Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. V

[Fhaolan]

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

Yeah, they're dulled. The problem with rapiers and other similar weapons is that it doesn't matter how much they're dulled. It's still a thin, narrow piece of steel (or aluminum, depending). Which is why they're the last weapon we deal with in our training. The second to last is the dagger, for similar reasons.

Oh and retracting knives are possibly the most dangerous things in existance. Because they *don't* retract all the time. They stick 'out' fairly often and because you're confident in it's retracting ability, you're usually stabbing at a real target point. With a non-retracting knife in stage combat, you are trained to strike off target so that even when you connect by accident it's not a lethal blow.

If you want to be really safe, you need to deal with latex/rubber weapons. Which look completely wrong, and can damage the audience's suspension of disbelief. Especially if you don't have sound-dubbing, for example during a live performance.

[Dervag]

There's very little of that above; the emphasis is on the technique, though the gladius hispaniensis (a weapon adopted by the Romans) is clearly being praised for its versatility as a cut and thrust weapon.You're right; I was influenced too strongly by the passage from Livy. Vegetius and Polybius don't do that, and Dionysius doesn't do it so much.

Nevermind.


Oh and retracting knives are possibly the most dangerous things in existance. Because they *don't* retract all the time...Even more dangerous than those improbably rule-of-cool double-bladed swords?

[Fhaolan]

Even more dangerous than those improbably rule-of-cool double-bladed swords?

Believe it or not, there is actually two people in my troupe that have double-ended weapons by D&D terms. One has a double bec-du-corbin (large warhammer-type thing with a big piercing back-spike), and he handles it reasonably well. It's awkward and due to that it's actually less effective than a normal bec, but it's fine as a fantasy piece. It helps that he's 6'5" and heavily muscled, so it looks like he's really powering this thing around when he swings it.

The other has what started out as a matched set of fantasy katana/sabre/things. Shaped much like katanas, but with a slightly more radical curve and they taper all the way down to a point rather than to a chisel tip. One of the traditions in our group is the 'glaive'. Not meaning the butcher-knife on a spear shaft as per normal definitions, but whenever a sword breaks (usually right at the tang), it gets mounted on an axe-handle or something similar as a 'glaive'. Well, one of the tang in this set snapped, so she asked one of the crafty people in the group to make a glaive out of it. Taking both blades, he mounted both on each end of a 4' shaft, so it made an S-like shape.

This thing's actualy pretty cool. The shaft is just long enough to make it move like some kind of martial art polearm. Which is now the way I visualize double-bladed swords in D&D. It forces you into a more stylized way of moving, so it's not really effective as a real weapon, but it's nice and flashy for stage-work.

[Adlan]

Concerning Stab wounds not stopping you instantly. The Only way to stop a person in combat is the central nervous system, the body can keep functioning for maybe a dozen second's without the heart, and it can take 30 seconds for the bleed out from a major artery to incapacitiate a person.

Wether it's a stab or a slash, a killing blow does not mean that the opponent is dead yet.

You have to disrupt the central nervous system, which means the spine and brain, to have a garunteed instant kill.

[Occasional Sage]

Just a quick set of questions, then ya'll can get back to the horrifying stories of jumping around on duct-tape bandaged wounds and whatnot:

How complex is dismantling a katana to look for a blacksmith's mark? What is the process, and how long would this take?

[Crow]

You have to disrupt the central nervous system, which means the spine and brain, to have a garunteed instant kill.

It's the same with bullets.

[Lapak]

Pretty sure ARMA (http://www.thehaca.com/) had an article referencing some period text mentioning how duelists could continue to fight after being run through, but the wounds would cause certain death at some later juncture, being practically untreatable with the chirurgery of the time. By contrast, a good hack at an opponent is likely to remove a part and disable them immediately.

Essentially, fatal stab-wounds can work on a "time delay". The trauma isn't enough to put you down, but the injuries are so severe you're done for.What the Roman quotes do bring up that's worth thinking about is that injuries in battle and injuries in small combats or duels are quite different things. Hitting a guy with the not-instant-but-mortal stab wound on a battlefield is a whole different ballgame. In a duel or a street brawl, yes; he may get you right back because he doesn't fall instantly, maybe even get you because your blade is bound up by being stuck through him. On a battlefield, you're expecting to be vulnerable while striking at your enemies - even if you killed your opponent instantly, his buddy is right next to him. So you're being defended by your own allies.

Also, in a battle, the person you stab is more likely to be closer to exhaustion to begin with if you're more than a couple of minutes into the battle, and may drop upon being stabbed. And if he gets pulled back to his own side's medics, a definitely-fatal deep stab wound may do more good in the long run than a temporarily-incapacitating (or even permanently-maiming) slash wound. I don't want the guy coming after me in the next battle for breaking his arm and giving him a nasty scar.

I don't know of any sources offhand for this, but it did make me stop and think about it and realize that we've only been discussing stab vs. slash in small combats and not really been discussing battlefield consequences.

[only1doug]

If he gets pulled back to his own side's medics, a definitely-fatal deep stab wound may do more good in the long run than a temporarily-incapacitating (or even permanently-maiming) slash wound.

Wrong.

A long term disabling injury on an enemy soldier is much better than a kill.

A long term injury uses up more of your enemies resources than killing one soldier, they have to feed and succour their injured soldiers which is bad for them and good for you.
If your enemy kill their injured to avoid the resource drain problem then their morale will be rock bottom which will give your side an advantage.


I don't want the guy coming after me in the next battle for breaking his arm and giving him a nasty scar.


If not him then it'll be his son or nephew...
"hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die..."

[Lapak]

Wrong.

A long term disabling injury on an enemy soldier is much better than a kill.

A long term injury uses up more of your enemies resources than killing one soldier, they have to feed and succour their injured soldiers which is bad for them and good for you.
If your enemy kill their injured to avoid the resource drain problem then their morale will be rock bottom which will give your side an advantage.I'm aware that injured soldiers are a drain on resources. Mortal injuries that don't kill people immediately - such as the stab wounds we're discussing - have most of the advantages of this, since you do have to cart the person away for treatment, with the added benefit of being near-hopeless in the long term. I can't imagine that watching your friends come back alive from a battle only to suffer from blood loss, complications and infections - with the medical support unable to save them from any of these - would also be detrimental to morale. The prospect of dying suddenly in battle is one thing; the prospect of dying over the course of an hour or a couple of days is something else.

Also, while the 'injury drains an opponent more than death' is true in many cases, it's not universally true in cases where your opponent outclasses you significantly in supplies but has limited manpower reserves to draw on. Take a castle siege as an example - if I'm attacking a well-stocked castle and can't afford to wait and starve it out, I'd rather kill a defender than wound him. A one-armed guy on the wall who can barely stand up is still one more guy chucking stones down at my troops or tipping boiling oil on them.

[Crow]

While a wounded enemy is a greater drain on the enemy that a dead one, when you are in combat, you want to *kill* the enemy. A dead enemy is no longer a threat, while a wounded one may potentially still have "teeth" so to speak.

[Joran]

Just a quick set of questions, then ya'll can get back to the horrifying stories of jumping around on duct-tape bandaged wounds and whatnot:

How complex is dismantling a katana to look for a blacksmith's mark? What is the process, and how long would this take?

Doing a quick search on Wikipedia and having seen a appraiser look at it on Antique Road Show, the "blacksmith's mark" or mei is found on the "tang" or nakago. To see it, I assume you have to take apart the hilt, which shouldn't take too long. Sometimes, I think symbols can be carved into the blade itself.

http://www.ncjsc.org/mei-1.html

[Joran]

A long term injury uses up more of your enemies resources than killing one soldier, they have to feed and succour their injured soldiers which is bad for them and good for you.
If your enemy kill their injured to avoid the resource drain problem then their morale will be rock bottom which will give your side an advantage.

I believe this is the reasoning behind why anti-personal mines seek to injure rather than kill.

[Occasional Sage]

Doing a quick search on Wikipedia and having seen a appraiser look at it on Antique Road Show, the "blacksmith's mark" or mei is found on the "tang" or nakago. To see it, I assume you have to take apart the hilt, which shouldn't take too long. Sometimes, I think symbols can be carved into the blade itself.

http://www.ncjsc.org/mei-1.html

Thanks!

If my very shaky understanding is correct, there are a couple of pins holding on the wrappings for the grip. After that, what would you find? I can't imagine that the cords (or whatever) are bound immediately to the tang, but I have zero clue what would be used in between....

[Hawriel]

yes the nakers mark is on the tang. There can be 1 or 2 pins holding the handle to the tang.

http://www.paul-chen-swords.com/making-a-katana/

Here is the sight of a swordsmith. I used it to find the names of the different parts of the Katana.

[Construct]

If my very shaky understanding is correct, there are a couple of pins holding on the wrappings for the grip. After that, what would you find? I can't imagine that the cords (or whatever) are bound immediately to the tang, but I have zero clue what would be used in between....

The hilt consists of two pieces of wood (traditionally honoki, a type of magnolia, but in your case probably pine) carved to fit around the tang and wrapped in ray skin (in your case, just two decorative panels of synthetic material) and silk cord (in your case, cotton or nylon) to compress it. It fits tightly on the tang like a handle on a file, with the little bamboo peg or two just snugging it into place. Hawriel's link has a good picture of a disassembled katana at the bottom of the page.

Rough guide (http://www.swordsofmight.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=19) and relevant Sword Forum International thread (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=29194) :smallsmile:

Also, don't force things; it's possible it's been epoxied together. If you do force things and lose a finger, I expect a funny story :smalltongue:

[Construct]

I believe this is the reasoning behind why anti-personal mines seek to injure rather than kill.
That, and because you can tolerate a longer delay between injury and incapacitation or death and thus use smaller munitions or increase your chances of hitting multiple targets with the same size munition by using smaller fragments. Also, nice avatar.

Random weapons-testing story which I read in a book so it must be true: They used to test efficacy of fragmentation by checking for penetration of plywood sheets. One day a fragmentation device of some sort exploded whilst the researchers were standing around it setting the test up. Penetration of the plywood indicated a successful test...but the worst injuries the researchers had were tiny ball bearing-sized bruises. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they switched to gelatin and soap which are better flesh analogues.

[Occasional Sage]

Thanks, all, I appreciate the good information!



Also, don't force things; it's possible it's been epoxied together. If you do force things and lose a finger, I expect a funny story :smalltongue:


Where tools and sharp things are involved, there's no chance under the sun that I'd do something stupid like apply force I can't control or (eek!) towards myself.

That said and to deflect irony, I'll gladly share the stories of any near-future mishaps.

[Diamondeye]

I want to comment on the Stryker a little bit, specifically the 105mm gun version.

The Stryker is, much like the older M113, a vehicle that can be produced in a large number of variants to suit different needs. One of them is the 105mm gun-carrying variant.

First, Strykers of any kind are designed to equip Stryker brigades, which could essentially be called motorized, or medium brigades. They are not intended to confront enemy armor or mechanized infantry formations; that is what we have armor, armored cavalry, and mechanized infantry brigades/regiments for.

The Stryker Brigade concept came under GEN Shinseki, because, as he stated "Our heavy forces are too heavy [for rapid deployment and low intensity conflict] and our light forces lack staying power." This was quite true, prior to the Strykers there was a vast gulf in terms of capability between heavy and light forces in the Army; the only formation that even came close to fitting in between was the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (all armored HMMWV at that time, and lacking infantry) and the Marine Corps (obviously not part of the Army)

The Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) is basically an infantry-support vehicle. It carries an M2 .50 caliber MG and a 7.62mm MG in addition to the main gun. The main gun carries only 18 rounds of ammunition.

The MGS is NOT a piece of field artillery; Field Artillery is primarily an indirect fire asset, used for fire support. The MGS is a direct-fire system. "Fire support" in military terminology does not include ground-based direct-fire systems; they fall under maneuver, its role in supporting infantry notwithstanding.

It IS a rough modern-day equivalent to a Tank Destroyer, and can fire 105mm HEAT rounds (which are also useful against infantry, since they do, well, explode; not ALL of the explosion goes into the shaped charge). However, its antiarmor role is primarily in knocking out lighter (IFV/APC), or given the nature of operations these days, obsolete enemy armor in support of a primarly infantry formation. It also is useful for knocking out bunkers, fortifications, punching holes in buildings, etc.

The reason for it is to give the Stryker units a system that can fire on the move with a powerful gun. Stryker units, while basically infantry units, are motorized, and so should have some fight-on-the-move capability. The MGS is part of that capability, as well as giving them an antiarmor capabiliy in addition to infantry-fired ATGMs and ATGM-carrying Strykers. Missiles are expensive compared to shells, and have more restrictive launch parameters.

Concerns about the Stryker facing enemy tanks, especially modern ones, are valid so far as they go, but Strykers would only be committed against modern enemy armor in an emergency, or through serious error. They do not need to be able to stand up to something like a T-80 or T-90 because that is not their purpose.

[Dervag]

OK. I can see it. I've heard a number of complaints that the US military lacks direct fire heavy weapons support for the infantry. Here's how I understand the complaint:

If US infantry need something blown up they have to call for air support or artillery. The target is right there; they can see it. They still end up having to expend a JDAM or call for indirect fire that is necessarily less accurate than guided or direct fire weapons. Even in situations where it would make more sense to pot the thing from two or three thousand yards with a field gun. Because the US does not have such a weapon; all it has are mortars and big long-range artillery systems like 155mm howitzers and MLRS systems.

At which point slapping a tank gun on a multirole light armored vehicle and using it for infantry support starts to make some sense.

[Emperor Tippy]

The general rule is that if you need something blown up, and you would want a field gun to blow it up, then you just use a rocket launcher with a Thermobaric warhead (the SMAW, for example, and I think there is a Javelin version as well).

Or you call in an attack chopper.

[Dervag]

Which, coincidentally, the Army also didn't have until extremely recently. For the US, man-portable thermobaric weapons are part of the same generation of equipment as the Stryker mobile gun. Also, unlike a team with thermobaric rocket launchers, the Stryker is immune to small arms fire (such as snipers who want to pick off the rocket launcher before it blows them to bits).
______________

Attack choppers present some of the same problems as any other kind of air support- you don't have them on hand all the time as an organic part of the unit; sooner or later they have to go back to base or go help someone else.

Also, attack choppers have the additional problem that they are vulnerable to return fire. Most enemy targets will not be able to shoot down the supersonic jets that deliver JDAMs, since that takes specialized (large) weapons. But there are quite a few man-portable weapons systems that can take down a helicopter, and because helicopters fly low and slow they are exceptionally vulnerable.

Therefore, if your tactics revolve around the use of helicopters you have small but significant risk of the enemy planning an ambush for your helicopters. They might even draw you into a fight specifically to ambush a helicopter if they're sneaky and like destroying expensive equipment.

Stryker mobile guns are better protected, able to take advantage of cover, and attachable to medium-sized units as organic support. Obviously they do not take the place of helicopters in all their roles, nor really even in any of their roles. But now that I've heard what they're meant for explained clearly, I get the feeling that they really are a good choice.

[Emperor Tippy]

Oh, agreed. They are a very good choice. Bigger guns are always a good choice.

[Storm Bringer]

Oh, agreed. They are a very good choice. Bigger guns are always a good choice.

their si no such thing as overkill. Only "open fire!" and "I need to reload!":smallbiggrin:

[Emperor Tippy]

their si no such thing as overkill. Only "open fire!" and "I need to reload!":smallbiggrin:

Well when you reach the point where your weapon has a greater blast radius than it does range you might be using a weapon that is just a bit too big.

[Dervag]

Can anyone spell "Davy Crockett?"

[only1doug]

Well when you reach the point where your weapon has a greater blast radius than it does range you might be using a weapon that is just a bit too big.

Thermo-Nuclear handgrenade time.

[Raum]

Can anyone spell "Davy Crockett?"Yeah, that wasn't exactly thought through...it had a minimum shot distance of 1000 feet and an almost certain kill radius of a quarter mile. Even at maximum range (1.25 - 2.5 miles depending on launcher) the crew was hosed if the wind was blowing towards them.

[Diamondeye]

OK. I can see it. I've heard a number of complaints that the US military lacks direct fire heavy weapons support for the infantry. Here's how I understand the complaint:

If US infantry need something blown up they have to call for air support or artillery. The target is right there; they can see it. They still end up having to expend a JDAM or call for indirect fire that is necessarily less accurate than guided or direct fire weapons. Even in situations where it would make more sense to pot the thing from two or three thousand yards with a field gun. Because the US does not have such a weapon; all it has are mortars and big long-range artillery systems like 155mm howitzers and MLRS systems.

At which point slapping a tank gun on a multirole light armored vehicle and using it for infantry support starts to make some sense.

Ok, anything that would blow something up at 2-3000 meters (not yards,w e don't talk about yards!) isn't a "field gun". A "field gun" is an artillery piece, and you woud never deploy them 2-3000 meters from the front line. You also don't go driving them around in IED-land unnecessarily.

You could do this job a number of ways:

If you're a heavy unit, use the main gun from a tank or bradley, or the TOW system depending one what you're shooting. All of them have appropriate rounds/warheads.

If you're a light unit, use an AT-4 (84mm HEAT warhead, shoulder-fired), grenade, satchel charge, javelin, or 105mm Howitzer. Light units do not have 155mm guns; they have 105mm systems as direct support.

Mortars might be appropriate as well, the 60mm mortar actually can be fired in direct-fire mode as well. If you happen to be in a Ranger battalion they also have 90mm Recoiless Rifles, but that's obviously not the norm.

The Stryker MGS does fill this role, but not for the Army as a whole. It fills it for the medium units because medium units didn't have a system suitable to medium units for this sort of job.

