack against the Germans. As you say, they were a giant in terms of their heavy industrial base, but the fact that they had only a single enemy to be fought on a single front helped them a lot too.Well yes but the capabilities of any army are tightly linked to the industrial base that is supplying and arming it. One of the reasons why Germany desperately needed a swift victory in both France and Russia was that it simply did not have the resources to fight a prolonged and costly campaign. Which is not to detract from the actual capabilities of the Red Army and its doctrine/equipment/personnel

(As an aside, Stalin fully recognised the importance of industry and included it as one of his five 'permanently operating factors' of war. He also coined that delightful little phrase - "Quantity has a quality all of its own")

In many ways, their doctrine was quite progressive. On the other hand, they had very serious logistical weaknesses that made offensive operations tricky.The doctrine was sound but there were, understandably, practical issues to be worked out. By the end of '42 most of these had been solved, with the logistical issue being rendered manageable by the receipt of fleets of US trucks. The important point being that as the war progressed and the Red Army learned from its mistakes it was building on the very firm theoretical foundations laid by Tukhachevsky in the '30s

Dervag

2008-08-10, 08:30 AM

True, Hitler could quite possibly lose his confidence in his generals (never particularly strong to begin with) and entrust a fresh offensive to some bright young maverick. Which is what happened historically after all. But at this point the battle will have been raging for months, with heavy losses on both sides, and the initiative will have shifted to the Allies (with the BEF greatly increasing in force). A solid armoured thrust could still unhinge the entire front but German options and resources will be much more limited than when beginning the campaignSo, in other words, you think a German attempt to shake up the front would be more like the second Ardennes Offensive, which failed?

I may be interpreting you too strongly, because Second Ardennes was a last gasp attempt with enormous holes in its execution simply because Germany lacked the resources to provide anything more effective. This wouldn't be.
______________________

(As an aside, Stalin fully recognised the importance of industry and included it as one of his five 'permanently operating factors' of war. He also coined that delightful little phrase - "Quantity has a quality all of its own")Although it should be pointed out that he was talking about a specific weapon system, and that his observation does not apply across the board especially well.

The doctrine was sound but there were, understandably, practical issues to be worked out. By the end of '42 most of these had been solved, with the logistical issue being rendered manageable by the receipt of fleets of US trucks.Ahem.

You're absolutely right, but it seems to me that one of the fundamental problems with the Soviet mechanized doctrine was that it was based on being able to mechanize large forces... something the Soviets couldn't do very well out of their own resources. They could produce great masses of tanks, but not the trucks to supply them or transport the infantry to keep up with tem.

This is more or less the same problem the Germans had, the one that made losses to their panzer divisions such a serious problem. The Germans lacked the industrial resources to mechanize their army in breadth. They had to settle for producing a small number of mechanized spearheads, instead. This imposed a limit on their doctrine. Among other things, it meant that their (horse drawn) artillery had very little place in Blitzkrieg tactics.

Would the Russians have done any better without foreign industrial support?

2008-08-10, 09:52 AM

So, in other words, you think a German attempt to shake up the front would be more like the second Ardennes Offensive, which failed?No, not that extreme. I'm simply noting that attempting to reconfigure the strategy when already engaged in Belgium is not going to be as effective or easy as getting it right from the start. Not only would the material balance have shifted further in the Allies' favour but Germany would have lost the crucial element of surprise

You're absolutely right, but it seems to me that one of the fundamental problems with the Soviet mechanized doctrine was that it was based on being able to mechanize large forces... something the Soviets couldn't do very well out of their own resources. They could produce great masses of tanks, but not the trucks to supply them or transport the infantry to keep up with temI wouldn't call this an issue with the doctrine per se. When the war started the USSR was in the middle of an intense modernisation programme that would have eventually addressed these issues and brought its formations up to the standard set by the theorists. Which was why Hitler wanted to invade ASAP and why Stalin was so eager to sit on the sidelines

Would the Russians have done any better without foreign industrial support?Depends. In our alternate timeline (with France holding for a year or two) then you'd expect the Soviets to a) be in a vastly stronger position as their reforms (military and industrial) gathered pace, and b) not to lose a couple million men and tanks in the opening weeks/months of the war

Historically, I'm convinced that when the Soviet state (meaning the Communist Party) stubbornly refused to collapse, as the entire plan for Barbarossa depended upon, Germany could not win. Once it survived '41 the Red Army was simply too big and, to be fair, too good to go under. An absence of foreign aid isn't going to change that. What might see however is the nature of the victory changing with the incredibly successful and rapid offensives of '43 onwards giving way to a slower and more bloody grind

All in my opinion of course :smallwink:

Dervag

2008-08-10, 02:18 PM

Historically, I'm convinced that when the Soviet state (meaning the Communist Party) stubbornly refused to collapse, as the entire plan for Barbarossa depended upon, Germany could not win. Once it survived '41 the Red Army was simply too big and, to be fair, too good to go under. An absence of foreign aid isn't going to change that. What might see however is the nature of the victory changing with the incredibly successful and rapid offensives of '43 onwards giving way to a slower and more bloody grind

All in my opinion of course :smallwink:I think the Germans had a chance of winning, if not a good one, at least into '42. After the Soviets made their counterattack and pinched off the Sixth Army inside Stalingrad they were screwed, but if they could have kept winning tactical victories without letting their armies get chewed up too horribly, they could probably have done enough damage to the Soviets to put some big dents in their warfighting capability. And I think it is at least conceivable they could have managed that, until their reverses in 1942 started kicking in.

It would have helped a lot if they'd started their invasion right after the spring rasputitsa dried up, rather than waiting until late June.

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-11, 03:14 AM

Storm Bringer

2008-08-11, 03:33 AM

correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't viking era swords like really, really expensive? as in, to own one was a sign of nobility expenisve?

Spiryt

2008-08-11, 03:36 AM

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-11, 03:39 AM

(snip)...who mostly fought with leather for the reasons aforementioned. There are instances when they fought with mail or even plate armour {In fact plate wasn't all that uncommon when they had a choice} but these instances were in land campaigns or defending their country against German invasion through Denmark or it was after they had joined the European nobility and stopped raiding. In war they wore metal, as raiders looters and pillagers they wore leather.

Not that I have heard about any full scale invasions from "Germany" (Germanic tribes, I assume). Of course I am not really that good at early danish history...

As for the mail: I guess it has to do with definitions. What was a raid? Against non-defended targets as churches, monasteries and large farming communities I guess it was a "come as you are" thing. But for larger raids (which I guess might be qualified as wars?) against cities, or longer journeys into enemy territory (like the frequent treks to the black sea through the Russian-to-be rivers mail shirts were the most common, because it was necessary.

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-11, 03:47 AM

It's like someone on the Spetsnaz procurement team sat down with the aprophism 'Everything can be a weapon', and then proceeded to make sure that *everything* the guy was going to carry was designed to be used as a weapon. Can you imagine:

"Here's your gun, your knife, and oh yes, your shovel."

"For digging latrines, yes."

"No, for throwing at people."

"You are joking, right?"

"When in Spetznas, we have no sense of humor that we are aware of."

"Then... why?"

"Ah, and your explosive canteen, and tranquilizer dart-firing matchbook."

"I withdraw the question. I did not realize I had signed up to be a James Bond villain."

"It is a common mistake."

I remember a lot of Stalingrad survivors (on both sides) describing how the Russian soldiers used their shovels to (when hiding in trenches) jump up and use the shovels as hand-to-hand weapons on advancing Germans, and when on the ground beheading them with said shovels.

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-11, 04:17 AM

Yes, I was going to post that.

During viking era, the absolutely most common, and widely used weapon was spear. Dunno what "short spear" mean, for me 6 - 8 feet spear is quite long, and it seems that they were commonly used.

Although judging from Avilan the Grey post, he is writing about rather rich warriors.

(also a reply to Stormbringer)

Depends. The sword was more expensive than the spear (which only required a head). However the price of a sword varied greatly: A "nobleman's" (or Jarl's, as the medieval idea of a nobleman did not exist in Scandinavia at the time) sword would be extremely expensive, with art, gold, jewels, and "other stuff". A plain sword (as plain as possible, since most cultures including the vikings had a tendency to decorate their weapons) cost significantly less although yet expensive.
I am willing to stand corrected on this issue though.

As for "short spears": Spear to be used in one hand, and thrown if neccesary.

Storm Bringer

2008-08-11, 04:58 AM

Fair enough. I was under the impression that swords were limited to the medium-weathly due to the costs of making a quality sword.

now, on the topic of mail, It was common enough in major battles. At least, at stanford bridge (1066, and argubly the last great viking attack on birtain), Mail was notable by it's absence on the viking side, casued by the speed and suprise of the english attack. How common it was in raids I can't say. certianly, warriors thoughout history have sought the best protection they can aquire when going into combat, with only a few notable expections (the only one that springs to mind are some of the celts, who went into battle with naught but a spear and a sheild).I know no reason why the vikings would choose NOT to take mail with them when going into battle.

On the other hand, a great many of them would not have been able to afford mail, be thus be forced to rely on leather and thier sheilds.

Spiryt

2008-08-11, 05:27 AM

On the other hand, a great many of them would not have been able to afford mail, be thus be forced to rely on leather and thier sheilds.

Well, I guess that most of them anyway have gambesons. It's in fact quite good protection, even without mail on it.

Some leather scales no it also were sometimes tried, as far as I know.

Fhaolan

2008-08-11, 10:41 AM

(and no horns! vikings has NEVER used horned helmets!!!)

They did have lots of winged helms though. Which were also popular in Celtic regions. It was one of the many crossover features between Nordic and Celtic cultures.

As for poor people and swords in Nordic regions: What you have to remember is that most 'Vikings' were the cultural equivalent of noblemen in other cultures... or at least yuppies to use a more modern term. A successful Viking expedition netted the individuals involved a lot of wealth, which they would parley into land ownership and whatnot. While they may have started out poor, if they survived the experience they weren't afterwards. Which is why, of course, they did it. And if they were successful once, they would do it again.

Also, another crossover feature between Nordic, Celtic (and Japanese, interestingly enough) cultures is the custom of gifting. To be a big shot in those cultures, you have to give away a lot of stuff. You're basically trading your current wealth against future favours. The top gifts, for really big 'I owe you's, were weapons and armor. So if you want to be captain of your own dragonship, you'd have to be rich, and you'd probably outfit your crew in the form of gifts of weapons and armor, in order to maintain that captainship.

So a significant number of 'Vikings' would have good weapons and armor. Not all, and probably not a majority, but enough to be remarkable.

Now what 'good weapons and armor' means may not quite be what you're expecting. For shipborne raiders swords are very useful, as long spears are annoying when dealing with close rigging. However, the average sword would be more of the single-edged seax style than the longer two-edged style that people think of as a 'Viking sword'. Axes were common, of the bearded and throwing variety. Spears tended towards missile types, as well as the short-shafted hewing spears (5'-6' long).

As for armor, you're dealing with thick or padded leather, with studs, rings, or small plates rivited on (similar to brigandine, but with the plates showing), as well as brigandine and coat of plates in later periods. Maille was popular for the higher rankers and experienced men, as it was manpower intensive and therefore more expensive. This style tended towards longer hauberks that reached past the knees with full sleeves. Those who travelled extensively on the expeditions might have scale or a form of splint where small metal plates were woven into the maille. This was a common form of armor in Byzantium, where a lot of Norse and Rus found work as mercenaries, so they brought this stuff back with them.

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-12, 12:53 AM

They did have lots of winged helms though. Which were also popular in Celtic regions. It was one of the many crossover features between Nordic and Celtic cultures.

Not really... The viking helmets were quite plain compared to Celtic helmets.
Here are a few examples:

Classical viking helmet. I don't know if it is a reproduction or not, but it is historically correct. (http://www.scandinavianheritage.com/images/p32-viking-helmet.gif)

A reproduction, but historically correct (http://spqr.se/pictures/products/helmets/med_h2_1.jpg)

Another reproduction, but historically correct (http://spqr.se/pictures/products/helmets/med_h26_1.jpg)

As for swords, they were the symbol of free men, and it was the most important weapon and often handed down from father to son.
I have never heard of single-edged swords in scandinavia (or northern europe at all) from that era, in fact I have never seen a non-double-edged sword from scandinavia from before the 15th century in any museum.

This is a typical non-expensive viking sword, worn by non-nobles. (http://www.regia.org/images/SwordScabbard.jpg)

Compare to this one, which as richly decorated. (http://www.regia.org/images/LundHilt.jpg)

Crow

2008-08-12, 01:24 AM

I have never heard of single-edged swords in scandinavia (or northern europe at all) from that era, in fact I have never seen a non-double-edged sword from scandinavia from before the 15th century in any museum.[/URL]

The seaxe is what you're looking for.

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-12, 01:41 AM

The seaxe is what you're looking for.

Again, not really. It looks to me like the traditional knife (not dagger) that all men carried in their belt.

Quoted from wikipedia, about the evolution of the seax in what was to eventually become germany:
"The general trend, as one moves from the short to the broad seax, is that the blade becomes heavier, longer, broader and thicker. Long seaxes, which arrived at the end of the 7th century, were the longest of the seax. These were narrower and lighter then their predecessors. Initially, these weapons were found in combination with double-edged swords and were probably intended as side arm. From the 7th century onwards, seaxes became the main edged weapon (next to a francisca), sometimes in combination with small side-knives.[3]
The rest of Europe (except for parts of Scandinavia) followed a similar development, although some types may not be very common depending on location."

(Emphasis by me)

In Scandinavia (or at least Norway, Gotaland and Svithjod, as I said I am not an expert on Danish or Gothlandic history) this never became more than a sidearm, a long knife about 30-50cm including hilt.
Here the main weapon continued to be the one-handed double edged sword, that later was replaced by the standard longsword (but by then the cultural changes had forced the non-nobles to become poorer, and the Jarls who now fancied themselves as Normandic knights much richer. (we are now talking 12-14th century; the vikings ended with the defeat in 1066). So when we passed into the medieval era, the common man could no longer afford the status of sword, and had to do with hand axes, spears and various blunt instruments.

(Speaking of the 12-15th century)
It also seems funny to me that after all that evolution of the seaxe (almost) everyone except maybe sailors dropped it for the Longsword / Dagger combo. I have seen combos of seaxes (the heavy short kind)and bucklers but they were not very common. If you had money, you had your longsword and a dagger on the side. If you were poor you had a short sword, a dagger, spear or axe. ...If you were allowed to carry weapons at all (daggers were always allowed, AFAIK). In Sweden, for example, commoners were not allowed to carry weapons in public.

Crow

2008-08-12, 01:52 AM

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-12, 02:12 AM

I'm sorry, I always thought germany was considered northern europe? <=American here.

Regardless, I believe the seaxe (some were quite large) is where these stories of single-edged swords are coming from.

I agree, it is Northern Europe (well Germany is Northern Europe, at least culture wise if not climate wise. Southern Germany is somewhere between Northern and Central Europe, culture wise). However I was specifically talking about Vikings and Scandinavia, not the other Saxon / Gothic / Celtic cultures (which were all very similar, however both the Celts and the Goths of Germany had already disappeared, they were earlier cultures existing paralell with the Roman Empire and had become fully Christian, Medieval people by the start of the Viking Era). There is a huge difference; the Scandinavian peninsula was the only part of Europe that was not Christian, and also had such a distinct culture that differed from the rest of Europe.
That's why our timeline is:
Bronze age (same as Europe as a whole)
Iron age (same as Europe as a whole)
Viking age (between ca 750AD to 1066AD)
Christianity gets a foothold (ca 11th century)
Medieval era (Roughly 1066AD until Gustav I took the throne in 1523 (yes we were a little behind))
Renaissance (until 17th century)

Compare that to the rest of Europe:
Bronze age
Iron age
Roman Empire
Fall of Roman Empire
Early Medieaval era (ca 5th century, "Dark ages" which historians nowadays don't really consider that dark)
Mediaval Era (until about late 15 century)
Renaissance (blending in with the Medieval era, 14th - 17th century)

Adlan

2008-08-12, 04:31 AM

As for swords, they were the symbol of free men, and it was the most important weapon and often handed down from father to son.
I have never heard of single-edged swords in scandinavia (or northern europe at all) from that era, in fact I have never seen a non-double-edged sword from scandinavia from before the 15th century in any museum.

A few have been found, and were the basis for this sword dsign from Albion: Single Edged Sword (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-viking-berserkr.htm)

Avilan the Grey

2008-08-12, 05:17 AM

A few have been found, and were the basis for this sword dsign from Albion: Single Edged Sword (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-viking-berserkr.htm)

I like! As I said though it does seem like these, although in use up until 1066 (at least) does not seem to be all that common.
The most common one would be this (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-viking-hersir.htm).
...But yes, it is a beauty.

2008-08-15, 01:15 PM

I think the Germans had a chance of winning, if not a good one, at least into '42. After the Soviets made their counterattack and pinched off the Sixth Army inside Stalingrad they were screwed, but if they could have kept winning tactical victories without letting their armies get chewed up too horribly, they could probably have done enough damage to the Soviets to put some big dents in their warfighting capability. And I think it is at least conceivable they could have managed that, until their reverses in 1942 started kicking inGermany would have had to secure an amazing string at little cost to have possibly secured victory. This was far beyond their capabilities of the Wehrmacht even at its height. For example, Germany alone incurred almost a million causalities during Barbarossa... and this was when Soviet resistance was lightest. And for all this, and the vast territory so costly earned, the Soviets were still able to outproduce the Germans in every regard. From the first month of the invasion the Wehrmacht's manpower deficit continued to widen... and this without the great blows of Stalingrad and Bagration

Once the Soviet state failed to crumble under the pressure of Barbarossa (as everyone in the German command had expected) the odds of Germany winning were minuscule. The most damning aspect of the whole operation is that after all their tactical 'successes' the Germans still never reached their '41 objective of the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line

It would have helped a lot if they'd started their invasion right after the spring rasputitsa dried up, rather than waiting until late June.The operation was launched as soon as it could be. The weather in Eastern Europe, unusually wet that year, was simply not good enough to proceed any earlier, regardless of Hitler's decisions

Matthew

2008-08-15, 01:45 PM

Hey, there's Viking discussion mixed up in the World War talk!

Here are some links:

Viking Age Arms & Armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_arms_and_armour) (Wikipedia)
Viking Age Arms & Armour (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/arms.htm) (Hurstwic)
Vikings (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/weapons_03.shtml) (BBC)
Regia Anglorum (http://www.regia.org/village/drengham.htm)
The Vikings (http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/resources/authenticity.htm)
The Viking Shield (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html)
Saxon, Viking, and Norman (http://books.google.com/books?id=zcga-QP5MIsC&printsec=frontcover&sig=ACfU3U2J6KMhT5gXPyqcrweJNXV8xcNRSg) (Osprey Preview, 1979)
The Vikings (http://books.google.com/books?id=aEyQe18JWvUC&printsec=frontcover&sig=ACfU3U15VYA3eM9UBn1KH8fI1ffLGT63sA) (Osprey Preview, 1985)
Anglo Saxon Thegn (449-1066) (http://books.google.com/books?id=fXrOd03NWykC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPP1,M1) [Mark Harrison (Osprey Preview, 1993)]
Medieval Scandanavian Armies (1100-1300) (http://books.google.com/books?id=asJPXnXwdMQC&printsec=frontcover&sig=ACfU3U0308qQDg8mLRsR_2_rU48CCzgrTQ) (Osprey Preview, 2003)
Armies of Medieval Russia (750-1250) (http://books.google.com/books?id=FyfXPN4nhNQC&printsec=frontcover&sig=ACfU3U2ng3WQSMJJN1P5y7_N3HO_bDKfqQ) (Osprey preview, 1999)

None are particularly scholarly, of course, but interesting and mostly not far off base. The Hurstwic link is particularly extensive.

Dervag

2008-08-16, 01:58 AM

The operation was launched as soon as it could be. The weather in Eastern Europe, unusually wet that year, was simply not good enough to proceed any earlier, regardless of Hitler's decisionsI'm not arguing with this. I'd really like to see an external reference, just because I'd like to read about this in more depth. Do you know any good ones?

I was under the impression that the attack could have been launched at least a few weeks sooner, but that delays were imposed (in part) by the need to reorganize after operations in the Balkans.
_____________________

As for a possible German victory in 1941-42, my suspicion is that the Soviets might have collapsed if the Germans had been able to push somewhat farther with what they had. If they'd had more time, and if they hadn't gotten ground up in a few major battles, I think it would have been possible. Absolutely not guaranteed, not even likely, but distinctly possible.

Maybe they should have resumed an offensive on Moscow in '42. Wonder what that would have done. [purely speculating here]

2008-08-16, 05:53 AM

I'm not arguing with this. I'd really like to see an external reference, just because I'd like to read about this in more depth. Do you know any good ones?I've not read it myself (although I've been meaning to for years) but I've heard that Glantz's work (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/075241979X/ref=cm_rdp_product) is the definitive account of the invasion and one in which a whole range of myths (including the Balkans delay) are exploded

On the summer delay of '41, its true that the Balkans did provide a distraction but the terrible weather in Eastern Poland that summer meant that the operation couldn't have been launched sooner in any case

Maybe they should have resumed an offensive on Moscow in '42. Wonder what that would have done. [purely speculating here]'41 is the turning point for me. When Germany failed to close out a quick war (practically an impossibility given their limitations and the refusal of Stalin to buckle) they were at the mercy of the superb Soviet ability to raise and field new armies. Even from the outset of the war, with the mass migration of industry east, the organisation of the CP was without parallel. Every time the Germans seemed to have the advantage another Soviet army would appear from nowhere and force them into a major battle with losses that they could ill afford

As for Moscow, the Wehrmacht couldn't take Leningrad or Stalingrad. With that in mind I can't see them being able to seize the most fortified city in Europe

Dervag

2008-08-16, 01:31 PM

On the other hand, they might have been able to surround it, might they not?

A Moscow under siege would have been largely useless as a capital city, even if they never actually took it.

Neon Knight

2008-08-16, 01:37 PM

Deadmeat.GW

2008-08-16, 02:45 PM

2008-08-16, 04:00 PM

On the other hand, they might have been able to surround it, might they not?

A Moscow under siege would have been largely useless as a capital city, even if they never actually took it.Well yes, but the same could be equally said of Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Germans simply did not have the resources (and perhaps mentality) for this type of operations

The Germans could have done it if they had gone for tactics advocated by Rommel.

Bypass the armies, starve their supply line and move on.

No frontal assaults.

And Russia was big enough for it.Which is exactly what the Wehrmacht did during the opening stages of the invasion. Once they'd recovered from the initial shock however the Soviets became far more careful about letting their armies fall into German encirclements. The woeful German logistical situation in Russia (with or without mechanised units) certainly didn't help either. The further east German units went, the more stretched their supply lines became and the less effective they were

If Germany had actually made those mechanised transports a priority as requested by the ArmyWith what? The German economy was unable to keep with with the Soviets (never mind the Allies) as it was. There was little to no room for a mechanisation programme

Lets just say we are lucky Hitler was a fair full short of a full set and in charge of everything.The view of Hitler as some sort of meddling incompetent fouling everything up can be largely attributed (much like the myth of the terrible Russian winter) to the self-serving memoirs of Wehrmacht generals attempting to gloss over their own errors. Hitler did make mistakes of course but more often than not his staff were in full agreement and, as noted earlier in this discussion, he did score notable victories, such as the Ardennes Offensive

I was wondering if anyone had a good source describing typical late period Soviet (late 80's) light and mechanized infantry tactics on a squad, platoon, and company level? I'm looking to depict a post-Soviet PMC/mercenary group.The best source for these sorts of queries is usually Osprey. I've not read it myself but this work (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Inside-the-Soviet-Army-_9780850457414) might be of interest

Unfortunately the only internet bookmarks I have on hand (here (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jan-feb/vick.htm) and here (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/nov-dec/dalecky.html)) are concerned with operational level strategy

Deadmeat.GW

2008-08-16, 04:48 PM

<<With what? The German economy was unable to keep with with the Soviets (never mind the Allies) as it was. There was little to no room for a mechanisation programme>>

...hum, you do know that they managed to increase production compaired with the beginning of the war still in early 44?
And that was with the British and the Americans bombing the living daylights out of the Germans.
The German economy was very, very poorly set up for producing war materials at the outbreak of the war.
By the end of the war Germany produced more tanks, fighters then at the outbreak of the war and of a far higher technical difficulty.
That alone should tell you enough about the potential they had technically at the beginning of the war.

If as you said there was no room for a mechanisation program then they would not have been able to do so by the end of the war when they were under far more pressure and being bombed non-stop.
It was not a case of no room but a case of no drive, German armed forces (apart from the way they used tanks) were fighting mostly a world war 1 battle to begin with for all their basic troops.
Horse drawn artillery?
Horse drawn supply chain?
They had the technology for making trucks, half tracks and so on in sufficient numbers to make a difference but in this case most of the German generals did not think beyond WW1.
They tweaked their tactics for tanks and air support but anything else...
They had the resources to replace at least the horse drawn artillery with mechanised artillery but a lot of the upper echelon did not believe it was a useful change.

They made over half a dozen different fighters (and not even always the most advanced ones were the most produced...), dozens of different tanks (and not all of them were compatible for gears, parts or such...), etc...

If they had gone with the planned equipment and the planned production they could have outproduced the Russians in the first year by enough given the losses the Russians took in comparison.
As such they a tiny chance to defeat the Russians.

Also, the standing orders for a chunk of the German army, supposedly from Hitler (it might have been someone else high up in the Nazi party to be honest) was a strategy of scorched earth.
Which was a waste of time and equipment.

Also, in the same period of time the Russian production capability dropped off seriously as they were rescuing their industrial base from immediate threat from the Germans.

2008-08-16, 05:34 PM

...hum, you do know that they managed to increase production compaired with the beginning of the war still in early 44?And were still being outproduced on every front. Even at its peak Nazi Germany was unable to match the USSR or the USA (never mind both) and this is with all the resources and slaves gained through years of conquest. By '44 the country was struggling desperately (and failing) merely to replace its losses. Now imagine trying to stage a major mechanisation programme or maintain such a technically demanding army. The demand for oil alone would cripple the Wehrmacht... not to mention the need for spare parts that the Germans historically neglected

That alone should tell you enough about the potential they had technically at the beginning of the warWell yes, if the Germans had been able to devote a few things - the resources of half of Europe, millions of slaves, another few years, and the resources needed to keep their population content - to the war effort. Unlike the war economies of the USSR/USA/UK, the German effort was unsustainable in the long run without collapsing a la Germany 1918

Of course even if we accept that the Germans were capable of removing their bottlenecks and increasing production (and that this was directed towards mechanisation rather than building the army proper) you are left with the question of will. Had the Germans believed that they were about to be pulled into a long war of attrition then they would not have invaded Russia in the first place. They knew perfectly well that they could not hope to win in such a war that pitted industrial base against industrial base... hence their reliance on short and swift campaigns

And on a final note, a friend of mine was able to direct me towards a set of statistics that I saw some years ago regarding German manpower losses for the first months of Barbarossa:

Month….CL……………..NCL….…Total…..........Rep
Jun……41,058……..54,000….95,058……………...0
Jul…….164,988…..17,000…..181,988…...65,000
Aug….189,813…..30,000*….219,813….110,000
Sep….131,687……56,800…..188,487…..102,000
Oct…..113,762…..62,000*…175,762…...78,000
Nov……84,051……73,092……157,143…….55,000
Dec……77,093……90,907……168,000….…99,000

CL = combat losses
NCL = non-combat losses
Rep = Replacements (inc. returning convalescent soldiers)
* = estimated
(source DRZW 5/1 p.1020)

So regardless of the number of tanks produced, from the very first month of the war Germany opened a manpower deficit in which she was unable to replenish the losses sustained during operations. And remember that this was during the most successful months of the war when German kill ratios were at their most favourable!

Mike_G

2008-08-16, 07:39 PM

Dervag

2008-08-17, 02:48 AM

The Germans could have done it if they had gone for tactics advocated by Rommel.

Bypass the armies, starve their supply line and move on.

No frontal assaults.

And Russia was big enough for it.

Simply said the German warmachine was a) not mechanised enough and b) Hitler wanted to kill everybody his armies encountered in Russia, no matter how stupid it was.Given the military history of the entire world up to that point, that's not as dumb as it may seem to you.

The Germans couldn't build mechanized equipment fast enough to equip dozens of fast divisions. Not without cutting into other aspects of war production so much as to make them dangerously vulnerable. Cutting troops off from the front is all very well, but if the enemy is big enough and reacts quickly, that can backfire horribly- you end up with your troops surrounded and pinned down behind enemy lines. You need enough artillery to beat down enemy frontal attacks, enough air power to make sure your armored columns aren't picked off by free ranging enemy bombers, and so on.

The German victories of 1939-40 caused people in many nations to conclude that "moving fast lets you beat any army, no matter how big it is." That isn't really true, unless the enemy screws up by the numbers. Mobility, especially armored mobility, can let you beat armies several times your own size (see Operation Compass for reference). But it doesn't always work right, because if the enemy does something that doesn't fit into your plan you have to have enough strength to meet him head on. Otherwise he may crash through your front line and do to you exactly what you tried to do to him, only a little slower.

Germany simply did not have and could not obtain enough fast troops to put the entire Russian army into pockets, all along the front.

If Germany had actually made those mechanised transports a priority as requested by the Army they could have done it by simply moving faster then the Russians could redeploy and an army that is without ammo or food is not really able to do all that much.The Germans weren't in a position to deny the entire Red Army food and ammunition. The problem is that if you try to turn and put your encirclement tightly around the enemy's frontline army, they can turn around and counterattack your mechanized force, chewing it up. Whereas if you try to put your encirclement around the enemy at a great distance (say, 100 km), you can cut their supply line but they still have their own rear area supply dumps intact. They can keep fighting for weeks in a situation like that, and you cannot leave huge armies on the flanks and rear of your mechanized troops without putting infantry in place to hold them still. It's too dangerous, because you have supply lines too.