[Dervag]

Ok, anything that would blow something up at 2-3000 meters (not yards,w e don't talk about yards!) isn't a "field gun". A "field gun" is an artillery piece, and you woud never deploy them 2-3000 meters from the front line. You also don't go driving them around in IED-land unnecessarily.What's happened to me here is that the definition of a "field gun" has changed. I'm a history buff, not a combat veteran. As I have noted, I have neither the ability nor the inclination to speak in pure and true military terminology.

Occasionally, I will do something perverse like use "yards" as a unit of distance. This is not because I do not understand meters, or because I am incapable of using meters. It is because I am somewhat perverse, and because I feel that a large fraction of my audience is at least as familiar with yards as with meters and won't mind my choice of units.

Also my definitions are sometimes fuzzy. Or, worse yet, I wind up using a term that has evolved over time, so it doesn't mean what I think it means anymore. Thus, let me explain why I used "field gun" in a sense that you would argue is wrong.

This is a historical argument. If I got my history wrong, please advise me of the fact.
______________________

Once upon a lifetime, a "field gun" was a piece of direct fire artillery. It was designed to be fired much like a piece of small arms, and with similar sighting provisions. Unlike a mortar or howitzer, it was not capable of high-angle fire, and therefore had a very limited range. It was brought into line of sight of the enemy and (ideally) used from outside small arms range. Inside small arms range, field artillery died.

The reason it was called "field" artillery was that unlike heavier guns, it was light enough to move using a reasonable amount of muscle. Before the invention of motorized prime movers in the early 1900s, that was really important. "Field" artillery was the stuff you could actually carry around with your army without slowing it to a crawl. Anything heavier would be "siege" artillery. It was so cumbersome, you could only get into position during a prolonged positional battle where your army wasn't going to be moving anywhere soon in any case.
______________________

Once motorized prime movers became available, this distinction started to break down. It was finally possible to do something like haul 155mm guns around as fast as infantry could march, or even faster once somebody figured out the trick of mounting the gun on the vehicle. Thus, the field artillery category expanded to include a variety of what would once have been considered heavy howitzers, because those heavy howitzers were now in demand in the field. To make matters worse, armies had gotten so much better at digging in that heavier guns were needed to smash field fortifications, much as they had once been needed as siege artillery.

Light artillery as it was once known went out of style.
_____________________

When I used the word "field gun," I was referring to light direct fire artillery. It so happens that two or three thousand yards is unreasonably short range even for light modern artillery, even in direct fire roles. You were right to object to that. On the other hand, I feel my argument would have been no more or less valid had I said "five or six" or "eight or nine." Which would be more reasonable ranges for the kind of weapon system I'm talking about.

Recall that my actual point was a shortage of direct fire weapons.
_____________________

You could do this job a number of ways:

If you're a heavy unit, use the main gun from a tank or bradley, or the TOW system depending one what you're shooting. All of them have appropriate rounds/warheads.

If you're a light unit, use an AT-4 (84mm HEAT warhead, shoulder-fired), grenade, satchel charge, javelin, or 105mm Howitzer. Light units do not have 155mm guns; they have 105mm systems as direct support.

Mortars might be appropriate as well, the 60mm mortar actually can be fired in direct-fire mode as well. If you happen to be in a Ranger battalion they also have 90mm Recoiless Rifles, but that's obviously not the norm.

The Stryker MGS does fill this role, but not for the Army as a whole. It fills it for the medium units because medium units didn't have a system suitable to medium units for this sort of job.[/QUOTE]I admit I exaggerated the scope of the problem, since typical infantry antitank weapons such as the Javelin and AT4 can be used against other kinds of targets. I didn't really think about that; a sign of amateurism.

[Diamondeye]

What's happened to me here is that the definition of a "field gun" has changed. I'm a history buff, not a combat veteran. As I have noted, I have neither the ability nor the inclination to speak in pure and true military terminology.

Occasionally, I will do something perverse like use "yards" as a unit of distance. This is not because I do not understand meters, or because I am incapable of using meters. It is because I am somewhat perverse, and because I feel that a large fraction of my audience is at least as familiar with yards as with meters and won't mind my choice of units.

Also my definitions are sometimes fuzzy. Or, worse yet, I wind up using a term that has evolved over time, so it doesn't mean what I think it means anymore. Thus, let me explain why I used "field gun" in a sense that you would argue is wrong.

This is a historical argument. If I got my history wrong, please advise me of the fact.

That's all fine, I was just trying to correct some misconceptions regarding what modern weapon systems are, and what they do, not cricticize you.


Once upon a lifetime, a "field gun" was a piece of direct fire artillery. It was designed to be fired much like a piece of small arms, and with similar sighting provisions. Unlike a mortar or howitzer, it was not capable of high-angle fire, and therefore had a very limited range. It was brought into line of sight of the enemy and (ideally) used from outside small arms range. Inside small arms range, field artillery died.

This is basically accurate. It's important to point out, however, that at this point in time, while some large weapons could fire indirectly, they could not use indirect lay. The gun crew had to be able to see the fall of the shot to adjust fire, and even then it was highly inaccurate because there was no real recoil system to return the gun to a precise position for the next shot. Because of that, accuate firing tables could not be devised for indirect lay, and of course, communications would have severely hampered them as well.


The reason it was called "field" artillery was that unlike heavier guns, it was light enough to move using a reasonable amount of muscle. Before the invention of motorized prime movers in the early 1900s, that was really important. "Field" artillery was the stuff you could actually carry around with your army without slowing it to a crawl. Anything heavier would be "siege" artillery. It was so cumbersome, you could only get into position during a prolonged positional battle where your army wasn't going to be moving anywhere soon in any case.

True. I would add that the term "field artillery" also differentiated it from "coastal artillery" or other fixed pieces that were part of fortifications.


Once motorized prime movers became available, this distinction started to break down. It was finally possible to do something like haul 155mm guns around as fast as infantry could march, or even faster once somebody figured out the trick of mounting the gun on the vehicle. Thus, the field artillery category expanded to include a variety of what would once have been considered heavy howitzers, because those heavy howitzers were now in demand in the field. To make matters worse, armies had gotten so much better at digging in that heavier guns were needed to smash field fortifications, much as they had once been needed as siege artillery.

Yes, all basically true. However, term meaning over time has changed. Guns (high velocity, flat trajectory) howitzers (medium velocity and trajectory) and mortars (high trajectory low velocity) are all "artillery", although in the U.S. Army, mortars never exist in units bigger than platoons, and are never found supporting units higher than battalion level. Former Soviet units may actually have mortar batteries and battalions, especially with their larger 160mm and 240mm systems. Mortars may or may not be under the control of FA headquarters (in US organizations they are not) but the weapon system is a type of artillery.

This is to point out change over time, not to correct you on how things were in the past.


Light artillery as it was once known went out of style.

While basically true, I think it more accurate to say that light artillery changed its form, to become things like antitank guns, bazookas, recoiless rifles, and even ATGMs. It was no longer "artillery" but it was still a heavy, direct-fire system to support the infantry.


When I used the word "field gun," I was referring to light direct fire artillery. It so happens that two or three thousand yards is unreasonably short range even for light modern artillery, even in direct fire roles. You were right to object to that. On the other hand, I feel my argument would have been no more or less valid had I said "five or six" or "eight or nine." Which would be more reasonable ranges for the kind of weapon system I'm talking about.

When engaging in battery defense, 2-3000 meters would be about typical for direct fire. The reason I said that one would not deploy artillery 2-3000 yards abck is that it would be too vulnerable to enemy direct-fire systems, such as tanks or ATGMs. The AT-5, for example, has a range of about 4,000 meters.

Light howitzers (105mm for US forces) would generally be deployed about 3,000-4000 meters back. 155mm systems, typically about twice that fire. Either distance is too far for practical direc fire, but if you want to reduce a point target and have nothing else to do it with, you can always adjust fire, or use a laser-guided munition.


Recall that my actual point was a shortage of direct fire weapons.

Which was correct, but only insofar as the Stryker Brigades were concerned. What there was, was a shortage of heavy direct fire weapons, that weren't also mounted on a very heavy, expensive vehicle, or utilized an expensive missile. We lacked, essentially, an equivalent to the Russian 2A45 (an antitank gun with indirect fire capability). The Stryker MGS fills this role, more or less, but it is self-propelled, rather than towed.


I admit I exaggerated the scope of the problem, since typical infantry antitank weapons such as the Javelin and AT4 can be used against other kinds of targets. I didn't really think about that; a sign of amateurism.

Which is fine. You were correct about the problem, just not about the scope. Without the stryker MGS, medium units would, as you stated, lacked an appropriate weapons system.

I would also point out that part of what transitioned artillery from direct to indirect fire was the development of recoil systems to return a gun to "in-battery" after firing. This made it possible to develop accurate tables to predict how far a round would go given a specific propelling charge and gun tube elevation.

In combination with the development of field telephones, and later, radios, this made indirect fire truly practical. You can tell when these developments started to occur in a given military because the metal shields for the crew start disappearing from the guns.

[Construct]

Are those ren faire axe frogs where the haft goes through a large metal ring historical? My search-fu is weak and carriage of non-swords has received scant attention in the books I've read. Come to think of it, functional considerations of any sort have received scant attention in the books I've read but, my, will you look at that cloisonné...:smalltongue:

[Swordguy]

Are those ren faire axe frogs where the haft goes through a large metal ring historical? My search-fu is weak and carriage of non-swords has received scant attention in the books I've read. Come to think of it, functional considerations of any sort have received scant attention in the books I've read but, my, will you look at that cloisonné...:smalltongue:

Yeah, they are. Really, there isn't another good way to carry the things unless they're over your shoulder. Frogs were actually used to carry swords as well, when battle was expected. Sword scabbards are a bad thing when you're fighting, with their tendency to work their way between your legs and trip you.

[Subotei]

Mmm - so the whole Stryker MGS debate - what we have is basically the StuG concept brought up to date? What goes around comes around I guess.

[Jack Zander]

I need to know info on all of the armors in the PHB (3.5). I need to know what they were strong against, what they were weak against, and how easy it was to maneuver in each of them. Thanks!

[Fhaolan]

Are those ren faire axe frogs where the haft goes through a large metal ring historical? My search-fu is weak and carriage of non-swords has received scant attention in the books I've read. Come to think of it, functional considerations of any sort have received scant attention in the books I've read but, my, will you look at that cloisonné...:smalltongue:

Yep, they are. Of course, they'd only be used for hand and throwing axes. Not for the big double-bitted monstrosities they depict in most RPG manuals as 'battle axes'. A real battleaxe is surprisingly small. There were two-handed axes, but they are treated much the same way as halberds. You carry them. If they're long enough, you carry it like a staff. If it's shorter than that, you heft it up to your shoulder. If you need both hands free, you put it down somewhere.

[Fhaolan]

I need to know info on all of the armors in the PHB (3.5). I need to know what they were strong against, what they were weak against, and how easy it was to maneuver in each of them. Thanks!

Too many variables. Out of cheese error, redo from start. :)

To be honest, it matters more about how well fitted the armor is than the 'type' of armor it is. A poorly fitted 15th century Italian white harness (full plate by D&D standards) is pretty much immobile (as I have personaly proven), while a you can turn cartwheels in a well-fitted one (which has been demonstrated, I think there's a video of it somewhere.)

There are so much variance within a type defined by D&D that evaluations like this is almost impossible. When you say chain mail, do you mean European 4in1 maille in the northern style (pullover), a Roman 6in1 tie up the back, a Japanese 4in1 (which is actually a completely different ring pattern)? Each protects and moves completely differently. For scale, do you mean leather or maille backed (again in the Roman fashion)? The range of plate is even more insane; Itallian, Gothic, Millenese, or even English (which is usually forgotten about as it was a 'lesser' style).

And the splint vs banded debate, where angels fear to tread... :)

For game purposes, use the game statistics. Trying to map them to real-life statistics is the paving stones of good intentions. It will get you to really dark places surprisingly fast.

[Fishy]

So, in an age late in steel-working but before decent muskets, a hypothetical elite knight is operating in terrain that is covered in rivers, marshes, boats or whatnot. He needs to be heavily armored, but can expect to be dunked up to his knees or waist in freshwater, multiple times a day.

Is this something that's ever come up in real-world armors? I assume platemail or anything with hinges is probably out, but what sort of designs and materials resist rust and waterlogging?

[Crow]

Ah, rivers. I think Fredrick Barbarossa drowned during a river crossing. I have no idea he might of been wearing at the time.

I believe armor was cared in this situation in much the same way as a blade would have been back in those days. Dry it and give it a fresh coat of oil at the end of the day. Though I am the first to admit that I could be wrong.

[Philistine]

So, in an age late in steel-working but before decent muskets, a hypothetical elite knight is operating in terrain that is covered in rivers, marshes, boats or whatnot. He needs to be heavily armored, but can expect to be dunked up to his knees or waist in freshwater, multiple times a day.

Is this something that's ever come up in real-world armors? I assume platemail or anything with hinges is probably out, but what sort of designs and materials resist rust and waterlogging?

If the terrain's that bad, I'd expect activity to be largely constrained to whatever roads are available. All that knee-deep water will slow you down - a lot (depending on how large a force you're trying to move, getting dunked multiple times a day might not ever come up). Worse, in terrain this wet you'll probably get trench foot before you get rust.

Of course, this may not really answer your question, in which case I apologize.

[Fhaolan]

So, in an age late in steel-working but before decent muskets, a hypothetical elite knight is operating in terrain that is covered in rivers, marshes, boats or whatnot. He needs to be heavily armored, but can expect to be dunked up to his knees or waist in freshwater, multiple times a day.

Is this something that's ever come up in real-world armors? I assume platemail or anything with hinges is probably out, but what sort of designs and materials resist rust and waterlogging?

Given that many battles (according to historical accounts) occured in mudbaths thanks to rain, yes this did come up fairly often. :smallsmile:

Several points of note: First off, anyone with that heavy of armor will be likely riding a horse when travelling from point A to point B. So the horse does most of the slogging, unless you're knocked off.

Second: Battles rarely occured in swamps because it's equally hazordous to both sides. There's no advantage for anyone, so why not fight on dry land?

Third: Fighting with you in the river, and the other side on the shore was considered to be a loosing proposition at the best of times, unless you're in a boat, so it was avoided as much as possible.

Now those are out of the way... :)

Metal armor rusts in humid climates, or when it rains, or slogging through mud, or many other reasons. This is normal, so they came up with many different ways of dealing with it.

People with lots of metal in their armor usually had it cleaned every day. Which means scrubbing with sand and coating with oil. If you can afford really good armor, you probably have a squire/lackey to do this for you. Cleaning your armor, weapons, and horse tack probably consumed a good chunk of their day.

If you can get hot mineral oils to coat the metal, it will produce a blackish coating very similar to modern gun blueing. In fact a lot of repro armorers use modern gun blueing to create this same effect without going through the effort of the hot oil bath. What this is, is actually rust. It's a thin black oxidation coat that prevents 'real' rust from taking place. It's a pain when you have to redo the coating, but it lasts longer than a simple oil coat.

And then for the *really* fancy harnesses, you get enamel. Yes, many armors were painted. This served to fancy it up a bit, but also protected the metal from rust.

Finally, I've seen at least one harness with all the metal covered with glued-on thin leather, stamped and died very prettily. I doubt this one ever saw battle, because of the pain required to replace any damaged leather, but technically it also fixed the rusting problem.

[Adlan]

got any links, or can you tell me more about the different styles of Plate armour (I'm intruiged by the English Armour), Did these effects fighting style, are they purely cosmetic, Educate me oh wise one.

[Mando Knight]

If you can get hot mineral oils to coat the metal, it will produce a blackish coating very similar to modern gun blueing. In fact a lot of repro armorers use modern gun blueing to create this same effect without going through the effort of the hot oil bath. What this is, is actually rust. It's a thin black oxidation coat that prevents 'real' rust from taking place. It's a pain when you have to redo the coating, but it lasts longer than a simple oil coat.

IIRC, this process is actually where the term "Black Knight" originated from. The knight had no lord or lands, so he didn't have the means to afford a lackey to clean his armor every day, so he coated the armor in the described way in order to protect it from rust. Thus, a knight in black armor was likely to be a European analogue to the Japanese ronin... unless, of course, he's in blackened armor because it goes with his coat-of-arms...

[Fhaolan]

got any links, or can you tell me more about the different styles of Plate armour (I'm intruiged by the English Armour), Did these effects fighting style, are they purely cosmetic, Educate me oh wise one.

Okay, there are *lots* of styles. About mid-way through the 15th century, armorers settled down into fairly distinct styles with full plate armor, and these are the 'styles' that everyone tends to talk about. Most of them are cosmetic differences, but they do have some differences in fighting style.


Let's start with the two biggies: Itallian vs German, or to be more precise Milanese vs Gothic.

Representing Itallian/Milanese styling is this: (I have a badly fitted suit of this myself.)

http://mysite.verizon.net/tulkaz/15th_Century_Italian_Full_Front2.html

Representing German/Gothic styling is this: (Most of the people in my group have one of these. I was the odd-one out, as usual)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8765199@N07/2636715908/

The main visual difference is the fluting. Fluting makes the armor stronger for its weight as it technically puts more metal in the way of the incoming blows. However, it tends to trap incoming points so that they don't skip off the armor so easily.

Also, Gothic plate tended towards more articulations, which increased flexibility. As long as the articulations didn't get bent by impacts, which would freeze that joint in place.

Overall Itallian tended to be more robust, and have more coverage, but is less flexible.

At the beginning of the 16th century, the two styles came together into what's called Maximillian. Basically they took Itallian robust, full coverage armor, and stuck Gothic flutes and articulations all over it, making it far more complicated, heavier, but more flexible.

http://www.geocities.com/trinixxofwestmarch/Armour/Maximilian.htm

Now lets talk about one of 'lesser' styles I'm familiar with. Greenwich/English.

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/all/armor_for_field_and_tournament/objectview_enlarge.aspx?page=1&sort=0&sortdir=asc&keyword=Greenwich&fp=1&dd1=0&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=0&OID=40000946&vT=1

The Greenwich style is basically the exact opposite of Maximillain, it takes the Gothic lighter, articulated armor, and removes all the fluting to be more like a Millenese harness.

There are lots of other styles. Somewhere in Eastern Europe they came up with Laminated Armor. No, not lamelar, which is really just heavy scale, or the modern laminated armor when you have multiple armor plates glued together, I mean Laminated Plate Armor. I can't find any pics on line for this one, sorry.

Basically, you know how plate armor is articulated, so you can move your shoulders and bend at the waist? Thats because you're dealing with bands of steel riveted to each other or to leather straps so that the individual strips of metal can move relative to each other. Without this, you have to just put maille on all the joints and hope your opponent doesn't target them. Well, Laminated Armor is taking this to an extreme. The entire harness is made of articulations, with each thin strip rivited to the next with a slip rivet. It's very late-period, during the small gun era so nearly everyone else was abandoning full suits of plate for simple breastplates and helmets. But in Eastern Europe about this time, someone went insane and made this.

Then there's jousting armor. As time went on, jousting became more a sport than a training exercise for war. Armors specifically made for the *sport* of tilting started showing up. This stuff was never meant to be worn anywhere other than the back of a horse. Insanely heavy, with little or no articulations, you had to be bolted into it once you were up on the horse.

Then there's the German clockwork armor. Again, stuff is specifically made for jousting, near the end of the jousting as a sport fad. It's made to fly apart when its hit to provide more 'spectacle' for the audience.

[Dervag]

Basically, you know how plate armor is articulated, so you can move your shoulders and bend at the waist? Thats because you're dealing with bands of steel riveted to each other or to leather straps so that the individual strips of metal can move relative to each other. Without this, you have to just put maille on all the joints and hope your opponent doesn't target them. Well, Laminated Armor is taking this to an extreme. The entire harness is made of articulations, with each thin strip rivited to the next with a slip rivet. It's very late-period, during the small gun era so nearly everyone else was abandoning full suits of plate for simple breastplates and helmets. But in Eastern Europe about this time, someone went insane and made this.Well, in Eastern Europe the countries tended to be a bit poorer, right? It would have taken a bit longer for handguns to reach the level of dominance they had in Western Europe in that case, in which case full plate would have a few more decades to evolve before becoming obsolete.


Then there's jousting armor. As time went on, jousting became more a sport than a training exercise for war. Armors specifically made for the *sport* of tilting started showing up. This stuff was never meant to be worn anywhere other than the back of a horse. Insanely heavy, with little or no articulations, you had to be bolted into it once you were up on the horse.This is the stuff that gave everyone the impression that medieval plate armor was impossibly clumsy stuff that you couldn't walk or move in, that you had to be hoisted on the horse with a crane with, and so forth.

[Egiam]

Sorry, but I have not read all the posts on this thread, but could someone please answer my question?
how do you pronounce the word Cuirass?
ty

[Swordguy]

Sorry, but I have not read all the posts on this thread, but could someone please answer my question?
how do you pronounce the word Cuirass?
ty

"kwĭ-răs'", or something close to it.

Pronounciation Guide (http://www.answers.com/topic/cuirass) - click on the speaker button for a spoken pronounciation.

[Fhaolan]

"kwĭ-răs'", or something close to it.

Pronounciation Guide (http://www.answers.com/topic/cuirass) - click on the speaker button for a spoken pronounciation.

Yeah, you have to be careful with this one. It should be pronouced 'kwi-rass', but a lot of people say it 'cure-ass', which at least is better than 'kweer-ass', which is what people tend to hear...

[averagejoe]

This might be a bit of a big question. In early-mid 1500's Europe how did guns generally stack up to other weapons of similar function (i.e. crossbows and such)? Were they using gunpowder artillery around this time, and if so how would one generally use it? Would you even see people using crossbows around this time? How about bow and arrows?

[Spiryt]

This might be a bit of a big question. In early-mid 1500's Europe how did guns generally stack up to other weapons of similar function (i.e. crossbows and such)? Were they using gunpowder artillery around this time, and if so how would one generally use it? Would you even see people using crossbows around this time? How about bow and arrows?

Ah, there was so much discussing about this recently.

And the answer is yes, bow shooting (both actual bows and crossbows) would be still used up to around 1600.

Possibly mainly on ships and such in some cases, but undoubtly bows had different qualities than firearms and were good for different purposes.

Tatars and other horse archers were using it even longer, for example. It's pretty possible to effectively shoot a bow when riding a horse. Musket? Shoot - no problem, but to reaload while riding - not so fun.

An example (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1433) of actual battle plan from 1547 - featuring usage of mixed - arrows and bullets - shooting.

Overally, certainly bows were getting less and less popular as war instrument, but it wasn't quick process.

[averagejoe]

Ah, there was so much discussing about this recently.

I thought this would be the case, but I couldn't find anything in a cursory search. Could you give me a page/neighborhood? I don't mind searching, but don't have the time to go through this many pages. Especially when a lot of this stuff is interesting and it's easy to get side tracked. :smallredface:

[Spiryt]

I thought this would be the case, but I couldn't find anything in a cursory search. Could you give me a page/neighborhood? I don't mind searching, but don't have the time to go through this many pages. Especially when a lot of this stuff is interesting and it's easy to get side tracked. :smallredface:

Well, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92555), hidden in Friendly Banter, under "actual question". Not really something possible to find. :smallbiggrin:

And this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91930).

Also this (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1321&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=44). Kinda long discussions, but if you have patience...

[Matthew]

I thought this would be the case, but I couldn't find anything in a cursory search. Could you give me a page/neighborhood? I don't mind searching, but don't have the time to go through this many pages. Especially when a lot of this stuff is interesting and it's easy to get side tracked.

Very true. Unfortunately, searching these threads is damn difficult. The up and down of it is that early firearms, say those available between 1300-1500, weren't really up to much in terms of accuracy, range, or rate of fire (though cannons and such were prime choices at siege works). Sometime in the sixteenth century firearms really started to marginalise bows and crossbows as primary choices, and by the seventeenth century they would have been firmly in the minority.

The crossbow (or rather arbalest) of the fifteenth century and later was a very powerful steel pronged weapon, but heavy and slow to load. I would expect to have seen it in longer use than the war bow.

[Egiam]

Thanks, its been driving me crazy

[Mike_G]

Thanks, its been driving me crazy
BTW, you sig is wrongly attributed to Douglas MacArthur.

It was said during the Korean War druing the retreat from Chosin, but by US Marine General Oliver Smith

[RationalGoblin]

Okay, I've got a question that's been bugging me for a while.

How exactly do flails work? In particular, how do you swing a flail without hurting yourself, and what kind of attacks was it used in? Also, would it be viable to hold a flail in one hand, and a different weapon in another?

Links would be appreciated, but plain info is fine.

[Norsesmithy]

Safety lies in hitting your opponent, and in the fact that the chain is shorter than the haft.

As for having a different weapon in the other hand, a shield is nice, but really, it would be difficult to coordinate an attack that uses both.

[Fhaolan]

Okay, I've got a question that's been bugging me for a while.

How exactly do flails work? In particular, how do you swing a flail without hurting yourself, and what kind of attacks was it used in? Also, would it be viable to hold a flail in one hand, and a different weapon in another?

Links would be appreciated, but plain info is fine.

You have to know what you're doing. :) Like a lot of weapons, you really have to train with a flail to use it correctly.

First off, most flails had short chains, so the mace (the technical term for the hitting bit of the flail) couldn't actually reach your hand when it's holding the flail. Many flails in fact didn't have a chain at all, being more of a hinge connecting the head to the shaft. Also, most 'real' flails only have a single mace, sometimes spiked, sometimes not. There are exceptions of course, but they're relatively rare.

If you actually have the training or experience with flails, and by extension all chain-based weapons, you will know the techniques needed to shorten the swing, do pull-ups, and redirections. It's hard to describe these techniques in text; it's much easier to demonstrate in person, unfortunately. It requires a higher level of control than you would need with a axe or mace, but the techniques are not *that* hard.

Of course, the point of any weapon is to hit your opponent with it. Once you've done that, you're rarely in danger of the weapon hitting you. The issue with the flail comes about when you miss, or when you're mucking around trying to be impressive. :)

First rule of using a real weapon, don't muck about trying to be impressive. All it does is demonstrate that you have no idea what you're really doing, because if you did you wouldn't need to muck about. Katas are all nice and fine to train the motions and hone your reflexes. They have no place in an actual fight.

Now, as for using a flail in one hand and another weapon in the other; Sure, why not? Two flails is a commonly seen technique, when you consider that the martial art weapon known as a nunchuck is really a specialized flail.

Oh, and just as a note; many flails are actually two-handed weapons, especially the early ones that more closely resemble the agricultural flail. I personally find these to be more awkward as a weapon than the one-handed versions. And by extension the fantasy 'dire flail' to be so awkward as to be
useless. Technically I can get the stupid thing to work, but it takes so much effort for so little return that I'd be better off hacking off the flailing bits and just use it as a shortstaff.

[Diamondeye]

How exactly do flails work?

They are attached to the front of armored vehicles, which are then driven down a route to be cleared, or through a breach lane once that portion of an obstacle has been reduced.

The chains smack the ground in front of the vehicle, detonating any remaining mines in the route or breach lane.

:smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[Dervag]

I can never remember the right name for this sort of armored vehicle, so I wind up forced to call them "fwippa-tanks," derived from the motion of the chains.

But yes, one use for flails is to arm a tank with them.

[Storm Bringer]

I can never remember the right name for this sort of armored vehicle, so I wind up forced to call them "fwippa-tanks," derived from the motion of the chains.

But yes, one use for flails is to arm a tank with them.

Mineflayer tanks, surely? and if it's not, it SHOULD be!:smallbiggrin:

[Swordguy]

Most important thing about any given chain weapon: once you've started the motion, don't stop! That's where most self-injuries occur. If you have to stop your momentum, bring the weapon slowly to a stop, don't just stop moving your arm.

Also, lulz for the Hobart's Funny Tanks reference.

[Calinero]

I've got a few questions about which weapons would be available in a given time period. I am writing a story that takes place in a large city entirely walled in, surrounded by demons. I'm trying to figure out what level of technology I want the people inside to have. They're nowhere near having electricity. They might have a few gas lamps, but they would be a rarity. The presence of functional magic has reduced the need to develop new technology. Horses and carts are still occasionally used by those rich enough to afford a horse and a place to keep it inside the city (space is limited, obviously.) I realize this is a kind of vague description, and if pressed I might be able to give a few more details. What I want to know is, what sort of weapons might be developed at this level of technology? I plan for some sort of relatively crude pistols to be available. However, since offensive magic is easier to make, they're more of a curiosity or a badge of wealth than a typical weapon. What kind of pistol would have been developed the earliest? Flintlock, matchlock, what? Also, what kinds of weapons would be easiest to produce with limited resources?

In addition to this, the guards on the city walls would go for something with a decent bit of reach, and a lot of stopping power. I'm thinking a few might have something like a boar spear. Others with weapons would have something ideal for use in a city, just not sure what.

[Swordguy]

Well, to have a firearm, you've got to make the fire touch the powder somehow. Thusly, matchlocks are a given, since there isn't really a way to have a simpler firearm (touching a hot rod to a touchhole manually, a la a hand cannon) doesn't count.

Next, historically comes wheellocks. Honestly, I'm surprised wheellocks came before flintlocks. They're a LOT more complicated and prone to failure than the flintlock. Without the incentive to develop technology due to magic, I can see development ending at flintlocks.

The issue is that firearms have generally become simpler through the ages, up until you started seeing semi-automatic and automatic weapons in the late 1800's. Somebody who's only every used a wheellock will get the gist of a flintlock, or even a percussion-cap weapon VERY fast. They're all still muzzleloaders, and each simply uses a simpler lock system. This helps you with issues of resources - less parts generally means easier to make.

Thinking about it, I'd say that the superior manufacturing ability afforded by magic allowed your people to mostly skip the 300-year wheel/flintlock phase of firearms development. Have them start with matchlocks, and fairly quickly move to percussion-cap paper cartridges. The weapons are still smoothbore muzzleloaders - the tech for rifling demands a fair degree of precision, and it's quite easy to say the tech isn't up to that - and so not terribly accurate. They're in the 3-5 shots per minute range, which means they aren't 1-shot wonders ala flintlocks, but they won't totally rule the battlefield.

You also get some VERY interesting battlefield possibilities here. Smoothbore weapons need to be used en masse for maximum effect, but the existence of AOE battlefield magic means that massing in one place for very long is suicide. Mages take the place of artillery, but they have even more destructive power. This means that battles will be all about maneuver - a squad or platoon massing in one place long enough to get shots off and then having to scatter before the mages blast them apart. Dragoons (Cavalry with rifles who dismount o fire and mount to move) will be the core of almost every offensive operation not against a fixed position.

[Om]

You also get some VERY interesting battlefield possibilities hereActually I wouldn't see any scope at all for such primitive guns or tactics. Not when you have mages/demons serving as highly mobile/efficient artillery platforms. I'd envisage such a scenario more resembling a 1914 (or 1870) environment in which small arms, and accompanying large infantry formations, are almost rendered obsolete by the dominance of the big guns. I mean, imagine a scenario in which a fireball-wielding mage is more accurate, more destructive, and more mobile than a Krupp cannon...

[Calanais]

How about combining black powder weaponry with magic? A spell that produces sparks or a small amount of flame would be a really good way to produce a gun without requiring any sort of lock - match, wheel or flint. Without a lock and trigger mechanism, the design of guns might be rather different. Or magical metallurgy, making stronger barrels with magically enhanced precision engineering? If magic items are common, saltpetre, sulphur and charcoal are readily available, and if offensive magic isn't simply Better than Guns, a society could develop quite sophisticated weapons. Historically matchlocks were the first developed, but it sounds like magic as you imagine it in your world is highly developed and common enough to not require primitive ignition methods.
Even if magic is too rare and expensive to use on pistols except for the elite, similar magic could be applied t cannons, making them more reliable, faster firing and generally more effective (enchanted 12 pounders, silver grapeshot?).
As far as personal weapons for the City Guard goes, it depends on what you want them to be. If they are soldiers who are also responsible for internal security, they might carry their primary weapon (e.g. crossbow or halberd) all the time, or just have a shortsword or hanger for "police" work. Alternatively, a city police force might carry traditional symbols of authority like truncheons and might wear little or no armour.
Your story sounds interesting. Is the city part of an empire, a single city state or somewhere in between? Does it have medieval city walls or are they designed to resist cannon (or magic anti-wall spells)? Can it feed and water itself while under siege? Does it have sewers or aqueducts? Will we be able to read the finished story?:smallbiggrin:

[Calinero]

Heh. If the story is ever finished, you're welcome to see it.

As for the city....basically, demons have overrun most of the planet. (A note about tactics--you don't have to worry about people demons in the tactics. They don't use tactics, and never work with people. Too busy eating them.) The only real civilized areas are massive walled cities, protected by not only the stone walls, but also by the mages warding the walls. You're not going to see any large scale armies fighting, because there's not really a place to do it. Cities are usually too far between to fight against each other, and they're all united under a king. However, the cities are too far apart for him to have a strong presence in each one, so the rulers of each individual city have a fair amount of autonomy. Most of the fighting done in the city would either be against criminals, or against demons that somehow may have gotten inside. Which would be very, very bad.

[Dervag]

Mineflayer tanks, surely? and if it's not, it SHOULD be!:smallbiggrin:I've always disliked the verb "to flay" in all its incarnations. I like "fwippa-tank" better.


I've got a few questions about which weapons would be available in a given time period. I am writing a story that takes place in a large city entirely walled in, surrounded by demons. I'm trying to figure out what level of technology I want the people inside to have. They're nowhere near having electricity. They might have a few gas lamps, but they would be a rarity. The presence of functional magic has reduced the need to develop new technology. Horses and carts are still occasionally used by those rich enough to afford a horse and a place to keep it inside the city (space is limited, obviously.)Thing is, if magic can do what technology can then people will use magic to do what technology does in real life. If magic is common, expect magic microwave ovens and magic light fixtures. People need those things.

If magic is rare and hard for mundanes (even rich, powerful mundanes) to get, then the picture is different, of course.


What kind of pistol would have been developed the earliest? Flintlock, matchlock, what? Also, what kinds of weapons would be easiest to produce with limited resources?Matchlocks on both counts. Matchlocks are easy to make, assuming you can make a gun barrel that will reliably fail to explode in the first place.
_____________________


Actually I wouldn't see any scope at all for such primitive guns or tactics. Not when you have mages/demons serving as highly mobile/efficient artillery platforms. I'd envisage such a scenario more resembling a 1914 (or 1870) environment in which small arms, and accompanying large infantry formations, are almost rendered obsolete by the dominance of the big guns. I mean, imagine a scenario in which a fireball-wielding mage is more accurate, more destructive, and more mobile than a Krupp cannon...He's still limited by what he can see. And unlike a Krupp cannon, his brains can be blown out by a lone rifleman. Unless he has a magic bullet-shield, in which case your rules apply. Or a method of detecting riflemen from beyond the effective range of blackpowder rifles (which is fairly long, farther than you can see a guy hiding in bushes).

In my opinion, the invention of rifles would make battlefield magic that relies on the physical presence of the caster obsolete. Stored magic that can be used as ammunition would stay around. Magic weapons would stay around. But casters mucking about in line of sight of the enemy's position would be targets for snipers.