Putting the enemy into pockets only works if you have the brute force to hold them in pockets while their army withers, and that can take weeks. The Germans didn't have the manpower to do it everywhere at once after the Russians figured out what had hit them. Which gave them several weeks of free running at the beginning, but wasn't a guarantee of victory after that point.

The view of Hitler as some sort of meddling incompetent fouling everything up can be largely attributed (much like the myth of the terrible Russian winter) to the self-serving memoirs of Wehrmacht generals attempting to gloss over their own errors. Hitler did make mistakes of course but more often than not his staff were in full agreement and, as noted earlier in this discussion, he did score notable victories, such as the Ardennes OffensiveNot that the Ardennes Offensive was his idea, but it was definitely his initiative. Hitler created the Ardennes Offensive in the same sense that Al Gore created the Internet. It was other minds who made it, but they could never have made it without a powerful person running interference for them and giving them the resources they need.

I assume you mean the first Ardennes Offensive. Right?

...hum, you do know that they managed to increase production compaired with the beginning of the war still in early 44? The German economy was very, very poorly set up for producing war materials at the outbreak of the war. By the end of the war Germany produced more tanks, fighters then at the outbreak of the war and of a far higher technical difficulty. That alone should tell you enough about the potential they had technically at the beginning of the war.The reason the Germans could improve their productivity so much was because their prewar buildup of war industry hadn't been all that big. They weren't dedicated to the task until they started losing the war, at which point it was too late. They had so many enemies they were guaranteed to be outbuilt.

No matter how many tanks the Germans produced in any given year, there was no way that the Americans or Soviets would be unable to build more tanks, assuming equal levels of war mobilization. The Americans and the Soviets simply had more factories, and German tank factories weren't significantly more efficient than their rivals. The only question was the amount of labor and resources dedicated to tank production- which is a function of mobilization levels.

For the Germans to crank up their war industry far enough to motorize the entire Wehrmacht as you describe, they would have had to do it before the war. During the war, they had too many other commitments. A lot of the industry they were building up had to go to fighters and AA guns to defend against Allied bombers. Or U-boats to keep the British and Americans from becoming too big a problem too fast. Or making the steel to make all the other weapons.

To make a lot more trucks and tanks they would have had to ignore these other things. In which case they would have risked losing the war for other reasons, such as American bombers blowing up all their ball bearing factories or something like that.

To make matters worse, if they had dedicated total war, round-the-clock production to the manufacture of trucks and tanks for the Wehrmacht, they would have had to delay the onset of the war in order to get everything built in time. During war, you have to dedicate a large fraction of your production to replacing stuff that gets blown up in combat or that simply breaks down. You don't have a choice, because if you don't provide a steady stream of spare parts for your tanks they'll all break down and it doesn't matter how many you have. Only during peacetime is it possible to build up massive reserves of vehicles to motorize large sections of an army of millions.

And if the Germans had delayed the war to get a broader motorized force in their army, they would have had a much harder time beating their enemies. The French would have been tougher opponents given more time to reorganize, and the Russians were already turning out modern, powerful weapons as fast as the Germans could dream of doing. Germany would have been in deep trouble if they'd waited a year or two to motorize the Wehrmacht before starting the war, no matter how effective motorized and mechanized divisions would have been in combat.
___________________________

They would also have needed a LOT more fuel to drive all those trucks and tanks. Fuel they frankly did not have. German production of war vehicles may have increased from 1939 to 1944. But German fuel production didn't speed up so much. One of the weaknesses of the late-war Wehrmacht was that they had a big army of heavy tanks and advanced aircraft, but not enough fuel to keep them in combat all the time. If you only have enough gas to drive half the vehicles in your army at once, you have effectively halved the size of your army, and being able to build more vehicles won't save you.
______________________________________

2008-08-17, 07:04 AM

Where I think the Germans fell down and missed their big opportunity was in failing to capitalize on the unpopularity of the Soviet regime in the eyes of many of its citizens. If they'd set up a puppet government in the Ukraine, instead of sending the racial purity psycho brigades in, they could have very well fielded an army of ex-Soviet subjectsI think that there's a tendency these days to overstate the opposition of the various Soviet peoples to Moscow. There was certainly discontent in some areas (the Ukraine and Baltics being obvious) and remnants of civil war hatred did remain, but by and large the vast majority of Soviet citizens (Russian or otherwise) remained loyal and willing to make huge sacrifices for the war effort. This has less to do with German atrocities than the firm grip that the CP had established on everyday life by '41

Of course if the Germans aren't going to launch a campaign of extermination in the East then there's no real reason to invade in the first place. A policy can hardly be considered a strategic mistake when it lies at the very centre of an ideology. In which case Germany's greatest mistake could be considered launching a war in the first place!

Incidentally, a White Russian formation was fielded in the last days of the war comprised largely of Russian POWs desperate to escape the camps. It did not exactly cover itself in glory

I assume you mean the first Ardennes Offensive. Right?Yep, as always. I'm of the opinion that most people wouldn't even know about the second if it were not a battle in which the Germans were stopped by a force comprised almost entirely of Americans

Storm Bringer

2008-08-17, 08:35 AM

to be fair, it was the last major german attack on the western front. I mean, the germans threw half a million men into it. yes, it was never going to work, and yes, their is more than a little hero worship you yanks seem to have for the battle, but still....

what is it that so irks you about this battle?

Deadmeat.GW

2008-08-17, 09:56 AM

And were still being outproduced on every front. Even at its peak Nazi Germany was unable to match the USSR or the USA (never mind both) and this is with all the resources and slaves gained through years of conquest. By '44 the country was struggling desperately (and failing) merely to replace its losses. Now imagine trying to stage a major mechanisation programme or maintain such a technically demanding army. The demand for oil alone would cripple the Wehrmacht... not to mention the need for spare parts that the Germans historically neglected

Well yes, if the Germans had been able to devote a few things - the resources of half of Europe, millions of slaves, another few years, and the resources needed to keep their population content - to the war effort. Unlike the war economies of the USSR/USA/UK, the German effort was unsustainable in the long run without collapsing a la Germany 1918

Of course even if we accept that the Germans were capable of removing their bottlenecks and increasing production (and that this was directed towards mechanisation rather than building the army proper) you are left with the question of will. Had the Germans believed that they were about to be pulled into a long war of attrition then they would not have invaded Russia in the first place. They knew perfectly well that they could not hope to win in such a war that pitted industrial base against industrial base... hence their reliance on short and swift campaigns

You should remember that Hitler moved up the time table of his armies actions versus the actual rebuilding of said army by over two years before the people who did the logistics said they would be ready.
The people who planned the operations and production were looking for a war in 41...that is starting the whole thing in 41.
Hitler kicked most of his stuff off in 39, two years before they were ready.
For one thing the submarine fleet was still in the process of being build...

The same for a fair chunk of other things.

I am however certain that no matter what planning might have believed would happen none of them expected a short war with Russia.
With Britain perhaps but not with Russia.

Hitler however was starting to pump himself up for the war with Russia as he saw he needed to deal with the Soviet threat and he needed to eliminate it.
Regardless of whether or not he could do it.

Don't forget the biggest flaw the Germans had in their planning for Barbarossa...

They assumed the railroads were compatible...

There would not have been as much issues with supply lines if they had been able to use their own trains from the outset of the campaign.
The moment they left Poland's territory they were stuck with a different sized railroad system and they had not anticipated the need for an alternative to get supplies through to the units that needed them.
That alone doubled almost the time needed to resupply units once they left the standard western railroad systems.

As for spare parts...they did not historically neglect it as such.
They underestimated the time it took to get them from supply bases to the front.
A certain Goering's boasts may have been a contribution for that problem.
If you have all the spares you need but you store them too far for quick resupplies they might just as well not exist and they end up being a drain to boot on your resources as you have made them already.

Raum

2008-08-17, 10:42 AM

Not that the Ardennes Offensive was his idea, but it was definitely his initiative. Hitler created the Ardennes Offensive in the same sense that Al Gore created the Internet. It was other minds who made it, but they could never have made it without a powerful person running interference for them and giving them the resources they need.Err, you do realize Gore didn't get elected to the US House of Representatives until 1977? ARPANET was concept in 1963, building started in 1969, and TCP/IP was implemented in 1983. Gore didn't work on the "High Performance Computing and Communication Act" until he was a senator in 1991.

Gore was definitely pro-technology and assisted in expediting the internet's implementation. But he had nothing to do with it's invention or even initial deployment.

Crow

2008-08-17, 12:41 PM

Gore was definitely pro-technology and assisted in expediting the internet's implementation. But he had nothing to do with it's invention or even initial deployment.

But he did try to take down one of my favorite bands, W.A.S.P. :smallwink:

Neon Knight

2008-08-17, 01:31 PM

The best source for these sorts of queries is usually Osprey. I've not read it myself but this work (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Inside-the-Soviet-Army-_9780850457414) might be of interest

Unfortunately the only internet bookmarks I have on hand (here (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jan-feb/vick.htm) and here (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/nov-dec/dalecky.html)) are concerned with operational level strategy

Thanks. I'll take what I can get.

I was recently perusing some military literature about snipers and precision rifles in general, and read a bizarre statement. The work which I was reading stated that the "when using the Zastava M76, like any precision weapon, one must be careful not to overheat the weapon.

I cannot imagine how a sniper rifle/designated marksman rifle could possibly overheat. I've only ever heard such things said about machine guns. Is there anything to this out of the blue assertion?

Storm Bringer

2008-08-17, 01:59 PM

Dervag

2008-08-17, 06:46 PM

what is it that so irks you about this battle?That it detracts from the general awesomeness which he feels rightly belongs to the Eastern Front and the Red Army?

I am however certain that no matter what planning might have believed would happen none of them expected a short war with Russia. With Britain perhaps but not with Russia.On a side note, you might want to consider placing multiple sentences in a single paragraph.

More relevantly, there were honestly quite a lot of Germans who thought the USSR would fall apart quickly. Their military made a very poor showing in Finland, which influenced German estimates of how strong they were. It was widely assumed that the Soviet government was held in place by pure terror and that the chaos caused by a full scale invasion would destroy it.

Which would have been a correct estimate if Stalin hadn't been able to mesh his own Communist Party structure so closely with Russian nationalism and patriotism. Something that I suspect the Nazis did not expect, because their own ideology was based entirely on nationalism. The idea that an explicitly internationalist ideology could tap into the same kind of patriotic fervor the Germans hoped to inspire in their own people was simply not on the table.

They assumed the railroads were compatible...Crossloading rolling stock isn't that big a problem, and the Germans could reasonably expect to capture a fair amount of rolling stock along with the railroads. I'd say their misestimate of Russian industrial and government strength was a lot more important. Matched rail gauges or not, the Germans would have won if their assessment of the USSR's political stability and military power were correct. Which it wasn't.

As for spare parts...they did not historically neglect it as such.
They underestimated the time it took to get them from supply bases to the front.Once you have a constant flow of supplies in the pipeline, the amount of time it takes for the supplies to reach their destination matters a lot less. If the Germans had been up to replacing all the men and machines destroyed on the front in 1941-42, then the incompatible railroad gauges wouldn't have been nearly as big a problem.

Err, you do realize Gore didn't get elected to the US House of Representatives until 1977? ARPANET was concept in 1963, building started in 1969, and TCP/IP was implemented in 1983. Gore didn't work on the "High Performance Computing and Communication Act" until he was a senator in 1991.

Gore was definitely pro-technology and assisted in expediting the internet's implementation. But he had nothing to do with it's invention or even initial deployment.OK, fine. I don't really care. I made a mistake in an attempt to give an (in)famous example as an analogy. I'm wrong, the analogy is bad. You win. Sorry for wasting your time.

Forget it. I was misled by inadequate research.

Norsesmithy

2008-08-18, 01:38 AM

well, every gun heats up as it is fired, and some guns are more prone to this than others. the M-16, for example, with it's weight-saving light barrel, has a substained fire rate (as in the rate it can keep up without damage) of only 16 RPM.

I think in the context of sniper rilfes, however, it might be more of a case of concern over barrel warping throwing off the ballistics, than actual damage. I know that tank guns have sensors to track barrel warp, so it can be a noticable effect on guns with even a fairly low rate of fire (though I'll grant a tank round has a much larger charge than a sniper round.)
Not quite true. The issue is that your groups tend to string vertically and spread out some as the barrel heats, because as it heats it expands, and as it expands, the rifling doesn't squeeze the bullet so tightly, reducing friction, but decreasing consistency in bullet/barrel interaction. Obviously, this is something a sniper wishes to avoid.

Under sustained fire, you can heat up the barrel of a bolt action to frying pan temps with only a few minutes of slowfire.

As for the M16, I don't think that the figure of 16 RPM is quite accurate, the chrome lined hardened steel of a barrel is very resistant to damage, even at high temperatures. Even if you get the barrel so hot that it melts through the aluminum heat shields and sets the glass filled nylon handguards on fire (something I have seen in person) the barrel is usually in no danger.

And that took almost a thousand rounds in a matter of slightly more than two minutes to accomplish.

That gun, actually a Mil Spec government profile Colt AR-15 with lightning link, got so hot that the user had to wear nomex gloves, because the surface temp of the trigger area (as read by an infrared engine thermometer) was around 490 degrees. It still works fine, even if the handguards had to be replaced. A sustained ROF of 100-200 RPM doesn't seem unreasonable to me, unless you are talking an hour or longer of sustained fire.

Neon Knight

2008-08-18, 03:05 PM

Enlightening. One last litte question. The M202A1 FLASH: How were these issued and deployed? Were they attached to a company or higher grade formation like a sniper team, or where they given to infantry, or some special kind of detachment section?

rankrath

2008-08-18, 03:54 PM

One M202A1 FLASH was issued per platoon in most cases.

Philistine

2008-08-18, 04:17 PM

@Deadmeat.GW:
In general, time was not on the Axis powers' side. If Germany had waited until 1941 to kick off WW2, they would have been better prepared materially, yes. The Allies also would have been better prepared, though, and probably to a much greater degree - the Western Allies had launched their 1930s rearmament programs later than Germany, but given two extra years their overall larger industrial base should have seen them in a bettter relative position. (I've also seen this proposed as an explanation for Chamberlain acceding to Hitler's demands at Munich - he didn't know how strong or weak German forces might be, but he did know what the status of Britain's rearmament programs was; so he was playing for time. It's an interesting idea, though I don't think it's fully supported by the evidence.)

Japan was, if anything, even worse off. Their principal anticipated opponent, the USN, had been artificially constrained since the end of WW1 - first by Treaty, then by budget limitations. But Japan abrogated the treaties in the mid 1930s, and rising tensions worldwide caused Congress to loosen the purse strings; a series of Acts starting with Vinson-Trammel in 1934 authorized a significant modernization (and later expansion) of the US Navy. The Japanese fleet, on the other hand, was organically constrained by their much more limited resource and industrial base - so essentially, the clock was ticking down on Japan from the time the Second Vinson Act passed in 1938, let alone the Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940. There was no chance of Japan winning an arms race vs. the US, and both sides knew it - so the Japanese had to get while the getting was good, and the balance of forces in late 1941 was as favorable as it was ever going to get.

Deadmeat.GW

2008-08-18, 04:53 PM

Dervag

2008-08-18, 06:27 PM

You actually did make a good point for Germany and Japan being better off with a war in 1941...