See Arithmetic on the Frontier (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arithmetic_on_the_Frontier) for reference.
_____________

Question for Calinero:

Where do people grow the food to feed the citizens of the cities?

[Neon Knight]

I have an inquiry: I'm interested in the Third Crusade. What would the average Saracen/Arab soldier wielded and worn in battle? Was there a difference in equipment/fighting style between "men-at-arms" so to speak and fighting noblemen, as there was in European armies with knights?

[Reltzik]

We're starting a pirates game -- custom world, time period unspecified, presumably based on 16th/17th/18th century Carribean -- and we're having an argument over pistols. Specificly: Were multi-barrelled pistols in use at that time, and how much of a stretch would it be for a pirate to have one? Also, any other details or links you might have on weaponry and/or tactics (especially how they differed from the commonly known, fictional versions) would be appreciated.

[Swordguy]

We're starting a pirates game -- custom world, time period unspecified, presumably based on 16th/17th/18th century Carribean -- and we're having an argument over pistols. Specificly: Were multi-barrelled pistols in use at that time, and how much of a stretch would it be for a pirate to have one? Also, any other details or links you might have on weaponry and/or tactics (especially how they differed from the commonly known, fictional versions) would be appreciated.

Yes they were. Duck's feet (http://website.lineone.net/~da.cushman/ducksfoot.html) are generally what you're looking for. It's not a stretch at all for a pirate to have one. They're pretty malfunction-prone, though, so be warned.

[Hurlbut]

Yes they were. Duck's feet (http://website.lineone.net/~da.cushman/ducksfoot.html) are generally what you're looking for. It's not a stretch at all for a pirate to have one. They're pretty malfunction-prone, though, so be warned.I think I would prefer a blunderbuss or mustketoon over that :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

I have an inquiry: I'm interested in the Third Crusade. What would the average Saracen/Arab soldier wielded and worn in battle? Was there a difference in equipment/fighting style between "men-at-arms" so to speak and fighting noblemen, as there was in European armies with knights?

Okay, first of all...

Noblemen and knights are not interchangable concepts, and the equipment of a poor knight on the third crusade would not likely have been significantly different to that of a wealthy man at arms, especially the professional types employed by Richard Coeur de Lion. Medieval armies were generally equipped according to the wealth of the individual or his patron. On the other hand, it is true to say that there is a distinction between the equipment of the average knight and the average non knightly footman.

Anyway...

The typical Arab warrior serving in the army of Saladin would probably conform to the stereotype. No body armour, light warhorse, composite short bow, at least one quiver of arrows, hand weapon of some sort (axe, mace, maybe sword or scimitar), dagger (or knife), possibly a small shield. Some would have lances in addition to a bow.

However, the army would have been much more diverse than that. The Osprey series has a couple of volumes that might be helpful:

Armies of the Crusades (http://books.google.com/books?id=5mEiD4Vlk70C&printsec=frontcover&sig=ACfU3U2EmG7hH3O-t4KL9msM5y3rM9PnCQ)
Armies of the Muslim Conquest (http://books.google.com/books?id=HCKEjusDE6MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

...but I can't seem to find one specific to the period in question... ah, here we go:

Saracen Farris (http://books.google.com/books?id=bosN8sFs8A4C&pg=PA26&dq=Third+Crusade+Osprey&lr=&sig=ACfU3U0m373SQ2SoDnVpzCQhBQUeGm27AQ#PPP1,M1)
Saladin and the Saracens (http://books.google.com/books?id=zl9QPt5X9UoC&pg=PA6&dq=Crusade+Turks+Osprey&sig=ACfU3U2wWx52hK3ecbiE224YQhWTIHRi8g#PPP1,M1)
The Third Crusade (http://books.google.com/books?id=1At7ZN8RfCAC&pg=PA35&dq=Crusade+Turks+Osprey&sig=ACfU3U33-tGXSddNtn3hWwkAnt5CmDC2LQ#PPA1,M1)

Saladin united several powerful states that previously had been independent of one another. Consequently, you are likely to find Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Nubians (certainly attested in the Itinerarium), Syrians, Armenians, and even renegade Greeks and Franks serving in his armies.

In short, the professional soldiery (such as the Mamluks, Faris, and Ghilman) would have been better equipped than the auxillaries, and their leaders better equipped again; lance, large shield, sword/scimitar, mace/axe, dagger, body armour (mail, possibly scale or lamella), helmet, medium warhorse, sometimes a bow.

[Om]

In my opinion, the invention of rifles would make battlefield magic that relies on the physical presence of the caster obsolete. Stored magic that can be used as ammunition would stay around. Magic weapons would stay around. But casters mucking about in line of sight of the enemy's position would be targets for snipersRifles are different. They don't need to be massed in the manner as muskets and are thus compatible with broken formation tactics. Well from the mid-19th C onwards at least

[Fhaolan]

Rifles are different. They don't need to be massed in the manner as muskets and are thus compatible with broken formation tactics. Well from the mid-19th C onwards at least

True, but rifles are considerably more difficult to manufacture. If you don't have the technical basis, you're going to be hard-pressed to make rifled barrels in sufficient quantities. Which of course is why you put the mid-19th century qualification in. :) They had rifles earlier than that, they were just *really* hard to make, so the "military-culture-at-the-time" equivalent of snipers were the only ones to get it. Snapshots, sharpshooters, etc.

[Hurlbut]

True, but rifles are considerably more difficult to manufacture. If you don't have the technical basis, you're going to be hard-pressed to make rifled barrels in sufficient quantities. Which of course is why you put the mid-19th century qualification in. :) They had rifles earlier than that, they were just *really* hard to make, so the "military-culture-at-the-time" equivalent of snipers were the only ones to get it. Snapshots, sharpshooters, etc.They did used rifles a lot in the American Civil War, it wasn't a matter of accuracy or availability but a matter of reload time that kept the mass formation in use until they invented the internal magazine and the cartridge bullet to make higher fire rate possible and a broken formation even more so.

[Om]

Hmmm just thinking about it, I wonder to what degree the delay in abandoning close formations on the battlefield was down to sheer conservatism on the part of the commanders/theorists at the time? AFAIK the first use of mass broken formation tactics (ie, more than a mere skirmishing line) came towards the end of the Franco-Prussian war after several battles in which the chassepot took its deadly toll. Given that the Dreyse needle-gun was some two decades old at this point this may be a matter of doctrine lagging some distance behind the technology...

Quite far behind actually given that many of the most important lessons in the 1870 war - crucially the obsolescence of close formations and the superiority of artillery - were largely forgotten and only painfully rediscovered during 1914 and beyond :smallannoyed:

[Storm Bringer]

Rilfes were around long (wiki says mid 15th century) before they were adopted by the miltiary, due their limits at the time:

1) they were very slow to reload until the invention of the Minié bullet, which allowed for easy muzzle loading, and led to the widespead adoption of the rifle in short order. (it had been possible to manufacture rifles on a large enough scale to equip at least some regiments of an army since the American war of Indepedance)

2) the gunpowder fouled the rilfing very quickly.

they were used for hunting for quite a long time, as these drawbacks were not as important in a non-combat eviroment, where one could take the time to load and clean them.

the first problem I think is one of mechical rather than techincal limtiations- no one thought of it until quite late on.


but, onto my other point, about the formations used in ww1:


, I wonder to what degree the delay in abandoning close formations on the battlefield was down to sheer conservatism on the part of the commanders/theorists at the time?

Party. they may have underestimated the effect of rifle fire, but they didn't ignore it.

compared to the formations of the past, they were well spread out. The british infantry were recorded as attacking with gaps of about 10 yards between the men (as noted by a german obsever). The other armies were not quite so spread out, but were all aware that a solid wall of men was not a valid battle tactic. as far as I know, the only time troops fought shoulder to shoulder was when they were ambushed or otherwise enguaged when not expecting combat.

Their is a passage somewhere (can't remeber the scource), of a german soldier (A reservist, i think) discribing his units initial contact with the british. He says that they were advancing in column of march (i.e. close order) along a road, towards a small wood when they came under fast and accruate rifle fire. the frist thing the germans do is break formation and run for cover, because they know that they're sitting ducks in close formation. they only think of returning fire once they have spread out into a loose formation.

when all is said, you can only base your doctrine and training on what you know. and if no one has fought a major war in 40 years, then you'll enter the next war with a doctrine based on that war 40 years ago. thier is a limit on how much you can extrapolate based on peacetime exercises and testing of new equipment. If you let your doctrine run ahead of your practical experience, you run the risk that your doctrine will turn out to be completly useless under combat stesses.

for example, look at the evolution of jet fighters. In the 60's, they started to make homing missles, and created fighters that had nothing but missles for weaponry, on the basis that missles were superior. however, when they put these fighters to the test in battle, they found that the missles not able to deliver on the promises of the makers. In fact, they found that cannons were still very improtant and valuable weapons, and had to retro-fit them onto gun-less craft. Which is why they are still putting 20mm cannons on f-22 raptors.

[Dervag]

Rifles are different. They don't need to be massed in the manner as muskets and are thus compatible with broken formation tactics. Well from the mid-19th C onwards at leastWhat I mean is that as soon as rifles that can engage out to a few hundred meters exist, spellcasters are going to be in a lot of trouble if they have to fight in visual range of the enemy. Historically, I gather that happened some time in the 1700s. Ferguson rifles could give your average fireball-slinging sorceror a very bad day.


True, but rifles are considerably more difficult to manufacture. If you don't have the technical basis, you're going to be hard-pressed to make rifled barrels in sufficient quantities. Which of course is why you put the mid-19th century qualification in. :) They had rifles earlier than that, they were just *really* hard to make, so the "military-culture-at-the-time" equivalent of snipers were the only ones to get it. Snapshots, sharpshooters, etc.The existence of battlefield casters would create a whole new category of popular targets for sharpshooters.

[Calinero]

In my planned setting, mages are not the fireball slinging arsenals that they are in D&D. Not nearly as combat oriented with their spells. Most of what they can do requires time and preparation. For example: attacking a building that a mage had lived in for some time would be an extremely bad idea. They could have defensive wards set up everywhere, and magical traps. They could have enchanted weapons to be used in defense of the place. However, it is much more rare to see a mage throwing around lightning bolts or fireballs. It takes a certain amount of metaphysical muscle that is extremely rare. Essentially, if you don't use pentagrams and magical circles and the like, you channel magical energy straight through your body. That's more energy than the human body was ever meant to handle, and it hurts a lot. Only certain people are capable of it at all, and even less are able to channel enough energy for offensive spells on the fly without causing themselves permanent damage.

[Joran]

We're starting a pirates game -- custom world, time period unspecified, presumably based on 16th/17th/18th century Carribean -- and we're having an argument over pistols. Specificly: Were multi-barrelled pistols in use at that time, and how much of a stretch would it be for a pirate to have one?

I'd say up to around the 19th century with the invention of the revolver, multi-shot pistols weren't particularly common or effective. There is the Pepper-box design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box) but as always with this type of firearm, reliability is a major concern.

Instead, I think a rich pirate would usually have a bunch of standard flintlock pistols and just draw and fire them one at a time. Once he (or in the very rare cases, she) runs out of pistols, he would draw the sword and proceed to hand to hand combat. Reloading the pistols really isn't an option, because of the lack of cartridges.

[Crow]

I've seen simple double-barrelled flintlocks. I would think that these would have been somewhat common?

[Storm Bringer]

for once, Pirates of the Carribean got it right.

Most of the major characters in that carried several pistols. In the frist fight scene in the thrid flim (the east India company raid on the singapore pirate base), the supporting pirates turn up litterally covered with pistols, which, when they enter the fray, they fire off in a relativly short time. Now, Pintel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintel_and_Ragetti) (the half bald one who still has both eyes) has a side-by-side double barreled fintlock pistol, but this is a rarity. Pepperbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperbox_pistol)pistols were uncommon, and really were not around during 'pirate' times, but they weren't unfeasible, just rather rare. however, they were notorious for misfiring, or more accruratly, for all the chambers going off at once. while this tended to leave the target very dead, it also ment you were now holding a unloaded weapon.

the normal practice, at least in history, was to simple pull a neo and strap five or six pistols onto you before starting the fight, then shoot them off at the start of the fight and re-load when you had a spare 15 minutes.


On the other hand, pirates are the sort of people who'd find exotic weapons like multi shot pistols cool, and buy them dispite their shortcomings. Apart form anything else, the pepperbox's reputation for shooting all it's shots at once gave it serious intimidation value.

Plus, it's a game, it doesn't need to follow history that closly. getting your hands on a multi shot pistol would be difficult in the real world but it could be done.

[Dervag]

Pepperbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperbox_pistol)pistols were uncommon, and really were not around during 'pirate' times, but they weren't unfeasible, just rather rare. however, they were notorious for misfiring, or more accruratly, for all the chambers going off at once. while this tended to leave the target very dead, it also ment you were now holding a unloaded weapon.Also, you were now holding an unloaded weapon in a hand with a broken wrist. Six times the recoil of a standard flintlock pistol is no joke.

[Swordguy]

Also, you were now holding an unloaded weapon in a hand with a broken wrist. Six times the recoil of a standard flintlock pistol is no joke.

It's more likely you'd drop it, actually. But yeah - that wrist'll be sore the next morning.

[Fhaolan]

Also, you were now holding an unloaded weapon in a hand with a broken wrist. Six times the recoil of a standard flintlock pistol is no joke.

I do remember someone telling me that most pepperbox pistols had far less than the 'normal' flinlock loads in each barrel. More like those little emergency pocket-pistols x 6.

I've got no proof of this, just what someone who does blackpowder more than I do mentioned to me.

[Hawriel]

They did used rifles a lot in the American Civil War, it wasn't a matter of accuracy or availability but a matter of reload time that kept the mass formation in use until they invented the internal magazine and the cartridge bullet to make higher fire rate possible and a broken formation even more so.

Umm no. This is not correct.

The reason armies still used tight line formations was because tactics did not catch up to the weapons of the time. The rifle. Tight line formations where not used because of the time it took to load a musket. It was the inharent inacuracy of the weapon that made the tactic of shoulder to shoulder line formations nessasary.

A musket is a very inacurat weapon. The barrel is smooth and the ball is alot smaller than the diamater of the barrel. For one major reason. The poweder used at the time foweled the barrel emencely. A soldier had to be able to ram a ball down the barrel after multaple fireings. If it had a tight fit a solder would soon not be able to ram it down. The musket ball almost litarly tumbled out of the barrel when fired. The effective range for an indavidual musketeer would have been maybe 50 yards. There would still have been a very large chance that the shot would miss. Mass formations where used because when 1,000 men in line fire a volley of musket balls it makes a 'wall of lead'. Alot of shots will miss there intended target, but they will hit somthing because they where fired in mass. At another mass formation with the same restrictions. Rate of fire was acheaved through drill. Most musket ingagments where at 150 yards or shorter. only afew volleys would be fired untill the unit that suffered the least damage to it's moral, and or casualties performed a bayonet charge.

The musket was used mostly in the south during the American civil war. This was due to the fact that the south could not affored to arm it's army with rifled muskets. There where unites that where armed with pikes. The Union army also had alot of muskets in its inventory. Now you must realize that both sides of the civil war had very small regular armies. Almost all of the regiments where guard or militia units, that where supplied by there home state, county or town. It was not untill the second year of the war that the majority of the Union army was equiped with rifles. Springfields and Enfields where the most common.

Back to tactics. Mass formations where used through the end of the Great War (thats WWI). The rifle in the U.S. civil war is almost perfectly paralels the machine gun in the Great War. All the way down to trench warfar. During the corse of the civil war both the south and the north started using lose formations. This is not the tactics of WW2. A loose formation is really mass infrintry loosly spaced together. That is you can more or less swing your arm with out hitting the guy next to you, but thats as loose as it got. Cover was also used by using fences, walls, trenches, burms, fox holes and other earth work fortifications. Alot of which where constructed when ever an army stopped marching. This is what earned Robert E. Lee the derisive nickname King of Spades.

The rifled musket changed the tactics of warfar, because it was damn accuate. A soldier went from having a weapon that was effective out to maybe 50 yards to having a weapon that was deadly to 500 yards. 800 if your well trained. Then a sharp shooter adds a scope. The rate of fire did have an effect on tactics. What made the rifle possable was the minie ball, and smoke less poweder. The minie ball is also smaller than the barrel of the rifle. So the solder can ram it down when the rifle gets foweled with repeated firing. the minie ball was conical in shape like a modern bullet is, it also had a depresion in the back. The explosion from the gunpoweder would expand the depresion in the bullet causing it to spread out to make contact with the rifling in the barrel. Smoke less poweder foweled the gun less.

What made reload times shorter was the fulminated mercury cap, or percution cap. This replaced the flint and poweder pan. This wored every time and made the rifled musket and all weather weapon. A well drilled solder could fire three aimed shots per minot. This made shoulder to shoulder formations and cavelry charges suicide. This is also why a desisive battle in the civil war was few and far between. Because the ranges of the rifle armies where able to disengage and retreat when things went bad. In a musket army that is impossable. You cannot disengage from a fight thats under 200 hards because you will be ran down and bayoneted in the back.

Slow reload time is not the reason why mass formations where used. It was the inaccuracy of the smooth bore musket. Tactics started to change because of the accuracy of the rifled musket in the American civil war. They did not truely change until after the great war when the machine gun finaly proved mass formations suicide.

[Hurlbut]

It was the fire rate that kept the line formation in use. What happen when you have a cavalry force engage a broken formation of men armed with muzzle-loading rifled muskets?