It was the time Japan was at its most powerful and the German submarine fleet would have been completed.

People are not really checking what that would have meant for the British as a whole...

Don't forget, most of the tactics that beat the submarines were possible because of the rather limited amount of subs the Germans had.
The industrial base of Germany with the pre-Polish invasion acquisitions (which incidently were not fully absorbed in the German fold by the beginning of the war) was not that much behind the rest of Europe combined.If the war had been delayed by another 18 to 24 months, the British would have had a lot more antisubmarine warfare assets available to stop them. The French Army would have been better prepared to meet the enemy. The Soviets would have been quite strong and mostly recovered from the purges by the time the Germans could afford to concentrate on them.

The result is that the Germans might well have faced an early, humiliating defeat during the war on land, without ever being in a position to cripple Britain with submarine warfare. Historically, they had the advantage of Atlantic ports for their U-boat fleet. There's no guarantee they would have enjoyed that advantage if they'd waited two years to start the war.

Giving them a tiny chance of doing something against the Royal Navy. For instance protecting a landing fleet for a theoretical Sealion...Not likely. The Germans didn't have enough hulls on hand to stop Home Fleet from intervening against an actual invasion- a situation in which the British would very likely have been willing to sacrifice quite a lot of their navy.

On top of this the French had enough problems that they would not have much if any change to their military or production capabilities in two years time because the country was still horrified by the last war. There was very little real eagerness to fight.True, but there were also few means to fight in 1939- a problem that was being solved.

The French were in the process of reorganizing their military when war broke out. Historically, they never got the chance to redesign their military along modern lines because Hitler interrupted their rebuilding program and caught them off guard in the Ardennes.

Given two more years, they would have been in a better position to defend themselves. Moreover, even if they wouldn't have been more likely to win, Hitler couldn't count on that. He knew that his own actions in 1938 had antagonized the Western Allies, guaranteeing that they'd now see him as a threat and start rearming against him. He could not confidently predict that the French political will to fight would be so weak, or that their army would react so slowly that they'd collapse in six weeks.

Thus, he had a very good reason to pull the trigger quickly, while he still had a significant advantage from having begun war production a few years earlier.

Great Britain was having troubles of their own and their colonies were causing issues at the time.Not as many as you might think. Nothing the British hadn't been keeping well under control for decades before the war broke out.

The strangle hold on Britain in the early part of the war before new technologies and tactics came in would have been almost total. No reinforcements would have made it to Britain from elsewhere.The British knew perfectly well that they'd face a renewed submarine threat if war broke out. They were already working on ASW tactics before the war, and would have continued to do so. They'd have faced a bigger submarine threat in 1941, but they'd also have been better armed and prepared to meet that threat, with more escort craft and better sub hunting equipment.

As for the Chamberlain's plans to play for time...
Not likely given that he did not try and change the British rearmament situation.
He just tried to stop another world war.I'm afraid this is not the case. Chamberlain enacted a number of programs, especially ones aimed at building up Britain's air defenses and air force. Which was precisely what Britain needed to be secure against invasion; without air supremacy over the Channel no invasion could succeed.

Philistine

2008-08-19, 01:44 PM

The tactics that beat the U-boats - principally, convoying ships and using aircraft to search - were essentially independent of the numbers of enemy subs. They were much more dependent on the availability of friendly assets to implement them, and in this respect the Allied position was only getting better as time went on.

As far as surface units go, yes, in 1941 the KM would have had a few more ships available. The French also had a building program underway, with new ships scheduled to come into service at a similar rate to Germany's. The British also had a building program underway, and with more shipyards they were adding new ships faster than Germany. German numerical inferiority was getting worse, not better, as time went on. And when you throw in the Americans... well, the US was capable of matching the industrial output of the entire rest of the world in this period.

Sealion wasn't in the cards in any scenario.* The Luftwaffe had no hope of eliminating the RAF. The Luftwaffe and KM together had no hope of eliminating the RN. And even if they'd somehow managed both of those feats, a cross-Channel assault might have managed to fail anyway; partly because the Rhine river barges the Germans planned to use as assault craft were almost entirely unsuitable for the purpose, and partly because the German plan for the operation was just that bad.

The French weren't eager to fight, no - but they were in the middle of their own rearmament program in 1939-40. The Armee de l'Aire, for example, was just introducing newer, more modern fighters (competitive with contemporary models of the Bf109) into service at the time of the Battle of France. Given six to twelve more months, the German advantage in the air would have been greatly diminished. The Navy had two Richelieu-class battleships - more powerful than the German Bismarcks - nearing completion in 1940, as well. And two years' extra production of tanks (better than their German contemporaries, I note) might have given the Army enough to create a strong, mobile reserve.

And I'm not at all sure we should take into account a "full-strength" U-boat fleet - not if we're assuming that German surface ship construction continued at its originally planned pace. Historically, construction on many surface ships was stopped at the outbreak of war, in order to concentrate on cranking out U-boats. Germany simply did not have the shipyards to build both. The British, on the other hand, did have enough shipyard capacity to crank out heavy fleet units and ASW/escort classes at the same time. Given an extra two years of production of light vessels, the British would be able to insitute convoys (proven in the Great War) from Day One, while the lack of bases on the Atlantic will greatly restrict the operational area of the U-boat fleet until some time after France falls - if France falls in this scenario.

Yes, the "War 1941" scenario would play out differently from historical events. But the overall trends were more favorable to the Allies, meaning that the Axis powers had a very limited window of opportunity to act before Allied rearmament put them back in the driver's seat.

*This threatened to become a multi-paragraph essay all on its own. If for some reason anyone wants to see that, though...

Raum

2008-08-19, 06:06 PM

The Luftwaffe had no hope of eliminating the RAF. Not sure I agree. The RAF was hurting pretty badly up until Hitler changed targeting orders from airfields to cities after the RAF bombed Berlin. I've always wondered if they could have finished the RAF as a viable force if they'd kept after them.

Philistine

2008-08-19, 08:03 PM

Not sure I agree. The RAF was hurting pretty badly up until Hitler changed targeting orders from airfields to cities after the RAF bombed Berlin. I've always wondered if they could have finished the RAF as a viable force if they'd kept after them.

Nope. All through the Battle, the RAF was rotating squadrons between 11 Group in the south and 10 and 12 Groups in the north, in order to give the squadrons on the front line a chance to rest, refit, and absorb replacements. And in the absolute worst case scenario, if the Luftwaffe had managed to completely close down all the RAF's southern airfields, the plan was for 11 Group to fall back to bases in the Midlands where they'd be outside of Bf109 range. That would have meant a rough go for London, but it would have preserved the core of RAF strength specifically for use against any threatened invasion attempt. And there was nothing the Luftwaffe could do to stop it.

Dervag

2008-08-19, 10:39 PM

Sealion wasn't in the cards in any scenario.* The Luftwaffe had no hope of eliminating the RAF. The Luftwaffe and KM together had no hope of eliminating the RN. And even if they'd somehow managed both of those feats, a cross-Channel assault might have managed to fail anyway; partly because the Rhine river barges the Germans planned to use as assault craft were almost entirely unsuitable for the purpose, and partly because the German plan for the operation was just that bad.I've heard it pointed out that if the Germans had attempted to execute Sealion, they would have inflicted many casualties on the RAF's light warships and Coastal Command aircraft. Even if they failed, that means that the Battle of the Atlantic would have been a lot harder for the British to fight. On the other hand, if the Germans had delayed until 1941, the British would have had ASW asset production running much faster, and the losses would have been made good a lot sooner.

Given an extra two years of production of light vessels, the British would be able to insitute convoys (proven in the Great War) from Day One.Actually, the Brits did that anyway. Churchill had painful memories of what happened when the British persistently failed to adopt convoying in the First World War, and the Admiralty largely agreed with him.

It wasn't a very well organized convoy system at first, but it certainly existed.

Philistine

2008-08-20, 06:32 AM

I've heard it pointed out that if the Germans had attempted to execute Sealion, they would have inflicted many casualties on the RAF's light warships and Coastal Command aircraft. Even if they failed, that means that the Battle of the Atlantic would have been a lot harder for the British to fight. On the other hand, if the Germans had delayed until 1941, the British would have had ASW asset production running much faster, and the losses would have been made good a lot sooner.

Perhaps. Certainly it would have been a bloodbath, but there are some factors still working in Britain's favor. The plan for Sealion had the Luftwaffe badly overtasked: simultaneously covering the invasion force against air and naval attack, providing close air support for forces ashore, interdicting British troop movements toward the landing zones, and launching a massive terror raid on London so powerful as to send the civilian population fleeing into the countryside, further impeding road travel. Worse, the Luftwaffe was never strong enough to accomplish any one of these missions - let alone all of them. They'd inflict significant damage wherever they were present in force, but it's hard to say just what kind or how much without some idea of which of their many missions Goering would actually commit his forces to.

At sea, I think the participating surface units of the KM would be virtually exterminated. That should free up most of the surviving units of Home Fleet in the aftermath of the battle; and while the heavy cruisers and battleships would be of little value for convoy ASW work, the same would not be true of the fleet's screening elements. The U-boats might have an ugly time of it, too - Germany's official plan called for a significant portion of the U-boat fleet to be stationed at the western end of the Channel as a blocking force, where the combination of shallow water, confined operational area, and being tied to a fixed position for weeks on end (all Very Bad Things for submarines) would make them sitting ducks. Whether or not the British would have had the assets to take advantage of that is another question, of course, and stopping the invasion fleet would have been the absolute priority.

And then as previously mentioned, if the war is delayed until 1941 there's no guarantee that France will fall at all, much less as quickly as historically. Germany can't even start trying to put Sealion together unless and until they finish France.

Pilum

2008-08-20, 12:00 PM

I was wondering if anyone had a good source describing typical late period Soviet (late 80's) light and mechanized infantry tactics on a squad, platoon, and company level? I'm looking to depict a post-Soviet PMC/mercenary group.

Just a quick google, and it was buried a bit on page 4, but I did find this (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6453/grozny.html), mainly referring to the Chechen conflict but has a few snippets, mostly on urban ops. There are probably more out there if you filter out all the WW2 stuff (like I said, page 4! :smallwink: ) but I hope that's something for you to chew on for a while. As a rough summary: start shooting, don't stop!

Zaphrasz

2008-08-21, 08:55 PM

Swordguy

2008-08-22, 01:17 AM

I have a question that has probably been asked many times before. I have an acquaintance who is under the impression that the Japanese Katana is the alpha and the omega of swords. This is not hyperbole; he says that the weapon is better than any other sword, being sharper, piercing better, weighing less, being stronger, and requiring less maintenance than any other blade. I was under the impression that, while they were well made, and had to be since they didn't have much metal, a Katana is not perfect. I was under the impression that it weighed about as much as any other sword, was prone to chipping, and only excelled in cutting strength. My good friend TVtropes also indicates that there is some bias towards Katanas in media, so how much is true? Just how good were these weapons, and how did they compare to swords of different cultures?

Whoo-boy.

The short version is no. The following motivational poster is WRONG:

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/katana.jpg

Katana do not, in fact, weigh appreciably less than equivalent-length European swords, and in some cases weigh more. They cannot cut through metals in general. The essay here (http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=60685) (by yours truly) describes the cutting ability of a katana against Japanese Armor in detail, with sources. Katana take a great deal of maintenance - mainly to keep their finish, but also to maintain their edge. Katana DO have one of the finer edges among swords, because they don't operate on the principle of impact cleaving so much as they do slicing - this requires a fine edge (meat cleaver vs butcher knife). This very fine, hard edge is by definition very brittle - which means that cutting into metal will damage it.

There is a specific instance I'd like to discuss. There is a fairly famous propaganda video of a Japanese officer in WWII cutting through a captured water-cooled M1919 machine gun. It's semi-fake. The Japanese removed the barrel of the gun, stuck the flash suppressor back on so it looked like the barrel was still there, and had him cut through the heated water jacket. The equivalent would be cutting through a Coke can - it's doesn't mean anything special.

Katana are not appreciably better or worse than other period-equivalent swords. They're just different.

As a comparison, take a look at this YouTube video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_mCNoqqK0k)- a 1796 pattern Sabre doing test cutting on a haunch of meat. Watch how much effort is required to cut through the haunch. Look at this vid here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIsec-MTGwU) and note how much the weapon weighs and how big it is as compared to a katana, as well as how well it cuts. Or go the the homepage for the Association of Renaissance Martial Artists (ARMA) here (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm) and watch the first video - a guy takes a longsword and cuts a deer cleanly in half without much effort. How much MORE cutting power would a katana need, if these so-called "inferior" weapons can do this?

Tell you what, get him to post here and we'll destroy his delusions for you. We haven't had a good "Katana are teh Ub3r" fanboi-stomping in a while. :smallamused:

Zaphrasz

2008-08-22, 09:29 AM

So, pretty much what I figured. Thanks for that essay; very informative, well sourced, clear and to the point. As much as I would love to get my friend into a discussion that proves I am right, I fear it would only devolve into an argument, and I doubt he would even want to get into a discussion about it here. Assuming you weren't being sarcastic, I'll look into it, however.

Spiryt

2008-08-22, 11:02 AM

My good friend TVtropes also indicates that there is some bias towards Katanas in media, so how much is true? Just how good were these weapons, and how did they compare to swords of different cultures?

Swordguy prettily said you stuff about swords, I will just say that the reason of that west (mainly USA/american in general) media are from some reason unbelievably wapanised.

Don't know where it came from, but many people seem to be under impression that anything made east from the Kazakhstan must be somewhat superb.

This is kinda weird in fact.:smallconfused:

Storm Bringer

2008-08-22, 11:44 AM

Personally, it's becuase amercia has a compaitivly short recorded history, and thus not much homegrown mythos. when they occupied the place in the early 50's, the GI's absorbed a lot of the local culture and mythos (and the japs absorbed a lot of american culture too), then took it home with them and passed it on.

Dispite all the kantana hating that goes on, the kanata is a quality cutting instrument, and when combined with the style of fighting with it, a very effective and powerful weapon.

It's just that european swords were also very effective and powerful weapons, evolving to meet the needs of the battlefield. It is, in my mind, an intresting 'what if' to ask what would have happened to the katana if japan had not been unified and turned to peaceful isolation in the 1600's, but carried on fighting, either themselves or other asian cultures. Part of the reason japanese culture is so different is that it was basically medival until the 1860's then rushed to modernise ever since.

Swordguy

2008-08-22, 04:48 PM

Dispite all the kantana hating that goes on, the kanata is a quality cutting instrument, and when combined with the style of fighting with it, a very effective and powerful weapon.

It's not "katana hating" - believe me, I respect the hell out of the instrument. *points at Swordguy's Ichidan rank in Eishin-ryu Iaijutsu* What I hate is the rampant and ignorant fanboyism who take that motivational poster up there 100% seriously, when a modicum of research - 30 seconds on google - could disprove that "theory". I hate willful ignorance in all its forms. It's OK to be stupid because you don't know something and don't know you didn't know it - you really don't know any better, so it's not necessarily your fault. But to have the internet at your disposal, and the wealth of information it provides? There's simply not a good excuse not to know besides "I was too lazy to look it up", and that's willful ignorance...choosing not to educate yourself.