[Awetugiw]

As we discussed in one of these threads a while back, there is no particular reason to use mass formations and salvos just because your weapons are inaccurate. Using inaccurate weapons makes you want your enemy to use a close formation, but your own formation has no significant impact on the amount of shots you hit with. (A loose, fire at will formation will in fact kill slightly more people, because there is less chance an enemy gets hit by multiple bullets at once.) A "wall of lead" doesn't kill more enemies, it just kills them all at once.

Salvos and close formations will often have a higher morale impact, and are much less vulnerable in melee combat. They are however more vulnerable to inaccurate gunfire and artillery.

It is therefore smart to use a close formation if most battles are decided with bayonets and cavalry charges, and to use a loose formation if gunfire and artillery are the largest factor.

[Egiam]

I have a question.:smallconfused:
What do the german prefixes Sturm (Sturmsgewehr, Sturmspanzer) and Jagd (Jagdpanzer, jagdpanther) mean?

[Neon Knight]

Sturm translates roughly as storm. Jagd means hunter. I think it's derived from the word Jaeger.

Those are, of course, rough, informal, pop culture translations. An expert in German can probably tell you more, like the exact connotations of the word.

[Joran]

I have a question.:smallconfused:
What do the german prefixes Sturm (Sturmsgewehr, Sturmspanzer) and Jagd (Jagdpanzer, jagdpanther) mean?

Using various free sources, Sturm seems to mean "storm" and Jagd seems to mean "hunt".

P.S. Ninja'ed.
P.S.S. Another reminder, Egiam. Your quote in your signature is misattributed.

[Dervag]

Umm no. This is not correct...I think the statements you make below are largely true, but that you're missing an important piece of the picture.


The reason armies still used tight line formations was because tactics did not catch up to the weapons of the time. The rifle. Tight line formations where not used because of the time it took to load a musket. It was the inharent inacuracy of the weapon that made the tactic of shoulder to shoulder line formations nessasary.As others point out, inaccurate weapons do not require you to stand shoulder to shoulder in combat. Slow-firing weapons, especially slow-firing weapons with a short range, require you to stand in tight lines. This is because if the enemy really wants to, they will be able to charge through your fire. You can't shoot enough bullets at them to stop them. If your weapon takes fifteen seconds or more to reload, and is almost completely ineffective past one or two hundred meters, the enemy will be able to charge you and stab you in the face before you get off more than three or four shots.

To avoid being stabbed in the face by the angry charging man, you need to be fighting in a tight formation that can repel a melee attack.

The accuracy of your weapon is a side issue compared to your rate of fire. Submachine guns aren't much more accurate than smoothbore muskets, but if SMGs had been available back then, fighting in tight formation would have been useless and dumb. Because in that case, individual soldiers would have carried enough firepower to repel a melee attack without needing buddies with bayonets on either side of them.
_______________


Alot of shots will miss there intended target, but they will hit somthing because they where fired in mass.Why would firing in mass increase the number of hits? The muskets are no more accurate when fired in vollies. Individual fire should be just as accurate.


Back to tactics. Mass formations where used through the end of the Great War (thats WWI). The rifle in the U.S. civil war is almost perfectly paralels the machine gun in the Great War. All the way down to trench warfar. During the corse of the civil war both the south and the north started using lose formations.Loose formations were in use for skirmishers long before the American Civil War. The definition of "skirmishers" is, for all practical purposes, "a unit that can't repel a determined melee attack on its position."

Looser formations were in use everywhere by World War One. Bolt-action rifles did indeed make close-order melee combat formations obsolete, and everyone realized it. Exceptions found only in cases where an attacker was deliberately using "human wave" tactics to overwhelm enemy positions. Most of the time, close order formations were not used. In fact, they became steadily less popular throughout the Great War, especially after the catastrophic failure of the Somme Offensive.

Today, all armies fight as skirmishers in loose formation, because armies no longer need to repel a melee attack. They can simply shoot fast enough to kill anyone who approaches them, making melee combat formations obsolete.
_________________


Smoke less poweder foweled the gun less.Smokeless powder was not available until the very end of the 19th century. Civil War muzzleloading rifles used blackpowder. So did early breechloading rifles such as the Prussian Dreyse needle gun, the French chassepot, and the British Martini-Henry. So, for that matter, did the first generation of repeating breechloaders such as the American Winchester and the British Lee-Metford.

Note that all these rifles used percussion caps. The percussion cap came several decades before smokeless powder.
_________________


Slow reload time is not the reason why mass formations where used. It was the inaccuracy of the smooth bore musket.Even if smoothbores had been perfectly accurate weapons, as good as a modern rifle, their rate of fire would have been a tremendous weakness. You cannot consistently stop a determined attack by men determined to close into melee if you can only fire one shot into their ranks every fifteen seconds.

[Joran]

A musket is a very inacurat weapon. The barrel is smooth and the ball is alot smaller than the diamater of the barrel. For one major reason. The poweder used at the time foweled the barrel emencely. A soldier had to be able to ram a ball down the barrel after multaple fireings. If it had a tight fit a solder would soon not be able to ram it down. The musket ball almost litarly tumbled out of the barrel when fired. The effective range for an indavidual musketeer would have been maybe 50 yards.

The musket, at least during the American Revolutionary War, wasn't by itself inaccurate.

A well-drilled soldier could put five out of six shots into a man-sized target at 80 yards in a minute. That's not too bad, but due to tactics (emphasizing volume of fire compared to marksmanship), lack of training, and battlefield conditions, more of the blame for inaccuracy can be put on the shooter rather than the gun.

Also, at least for the American side, soldiers loaded their muskets with buck and ball. This consisted of both the regular musketball and up to three smaller caliber balls. It's akin to a mini-shotgun and probably increased hit rates at close range.

[Kelmon]

Sturm translates roughly as storm. Jagd means hunter. I think it's derived from the word Jaeger.

Those are, of course, rough, informal, pop culture translations. An expert in German can probably tell you more, like the exact connotations of the word.
Not an expert in german, just from Germany ;)

The literal translations Sturm = Storm and Jagd = Hunt are quite correct, however in this context "Sturm" should be more correctly translated as "charge" (or "charging"). The corresponding verb ("stürmen") means "to overrun an enemy position".

[Neon Knight]

Which is how we got the term assault rifle. Supposedly.

[Swordguy]

Which is how we got the term assault rifle. Supposedly.

Sturmgewehr indeed.



Also, at least for the American side, soldiers loaded their muskets with buck and ball. This consisted of both the regular musketball and up to three smaller caliber balls. It's akin to a mini-shotgun and probably increased hit rates at close range.

Can you provide a citation which states this was the "default" loading for Continental Regulars? I'm not saying it wasn't used, but I didn't think it was used as a matter of course.

[Mike_G]

The musket, at least during the American Revolutionary War, wasn't by itself inaccurate.

A well-drilled soldier could put five out of six shots into a man-sized target at 80 yards in a minute.


I doubt a man could fire six round per minute with a muzzle loading musket. That's ten seconds to retrieve a cartridge, bite the end off, pour the powder in, insert the ball and wadding, ram it down, **** the weapon, place the percussion cap, aim and fire.

I saw a test where re-enactors tried a live fire drill as fast and accurately as they could, and averaged two rounds per minute with one hit at 80 yards. Now, these are overweight history buffs who like to dress up on the weekend, not soldiers, but I think that's closer to what you'd see than six rounds with five hits.

Besides which, the standard arm of the US Army in 1861 was the Springfield rifled musket. Still a muzzle loader, it was rifled for accuracy, but slower to load than a smoothbore, as the bullet fit tight to the barrel. Seen here: http://www.nps.gov/archive/anti/rifles.htm The same site mentions the loading drill and specifies an expected rate of three rounds per minute by trained troops.

Any enemy that can't cover your effective range in one minute and bayonet your ass isn't trying.

[Hawriel]

To Dervag

Im sorry I didnt quote it but you said that no matter the accuracy if the enemy really wants to, a determined assalt cannot be stoped. This is untrue. My evidents is, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor, The Seven Days Battle, I can go on. I can some it up to one word though, Picket.

These battles all had infintry assalts in them they all failed. No matter what side eventualy won that particular battle or campaign the assalts failed. Emery Upton did creat tactics for assalting fortafied possiotions, but his success was in part do to his use of the rolling turaine in Verginia and how to keep the units organized when a breach was made. Lee, the Jominian fanboy, loved the frontal assalt. Which I cant rap my head around because he understood manuver. Then again it was the thinking of the time.

Organization was the other major factor in using dence formations. There was no radio. I know you (Dervag) and every one els knows this. I just mention it because some times peaple take modern communication for granted. Close formations kept the men whare the officers wanted them. It made it easyer for the junier officers and NCOs to hear commands and act acordingly. It also was a matter of dissapline and moral to resist a melee charge. However in the American Civil whare This was a very rare thing. Not many peaple where killed by the bayonet. The rifle was the number one cause of death in combat. Artillery not far behind.

Your right the rifle was issued to the U.S. army in 1861. However that army was not very big. The vast magority of regiments where guard and militia units. They did not fully change over until the second year of the war. As for the minie ball it was smaller than the diamiter of the barrel. Thats the whole inovation of the minie ball. It is the reason why rifles became a viable standard weapon for armies.

http://www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_minieball.html

[Joran]

Can you provide a citation which states this was the "default" loading for Continental Regulars? I'm not saying it wasn't used, but I didn't think it was used as a matter of course.
The assertions about ammo and rate of fire are from Lawrence Babits' book A Devil of a Whipping, a history of the Battle of Cowpens. Luckily for me, when I looked it up, Google Books has a preview with the passage I took it from, page 13.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vTTlfVNtWIkC

Unfortunately, the citation that Babits' used is not in the preview and my copy is at my parent's house, but I can look it up if you so desire.

P.S. I think I accidentally conflated "possible" with "expected" when talking about rate of fire.

[Hurlbut]

To Dervag

Im sorry I didnt quote it but you said that no matter the accuracy if the enemy really wants to, a determined assalt cannot be stoped.
Didn't he said that a loose/broken formation cannot stand up to a determined assault? And argued that when the fire rate vastly improved in the years after the Civil War, it then become posible for a broken/loose formation to repel a determined assault by a massed formation.

[Storm Bringer]

like others, aggreing with most of what you say. Just a few points I'd like to expand upon.


Lee, the Jominian fanboy, loved the frontal assalt. Which I cant rap my head around because he understood manuver. Then again it was the thinking of the time

The gettysburg frontal attacks are usually explained as Lee totally lacking the sort of scouting and intel that would allow a flank attack to happen. quite simply, his cav commander had run off on a raid with all his scouts and recon assets. He simply didn't know where the union line ended, wouldn't know if the line shifted between him ordering a flank attack and the attack starting, and wouldn't be able to see a shifting of reserves to meet the attack. he could only see the line on the hill ahead of him. without any knowledge of where the union line ended, he couldn't attempt a flanking manuver, because he didn't know where to flank.

And, lest we forget, it was the thinking of the time because it worked in the last major conflict between major powers, the nepoleonic wars. the generals were doing what any sensible person would do and basing thier training on the tried and tested tactics they knew about. most of the techologies that really changed the way wars worked (in particular percussion rifles) had been introduces within the last decade or so. the operational experience of the commanders in the civil war (mostly gained in the US-mexican war) confirmed what they all thought: that the tactical situation had not changed.


It also was a matter of dissapline and moral to resist a melee charge. However in the American Civil whare This was a very rare thing. Not many peaple where killed by the bayonet. The rifle was the number one cause of death in combat. Artillery not far behind.

This has always been a very rare thing. In the 20-odd years of the nepoleonic wars, the british were involved in less than half a dozen stand-up bayonet fights against infantry. this is not to say that bayonet charges were not launched on a regular basis, just that one side nearly always broke and ran before contact. the major use of the bayonet was to stop cav attacks overrunning the line.



Organization was the other major factor in using dence formations. There was no radio. I know you (Dervag) and every one els knows this. I just mention it because some times peaple take modern communication for granted. Close formations kept the men whare the officers wanted them. It made it easyer for the junier officers and NCOs to hear commands and act acordingly

not just that. As we all agree on, the majority of the troops in the US civil war were mostly militia and other non-professional units. they hadn't been together long, many had not used a gun before, and they weren't drilled to the extent of the regluars. All this would affect what sort of tactics you could attempt with them, at least at the start. you'd be forced to use basic tactics, simply because the troops were not able to attempt more advanced ones.

and, as you point out, it was not possible to exercise direct control beyond the limits of earshot. anyone not physically very close to their commander was effectivly beyond reach of higher command.

[Om]

It was the fire rate that kept the line formation in use. What happen when you have a cavalry force engage a broken formation of men armed with muzzle-loading rifled muskets?Ah but I never questioned that. However a cavalry charge against infantry armed with breech loaded rifles (which entered 'mass' production from roughly 1850 onwards) was suicide. What interests me is the two decade lag between this development and the abandonment of close formations. Even greater if you include the Great War


when all is said, you can only base your doctrine and training on what you know. and if no one has fought a major war in 40 years, then you'll enter the next war with a doctrine based on that war 40 years ago. thier is a limit on how much you can extrapolate based on peacetime exercises and testing of new equipment. If you let your doctrine run ahead of your practical experience, you run the risk that your doctrine will turn out to be completly useless under combat stesses.I don't agree with that at all. Previous experience is of course vital but any army that prepares to fight the last war is destined to fail. Doctrine, theory, training... all these take part in peace time and, while obviously drawing of previous experience, they invariably evolve and take form during interwar periods. The most obvious examples of course being the WWII Wehrmacht and Red Army - two organisations that went to war with extremely modern doctrinal bases that were formed during peace and were only minimally influenced by WWI

Of course this makes the slaughter of WWI even more unforgivable. Theorists such as Bloch had correctly anticipated the nightmarish realities of industrial warfare and yet the top brass refused to listen or innovate. This is particularly damning given that they had been given a real example to study! The Franco-Prussian War demonstrated the three fundamental changes to warfare that would dominate the next conflict:

The need for broken rank tactics
The obsolescence of the cavalry
The dominance of the artillery

Despite the fact that the Franco-Prussian War was the most studied conflict of its time (comparable to the attention that Soviet and US 'experts' paid to WWII in half a century of Cold War) the military leaders still managed to blunder into the disaster of 1914-'18. So despite obsessively studying the previous conflict they learned nothing. The example was there and they fluffed it

[Subotei]

Its a bit unfair to blame the Top Brass totally - politcal interference - the demand for an advance before the time was ripe - were equally to blame. The British Somme attack was a case in point - the location and timing of the attacks were forced on the military by the Government keen to help the French recover from Verdun - the Generals certainly didn't want to attack over that ground.

The real problem with WWI tactics - certainly after trench warfare set - was that the generals had inadequate command and control over the battlefield. Significant gains were often made in well planned initial assaults, but due to the lack of decent comms reinforcements were generally not sent in in time to the exploit the success before the enemy could counter attack. What usually happened was that reinforcements were fed in piecemeal after any chance of a successful breakthrough was gone - reinforcing failure, which is never a good idea. That was the unforgivable part - not the type of tactics employed.

Oh - and thanks Om for that link you sent a while ago - been away quite a bit and forgot to reply.

[Joran]

Something I've always wondered as I read sci-fi books.

What sound would a high-powered laser weapon make? I'm specifically interested in something powerful enough to blast a hole and kill a person rather than simply blind.

I assume also that there won't be a visible trail, only a dot on the target and boom.

[Subotei]

There would be some kind of flash too I would think - all that light energy being absorbed and then re-radiated would give off some kind of light. Perhaps noise and light like a welding arc?

[Mando Knight]

What sound would a high-powered laser weapon make? I'm specifically interested in something powerful enough to blast a hole and kill a person rather than simply blind.

Ommminous hummm....

The actual sound of a high-powered laser weapon would depend on the sounds made by the machinery producing the laser, as a beam of light itself has no sound. Similar to how a jet engine sounds completely different from a rocket engine, despite the fact that they both burn fuel to create thrust.

[Joran]

The actual sound of a high-powered laser weapon would depend on the sounds made by the machinery producing the laser, as a beam of light itself has no sound. Similar to how a jet engine sounds completely different from a rocket engine, despite the fact that they both burn fuel to create thrust.


With very poor physics knowledge, I guess it would make a sound like thunder. Would a laser superheat the air just like lightning would?

[Swordguy]

With very poor physics knowledge, I guess it would make a sound like thunder. Would a laser superheat the air just like lightning would?

Yes - there'd be a sharp crack. A laser strong enough to be battlefield worthy is carrying a considerably larger amount of heat energy than your average lightning bolt. A couple of physicists and the materials engineer who does all the technical writing for the game over on the Classic Battletech boards worked out the math to figure out the answer the the exact same question some time ago.

Lasers are invisible (unless you include a VL "tracer" effect), but they are not silent.

[Neon Knight]

Query: How does one best horse archers?

[Om]

Its a bit unfair to blame the Top Brass totally - politcal interference - the demand for an advance before the time was ripe - were equally to blameOh don't get me started on the military brass of the WWI. The collective bungling of these butchers, not to mention sheer professional incompetence, is staggering. Their failure to learn their lessons in the previous decades (aside from shooting up natives) was the least of their crimes


Query: How does one best horse archers?Answer: Gunpowder. It was the rise of the 'Gunpowder Empires' that eventually brought an end to the dominance of the horsemen on the steppes

[Matthew]

Query: How does one best horse archers?

Depends what you want to do. A steady and solid line of footmen mixed with bowmen and crossbowmen will generally resist and repel light horsemen. Fortifications and broken terrain will similarly prove a reliable defense. If you want to take them down in a general offense, you are going to need light horsemen of your own, or else armoured horsemen to close down their options.

In terms of offensive capability, light horsebowmen are generally not up to much, which is why they generally operate in conjunction with heavy horsemen, and various types of footmen. What they are great for quick raids, screening, and harassing the enemy at range (maybe even drawing him out or into a prepared killing ground).

For the most part, you just have to grin and bear it, as at Arsuf, unless you're willing to commit your own horsemen (or they decide to commit themselves).

[Dervag]

You need comparable levels of training and discipline.

The Mongols gave horse archers an inflated reputation for military effectiveness. They deserved that reputation, but the general run of horse archers do not; the Mongols could stomp all over most other horse archer armies too. The Mongols trained for the light cavalry archer role about as thoroughly as the Spartans trained for the heavy infantry phalanx role, and in both cases the result was a truly exceptional fighting force.

With a combination of discipline (so that the horse archers can't split your army up into little groups) and some kind of ranged weapon (so you can shoot back from a stable platform), horse archers will have a very hard time breaking your army. That won't allow you to win by itself, but it's a start.

Also, horse archers tend to be tribally organized nomads. That means that the first step to beating them is to lay the political groundwork: split the tribes and play them off against each other. Part of Ghengis Khan's genius was in uniting his Mongols before sending them against other enemies. By making it impossible for his enemies to play his nomads off against each other, and by taking out rival nomad civilizations, Ghengis Khan removed that weakness.

[KnightDisciple]

Yes - there'd be a sharp crack. A laser strong enough to be battlefield worthy is carrying a considerably larger amount of heat energy than your average lightning bolt. A couple of physicists and the materials engineer who does all the technical writing for the game over on the Classic Battletech boards worked out the math to figure out the answer the the exact same question some time ago.

Lasers are invisible (unless you include a VL "tracer" effect), but they are not silent.

Isn't Battletech better than a lot of fictions in that regard? I recall reading the affects of lasers in the books, and realizing it seemed closer to what might actually happen.
Of course, this may be negated with the realism of other weapons systems from that universe...

[Crow]

Would the heat generated by such a laser be enough to ignite the air around it, making it "visable"?

[Swordguy]

Would the heat generated by such a laser be enough to ignite the air around it, making it "visable"?

Yes, but it's as a bright flash, not as a sci-fi "beam" of red or green light. Essentially, the air superheats into oblivion (flash) and the air around it rushes in to fill the vacuum (crack).

However, in a medium such as space (where the same lasers are used on fightercraft or WarShips, there's no flash nor sound. It would also be different on other worlds with different atmospheric makeups.



Isn't Battletech better than a lot of fictions in that regard? I recall reading the affects of lasers in the books, and realizing it seemed closer to what might actually happen.
Of course, this may be negated with the realism of other weapons systems from that universe...

It's better, but only in degrees. CBT looks at something and says "lets ignore the physical principles that say this SHOULDN'T work" (like, for example, the existence of Mechs as a viable battlefield asset, FTL travel, and, especially, power generation) and then says "within the parameters of assuming this exists at all, how would it work in a universe constrained by the same physical principles as our own?" Which is appropriate, since it's supposed to represent our universe about a thousand years hence.

This is why space-going WarShips, for example, are basically skyscrapers turned on their side - because a reaction drive on the aft will make "down" as towards the aft of the ship, rather than true "down" like you see in Star Wars. It's just that the amount of power generated by the ship is equal to the annual output of a medium-sized planet. A single areospace fighter burns the annual energy output of the United States - in a single sortie.

Don't get me wrong - the Rule of Cool is very much in play in CBT - but they try to base things off of RL physical principles whenever feasible. The other thing to remember is that BattleTech is the future of the 1980's. NOT the future of the 2000's. There's a tremendous difference, especially when you look at in-game computing power...

[KnightDisciple]

You've got a pretty good summation there.
I was particularly thinking of the way they described lasers basically melting armor; no explosions, and the only real physical reaction is due to the energy of lots of metal suddenly being half-vaporised.
As for their "lets ignore these certain things, then work within those parameters" idea...Maybe that's one reason I've liked it. I think that often, that can make some of the better sci-fi out there, rather than something with jumbled technobabble *cough*Star Trek*cough*.
Plus, Battletech lets me have MOAR DAKKA. That's never bad.

[Hurlbut]

As for their "lets ignore these certain things, then work within those parameters" idea...Maybe that's one reason I've liked it.That would be "self-consistency"

[Dervag]

Laser light will scatter off anything in the path of the beam, including dust particles and the target. For an intense beam, the kind that can blast through armor plate in tiny fractions of a second, the sidescatter is correspondingly intense.

It's quite possible that if you catch a look at the scatter from such a beam when you aren't wearing eye protection, you'll never see again.

[Swordguy]

So way back in this post:



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.


I, obviously, referenced a video. I've been trying to track down that video since then in response to intrigued PMs. To my chagrin, I've been unable to find a direct video (but BOY have I found lots of people who reference this video in forum posts!). My search has hit two dead ends:

1) The last paragraph on page 11 of this (http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ete0zPAnjwC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=cut+a+machine+gun+barrel+in+half&source=web&ots=YQiPqZytvz&sig=toctOIHz_IXDdpt6dBN5LAhXfxE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA11,M1) book references the video, and provides a footnote for the video. That footnote is for page 118 of Nippon-to,: The Japanese sword, by Inami Hakusui. This is evidently a horribly rare book (going for $250+ on Amazon as of this writing, and $700+ elsewhere) and I'm unable to proceed in my investigation. Does anyone out there have access to a copy of the book and can see what's being cited?

2) There are several references out there in cyberspace to a video of an M1917 water-cooled machine-gun barrel being cut in half by a Japanese officer during the 26-episode 1974 BBC Documentary Series "The World at War". Again, does anyone have access to this source to verify and possibly rip video for confirmation?

I can't go any further, I think, without assistance on this one. I hate making claims I can't back up with evidence - I swear I saw the video, but everywhere I check leads back to these sources.

[Spiryt]

I remember that MythBusters tried out this myth - result was that it's indeed a myth - and IIRC this famous video was shown as a source of the myth. I can be wrong though.

[Subotei]

Laser light will scatter off anything in the path of the beam, including dust particles and the target. For an intense beam, the kind that can blast through armor plate in tiny fractions of a second, the sidescatter is correspondingly intense.

It's quite possible that if you catch a look at the scatter from such a beam when you aren't wearing eye protection, you'll never see again.

Being caught in the area of laser fire-fight would be quite hazardous I would imagine even if you're not the target. Most of such future lasers would be high UV, X-ray or Gamma ray weapons, as the energy imparted is so much higher than visible light spectrum weapons. Shielded goggles/welding mask type protection would be needed to protect anyone in the vecinity. In fact it would always be safer to observe the battlefield using sensors than to ever expose your own eyes to the risk - chances are the enemy would be playing low intesity laser light over suspected positions or possible lines of advance just to dazzle sensors and blind anyone stupid enough to look out unprotected.

The British used low energy lasers to protect their ships during the Falklands War in 1982 - many Argentine pilots claimed they were dazzled when engaging ships during the British landings. This type of use is likely to become more common.

[Matthew]

I can't go any further, I think, without assistance on this one. I hate making claims I can't back up with evidence - I swear I saw the video, but everywhere I check leads back to these sources.

I have watched the series you're referring to, but it was a long while ago. They occasionally repeat it over here on various channels, but I don't know which episode it would appear in.

Personally, I like the more modern video where they shoot a katana with a machine gun... For Your Viewing Pleasure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHTJAKN-5k).

[Storm Bringer]

I have a question for you guys:

to what extent was the techological 'advances' of the 2nd world war a result of actual breakthoughs, as oppsed to the refinment of existing ideas/ equipment catching up with the state of the art?

In most cases, as far as i can tell, a lot of the 'new' techology was already around at the start of the war, and just reached maturity during it (for example, Radar, or the jet engine).

This In particullay seems the case with tanks. Both the Panzer IV and T-34, two of the most successful designs of the war, were in production at the start of the war. While a late war panzer IV is unargueably much more powrful than it's early war predecessor, I'm not aware of it being more techologically advanced, just carrying a longer gun and trading speed for heavier armour. As far as I can tell, thier was nothing that stopped the german army form building it's late-war form in 1939, beyond a inability to see a need for such a heavily armoured/armed tank.

Am i wrong? Am i missing some critical invention or was it simply a case of the equipment stagnating under a lack of nesscity?

[Kemper Boyd]

As far as I can tell, thier was nothing that stopped the german army form building it's late-war form in 1939, beyond a inability to see a need for such a heavily armoured/armed tank.

Am i wrong? Am i missing some critical invention or was it simply a case of the equipment stagnating under a lack of nesscity?

The early-war tanks and their weapons and gear were designed in accordance to peacetime theory. Late-war tanks as they appeared were the product of war experience, along with the weapons they carried.

[Eorran]

In most cases, as far as i can tell, a lot of the 'new' techology was already around at the start of the war, and just reached maturity during it (for example, Radar, or the jet engine).

...

Am i wrong? Am i missing some critical invention or was it simply a case of the equipment stagnating under a lack of nesscity?

Realistically, any piece of "new" equipment appearing on the battlefield / marketplace / commercial production has probably existed for several years as a prototype, and usually for a decade or so as a lab-scale development. It's easy to underestimate the difficulty in turning the new concept into a workable mechanic, especially in large scale. I don't have any experience with military hardware, but I can tell you that in a technical field, incorporating a single piece of new technology onto an existing platform will usually mean several months of adjustments in order to get everything working the way it's supposed to.
There was recently an oil production platform in the Gulf of Mexico built incorporating about 80 new design components (ones that company hadn't used before, though others had). The cumulative effect of all this new equipment resulted in several years of delay before the platform could start up.

[Swordguy]

Very, VERy few systems debuted in wartime are whole-cloth "new" weapon.

The STG-44, the very first Assault Rifle, for example, looks like a good candidate for this. It was developed entirely during WWII, using an intermediate cartridge that was also developed during this time. However, it's just a firearm. It doesn't use any new conceptual technology. Mechanically speaking, it's not very different from the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun, in that it uses a gas operating system, a trigger group, and a detachable magazine. It did debut the first roller-delayed blowback operating system , but blowback systems in general were in use in the Schwarzlose MG M.07/12 machine gun, which goes back to 1904 at least. So, although it looks like a new technology, it just takes several existing technologies and refines them to produce a new effect. Thus, disqualified.

The only thing I can think of offhand that might fit your qualifications would be the development of the atom bomb.

[Dervag]

On the other hand, a bunch of new technologies that started with research during the war came to fruition afterwards. Supersonic aircraft bodies, ejection seats for fighters, shaped charge weapons, nuclear power plants (bombs came during the war, power plants after), a variety of interesting industrial chemicals, and the programmable computer were all products of WWII-vintage research.
_______

As for tanks, there were at least a few basic innovations in design, though they were mostly incremental. Nobody invented a radically new kind of engine or anything, but if you look at the design some significant things changed. For example, the Germans put quite a bit of effort into minimizing their tanks' profile; this wasn't something anyone had worked at before. The low, ground-hugging design of the StuG III is an example. Standard antitank armament (if I recall rightly) went from solid shot to HEAT rounds. Track guards were, to the best of my knowledge, a war-era invention.

These are not big things, but they're the kind of things that you can actually implement in the middle of a shooting war without having to spend ten years working the bugs out of a radical new design concept.

[Raum]

Sloped armor was probably the most revolutionary tank innovation of WW2. If I remember correctly the T-34 was the first production tank using it.

[Om]

As far as I can tell, thier was nothing that stopped the german army form building it's late-war form in 1939, beyond a inability to see a need for such a heavily armoured/armed tankWell why build a massively armoured behmouth when no gun can come close to penetrating it? That's just a new set of design challenges and a waste of resources. Similarly, why place a heavy gun on a tank (which were never designed as AT weapons in the first place) when the current one is adquate to piece enemy armour?

Experience counts. The Wehrmacht didn't start adopt the medium tank as its standard armour unit until its lighter Panzers were found to seriously struggle during the Battle of France. There was another shift upwards in weight after the T-34 became a very nasty surprise

Of course that's leading aside advances in metallurgy and production required to produce these bigger guns and stronger hulls in the first place. Its not as sexy as the actual hardware but a whole series of industrial advances were arrived at during WWII. Modern operational research, to name a field that I'm familiar with, originated with British efforts to optimise the massively complicated fields of logistics and the war economy

[Subotei]

A few things I can think of that seem to be wholly WWII developments (though I stand to be corrected):

Proximity fuzes 1940
Precision guided weapons (Fritz X) 1939
Chaff 1942

[Edmund]

Query: How does one best horse archers?

On an open plain or steppe, you basically have to get them when they can't run away. In the case of Arsuf, for example, they got tangled up in the infantry, so the heavier Frankish knights could ride in and cut them all down. A similar thing happened in Kulikovo, with the Don river and forests becoming barriers to the horse archers' escape. Ambush is another way to go about it, but that's not really 'on the open field'. Crossbows have proven effective in the past as well, like at Jaffa.

But that's really all you can do in any kind of pitched battle.

Fortification is the only other real option. Steppe armies became, effectively, stumped when they came across stone castles. As an example, Tokhtamysh's was able to ravage Moscow only after he was allowed into the city, claiming that he would not harm it, a promise that was quickly broken. He had earlier attempted to besiege it in earnest and was repulsed. When such trickery did not work, as when Edigei attempted to take the city in 1408, the armies left relatively empty-handed.

In Russia, it must be said, stone fortification was relatively rare, especially before the Teutonic Knights showed up.

[Dervag]

Re: Horse archers

I suspect that any kind of really good foot archers would be able to match or defeat comparable numbers of horse archers in the open field, assuming equal levels of generalship, training, coordination, and discipline. Crossbows are a good example, but longbows would probably work too.
______

What made the Mongols so exceptional and powerful was that they were a horse archer army that learned to master siege warfare. They were better at horse archery and operational coordination than their opponents, so they won most of the open battles in the open field. And unlike normal horse archer forces, they could actually smash their way into your walled city if they really needed to.

Of course, most of their big victories were in parts of the world that, if I recall rightly, weren't castellated. That is, there weren't little fortresses all over the landscape, as in feudal Europe. How well the Mongols would have done if they'd had to deal with lots of fortresses, instead of a few large heavily fortified towns, I don't know.

[Kemper Boyd]

Re: Horse archers
I suspect that any kind of really good foot archers would be able to match or defeat comparable numbers of horse archers in the open field, assuming equal levels of generalship, training, coordination, and discipline. Crossbows are a good example, but longbows would probably work too.

If I remember it correctly, bows used by archers on foot tend to have a longer range than the type of bows used by horse archers. The problem, of course, is that the horse archers always can just charge men on foot unless they are protected by terrain or spearmen.

[Edmund]

Re: Horse archers

I suspect that any kind of really good foot archers would be able to match or defeat comparable numbers of horse archers in the open field, assuming equal levels of generalship, training, coordination, and discipline. Crossbows are a good example, but longbows would probably work too.


Why? Longbows have less range due to the use of heavier European arrows, and less or equal power to horse bows. See Matthew Strickland's The Great Warbow.

Furthermore, horse archers aren't just equipped with bows, and would probably make short work of the comparatively static foot formations. Crossbows have the advantage of greater range, flatter shooting, and more power, but they would need to be backed up by some kind of anti-cavalry defenses (like at Jaffa) to be effective.


What made the Mongols so exceptional and powerful was that they were a horse archer army that learned to master siege warfare. They were better at horse archery and operational coordination than their opponents, so they won most of the open battles in the open field. And unlike normal horse archer forces, they could actually smash their way into your walled city if they really needed to.

Actually, it was Chinese and Islamic siege engineers that were the brains behind siege operations. It is, in my opinion, the wide variety of resources that the Mongols could draw on that made them exceptionally formidable, and the downright size of their armies, especially by the time they reach Baghdad and Kiev. Now, the army in the European steppe was mostly (around 80%) composed of Turkic tribesmen, but that just reinforces the fact that they were huge.

[The Rose Dragon]

What is the standard armaments of the following military units?

1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta
United States Army Special Forces
United States Navy Sea, Air and Land Forces
Special Air Service
Brigade des Forces Spéciales Terre
FSP Spetsnaz
GRU Spetsnaz
United States Army Forces
Russian Ground Forces

Name (preferably the full name as well as a brief description of the piece of equipment as well as the key attributes of the weaponry, such as rate of fire, ammunition used, muzzle velocity, feeding system and whatever else you think is important.

[Satyr]

The traditional tactic against the horse archers of the Magyars under the Ottonians was to send lighter equipped riders at first, let them retreat to lure the Horse archers behind them and when they are near enough, crush them with the heavier Loricati.
Worked at Riade, worked on the Lechfeld.

[Emperor Tippy]

What is the standard armaments of the following military units?

1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta
United States Army Special Forces
United States Navy Sea, Air and Land Forces
Special Air Service
Brigade des Forces Spéciales Terre
All of those lack standard armaments. They tend to use specialized loads for every mission.


FSP Spetsnaz
GRU Spetsnaz
I believe they operate under the same principal as the western special forces groups but I'm not positive of that. I know that the AK is their primary default weapon though (or at least it was as of a few years ago).

[Spiryt]

Why? Longbows have less range due to the use of heavier European arrows, and less or equal power to horse bows. See Matthew Strickland's The Great Warbow.



Ehm, why exactly shouldn't longbowmens use lighter arrows as well? Heavy war arrows were used for maximum punch at lower distances, but if range was needed, no one would use them.

Also, horse bow would be short compared to longbow, not to mention that it would probably have less draw, so it could be used on horse effectively.

I don't know who Matthew Strickland is, but thesis that horse archer's bow were equal power of lenght with foot archer's ones is strange at least.

They say that well made compostie reflexive is more efficent than simple bow, so here eastern horse archers would have some advantage.

[The Rose Dragon]

All of those lack standard armaments. They tend to use specialized loads for every mission.