2008-08-22, 04:52 PM

[On the Battle of the Bulge]
That it detracts from the general awesomeness which he feels rightly belongs to the Eastern Front and the Red Army?In a way... yes :smallbiggrin:

The Second Ardennes Offensive was a failure in almost every regard - crucially in its objectives, planning, and execution. All that Germany gained was the chewing up a couple of sub-par US divisions (although others of course held up well) and puncturing the foolish over-confidence of the Allied command. Realistically it was an operation always doomed to failure

Simultaneously one of the most impressive advances of the war was beginning on the Eastern Front with the stunning Vistula-Oder Offensive and the amazing '24 hour advance' that took the Soviets to the gates of Berlin. Yet which campaign is the better known (both in popular and military history)? The stupidity of Hitler in the West is crafted into a glorious US victory while the tremendous Soviet victory in the East is effectively ignored. And not for the first time

Its not just the popular preconception that bugs me though. For decades Western military historians (virtually the entire historical establishment) bought into the myths disseminated by retired German generals in their memoirs. In this blatant revision of history the USSR featured merely as a bit player in the war with German defeats being attributed to either the Russian weather or Hitler's meddling. Its only in the past decade that historians (particularly due to the efforts of Glantz) have begun to re-evaluate the role of the Red Army in crushing Germany. The Battle of the Bulge (along with, to a lesser extent, D-Day) is merely the most obvious example of this trope

Subotei

2008-08-22, 07:00 PM

Nope. All through the Battle, the RAF was rotating squadrons between 11 Group in the south and 10 and 12 Groups in the north, in order to give the squadrons on the front line a chance to rest, refit, and absorb replacements. And in the absolute worst case scenario, if the Luftwaffe had managed to completely close down all the RAF's southern airfields, the plan was for 11 Group to fall back to bases in the Midlands where they'd be outside of Bf109 range. That would have meant a rough go for London, but it would have preserved the core of RAF strength specifically for use against any threatened invasion attempt. And there was nothing the Luftwaffe could do to stop it.

If I recall, Dowding (Head of RAF Fighter Command) kept about half of the RAFs fighter strength in reserve, even during the heaviest fighting. Which makes the RAFs achievement during the battle seem even greater. His philosophy was to out-endure, rather than out-fight the Luftwaffe - raids were met with enough fighters to disrupt attacks rather than enough to give the Germans a chance to actively destroy the RAF. The impact of this on the morale of the German aircrews shouldn't be underestimated - however many raids they went on the RAF was still there, fighting back. The physical damage achieved by the raids which got through, while significant, wasn't anything compared with keeping the fighter force in being to oppose any landing.

Whilst Operation Sealion might seem a bizarre and risky undertaking, given the might of the Royal Navy, it must be kept in mind that where the Germans did attempt an air/amphibious landing in Crete in 1941, they succeeded, despite the British having Ultra intercepts and considerable Naval assets in the area. Losses to the Royal Navy forces opposing the landing were extremely heavy, as there was no fighter cover, and the Germans overcame stiff resistance on the ground to finally take the island. Given that after Dunkirk, Britain was basically without significant equipped and organised ground forces, the chance that the Germans could get established, should the Luftwaffe suppress the RAF long enough to deny the Royal Navy air cover, should not be underestimated - time and again in WWII the German Army did the impossible. Keeping RAF Fighter Command in being during 1940 was vital to the eventual outcome of the war.

This link is gives a rough picture of the state of British defences at the time of Sealion - i.e. not much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II

Subotei

2008-08-22, 07:27 PM

Its not just the popular preconception that bugs me though. For decades Western military historians (virtually the entire historical establishment) bought into the myths disseminated by retired German generals in their memoirs. In this blatant revision of history the USSR featured merely as a bit player in the war with German defeats being attributed to either the Russian weather or Hitler's meddling. Its only in the past decade that historians (particularly due to the efforts of Glantz) have begun to re-evaluate the role of the Red Army in crushing Germany. The Battle of the Bulge (along with, to a lesser extent, D-Day) is merely the most obvious example of this trope

Not sure I agree with you on this - to me there's never been much doubt that the Russians fought the Wehrmacht to eventual defeat. Around 80% of german manpower was facing the Russians for the majority of the war - basically the reason we got ashore on D-day is we were facing the dregs of the Nazi regime rather than the good regular and/or elite units, which were mainly in the East (I'm being careful here - I'm not trying to imply that the efforts of D-day weren't epic, just that those efforts wouldn't have achieved what they did had they faced an intact Wehrmacht). The preface of Alan Clarke's excellent 'Barbarossa' (1965) starts 'This book is devoted to the greatest and longest land battle which mankind has ever fought.' - hardly a denial of the Russian effort?

kirbsys

2008-08-22, 10:58 PM

I have a question about revolvers. Or actually a couple of questions. First off, when did the first semi-automatic revolvers come around? Before they came around, was it still reasonably possibly to shoot revolvers in two hands, or was the time it took to reset the hammer a bit too long? Finally, about how fast could a 'real' gunslinger empty a revolver if he was 'fanning' it?

Norsesmithy

2008-08-23, 03:28 AM

If by semiautomatic you mean Double Action, they have been around since before 1877, at least.

As for firing with a gun in either hand, out side of trick shooting, you almost never fire them simultaneously, mostly you hold a gun in either hand so that you can switch guns (or if you are equally good with both hands, switch hands) when the first is empty, which is much faster than reloading a revolver, especially if you are using a Cap and Ball or Gate loaded revolver.

If you were firing slow aimed shots, cocking with the gun hand thumb is not that big a deal, and so I could see not putting down your off hand gun while using a single action revolver, but it would restrict your rate of fire.

As for "Fanning the hammer", trick shooters have fired all 6 shots in less than half a second.

Not quite the rate a similarly practiced man can get out of a magazine fed auto, but only a little slower than a practiced man can do with a double action.

2008-08-23, 06:43 AM

@Subotei: Here's (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm) a good paper by Glantz noting the major gaps in the historiography of the Eastern Front. In fairness he's equally critical of Soviet historians for this development

But let me put it this way, I'd be willing to bet that the primary source material for Clarke's Barbarossa (and I'm not belittling that work here) was overwhelming German

kirbsys

2008-08-23, 10:58 AM

Thanks! On the topic of trick shooting, when you're shooting that quickly, is it really possible to be accurate with those shots?

Swordguy

2008-08-23, 11:50 AM

Thanks! On the topic of trick shooting, when you're shooting that quickly, is it really possible to be accurate with those shots?

Define "accurate". If you mean putting all six shots into the 10-ring of a moving (jogging speed) man-sized target at about 15-20 yards in under 1.5 seconds, then yes, it's been done. Heck, the world record for clay pigeon shooting is 8 birds on one hand-powered toss with a pump-action gun before any of them hit the ground.

If "accurate" you mean shooting guns out of people's hands while throwing oneself sideways John Woo style, then no.

AMX

2008-08-23, 12:31 PM

I've heard claims that some of the Italian L3 tankettes were equipped with a Brixia mortar.
Can anybody here confirm that, and maybe provide some details?

Ruerl

2008-08-25, 04:22 AM

Swordguy

2008-08-25, 05:40 AM

A question:
Do anyone know the weight of the different japanese swords? The Katana in specific, I can find plenty of "fan sites" and merchandise that lists weight, but I don't trust those as far as I can throw them (and I got weak puny arms -even compared to a kobold).

Sources are to be preffered if possible, can't use anything not having a source in a debate, then its just hearsay after all, and thats as bad as hyping the katana.

Modern-production, traditionally made katana (http://www.jidai.jp/shinken.asp)

Modern-production traditionally-made katana (http://www.swordstoresamurai.com/thaitsuki.shtml)

From both links, the weights of the swords are in the 1.13 to 1.5 kg region (2.5-3.3 lbs). Both links contain shinsakuto, which are NOT considered to be reproductions by the Japanese government, who take this form of artwork VERY seriously. Shinsakuto are 100% genuine katana, except they just aren't a few hundred years old.

Norsesmithy

2008-08-25, 10:43 PM

I've heard claims that some of the Italian L3 tankettes were equipped with a Brixia mortar.
Can anybody here confirm that, and maybe provide some details?

A quick google and a check of my WWII vehicles books makes it look like they are just rumors. I don't see any confirmation of mortar armament.

It would have been a pretty good idea, though, IMO. Other forces used light tanks or tankettes as fast moving mortar platforms, and I think the L3/35 would have performed adequately in this role (though it would have been nice if they were faster).

Ruerl

2008-08-27, 04:35 PM

Swordguy

2008-08-27, 05:10 PM

Thank you Swordguy, it was exactly one of those reference types I looked for. I cannot help but wonder, if there is any sites for katana's wich are replica's endorsed by the japanese goverment. (wich also has weight measurements etc.).

Regards

Ruerl

Um...they ARE endorsed by the Japanese government. Any smith capable of making shinsakuto and selling them from Japan is considered to be a National Treasure by the Japanese government. Therefore, any shinsakuto you'll be buying from Japan is tacitly endorsed by the government.

Further, the weight of the sword simply isn't normally tracked by the NTHK or NBTHK (the primary certifying agencies for period swords), so it's harder to find than you might think.

Good places to go to get more information will be:
INFORMATION SITES
http://www.nihontomessageboard.com/
http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/nihonto.htm
http://swordforum.com/

FOR SALE SITES (you'll note that none of these list weights)
http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/sale/main.html
http://www.japaneseswordcollector.com/
http://www.nihontoantiques.com/

Honestly, even with quality modern reproductions, the weight is going to be accurate to within a few ounces - maybe a pound at most. Check out Paul Chen's Hanwei line, and you'll get weights accurate to within 4 ounces, which should be good enough for most folks. What are you doing that you need the specific weights to that level of specificity?

Deadmeat.GW

2008-08-27, 06:18 PM

A quick google and a check of my WWII vehicles books makes it look like they are just rumors. I don't see any confirmation of mortar armament.

It would have been a pretty good idea, though, IMO. Other forces used light tanks or tankettes as fast moving mortar platforms, and I think the L3/35 would have performed adequately in this role (though it would have been nice if they were faster).

As far as I can see this was due to the refitting of damaged tankettes with mortars as the turrets had been blown off or such.
But it was never an official thing, more akin of strapping a mortar to the top of the remains of the turret base and hoping it would not blow up in your face.
Also it was not done with just L3's but with a couple of different tankettes.

For info I would need to get hold of some diaries from some of the Italian troops in the North African campaign.
We had a few copies of some diaries at our school library which I helped organise and they refered to it in there as a improvised weapon platform that was very, very unreliable but they needed to be able to move the mortars rapidly and it was as close as they could get to something useful for the damaged tankettes.

arnoldrew

2008-08-28, 12:49 PM

Honestly, even with quality modern reproductions, the weight is going to be accurate to within a few ounces - maybe a pound at most. Check out Paul Chen's Hanwei line, and you'll get weights accurate to within 4 ounces, which should be good enough for most folks. What are you doing that you need the specific weights to that level of specificity?

Obviously he plans on fighting zombies.

Norsesmithy

2008-08-29, 12:40 AM

Adlan

2008-08-29, 07:00 AM

Zombies? Not a Problem, I talked about this on the Internet: Zombie Squad (http://zombiehunters.org/forum/)

Ruerl

2008-08-29, 01:41 PM

Um...they ARE endorsed by the Japanese government. Any smith capable of making shinsakuto and selling them from Japan is considered to be a National Treasure by the Japanese government. Therefore, any shinsakuto you'll be buying from Japan is tacitly endorsed by the government.

I'll rephrase myself:
What sort of katana's, would be qualified as replica's by the japanese goverment? Since those you linked to previously, did not qualify as such? -I ask this out of curiosity, not out of need.
My "need" has been covered by your previous post.

Further, the weight of the sword simply isn't normally tracked by the NTHK or NBTHK (the primary certifying agencies for period swords), so it's harder to find than you might think.

What does the abbrevations stand for?

onestly, even with quality modern reproductions, the weight is going to be accurate to within a few ounces - maybe a pound at most. Check out Paul Chen's Hanwei line, and you'll get weights accurate to within 4 ounces, which should be good enough for most folks. What are you doing that you need the specific weights to that level of specificity?

Apart from my past time hobby of chopping zombies *coughs* I constantly run into people believing the japanese katana to be the "ultimate" weapon, henche I need hard facts when counterarguing. I do not wish to be arguing with what I think is correct, without being able to list some sort of source. Something wich you provided in your previous link collections allready.
-I'm a re-enactor and am often discussing and explaining basic stuff to tourists, but I am mainly following the Lichtenauer tradition and as such my focus on weapons are somewhat off when dealing with japanese, or asian weaponry in general.
My knowledge of japanese weaponry can be summed up as follows:
-I know its not "superior"
-I know I know very little about it.

Thank you again for taking your time in responding.

Regards

Ruerl -who has experienced tourists guessing his longsword weight to be 21kg... (its a heavy 1.6kg sword).

Raum

2008-08-29, 06:35 PM

Apart from my past time hobby of chopping zombies *coughs* I constantly run into people believing the japanese katana to be the "ultimate" weapon, henche I need hard facts when counterarguing. I do not wish to be arguing with what I think is correct, without being able to list some sort of source. Something wich you provided in your previous link collections allready.
-I'm a re-enactor and am often discussing and explaining basic stuff to tourists, but I am mainly following the Lichtenauer tradition and as such my focus on weapons are somewhat off when dealing with japanese, or asian weaponry in general.
My knowledge of japanese weaponry can be summed up as follows:
-I know its not "superior"
-I know I know very little about it.

Thank you again for taking your time in responding.

Regards

Ruerl -who has experienced tourists guessing his longsword weight to be 21kg... (its a heavy 1.6kg sword).Here are a couple of essays (from ARMA's essays (http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm)) which may help:
- What did Historical Swords Weigh? (http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm)
- Longsword and Katana Considered (http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html)

Dervag

2008-08-29, 07:20 PM

The ZSG made me headdesk.

He advocates using a trench spike, for crying out loud. Never mind how utterly wrong he is about firearms, but you want me to stab something, with a dangerous mouth, in the head, with something that doesn't hardly give me any more reach? It puts your arm in convenient biting position if you fail.

And even if you do penetrate skull, who is to say that a stupid little spike will kill the thing, look at Phineas Gage, for crying out loud.Yes, some of the stuff is impractical and dumb. Conversely, some stuff gets dismissed too lightly. Hosing down a much of zombies with a machine gun might not stop very many of them, but it would sure incapacitate them and make them easier targets.

On the other hand, a lot of it is more consistent than that.

At least, I thought so. Any other observations about the book that might change my mind? I'd be interested to hear them, and I'm sure others here in the 'negligible close combat experience' crowd would be too.

Norsesmithy

2008-08-30, 01:33 AM

That is another thread all together, that I may start tomorrow night (in Inane Babble, maybe?), but for starters, Max Brooks has his facts all wrong about the AR-15/M-16 family of weapons. Everything he praises about the M1 carbine is more true for the Black Rifle, and his criticisms of the Black Rifle are largely founded in myth.

Also that in close combat, it would be better to disable the arm of a zombie trying to grasp you than it would be to try and go for the re-kill. For this, a cutting knife, applied to the tendons and nerves at the elbow would probably be the best shot at saving your own life.

Thread posted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4824987#post4824987)

Neon Knight

2008-08-30, 01:39 AM

Media discussion would be a good place, as a book is a form of media. I, personally, would eagerly read usch a thread, holding similar views as to yourself, although I am more acquainted with World War Z than the Zombie Survival Guide.

blackout

2008-08-30, 06:13 PM

I require relevant information on at least 2 single-shot rifles, 5 automatic rifles, 5 SMGs, 3 shotguns, and 4 pistols.

It's for my Dustworld system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87960). I'm looking to expand the number of firearms, and make it so that the guns in there are at least slightly more realistic.

Recommendations for my game should include the ammo count, rate of fire, and effective range. The guns themselves should be fairly widespread and popular.

Thank you.

Crow

2008-08-30, 06:55 PM

blackout

2008-08-30, 07:28 PM

Sweet!

Thank you!

Totally Guy

2008-08-31, 07:28 AM

Matthew

2008-08-31, 08:39 AM

I have been DMing a game of 4th edition and a player wanted to treat a javelin and a spear as the same item using the spear stats for close range and the javelin stats for long range.

I don't really know the difference so I ruled in his favour. Is there a spear weapon that is good for both these things?

Okay, take a look at these three spear heads:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Spears/VikingThrustingSpear.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Spears/VikingThrowingSpear.jpghttp://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Spears/VikingShortBladedSpear.jpg

These have each been designed according to the purpose of the weapon. The general theory is that the first spearhead is designed for melee, the second is designed for throwing, and the third is okay for both (though not as good as the other two at either).

Crow

2008-08-31, 01:24 PM

What about those spears the Maasai use?

Matthew

2008-08-31, 01:36 PM

These things?

http://www.rrtraders.com/weapons/spears-3c-1.jpg
http://www.rrtraders.com/weapons/spears-3c.jpg

It appears to be the Maasi sword on a stick:

http://www.rrtraders.com/weapons/sword.jpg

No idea how the Maasi sword-spear works. Like a Glaive I would expect.

Storm Bringer

2008-08-31, 02:53 PM

completly off topic for a moment:

Matthew, where did you get that avatar? It looks a lot like some of the warhammer CCG artwork i've seen, but I'm not sure.

Matthew

2008-08-31, 03:01 PM

It is from the computer roleplaying game Icewind Dale II, I think. I cropped the image of the full figure so that only the head is visible. I have been using it on other forums for a couple of years, but I never got round to uploading it here. The artist is, I believe, Justin Sweet (http://www.justinsweet.com/); he does some great work, though I cannot find this image hosted on his website.

Adlan

2008-08-31, 05:26 PM

These things?

http://www.rrtraders.com/weapons/spears-3c-1.jpg
http://www.rrtraders.com/weapons/spears-3c.jpg

It appears to be the Maasi sword on a stick:

The Black one is a Massai Lion Hunting Spear. I found one in my friends cellar.

Fhaolan

2008-08-31, 07:35 PM

I have been DMing a game of 4th edition and a player wanted to treat a javelin and a spear as the same item using the spear stats for close range and the javelin stats for long range.

I don't really know the difference so I ruled in his favour. Is there a spear weapon that is good for both these things?

In RL terms, a javelin is a spear. It's just a very light spear specifically balanced for throwing. Much like throwing knives relative to bowie knives, and throwing axes versus regular hand axes. They might be spears/knives/axes, but they are shaped and balanced to be better missile weapons than their regular counterparts. Which usually means their weight and balance makes them less optimal as melee weapons.

Mike_G

2008-09-01, 06:45 PM

The Black one is a Massai Lion Hunting Spear. I found one in my friends cellar.

At least it helps keep the cellar free of lions.

Dervag

2008-09-01, 10:16 PM

Is this like the infamous elephant repellant?

Adlan

2008-09-02, 02:46 AM

Here are some pics of the one from my friends house.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b361/Adlan/Image018.jpg

A Massai Spear, brought back by the colonial exploits of one of my friends illustrious ancestors, family legend has it that he was given it because he participated in a lion hunt, and was the only white man to do so without a rifle. I don't know how true it is, but it is a very nice weapon.

It's about 7' long, and has a hard wood core (still quite tightly held by the iron, though showing signs of age),both the Blade end and bottom spike are iron I belive, rather than steel, and it still bears the marks of it's making.

It's still fairly sharp as well, certainly do some damage.

It's a bit top heavy, and require a higher grip for throwing to feel natural, but when I worked this out, it seemed alright.

Now obviously, it's a valuble Antique, I didn't spend hours playing with it..... :lol:

More piccies:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b361/Adlan/Image017.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b361/Adlan/Image022.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b361/Adlan/Image074.jpg

Now, I apoligise for the poor quality, but I only had my camera phone with me.

Thiel

2008-09-03, 02:03 PM

Anyone know any decent literature about the use and development of diesel-electric submarines?

Philistine

2008-09-03, 06:50 PM

As far as use goes, Clay Blair's Silent Victory and Hitler's U-Boat War are pretty well-regarded, comprehensive accounts of the US and German submarine campaigns in WW2.

As fror history, I feel almost... dirty... for suggesting it, but you might check out that one site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine) if all you need is a general overview; if you're looking for more depth (pun absolutely intended) you might check out some of the References at the bottom of the page.

Construct

2008-09-04, 12:38 AM

The Black one is a Massai Lion Hunting Spear. I found one in my friends cellar.
Oooh, purty. All I have in my cellar are bodies.
What's the story behind the shape? Is it not exclusively a thrown weapon?

Swordguy

2008-09-07, 05:40 AM

Okay, so I'll confess to watching Futureweapons on occasion, and they just had a (short and vague) spot on the Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System. It's a fast, thin-skinned vehicle that mounts the same L7-derived 105mm gun that the original M1 Abrams mounted.

Hmmm... goes SGs History-sense, fast, thin-skinned, and heavily armed? That reminds me of something - a failed concept called the Tank Destroyer.

Now, the original idea behind American TDs (like the 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage) was that the TD would be a screening force that would accurately engage enemy tanks (preferably from ambush) and use their superior speed to withdrawal, or failing that, to use their superior speed to avoid damage. Historically, it didn't work. The TDs had to stop to accurately shoot, which meant that Axis tanks were able to draw a bead on them and kill them. The targeting and gun stabilization systems just didn't exist to allow high-speed accurate fire. Further, they were vulnerable to small arms, where regular tanks mostly weren't, which pushed combat losses up even more. Any anti-tank weapon the infantry carried would kill a TD, bar none, and the open turret systems of the M10 Wolverine and M18 Hellcat meant that crews were exposed to rifle fire or lobbed grenades. Post-WWII, the concept basically died as the ability of infantry to kill even real tanks greatly increased. The offensive power of a TD (speed and firepower) weren't worth the loss of protection it took to achieve them.

So, on to the Stryker.

Well, the M1128 variant seems to be the TD concept reborn. It's fast, lightly armored, and carries a tank-grade punch. it has certain advantages over the older TDs - it has the natural technology advantages of being faster and with a better gun than an M18. The biggest change is that it's capable of firing accurately on the move, which would theoretically eliminate the issue of enemy units drawing a bead on the Styker while it stops to shoot (like what happened to the WWII-era TDs). But it's still horribly thin-skinned, and with modern targeting gear, mobility isn't anything near the protection it used to be. Heck, as near as I can tell, it's actually slower than an M1A1 Abrams - it's got a speed limiter installed (45mph) due to rollover issues. Any given hit from a serious anti-tank weapon (anything bigger than a .50-cal/14.5mm [yes, I know that .50-cal is equal to 12.7mm]) is going to seriously damage or kill it, and RPGs are stupidly common. So what changed?

I'm not attacking the concept of the Stryker itself...I'm wondering what happened to suddenly make a Tank Destoyer a viable concept again. If the casualty rate was too high during WWII (when we were still willing to accept casualties as the price of doing business) and was a sufficient reason to kill the concept then, what on earth made the developers think that that same kind of casualty rate will be acceptable now?. If anything, the defenses of such a platform are even less effective than they were 60 years go. Is the ability to fire accurately on the move sufficient to outweigh the inability to take hits while (necessarily) subjecting itself to tank-grade return fire? In short, it didn't work then, why do they think it'll work now?

Information links:
Styker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker_(vehicle))
Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Gun_System)
M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat)
M10 Wolverine Tank Destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_Wolverine)

2008-09-07, 08:53 AM

Hmmm... goes SGs History-sense, fast, thin-skinned, and heavily armed? That reminds me of something - a failed concept called the Tank Destroyer.I wouldn't called the Tank Destroyer a "failed concept". Obviously its been almost entirely replaced by RPGs (I can't speak for the Stryker on this) but during its time the TD served its purpose admirably. I understand that the American experiment (which tried to have it both ways - heavy and fast) was less successful than the more specialised German and Soviet efforts but that shouldn't detract from the role that these machines played

As for the Stryker, from what I know about the project (very limited, I'm no expert here) its been intended to fill two roles:

1) A faster, lighter, hi-tech version of the Bradley that would fit into the US Army's turn of the century fetish for 'network-centric warfare'

2) Fill the coffers of General Dynamics and secure generals a place on lucrative salaries with this, and other, defence contractors following retirement

Crow

2008-09-07, 12:55 PM

Well I remember the Hummer being intended as fast and thin-skinned back in the day. Then we started using them for patrol duty and they had to beef up the armor. I wonder how long the "thin-skinned" concept will last this time?

Adlan

2008-09-07, 05:41 PM

Oooh, purty. All I have in my cellar are bodies.
What's the story behind the shape? Is it not exclusively a thrown weapon?

I have no Idea. You'd have to ask the Massai.

It feel's quite well balanced for hand to hand fighting, as a quatedrstaff, with a Grip just beyond the end of the wood on each side, but, it's not balanced for gripping in one hand unless you hold it much nearer the top blade.

It'd made a very good assagi if you took off the bottom spike.

Pilum

2008-09-07, 05:51 PM

RE stryker - don't know that much about the programme, but I always had the impression that it was meant more for infantry support and could carry AT rounds "just in case" rather than be seriously expected to swap rounds with heavy armour...

Ah, thank you google, a page from Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-mgs.htm) about it. Don't know much about the site as a credible source, but it seems pretty kosher. A relevant quote:

The Stryker Mobile Gun System [MGS] will employ four types of 105mm tactical ammunition. High explosive/high explosive plastic (HE/HEP) ammunition will destroy hardened enemy bunkers, machinegun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls through which infantry can pass. Kinetic energy (KE) ammunition will be employed to destroy a variety of Level II armored vehicles. High explosive, anti-tank (HEAT) ammunition is well suited to defeat a variety of thin-skinned vehicles and provide fragmentation effects. Finally, anti-personnel (canister) ammunition will defeat attacking dismounted infantry in the open.

Still doesn't quite avoid the problem of increased infantry anti-tank capability, but then if the idea is to stand back and pound away then that doesnt really come into it I'd imagine.

So... just what IS a Level II armoured vehicle? :P

Construct

2008-09-08, 04:43 AM

So... just what IS a Level II armoured vehicle?
STANAG 4569 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG_4569) Level II: Armour-piercing 7.62 Soviet at 30 meters, 155mm high-explosive shells at 80m, 6kg (explosive mass) anti-tank mines, anti-personnel mines and grenades.

Dervag

2008-09-08, 09:27 AM

Yeah. It sounds like the Stryker Mobile Gun System is meant to be a very mobile field artillery piece, not a WWII tank destroyer.

The concept it fits into seems to rely on air power to destroy tanks. Which works a lot better today than it did in World War II, though I'm not saying it's perfect or even good.

Some other things that have changed:

-Tank gun sights have improved to the point where fast moving vehicles can shoot on the move, which makes the tank destroyer concept somewhat more valid.
-And to the point where a good modern AT gun can engage reliably from much longer ranges. The gun they're putting on the Stryker is supposed to be effective against tanks out to about 3000 meters, right?

That combination makes the idea of an agile "tank sniper" worth more. Of course, against an opponent with comparably modern, well-handled tanks it's seriously flawed.

Which is, I suspect, a major problem with the entire "lighter, faster, netrocentric" approach. I'm worried it may prove to be the equivalent of issuing only two machine guns per battalion to the troops and focusing on precision drill because that's what you need to repel 'the savages.' You get a military that works well, as long as it never has to face a well-funded and competent opponent that put serious effort into figuring out how to defeat you.

I could be wrong about that, of course.

Norsesmithy

2008-09-08, 10:02 AM

Mike_G

2008-09-08, 12:24 PM

Thiel

2008-09-08, 01:36 PM

Mike_G

2008-09-08, 01:47 PM

Ive always wondered how the Abrams would fare in a war against a modern army. Ive no doubt that itll be able to take out just about any other tank on the battlefield, but that isnt going to mean much when enemy infantry or airplanes takes out al your nice softskinned fueltrucks

Tanks cannot function alone. They require a lot of logistical support.

They add a lot to a combined arms force, but no tank is more than a roadblock if fuel trucks can't move behind the forward edge of the battle area.

That said, the Abrams is probably the best tank out there, so it would do as well or better than any other MBT. And it should be protected by it's own infantry and air assets.

Dervag

2008-09-08, 02:41 PM

I don't know. Our large numbers of Strykers and Bradleys seem to fill the same roll as the BMPs and BDRMs, or type 83s and type 86s (and a whole lot more types, the Chinese really have a mixed bag of armor) of our two presumptive well funded and competent foes.

And I gotta say, I would give us the advantage when it comes to both crew protection and fire control (not to mention battlefield intelligence gathering).

And our MBTs are still the best in the world, when it comes to FCS, and armor protection. Once the M1111 rocket assisted guided penetrator comes online, they will have the greatest range and best penetration, too.I'm not entirely sure I understand your disagreement. Since I lack the ability to write in milspeak:

What bothers me is that all these Stryker mobile guns are dangerously vulnerable to return fire. And that the guys who decided that Stryker mobile guns are a good idea may well be counting on the enemy to be unable to return fire against them. I don't think that's a smart or safe assumption to make, even if we do have the best fire control in the world.

As long as we're fighting people who don't have the budget to train their troops properly with the weapons they carry, we can probably get away with it. But sooner or later, we're going to end up fighting someone who's actually got the budget to buy modern gunsights and train troops to use them. Unless I am sorely mistaken, these Stryker mobile guns are going to be meat on the table for them.

Actually, I think it's only useful against an enemy with tanks.

It's just asking to be knocked out by RPGs or IEDs in our current most common military mission of police action/fighting insurgents.I'm thinking in terms of national militaries here. Almost any national military, even the weak, undertrained, inferior ones, has tanks. If the enemy has tanks but has inferior training and... "avionics"* in them, these Stryker mobile guns will be able to act as tank hunters, sniping enemy armor from extreme range while the enemy blunders around, unable to respond.

*We need a word for the electronic gizmos that go into a tank, as avionics is the word for the gizmos that go into a plane.