Well, perhaps standard was the wrong word to use there.

What does the armament depend on? Environment, opposition, etc.? Maybe you should explain so I can be more specific.

[sleepy]

Composite reflex bows bows store more energy by being braced more tightly. The bow is effectively part drawn before you even start, so the easy-to-bend part is not wasted draw distance. The reflexed tips provide a leverage advantage to draw such a bow by raising the string angle. There is an effect where the string doesn't "lift off" the reflex corners until a certain point, and draws harder before then. This gives you a convex power curve instead of a linear one (a 60lb bow stores power as if an 80lb bow until it's almost drawn, then the last few pounds are pulled with the leverage advantage) that doesn't require any more maximum strength to draw back, but requires more strength at most inches of draw so throws the arrow harder.

A european bow made like this would definitely break. Asiatic composite bows are made of a composite materials... wood alone can't handle that much stress, so they added layer(s) of horn. These horns are from things like water buffaloe and are very elastic, unlike antler. They are actually so elastic that they need to be stretched very tightly before they have much spring to them; it takes a lot of force to actually get the taught, otherwise they're kinda limp. Hence, again, the reflexed design.

Also spiryt is right about arrows being a major consideration when comparing maximum ranges. Flight arrows are good for horsebow users because that sort of cavalry is for harrying and hit-and-run tactics, where shooting from far off then running away is good, and would likely be picking at the flanks where there is massed infantry. English longbow yeomen were typically shooting french knights in full plate. Think putting an arrow through a dumpster. They used the middle ages equivilent of depleated uranium shells.

[Spiryt]

The bow is effectively part drawn before you even start, so the easy-to-bend part is not wasted draw distance.

This I guess is the matter of maker's skill also, beacuse in some longbow shots this "easy to bend part" is visible with bare eye, while in some other this problem isn't so visible.

Longbows also most certainly had reflexed tips (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iWhcDiZt1Jw), although they of course weren't reflex as whole.

Also a question:

Here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8THYdtvRU&feature=user) is an example of laminated longbow... I also know few polish craftsmen who make laminated longbows... Still comparably "simple" and homogenous construction, still yew, but with laminate.

Does anybody know if something like that was practiced in medieval, and what possible advantages it has?

[Tsotha-lanti]

Re: Horse archers

I suspect that any kind of really good foot archers would be able to match or defeat comparable numbers of horse archers in the open field, assuming equal levels of generalship, training, coordination, and discipline. Crossbows are a good example, but longbows would probably work too.

What's the logic? If they're otherwise equal, but the horse archers have the advantage of mobility and the option of closing (a light cavalry charge will still break foot-archers, surely?), I can't see how the foot-archers would have a chance.


Well, perhaps standard was the wrong word to use there.

What does the armament depend on? Environment, opposition, etc.? Maybe you should explain so I can be more specific.

It depends on what they're trying to do. Different weapons have different uses. SMGs are for close-quarters indoors combat. Handguns are "in case." Assault/battle/combat rifles are for long-range combat. Bolt-action rifles are for sniping.

In, say, hostage situations and other urban/inside operations, you'd probably see SMGs and handguns, maybe shotguns. In "regular", open combat operations, you'd see assault/combat rifles, probably of a specialized variety (designated marksman rifles, the FN SCAR), along with squad support weapons (light machine guns, etc.).

The weapons will likely come from whatever arsenal the army or branch the unit belongs to maintains. Deltas and Green Berets (USSF) have access to SCARs, M16-A2s and the countless variants, MP-5s and variants, M4s, Barrett M82s, Beretta 92Fs, Colt M1911s, USP Tacticals, H&K Mk23s, and so on. The variety of weapons available to special forces is not only incredibly broad, but almost certainly not publicized. (And military versions of many weapons tend to have weird designations instead of names, making them a bit hard to recognize.

I wouldn't be surprised if members of units like the Deltas and SAS get to pick weapons by personal preference, since uniformity of ammunition isn't that much of a concern for such small units operating in such specialized missions, usually separated from supplies altogether. (The main reason why the US forces will never stop using 5.56mmN weapons is that they have too damn much money invested in the enormous stockpiles of 5.56mmN rounds.)

Edit:

Oh yeah, and "United States Army Forces" isn't a unit, it's a branch ofthe US military. The actual units have very varied armaments dependent on their roles. Vehicle crews have handguns and M4s, most "grunts" will have M16-A2s, designated marksmen will have DMRs, and so on. The same goes for Russian ground forces.

[Neon Knight]

Oh yeah, and "United States Army Forces" isn't a unit, it's a branch ofthe US military. The actual units have very varied armaments dependent on their roles. Vehicle crews have handguns and M4s, most "grunts" will have M16-A2s, designated marksmen will have DMRs, and so on. The same goes for Russian ground forces.

Actually, haven spoken with some servicemen who've been to Iraq and back, M4's are more likely to be found in front-line infantry units. M-16's are more likely to be A4s than A2s, at least in infantry groups. (When I went to basic, infantry recruits got A4s. POG recruits got A2s.) You also forgot to mention LMGs, like the FN M249, and machine guns like the FN MAG and M-60. (Which, btw, my brother oddly preferred to the SAW while he was deployed in Afghanistan.)

The Russian Armed forces are so massive and so diverse, both special forces and regular army, that I wouldn't want to hazard a guess beyond stating that the standard service rifle is the AK-74.

Most Wikipedia pages on the armed forces in question can at least list likely candidates for armaments.

[Spiryt]

What's the logic? If they're otherwise equal, but the horse archers have the advantage of mobility and the option of closing (a light cavalry charge will still break foot-archers, surely?), I can't see how the foot-archers would have a chance.


They aren't equal. They're different types of units. Horse archers as mentioned must use much shorter and less powerful bows, but more importantly the other tactics of shooting. Shooting from horse is more difficult and not as accurate- if horse is moving even slightly, shot can be very different for example.

Foot archers can form a classic deep formation to send voleys of arrows at enemy. Doing the same thing with horses won't be as easy and effecive AFAIK.
Tactic of shooting from horse is more pinching thing.

If charge will break archer is tough question, beacuse it depends on "secondary" equipment and skills or archer units. I think that indeed mounted would have more chances but they will also have horses vulnerable to arrows, for example (probably not big and unarmoured)

[Dervag]

If I remember it correctly, bows used by archers on foot tend to have a longer range than the type of bows used by horse archers. The problem, of course, is that the horse archers always can just charge men on foot unless they are protected by terrain or spearmen.Foot archers can use and reload larger, clumsier bows. Just as gunpowder cavalrymen had to use pistols simply because it was impossible to reload a musket while sitting on a horse, horse archers have to use short bows.

Over time, the horse archers came up with a lot of very clever ways to pack as much power and range as possible into a short bow. They developed bows made out of a composite of different materials glued together. They developed deeper draws that let them pull the string back farther and store more energy in the bow. But all those techniques had limits, and foot archers could match them if need be.

Of course, the archers on foot can be charged by horse archers. But at that point the horse archers have decided to act as light melee cavalry, and the techniques for repelling lightly armored melee cavalry are well known.
___________


Why? Longbows have less range due to the use of heavier European arrows, and less or equal power to horse bows. See Matthew Strickland's The Great Warbow.OK, I sit corrected. That said, if you needed to counter horse archers, I think you could do it with longbows if you gave a bit of thought to it. You might have to modify the arrows for extended range, but I think you could do it. Is there some reason I'm wrong?

So while the Welsh longbow of the 13th and 14th centuries might well have been poorly equipped to defeat the Mongol horse archers of the 12th and 13th centuries, I expect that if archers with longbows had to deal with horse archers, they could modify their tactics and equipment slightly and become able to repel them.

Crossbows would likely be preferable for a whole lot of reasons, but they require a certain amount of mechanical ingenuity in the defending civilization.


Furthermore, horse archers aren't just equipped with bows, and would probably make short work of the comparatively static foot formations. Crossbows have the advantage of greater range, flatter shooting, and more power, but they would need to be backed up by some kind of anti-cavalry defenses (like at Jaffa) to be effective.So would archers armed with simple bows, I agree. But there are well known tactics for stopping cavalry from closing to melee, such as pike phalanxes and shield walls. The reason those tactics don't work against horse archers is because the archers can break your line from fifty or a hundred yards away and then destroy your army in the confusion.

But as long as your army has adequate ranged weapons with which to shoot back at the horse archers, you should be able to stop them from breaking you in this way. Of course, you still have a problem if they hit you when you aren't formed up and ready to receive the attack.


Actually, it was Chinese and Islamic siege engineers that were the brains behind siege operations. It is, in my opinion, the wide variety of resources that the Mongols could draw on that made them exceptionally formidable, and the downright size of their armies, especially by the time they reach Baghdad and Kiev. Now, the army in the European steppe was mostly (around 80%) composed of Turkic tribesmen, but that just reinforces the fact that they were huge.I was referring to the Mongols as a political group, not an ethnic group. Thus, the Chinese and Islamic siege engineers were the people I was referring to when I said that the Mongols "learned to master siege warfare." I was not clear enough. Sorry.


What's the logic? If they're otherwise equal, but the horse archers have the advantage of mobility and the option of closing (a light cavalry charge will still break foot-archers, surely?), I can't see how the foot-archers would have a chance.If the foot archers have nothing protecting them from a melee attack, then the horse archers can still win. But they do so by saying "OK, being a horse archer isn't going to work today, I'm going to be a horse swordsman." Tactics for beating horse swordsmen are well known. Even archers can execute some of them as long as they cross-train a little in stuff like building field fortifications (stake hedges) and have useful backup melee weapons.

Foot archers have a few advantages of their own- they have a steadier shooting platform and they can set up defensive works if they find a secure position. Horse archers will have the advantage if they're fighting on a giant tabletop and the infantry have no place to hole up, but that's the only place they'll have a major advantage.
__________

Also, my reason for talking about equal levels of discipline and training is this:

The Mongols and Turks who made horse archery so famous as a combat tactic spent all their lives training for the task. Horsemanship and archery were among their main national professions. It's no wonder they were very good at it. They lived at the culmination of thousands of years of gradual refinement in bow technology, and they individually spent decades training day after day to ride horses and use those bows.

But what gave them an advantage wasn't just their weapons mix, it was their training. They had practiced maneuvers like "fake a retreat and then pounce." Manuevers which are quite difficult if your army isn't highly disciplined. They had spent years becoming horsemen so expert that they could fire arrows accurately from a platform that was running along and bouncing up and down. The horses, in turn, had spent all their lives being trained to act as ideal mounts for horse archers.
_________

In most other civilizations, very few warriors had that level of training and dedication, and very few armies had the discipline and organization to perform complex maneuvers. That gave them a big disadvantage when fighting Mongol or Turkish horse archers.

However, the advantage of being extremely well trained, drilled, and organized is not inherent to the nature of horse archers. Nor is it unique to horse archers. My contention is that if you took an army of longbowmen/crossbowmen, with melee infantry support, who knew what they were going up against and armed and trained appropriately, and who had spent about as many hours of their lives practicing their combat tactics as the horse archers they were facing, they would be able to repel the horse archers on almost any battlefield.

[Matthew]

Let's not get caught in the "specialisation trap". English longbowmen were often mounted during campaigns, there is visual evidence that they could and did shoot their bows whilst mounted, and by the fifteenth century they were more than likely also functioning as effective men at arms on the battlefield. Whilst the foregoing would not be true of all longbowmen, it is worth bearing in mind that professional soldiers are rarely trained to function in only one capacity.

Dervag's point about discipline and training is key to understanding the effectiveness of ancient and medieval armies. The economic and social capacity to maintain a full time professional soldiery is indispensible. Whether Spartan hoplite, companion of Alexander, Roman legionary, or Mongol warrior, the advantage is that their profession is war.

Indeed, the occidental knight and their oriental equivalents functioned on the same principle, and were always encouraged to be versed in diverse forms of combat.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Most Wikipedia pages on the armed forces in question can at least list likely candidates for armaments.

Plus Wikipedia has those nitty-gritty details like muzzle velocities etc., which are a bit ridiculous to ask after on a forum anyway. (Nobody knows them by heart; why ask someone to look them up when you can do it yourself?)

[Spiryt]

Plus Wikipedia has those nitty-gritty details like muzzle velocities etc., which are a bit ridiculous to ask after on a forum anyway. (Nobody knows them by heart; why ask someone to look them up when you can do it yourself?)

Well, Wiki's data aren't always so descriptive ( I remember a lot of bullet A having velocity A and mass A, and energy A without mention what gun/barrel was used), so I guess one may be counting on someone who has some other data.

[The Rose Dragon]

Plus Wikipedia has those nitty-gritty details like muzzle velocities etc., which are a bit ridiculous to ask after on a forum anyway. (Nobody knows them by heart; why ask someone to look them up when you can do it yourself?)

Because I tried that. :smalltongue:

Most of the entries are lacking in detail and have red pseudo-links all over.

[Joran]

A few things I can think of that seem to be wholly WWII developments (though I stand to be corrected):

Proximity fuzes 1940
Precision guided weapons (Fritz X) 1939
Chaff 1942
As mentioned before, the atomic bomb was a completely new invention.

Also, off of the top of my head, ballistic missiles (V2) and cruise missiles (V1) were wholly WWII developments, but for the V1, I could be wrong.

[Norsesmithy]

It depends on what they're trying to do. Different weapons have different uses. SMGs are for close-quarters indoors combat. Handguns are "in case." Assault/battle/combat rifles are for long-range combat. Bolt-action rifles are for sniping.

In, say, hostage situations and other urban/inside operations, you'd probably see SMGs and handguns, maybe shotguns. In "regular", open combat operations, you'd see assault/combat rifles, probably of a specialized variety (designated marksman rifles, the FN SCAR), along with squad support weapons (light machine guns, etc.).

The weapons will likely come from whatever arsenal the army or branch the unit belongs to maintains. Deltas and Green Berets (USSF) have access to SCARs, M16-A2s and the countless variants, MP-5s and variants, M4s, Barrett M82s, Beretta 92Fs, Colt M1911s, USP Tacticals, H&K Mk23s, and so on. The variety of weapons available to special forces is not only incredibly broad, but almost certainly not publicized. (And military versions of many weapons tend to have weird designations instead of names, making them a bit hard to recognize.

I wouldn't be surprised if members of units like the Deltas and SAS get to pick weapons by personal preference, since uniformity of ammunition isn't that much of a concern for such small units operating in such specialized missions, usually separated from supplies altogether. (The main reason why the US forces will never stop using 5.56mmN weapons is that they have too damn much money invested in the enormous stockpiles of 5.56mmN rounds.)

Edit:

Oh yeah, and "United States Army Forces" isn't a unit, it's a branch ofthe US military. The actual units have very varied armaments dependent on their roles. Vehicle crews have handguns and M4s, most "grunts" will have M16-A2s, designated marksmen will have DMRs, and so on. The same goes for Russian ground forces.

Special Forces Doctrine seems to be changing, at least, when you look at the stuff they are said to be using when they are out doing their jobs.

The SMG is dead.
MARSOC, SOG, and SOCOM have all retired their MP5s, MP5/10s, Colt SMGs, and S&W 76s. Mostly this is because of the proliferation of body armor, but also because it has been found that a short carbine, like a M4, or a Colt Commando (like a M4 but a barrel that is shorter still) is going to be more effective at incapacitating/killing a foe, and actually less of a risk to bystanders, than a pistol caliber machinegun. Another factor is very poor parts service on the part of the manufacturers of the weapons, MARSOC recently stated that their stock of MP5s were less than 30% operational because of H&K's failure to provide timely shipment of needed replacement parts, Smith and Wesson no longer offers parts for the M76 at all, and Colt was charging more and more for the parts to the Colt SMGs, because of the low volume of orders and age of equipment used to manufacture parts (leading to a high rate of out of spec pieces), though some replacement pieces on the Colt SMG are interchangeable with M16 parts.

All three groups maintain a large stock of Bulgarian and Polish AKM and AK-74 clones for mission profiles with limited resupply, or when deniability is required. SOG used to use the HK 91 for that mission, but they were sold as scrap in the 80s, declared inferior to the Bulgarian AKM clone and M4 in every way.

The issue pistols are an absolute grab bag as well, the majority being rebuilt Korean War era M1911A1s, with some Beretta 92s, Sigs, Glocks, and H&Ks. H&K won a SOCOM contract a few years ago, but are currently in danger of losing it because of poor parts support (who would have thunk it?), and MARSOC has a contract for high quality railed 1911 type pistols with both Kimber and Springfield Armory (Kimber Warrior, Springfield Operator, the Warrior is a very nice pistol, I absolutely love the one I bought, I am sure that the Operator is very good to).

As far as standard rifles go, all of the groups tend to use M4s, Colt Commandos, or M16A3/4s (the A4 has three round burst, the A3 is simply full auto). SOG had received some H&K 416s, which reportedly performed well, but had a higher than expected rate of breakage, and have been pulled from service for, you guessed it, lack of spare parts availability. [RUMOR ALERT] Scuttlebutt from some people I know close to the project say that the primary source of the 416's increased reliability is not the Gas Piston System, but a new stainless steel magazine that has a constant radius for its whole length (kind of like the Magpul Pmag), and that actually, the 416 takes, on average, nearly twice as long to get working again when it does jam, compared to the M4.[/RUMOR ALERT] SOCOM got a few SCARs, but they have seen limited use, primarily because they are not being delivered in the quantities desired, but also because they are not acceptably accurate. Though some weapons in strange calibers (esp. 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel) have been issued as a trial basis, they seem to be dead. The performance of newer loadings in 5.56, like the 77 grain loadings from Black Hills ammo company, has rendered them obsolete before they were issued. With research continuing, with regard to bullet construction, expect heavyweight 5.56 loadings to dominate the supply in America's Special Forces, and make inroads in her regular infantry as well.