At this point, a serious enemy who has put some real thought into beating us either goes guerilla (if their budget is not large) or has better equipment than the average Iraqi T-72 (if their budget is large). What worries me is that while the Stryker will work against national militaries with small budgets that haven't yet gone guerilla, it will not work against national militaries with equipment anywhere within shouting distance of ours. Or, as you say, against guys who go guerilla because they're smart enough not to fight a stand-up war against someone with air supremacy.
________________________________

Re: Thiel

An Abrams will do just as badly as any other tank in the world, stretching back to the Mk I "Mother," if it does not have logistical support. The question is whose logistics gets cut first. I expect that Abrams would be quite effective unless the enemy won the air battle decisively, at which point both the tanks themselves and their support vehicles would be big targets.

Dancing_Zephyr

2008-09-08, 09:33 PM

This has been bugging me for a while, and I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but...

What's the difference in the roles of the Apache and Cobra helicopters. I've heard them both referred to as attack helicopters. Is it that they are operated by different branches of the US military, because I thought I heard that the Cobra was used by the Marines, and the Apache is USAF.

Norsesmithy

2008-09-08, 10:20 PM

I'm not entirely sure I understand your disagreement. Since I lack the ability to write in milspeak:

What bothers me is that all these Stryker mobile guns are dangerously vulnerable to return fire. And that the guys who decided that Stryker mobile guns are a good idea may well be counting on the enemy to be unable to return fire against them. I don't think that's a smart or safe assumption to make, even if we do have the best fire control in the world.What I said, basically, was that both China and Russia have vehicles with similar performance envelopes used in similar roles on the battlefield, except that ours (even the stryker) tend to be more heavily armored, and place greater emphasis on crew protection in the case of a hit that defeats the armor. Because they were often designed with cost and air transport in mind, and so have features like open ammo storage and fuel tanks mounted next to escape hatches. What this translates to is that while out presumptive enemy has an easier time getting assets to theater, our assets tend to be able to knock out more of the enemy sooner, and our crews are better able to survive to fight again when they do get their tank, APC, or Infantry carrier blown away from underneath them. So advantage two is that our crews are more likely to live through a negative experience, and that is a prerequisite for learning from it.

MBT is Main Battle tank, referring to the Abrams. The M1A2SEP TUSK (that is the full name of the latest version of America's main battle tank) has the heaviest armor of any currently fielded tank (previously analysts used to rate the Challenger II as being the toughest, in terms of RHA, or Rolled Homogeneous Armor, equivalence, but battlefield experience with penetrative threats has proven that an Abrams can ignore a hit that penetrates the thickest portion of the Challenger II's armor, even when that hit strikes a place of lesser armor protection, like the turret), and the best fire control suite (FCS) as well.

A new shell for the Abrams' main gun, called the M1111, will allow the Abrams to fire at enemy tanks from 12 kilometers away (3-4 kilometers further than the gun tube fired missiles the T90 uses), choose the terminal strike profile (IE allow for top attack or, if the tank has cover, direct attack), and penetrate more than 790mm of RHA, a greater penetration threat than the RPG-29 VAMPYR, a warhead known to be able to penetrate the thickest and best armor on the T90 and Type 99 (the best Chinese tank in the field). In addition, its guidance method grants it relative immunity to the Shtora-1 (Russian: Штора-1 or "curtain" in English) countermeasures suite on the T-90, and the fact that it is a KE projectile renders the ARENA active defense irrelevant as well (no warhead to pre-detonate).

The TUSK upgrade also includes 2 stage reactive armor and protective slats, further reducing the effectiveness of any 9M119M Refleks anti-tank guided missiles (the impressive gun fired missile of the T90) that actually manage to get fired.

As long as we're fighting people who don't have the budget to train their troops properly with the weapons they carry, we can probably get away with it. But sooner or later, we're going to end up fighting someone who's actually got the budget to buy modern gunsights and train troops to use them. Unless I am sorely mistaken, these Stryker mobile guns are going to be meat on the table for them. While any modern MBT would probably chew up the Stryker, that isn't that big of an issue, as the Stryker isn't supposed to stand and fight. They are designed to be a light cavalry reconnaissance screen, and a rapid reaction force that can get boots to where we need them very fast. As far as the Bradley, it is also designed to be a screen, albeit a heavier one, that has the ability (granted by its TOW missiles) to dull the tip of a thrust, or blow a hole in a line. They are not going to stand and trade blows either. Primarily the role of these types of vehicles in battle is to find the enemy, and kill his lead elements in a surprise attack, and leave before anyone realizes what is really happening, and they are, IMO, wonderfully suited to it. Odds are, they will meet their counterparts (IE fast, lightly armored gun and missile platforms that also carry infantry), and when they do, they have better armor and better guns/missiles, and in the case that they do meet enemy MBTs, they have the teeth to make those hurt as well.

I'm thinking in terms of national militaries here. Almost any national military, even the weak, undertrained, inferior ones, has tanks. If the enemy has tanks but has inferior training and... "avionics"* in them, these Stryker mobile guns will be able to act as tank hunters, sniping enemy armor from extreme range while the enemy blunders around, unable to respond.

*We need a word for the electronic gizmos that go into a tank, as avionics is the word for the gizmos that go into a plane. I think that Fire Control Suite is the most equivalent, though perhaps it doesn't encompass the whole of the issue, as it neither includes the net-centric communication system or the GPS.

At this point, a serious enemy who has put some real thought into beating us either goes guerilla (if their budget is not large) or has better equipment than the average Iraqi T-72 (if their budget is large). What worries me is that while the Stryker will work against national militaries with small budgets that haven't yet gone guerilla, it will not work against national militaries with equipment anywhere within shouting distance of ours. Or, as you say, against guys who go guerilla because they're smart enough not to fight a stand-up war against someone with air supremacy.

As I said before, every other major power has vehicles in the same class as the STRYKER, and they tend to be less well designed (from my American view point, I am sure that sacrificing crew safety for the ability to fit several in a transport aircraft made sense to the people who designed it that way).

They don't need to be able to stand toe to toe with a T90, they need to be able to hit and run better than a BDRM or BMP-3, and it is my estimation that they will succeed at that mission.

This has been bugging me for a while, and I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but...

What's the difference in the roles of the Apache and Cobra helicopters. I've heard them both referred to as attack helicopters. Is it that they are operated by different branches of the US military, because I thought I heard that the Cobra was used by the Marines, and the Apache is USAF.

They do fill very similar roles, but because the Cobra's are owned by the Marines, they would tend to do less independent tank hunting, and more operations in support of the armor and infantry fielded by the Marines, nothing stops the ARMY from doing the same with their Apaches, but it is the way Marines tend to work.

There are some minor differences in armament and capabilities, but for the most part, they do the same stuff.

And it is the right thread.

Dervag

2008-09-08, 11:30 PM

What I said, basically, was that both China and Russia have vehicles with similar performance envelopes used in similar roles on the battlefield, except that ours (even the stryker) tend to be more heavily armored, and place greater emphasis on crew protection in the case of a hit that defeats the armor... So advantage two is that our crews are more likely to live through a negative experience, and that is a prerequisite for learning from it.If the Chinese and Russians have used their similar vehicles to good effect without losing them in droves, maybe I am worrying about nothing.

MBT is Main Battle tank, referring to the Abrams. The M1A2SEP TUSK (that is the full name of the latest version of America's main battle tank)... [sings praises of latest Abrams variant]I know. I approve of the Abrams; I was not implying that they are obsolete or vulnerable. My concern is about the vulnerability of the Stryker when used as a gun carrier, not about the Abrams.

A new shell for the Abrams' main gun, called the M1111, will allow the Abrams to... [kick tail and take names]Yes, absolutely, although the Stryker Mobile Gun will not be able to fire the M1111. Being as how the M1111 is designed for the current Abrams variant's 120 mm smoothbore, and not the Stryker Mobile Gun's 105 mm rifled piece.

While any modern MBT would probably chew up the Stryker, that isn't that big of an issue, as the Stryker isn't supposed to stand and fight. They are designed to be a light cavalry reconnaissance screen, and a rapid reaction force that can get boots to where we need them very fast. As far as the Bradley, it is also designed to be a screen, albeit a heavier one, that has the ability (granted by its TOW missiles) to dull the tip of a thrust, or blow a hole in a line. They are not going to stand and trade blows either. Primarily the role of these types of vehicles in battle is to find the enemy, and kill his lead elements in a surprise attack, and leave before anyone realizes what is really happening, and they are, IMO, wonderfully suited to it. Odds are, they will meet their counterparts (IE fast, lightly armored gun and missile platforms that also carry infantry), and when they do, they have better armor and better guns/missiles, and in the case that they do meet enemy MBTs, they have the teeth to make those hurt as well.As I said, this concerns me

As I said before, every other major power has vehicles in the same class as the STRYKER, and they tend to be less well designed (from my American view point, I am sure that sacrificing crew safety for the ability to fit several in a transport aircraft made sense to the people who designed it that way).If you accept casualties as part of the price of doing business, which the Russians and Chinese do, it's not a bad call.

If you consider casualties incommensurate with materiel losses, or extremely valuable compared to materiel, such that making your logistics messy is worth protecting your LAV crews better, it's a bad call.

The US military has a much higher budget-to-soldier ratio than either Russia or China. It's entirely possible that both design philosophies are right under different conditions. Imagine that we could send Strykers or the Russians could send BMPs into a given battle.

If they can get forty BMPs onto the field where we can only get twenty Strykers, they have a pretty good chance of winning the battle without taking devastating losses, through the Voltaire Effect (or the Lanchester Square Law, if you aren't religious).

Calanais

2008-09-09, 02:49 PM

I was reading the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Flodden, and I came across a reference to English Billmen "lopping the heads off" the Scots' pikes. I'm sure I've seen other references to bills, glaives, zweihanders etc chopping up pike shafts consistently enough to win mass combats by disarming the pikemen. Is there much historical or archeological evidence of this? It seems a bit implausible to me, but I've never used a sharp bill (or anything else, for that matter) against a pike block. Has anyone read something convincing on the subject or done any experimental archeology?

Dervag

2008-09-09, 06:12 PM

A good pike has iron running for a fair distance down the shaft just in case someone decides to try and chop the head off it. On the other hand, not everyone had good pikes.

What would surprise me is the idea of the pikes being held firmly enough to be chopped off. To chop through wood, you normally have to have it firmly braced. If you chop at a pike head, it's at the end of a long lever arm; I'd expect it to get knocked aside rather than cut.

I don't know how good my opinion is.

Spiryt

2008-09-09, 06:18 PM

What would surprise me is the idea of the pikes being held firmly enough to be chopped off. To chop through wood, you normally have to have it firmly braced. If you chop at a pike head, it's at the end of a long lever arm; I'd expect it to get knocked aside rather than cut.

I don't know how good my opinion is.

This is certainly logical, and I agree that chopped pike certainly wasn't really anyhow common situation. Yet it most certainly could happen, and even if it wasn't broken, beating it aside or making it split (slowly or instantly) was certainly desirable.

If this truly was one of victory factors of Battle of Flodden, I think it's most plausible theory. To get their pikes chopped so easily, pikemans would have to do something really wrong.

Mike_G

2008-09-09, 08:04 PM

I can't really see chopping through pikestaves to be very common.

Now, using such a weapon to make a gap in the pikes and drive wedge into the formation, sure.

Crow

2008-09-10, 02:48 AM

If the "pikes" were sharpened wooden pikes, it would definitely be possible to cleave off part of the sharpened end and "blunt" it.

Storm Bringer

2008-09-10, 04:03 AM

all i can say is that some pole weapons have the head secured with very long iorn hafts, supposedly to prevent being chopped off.

also, the scots pikemen at Flodden were rather inexperienced, and had been on the reciveing end of several hours worth of cannon fire. They were attacking, and bascially couldn't keep their formation tight enough to keep the billmen out of reach.

Calanais

2008-09-10, 09:34 AM

It does seem much more likely that the English Billmen took advantage of the Scots' disorganisation to get inside the reach of the pikes and chop up the pikemen themselves rather than wasting their time whittling, as the Scots only had their swords to fight with once their pikes were unusable. Where the pikes retained formation, they were initially quite successful despite their inexperience and the effect of the English bombardment.
Has anyone else read accounts of battles where one side is described as chopping up the other side's weapons as a winning tactic?

Matthew

2008-09-10, 09:56 AM

Highly unlikely, in my opinion. However, chopping at a pike might cause the bearer to drop the weapon, which would be just as good. Given that he doesn't let go, and the pike is pointed at the ground, I would suppose it to be possible for that attacker to place one foot on the pike head and perhaps sever it in that manner, but why waste time doing that? Might as well just grab the blasted thing and try to lever it into snapping.

Hard to say quite what went on during a battle, though.

Dervag

2008-09-10, 10:21 AM

One thing the bills definitely would do is allow the billmen to contest control of the the pikemens' weapons in some way. They might not be able to chop off the heads, but as others observe, some of the billmen could use their weapons to push aside pikes while others pushed through the resulting gap in the line.

That would be a dangerous tactic against excellent, well-drilled pikemen like the Macedonians or Swiss. But against a pike formation that is only adequately trained, and which has been disrupted by cannon, it sounds workable.

Halberdiers would do that sometimes, I gather.

Fhaolan

2008-09-10, 11:04 AM

Wheee! I have relevant knowledge again. :)

(Sorry, but all the tanks and modern weapons talk is way out of my scope.)

Okay, I've done some work with pikes, as that's how I started with my hobby of weapon research. One thing to note is that actual historical pikes were rarely consitantly cylindrical. Most pikes that I've seen in museums and the like are barrel tapered, with the thickest part being about where the grip is, and get suprisingly thin at the end with the point.

Mind you, it's still thick enough to take the shock of a horse ramming into it.

Second, pikes are not just held by a single person. When in 'proper' formation, the pike is usually also braced on the shoulders of the person ahead of you, or on your knee if you're the in the first rank. So they're reasonably solidly held.

Despite this, taking a poleaxe, halberd, or zweihander (which I've tested with all three), and trying to chop the point off is... tricky. It takes several blows and you have to know exactly how to chop at it to get the chopper to bite into the wood, and have the time to set up the blows.

On the *other* hand, we were able to figure a really easy way to do this, but it involves two people doing the deed on the pike. The first person gets ahold of the tip of the pike, either by jamming a wooden shield onto the point, or using their own bill/zweihander/etc. to brace the pike near the tip. Then the second person does the chop. In our experience, the pike can then be severed with a single blow.

Deadmeat.GW

2008-09-11, 05:35 PM

The dobble soldiers from what is now Germany did do this quite successfully and were quite renowned for it.

As far as we gathered they would hack breaches, not exactly just hacking at the pikes and as this was really hazardeous they got paid extra for their work.

Even so it was a tactic that relied on having people take advantage of the gap created and when gunpowder weapons became more reliable there was no need for this any more.

As for facing 'superiour' pikemen, remember you could chop the pikes downwards from beyond their reach to harm you and as such spike them.
Once that starts to happen you end up either pinned in place or you have to drop the pikes to be able to manouver again.

In re-enactments I have done just that and been shouted at for damaging the pikes.
Nice big overhead swing downwards where you aim for the metal part of the pike head to snag it and drag it down.
Once your moment goes forward with one those pikes you are almost lifted of the floor as by lever action :).
Especially when you brace on your mates shoulder.
And with a nice zwei-hander you have the reach to do so from beyond the pikeblock effective combat reach unless they push forward en masse.
If only one or two push forward you have done your job already, they are now getting disorganised and they start breaking ranks.

I was used pretty much as bait to tempt the block to move forward to oppose me, to take me out.
If I could do actually damage to the pikes or the pikemen that was just frosting on the cake :).

Bug-a-Boo

2008-09-12, 11:29 AM

So, I've been doing some research into what kind of damage various types of weapons, ways they're used etc etc etc cause. And I'm still doing more research :smalltongue: I've read reports and stories about how stab wounds have a bad habit of leaving people alive (and still capable) for varying periods of time before they die, and I'm looking for more of these to get an even clearer picture of the effects of stabbing damage on people.

So, anyone here got stories, links to stories, links to reports, links to studies, etc etc etc about stab wounds and their effects? Looking mostly at medieval weapons, but stories about modern day stabbings and even gunshot wounds are also welcome :smallsmile:

Spiryt

2008-09-12, 12:04 PM

I'm not sure what you mean.

Any wound can leave human "capable", if it isn't serious enough to stop him instantly.

I've never heard that stab wounds are particualry incapable of killing. In fact opposite is probably true.

Although any term like "stab wound " is good only for D&D, not real weapon.

What you mean by "stab wound"? Wound from rapier, from gladius, or some pike with angular head would be all "stab wound" but rather different from each other.

Also, from the point of view of not particulary strong or well made attack (or accident, if it's not fighting wound), stab wound is definetly the most dangerous.

Anything that concentrates all force of strike under right angle, and on the one thin point, can reach heart that beats just few centimeters under skin, muscles, et cetera. For example heart.

Bug-a-Boo

2008-09-12, 12:28 PM

Apologies if my terminology is bad, tho I can't think how to put it differently.

With stab wounds, I refer mostly to wounds caused by stabbing with a slender pointed weapon, as opposed to wounds caused by cutting with a sharp implement or striking with a blunt one. Wounds that are deep but not particularly wide.

You misunderstand me: such wounds are ofcourse extremely deadly as they can reach vital organs, are extremely hard to treat and carry a huge risk of infection. What I was referring to however is that stab wounds do not incapacitate quickly. A cut to the wrist can sever the tendons and end a fight right there and then, while a stab with a slender weapon may still leave a person able to carry on fighting until the body gives out.

Ofcourse, width of the pointed end etc etc etc influences a lot and so on and on, but I'm not interested in that. I'm just looking for stories about people being stabbed (and shot, is welcome too) and the effects that had on them to expand on information I've collected sofar.

To use an example of what stories I'm looking for - I can't remember where I read this, but in a documented duel, one of the duellist was stabbed through the heart, but still fought on for 5 seconds before collapsing from the wound. Interesting, no?

Spiryt

2008-09-12, 12:37 PM

To use an example of what stories I'm looking for - I can't remember where I read this, but in a documented duel, one of the duellist was stabbed through the heart, but still fought on for 5 seconds before collapsing from the wound. Interesting, no?

Actually, wouldn't be surprised if he fought some more. And 5 seconds is really instant, anyway. It's not that he was able to do much during this time, as he certainly wasn't fighting normally then.

Generally, if talking about rapiers, smallswords or so "slender stuff", then yes, beacuse blades are really thin, it's possible to survive wound, and even fight still, even though thrust had gone all way trough.

Seems logical, and I also heard about stories from duels.

While with gladius for example... Stab wounb is rather instantly incapacitating. :smalleek:

Download this (http://www.mediafire.com/?nel0gy2tkye), if size doesn't bother you. It's large, but should serve you. It's fine test by some polish guys. It (among other things) shows that thrust oriented longsword goes trough flesh stupidly easily, and that indeed wound is quite small (although easily could be made much more grevious by some slicing/blade twisting actions)

Bug-a-Boo

2008-09-12, 12:49 PM

Ah thanks, I'll download it once I'm back home on a better line.

I'm looking for more stories to get a better idea of the lenghts of time people were still able to function after being stabbed.

(btw, 5 secs is a hella long time in a fight)

Spiryt

2008-09-12, 01:02 PM

(btw, 5 secs is a hella long time in a fight)

Well, it certainly is. But is it in this situation?

Firstly, in that time enemy can pull out his blade, or maybe leave it here going grapple with him, pushing and twisting it further. Or he can just let it go and let opponent die - even though he would have to be really cold blooded, and calm, and be sure that heart is damaged.

Many possibilites.

Also, what was this fighting in this 5 (or maybe even longer) seconds? He certainly weren't fighting still normally for 5 seconds, and the collapse. He was most probably collapsing (desperately trying not to, certainly) all those 5 seconds, seemingly trying to continue fight. With andrenaline and all, relatively small wound, could not be so incapitating, but shock, and more importantly violent disturbance in blood pressure make you fall.

In some cases in typical duel, 5 seconds indeed could be much, when everything 's happening so fast, dying enemy could stab you even by sheer momentum of his falling body.

But in most cases, be it brawl, battle or duels too, 5 seconds won't matter much - dying enemy would be left to colapse, and killer would just move away from him/target new enemy/look around.

Bug-a-Boo

2008-09-12, 01:29 PM

Hmm, tho I can't remember what the stabbed man did in those 5 secs in that duel, I do recall another story - I must say tho, I have not been convinced of its authenticity yet - about a duel between a portugese and a japanese man. The portugese man armed with rapier lunged and impaled the japanese man. However, the stab failed to stop the man who still moved foreward while impaled and struck with his katana, leaving both duellists dead in the end.

In my experience, even 1 second is a lot in a fight. Especially when duelling, opponents often strike almost simultaniously, which is why attacks that also interfere with your opponents attacks are so highly valued (mastercuts in european swordfighting for example). If your opponent doesn't notice being stabbed in the second after it happens, he might still complete the swing he was most likely preparing and cut you down even as he is about to die. I've read a lot of reports on people in knife fights not even noticing that they were stabbed and bleeding to death until after the fight ends.

Anyways, MOAR stories! :smallbiggrin:

Dervag

2008-09-12, 02:42 PM

Hmm, tho I can't remember what the stabbed man did in those 5 secs in that duel, I do recall another story - I must say tho, I have not been convinced of its authenticity yet - about a duel between a portugese and a japanese man. The portugese man armed with rapier lunged and impaled the japanese man. However, the stab failed to stop the man who still moved foreward while impaled and struck with his katana, leaving both duellists dead in the end.Double kills also happened with other dueling weapons, such as rapier-on-rapier. Or pistol-on-pistol. And, I suspect (but cannot prove) katana-on-katana.

As you say, it's common for both duelists to inflict mortal wounds on each other in a short span of time, before either is disabled by the mortal wound they've taken.

Swordguy

2008-09-12, 02:46 PM

Relevant Links:

How a cut works (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm)

The Dubious "quick kill" (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php)

Relevant stories:

Actually, being in the stage combat biz, I've got a LOT of relevant stories, so I'll just leave you with one.

In 2001, I was doing fight direction and acting in Northern Kentucky University's Cyrano de Bergerac. As you may know, that's a fairly large "fight show" - there's a battle where Cyrano single-handedly fights around 20 men, and later on there's a full-on war. As such, we can't afford to use period reproduction rapier blades, so we were using "Schläger" (short for Mensurschläger) blades - a form of German practice blade that maintains an equivalent width down its entire length, and with no distal taper at all. There are two types of schläger - oval and diamond (describing their cross-section). Oval schlägers come to a dull, rounded point, while diamond schlägers have chiseled point, but not a sharp one. The man playing Cyrano was alone in the cast in using a diamond schläger (it caught the light better and made him look somewhat more heroic).

So, I'm fighting the guy playing Cyrano during one of the performances about a week into the run of the show, when he gets "red light fever" and forgets the choreography. Normally, what you do when you forget choreography on a live stage is to back off until you calm down, and start again from the beginning of the phrase in which you screwed up (fights are divided into subsections, called phrases). This guy didn't, so I'm up there literally fighting for my life. Now, improvisational fighting happens occasionally, and I knew for a fact this guy had had training in it, so I wasn't horribly concerned - the main rules are to telegraph your intentions broadly and to never. ever feint and attack a different location when the one you were telegraphing to. Naturally, the guy did just that, feinting to my left shoulder and decieving around my parry to my left leg.

He stabbed me in the meat of my left calf. It wasn't a very hard thrust - because he was doing point work, his arm was already mostly extended, so the forward motion of the weapon came almost entirely from his rocking forward on his feet. Nevertheless, the blade went clean through my calf and stuck out about 3 inches on the other side (it's kind of a nifty scar). There was a moment where we both kind of froze as he realized what had happened, and then he pulled the sword back out. The muscles didn't appreciably "tighten around the blade" - he pulled it back out with even less effort than it took to put it there. My leg lost almost all strength, and I fell over onto the moving stair upon which we were fighting. He stepped off to continue the show, and my stair went, on cue, back into the wings.

By the time I had gotten back into the wings, I could move my leg again and put weight on it - it was bleeding, but not "gushing blood" or anything. I went back in the dressing room and slapped some medicinal Jack Daniels into both punctures, grabbed an alchohol wipe and put Kleenex on top of it, and stuck it on the wounds, then wrapped the whole thing in duct tape and went back out to the wings - I had to fight him twice more that scene. I finished the show (another 90 minutes) with that would covered by that makeshift bandage, and didn't have horrible problems moving, though there was some definite limping occasionally, and my boot got kind of squishy. Nonetheless, I was more or less fully capable of fighting, and even jumping off a 6' stair later in the show with no ill effects.

Fhaolan

2008-09-13, 12:07 AM

Similar story as to above. I was doing a musketeer scene with myself and two other 'Cardinal's Guards' against a lone musketeer. We don't use shlagers, but actual historical-style reproduction rapiers that we have taken the edge off of.

At this specific point in the choirography we were thrusting in at him one at a time, with my thrust being last. Each thrust he's to parry down and lock in place through various means until he has all three incoming rapiers under his control. We'd done this many times in practice, but the timing has to absolutely precise.

Which it wasn't. He was half a beat fast with the parry, or I was half a beat slow with my thrust, so he completely missed my blade. Which then went straight through his forearm. There was a fraction of a beat, he gave the emergency signal for us to all freeze our blades and do some extemporized posturing to cover what just happened. He pulled his arm off my rapier, without the audience noticing, and we went straight to the ending moves so he could exit the stage.

He has a strange pair of scars now, but otherwise is just fine. Very little bleeding, as the blade missed all the major arteries.

2008-09-13, 06:53 AM

Don't you people you use mock (ie dulled) swords or retracting knives at all? :smalleek:

Mike_G

2008-09-13, 07:52 AM

I can give anecdotes from real wounds I've seen as a Paramedic. Stabbing a guy seldom stops him.

A stab can reach an organ more easily than a cut, but seldom acts as an "off button." I've seen a guy run two blocks and up three flights of stairs after being stabbed twice, once in the side of the neck and once just below his left clavicle. He didn't want to admit where he was or what he'd been doing when stabbed, so we had to fight him onto our stretcher. Another guy got fatally stabbed in the heart, but still ran a block away from the scene before we found him.

Now, people cut themselves a lot, and get cut a lot. I've seen few fatal cuts, only one comes to mind, and it was a brutal hack job. A guy cut deeply, even in a limb, is usually on the ground, white as a sheet, sweaty and keening in agony.

A strong cut that severs muscle and exposes lots and lots of nerve endings to the air is debilitating, if survivable. A strong thrust, while more often fatal, is less immediately incapacitating.

That said, the best way to win a sword or knife or bayonet fight is to shoot the guy beforehand.

Philistine

2008-09-13, 12:06 PM

Don't you people you use mock (ie dulled) swords or retracting knives at all? :smalleek:

Do "Oval schlägers come to a dull, rounded point, while diamond schlägers have chiseled point, but not a sharp one" and "reproduction rapiers that we have taken the edge off of" not answer that question?

You don't need the point of the sword to be very sharp at all when you're thrusting with it - however dull it may be, it still focuses the entire force of the blow onto a very small area on the target. I fenced a little (very little!) in college, and the foils we used actually had plastic knobs at the tips; that still didn't make them safe. For the same reason, you don't need to put all that much force behind a thrusting blow.

Matthew

2008-09-13, 12:13 PM

So, anyone here got stories, links to stories, links to reports, links to studies, etc etc etc about stab wounds and their effects? Looking mostly at medieval weapons, but stories about modern day stabbings and even gunshot wounds are also welcome :smallsmile:

I take it you have picked the usual Roman ones up already? If not...

Polybius, The Histories, 3.114

The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles. The shield of the Iberians and Celts was about the same size, but their swords were quite different. For that of the Roman can thrust with as deadly effects as it can cut, while the Gallic sword can only cut, and that requires some room. And the companies coming alternately,--the naked Celts, and the Iberians with their short linen tunics bordered with purple stripes, the whole appearance of the line was strange and terrifying. The whole strength of the Carthaginian cavalry was ten thousand, but that of their foot was not more than forty thousand, including the Celts. Aemilius commanded on the Roman right, Gaius Terentius on the left, Marcus Atilius and Gnaeus Servilius, the Consuls of the previous year, on the centre. The left of the Carthaginians was commanded by Hasdrubal, the right by Hanno, the centre by Hannibal in person, attended by his brother Mago. And as the Roman line faced the south, as I said before, and the Carthaginian the north, the rays of the rising sun did not inconvenience either of them.

Livy, History of Rome from its Beginning, 31.34

Philip's men had been accustomed to fighting with Greeks and Illyrians and had only seen wounds inflicted by javelins and arrows and in rare instances by lances. But when they saw bodies dismembered with the Spanish sword [gladius hispaniensis], arms cut off from the shoulder, heads struck off from the trunk, bowels exposed and other horrible wounds, they recognised the style of weapon and the kind of man against whom they had to fight, and a shudder of horror ran through the ranks.

Dionysius

...Holding their sword straight out, they would strike their opponents in the groin, pierce their sides, and drive their blows through their breasts into their vitals. And if they saw any of them keeping these parts of the body protected, they would cut the tendons of their knees or ankles and topple them to the ground roaring and biting their shields and uttering cries resembling the howling of wild beasts...

Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De Re Militari Book I: The Selection and Training of New Levies, 390 A.D

They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.

I think I have some others lying around, but I'll have to go digging for them. The Dionysius one I just ripped off the Albion Sword website. :smallbiggrin:

Dervag

2008-09-13, 11:44 PM

Of course, most of those accounts are by Roman historians, so I get the feeling that they exaggerate the effectiveness of Romans just a little:

"Yeah, aren't we Romans badass? Look at how our enemies flee with terror when they see the horrible wounds our weapons inflict!"

Crow

2008-09-13, 11:50 PM

History is written by the victors...

Dervag

2008-09-14, 02:12 AM

True.

But in our case, we're trying to figure out how lethal and incapacitating a stab is, as compared to a slash or a cut. Historians who exaggerate the power of their own side's stabbing weapons are not our friends here.

Tsotha-lanti

2008-09-14, 07:55 AM