As far as Sniper Rifles, all three groups use a M40 variant, basically a modified Remington Model 700 in .308 Winchester, These rifles can put five shots in an area smaller than a dime at 200 yards, I have seen a Marine do so in person. AR-15 variants in .308 (properly called M110s) are also used, primarily from Knights Armament company, but also from Fulton Armory. Those tend to be slightly less accurate (a quarter, instead of a dime), but much faster between shots, easier to fight with, if needed, and they suppress better. These replace the old M-21s, which were M14 variants, and much heavier and less accurate (a dollar bill, instead of a quarter). MARSOC and SOG also have small numbers of Accuracy International Rifles in .338 Lapua Magnum.

If they need them, all of the services can get M107 anti material rifles in .50 BMG, or M109 payload rifles in 25x59mm.

MARSOC has Mossberg 590 shotguns, and SOG has Ithaca M37s. I think that SOCOM has Remington 870s, but am not sure.

I could go on into crew served weapons, and stuff later, if you want, but I am done typing for now.

[The Rose Dragon]

Oh yeah, and "United States Army Forces" isn't a unit, it's a branch ofthe US military. The actual units have very varied armaments dependent on their roles. Vehicle crews have handguns and M4s, most "grunts" will have M16-A2s, designated marksmen will have DMRs, and so on. The same goes for Russian ground forces.

Having just noticed this, I was mostly thinking of the most common armament of a single fireteam.

[Fhaolan]

Let's not get caught in the "specialisation trap". English longbowmen were often mounted during campaigns, there is visual evidence that they could and did shoot their bows whilst mounted, and by the fifteenth century they were more than likely also functioning as effective men at arms on the battlefield. Whilst the foregoing would not be true of all longbowmen, it is worth bearing in mind that professional soldiers are rarely trained to function in only one capacity.

Also note that mixed-weapon formations were *exceedingly* common. There is a term 'dual-armed man' for those people who were issued both pike and longbow, for example. The pike was laid down on the ground while the bow was used, and when the opposing force got to close the bowman would use the bow to snag a special hook specifically mounted on the pike to pull the pike up so that they could grab it and get it into proper position.

In the same way that the front row of a pike formation would likely be people kneeling, with the pike in one hand braced against their leg, and holding a sword in the other hand in case someone managed to get inside the pike effective range.

The Mongols didn't win through technology, really. They won because of the nature of politics.

While the mongol bow was in many ways a superiour feat of weapon engineering, the techniques needed to make such bows were known far and wide. It wasn't exactly a secret, but it did take a high level of bowyer skill to achieve. Recurve horse-bows were fairly common in Europe, although lighter crossbows for horse-back use were quickly taking over that niche, and they were considered to be primarily hunting tools rather than military weapons. There are Norse bows in museums that were made of laminations of wood, sinew, and horn/bone as well. However, it was time consuming and expensive to make such a weapon, mainly due to the glues needed. There are other alternatives, such as the natural lamination properties of Yew, which is why the Welsh longbow was held in such esteem, but again that takes a bowyer of high skill to work properly.

The Europeans and the non-Mongol Asian nations fell to the Mongols mainly from arrogance and petty nationalism. At first when their neighbors fell, they simply believed that it was through their neighbor's cowardice and that the size of the Mongol armies was exagurated to cover for that cowardice and incompitance, not because the Mongols were actually a threat. Even when everyone actually *believed* in the threat, they were completely incapable of working together to repell the invaders. They refused to believe each other over where the Mongol armies actually were at any given point in time, they refused to combine forces to repell the invaders, and they wasted time in political conferences with each other arguing over who would be the leader of a theoretical combined force that didn't exist. In the mean time, the Mongols where rolling over country after country, in many cases without any kind of battle because cities would, quite reasonably, give up the moment the Mongols arrived because they had no effective defence to offer.

[Subotei]

As mentioned before, the atomic bomb was a completely new invention.

Also, off of the top of my head, ballistic missiles (V2) and cruise missiles (V1) were wholly WWII developments, but for the V1, I could be wrong.

I was going to include the V2, but development started before the war, so I excluded it as a pre-existing concept. As for cruise missiles, the British Navy was developing them in the 1920's I believe, but never pursued the concept beyond the experimental stage.

[Dervag]

It helped that the Mongols moved somewhere between two to five times faster than just about any other army in the world of that era. And that communications were poor.

Today, we take for granted that we will have reasonably accurate information on what a military force has done, and when and where they did it. Look at the Russian invasion of Georgia- most of the major developments in the attack were available on global news within 12 to 24 hours of the time they happened, or even sooner. Everyone knew that the Russians had seized this town and that town, that they had bombed this place over here, that they were not attacking the other town, and so on.

No matter how fast a modern army moves, word of its movements will travel faster. The only way to leave your movements unknown to the enemy is to make them invisible and unseen by anyone, or to destroy the enemy's command centers so that they cannot organize the information they have into a clear picture.

That wasn't true in the days of Ghengis Khan. Back then, you found out the Mongols had conquered a city from a handful of refugees who somehow managed to elude them on the open plains. The refugees could take weeks or months to reach you; their stories would be incoherent and perhaps even mutually exclusive. You did not have credible competent observers (reporters or military attaches) on hand to watch the Mongols assault and take other peoples' cities, or destroy their armies in the field.

That made it easy to attribut Mongol victories to incompetence or cowardice. Moreover, because the information was being passed from mouth to mouth along long chains of communication, it could get wildly distorted by the time it reached distant ears.
__________

For example, when French Christians heard about how the Mongols were pounding on the Turks and Persians, they thought it was the legendary Christian monarch Prester John coming to save Europe from a rising tide of Muslims. Prester John was a completely mythical figure who supposedly ruled a rich kingdom in Asia, full of fantastic treasures and strange beasts. Supposedly, his kingdom had been converted to Christianity by Thomas, one of the twelve apostles who had followed Jesus (the famous "doubting Thomas.")

So they thought Ghengis Khan was Prester John, a man who did not exist, from a kingdom that did not exist, following a religious faith that Ghengis neither knew nor cared about. They fully expected that any moment now Prester John would send rich envoys to the Pope in Rome offering to unite with the Catholic Christians of Europe in a great crusade against the infidel.

Yup. Aaany minute now...
__________

This was probably the most extreme and stupid misconception anyone had about the Mongols, but it serves to show just how underinformed people in that era really were. Eurasia was divided up into many mutually hostile nations. There was no way for a message to travel unless someone physically carried it. And because so many people were illiterate or marginally literate, a message might not be transmitted accurately from one place to another even if it did manage to get there. It was very difficult for trade or information to flow from one place to another. Ironically, the Mongols themselves were a big part of the reason why this changed.

By creating a vast empire in which everyone was oppressed more or less equally (or not, depending on circumstances), and in which laws were ferociously enforced against subject peoples, the Mongols allowed trade to open up between the eastern and western ends of Eurasia for the first time since the classical era.

[Subotei]

In the mean time, the Mongols where rolling over country after country, in many cases without any kind of battle because cities would, quite reasonably, give up the moment the Mongols arrived because they had no effective defence to offer.

I think this is a key point to remember when explaining Mongol success or when comparing Horse archers to foot bowmen. To assume your enemy is going to fight on the field of your chosing is to invite defeat (France, 1940 anyone?). Whether 100 longbowmen could defeat 100 horse archers is academic, as the superior mobility of the horse archers means that they could (nearly always) refuse battle on terms not to their advantage, whereas the longbowmen could not. They were not inherently 'better' or more powerful, however they could bring their firepower to bear at a time and place of their chosing, whilst avoiding enemy strength, because of their mobility. Combine speed, overwhelming firepower at the point of attack, with good intelligence (they spent a good deal of time studying their opponents prior to attacking) and you have the key ingredients of a blitzkrieg.

[Joran]

I was going to include the V2, but development started before the war, so I excluded it as a pre-existing concept. As for cruise missiles, the British Navy was developing them in the 1920's I believe, but never pursued the concept beyond the experimental stage.

Point taken, but as it was a development of the Nazi regime, I would include it. It depends on how someone defines "World War II", since the invasion of Poland may be considered the start of the war or the culmination of a series of events that intensified a war that had already started. After all, the Japanese had already occupied Manchuria.

P.S. My apologies if this is splitting hairs a little too finely.

[Dervag]

I think this is a key point to remember when explaining Mongol success or when comparing Horse archers to foot bowmen. To assume your enemy is going to fight on the field of your chosing is to invite defeat (France, 1940 anyone?). Whether 100 longbowmen could defeat 100 horse archers is academic, as the superior mobility of the horse archers means that they could (nearly always) refuse battle on terms not to their advantage, whereas the longbowmen could not. They were not inherently 'better' or more powerful, however they could bring their firepower to bear at a time and place of their chosing, whilst avoiding enemy strength, because of their mobility. Combine speed, overwhelming firepower at the point of attack, with good intelligence (they spent a good deal of time studying their opponents prior to attacking) and you have the key ingredients of a blitzkrieg.One for one, you're probably right. On the other hand, I suggest that we keep two things in mind:

-Relative training.
The Mongols were very good at nearly all aspects of war, including the important stuff that often gets overlooked in areas like logistics and operational planning. However, this great strength of their was not intrinsic to the nature of horse archers. Not all horse archers went into battle with excellent plans and a solid logistics train. Some horse archer units were commanded by foolish leaders who stumbled into traps. It happened.

Therefore, the question "how do I beat horse archers?" is not quite the same question as "how do I beat the superbly disciplined and organized Mongol hordes?" If the horse archers don't have vastly superior drill and planning when compared to your army, they lose a lot of the advantages that made the Mongols so devastating. So if we assume "all else being equal" in terms of drill and planning, the edge most people ascribe to the horse archer is reduced.

-Numbers
Training and equipping a horse archer is expensive. Horse archers typically come from pastoral cultures that support small populations. Compared to an agricultural civilization, the number of warrior/soldiers they can put in the field is limited. Therefore, you're not likely to see 100 horse archers against 100 crossbowmen; you're more likely to see 100 horse archers against 200 crossbowmen.
______________

If your civilization is threatened by horse archers who aren't your superiors in the arts of strategy, logistics, and operational planning, then you have some good countertactics available. Mixing ranged infantry into your armies lets them repel horse archer attacks.

Building fortifications all over the place helps, because a pure horse archer army has a very hard time cracking fortified positions. Even relatively light fortifications will allow a fairly small group of your archers, crossbowmen, or gunners to resist a reasonably large force of horse archers. And if you have plenty of forts, then the horse archers lose some of their mobility advantage. Your troops can usually retreat to the cover of a fort, or use the forts as bases for mobile forces that will trap the horse archers.

Other tactics include letting them into your territory, chasing them around half-heartedly until they manage to plunder something major, and then pouncing when their forces are heavily burdened with loot. This worked fairly well for the Byzantines and Chinese. As a practical matter, it was one of the main reasons the Great Wall of China was worth keeping up. The Chinese couldn't possibly garrison every kilometer of wall with enough men to stop enemies from crossing it, but the task of getting your forces across the wall would delay you- especially on the return trip when you were carrying loot. It also made getting horses into China difficult, which was a major problem for nomadic horse archers. Thus, the wall served to deter casual raids and act as a major waste of time for larger raiding forces.

[Weezer]

were there any effective anti-pike techniques developed that did not use pikes? I'm primarily interested in the mid 1600's including the Thirty years war and the english civil war.

[Storm Bringer]

were there any effective anti-pike techniques developed that did not use pikes? I'm primarily interested in the mid 1600's including the Thirty years war and the english civil war.

yhea. firepower.

A pike block is a big mass of men in a deep formation. cannon and musket fire can do serious damage to them is allowed to wear them down unmolested. Roundshot firing at a pike block will bounce right though every rank, and anyone hit by a cannonball is hors de combat, regarless of wether he hits or not. At shorter ranges, cannister rounds or musket volleys cen break the cohesion of a pike line in a single salvo.

Pikemen were a defensive troop type. they were used to protect the musketters and the cannons form cav attacks. 30 years war/English Civil wars (thier were several of them) armies were firepower based; they relied on gunnery and musketpower over shock action. as soon as an effective method of countering cav that could be carried by a musketman was invented (i.e. the Bayonet), then armies quickly equipped all the infantry with muskets.

in short, the preffered method of breaking open a pike block was to shoot it to hell and back.

edit: the other counter is to fight on terrian where the pikes cannot form properly, like woodlands or dense urban areas.

[Subotei]

One for one, you're probably right. On the other hand, I suggest that we keep two things in mind:

-Relative training.
The Mongols were very good at nearly all aspects of war, including the important stuff that often gets overlooked in areas like logistics and operational planning. However, this great strength of their was not intrinsic to the nature of horse archers. Not all horse archers went into battle with excellent plans and a solid logistics train. Some horse archer units were commanded by foolish leaders who stumbled into traps. It happened.


Thats why I said (nearly always)


Therefore, the question "how do I beat horse archers?" is not quite the same question as "how do I beat the superbly disciplined and organized Mongol hordes?" If the horse archers don't have vastly superior drill and planning when compared to your army, they lose a lot of the advantages that made the Mongols so devastating. So if we assume "all else being equal" in terms of drill and planning, the edge most people ascribe to the horse archer is reduced.



I was talking about the Mongols, not the original question.

Mobility is the key to warfare. All else being equal, the side that moves the fastest is sure to win. I never said their drill was superior, or that they were superbly disicplined or anything like that. Assuming a basic level of competence on both sides, the more mobile will most likely win. It just so happens the Mongols were well trained.


-Numbers
Training and equipping a horse archer is expensive. Horse archers typically come from pastoral cultures that support small populations. Compared to an agricultural civilization, the number of warrior/soldiers they can put in the field is limited. Therefore, you're not likely to see 100 horse archers against 100 crossbowmen; you're more likely to see 100 horse archers against 200 crossbowmen.


In terms of typical European medieval warfare, then equipping a horse archers is probably expensive for European armies. On the steppes, where the nomadic tribes herd vast numbers of horses and arm themselves with bows, its probably fairly cheap. Also this supposes that there is a significant army in being ready to repel such an attack. This many not be the case unless there was adequate warning to raise levees etc.

However, ignoring this for sake of argument, I'd still prefer 100 mobile archers to 200 immobile archers for the reasons I gave earlier.


If your civilization is threatened by horse archers who aren't your superiors in the arts of strategy, logistics, and operational planning, then you have some good countertactics available. Mixing ranged infantry into your armies lets them repel horse archer attacks.


Again this assumes the horse archers will stand and fight. Much better for them to come back and hit you when you're asleep/fording a river/foraging etc etc. Options not generally available to the less mobile force.


Building fortifications all over the place helps, because a pure horse archer army has a very hard time cracking fortified positions. Even relatively light fortifications will allow a fairly small group of your archers, crossbowmen, or gunners to resist a reasonably large force of horse archers. And if you have plenty of forts, then the horse archers lose some of their mobility advantage. Your troops can usually retreat to the cover of a fort, or use the forts as bases for mobile forces that will trap the horse archers.


This supposes you can support your fortifications. Siege will bring them down eventually. With command of the countryside while you're shut inside, you're communications will be limited. Plus who's bringing in the harvest? More often in warfare the side that retreats to supposedly secure fortifications finds themselves trapped, outmanouvered and cut off.


Other tactics include letting them into your territory, chasing them around half-heartedly until they manage to plunder something major, and then pouncing when their forces are heavily burdened with loot. This worked fairly well for the Byzantines and Chinese. As a practical matter, it was one of the main reasons the Great Wall of China was worth keeping up. The Chinese couldn't possibly garrison every kilometer of wall with enough men to stop enemies from crossing it, but the task of getting your forces across the wall would delay you- especially on the return trip when you were carrying loot. It also made getting horses into China difficult, which was a major problem for nomadic horse archers. Thus, the wall served to deter casual raids and act as a major waste of time for larger raiding forces.

These are plausible tactics, but you will note that China and the Byzantine Empire are rather massive entities, and so could afford to take these losses (to the people) without significant damage (to the Government). Not a tactic open to all states. I doubt the Great Wall made much difference to any signifcant raid. Plus the Mongols did take China.

[Edmund]

There is a term 'dual-armed man' for those people who were issued both pike and longbow, for example. The pike was laid down on the ground while the bow was used, and when the opposing force got to close the bowman would use the bow to snag a special hook specifically mounted on the pike to pull the pike up so that they could grab it and get it into proper position.


What period is this from? It must have been fairly short-lived because in images of Henry VIII's army in the 16th century the longbowmen have longbow and sword only, and I know Henry V's longbowmen did not use this technique (though melee weapons were in no way excluded for archers).

It also sounds kind of silly because of the differences in the formations of pikemen and archers.

I mean, don't get me wrong, guys carrying multiple weapons is all well and good, but longbow and pike?? (and sword) Seems a bit unwieldy to me.

[Dervag]

I was talking about the Mongols, not the original question.

Mobility is the key to warfare. All else being equal, the side that moves the fastest is sure to win. I never said their drill was superior, or that they were superbly disicplined or anything like that. Assuming a basic level of competence on both sides, the more mobile will most likely win. It just so happens the Mongols were well trained.The Mongols won because their high level of training and the extremely good organizational and logistical skills of their commanders let them use their mobility to good effect. Mobility helps a lot, but it isn't always game-breaker by itself. Generally you need to be clever enough in your deployments and movements that you don't run into ambushes and that the enemy can't redeploy against you when they have interior lines.

With superior generalship, having superior mobility will make the enemy look like a bunch of amateurs, as happened to the French and the Khwarizmate. Without superior generalship, having superior mobility is like having superior firepower or superior numbers. It helps a lot, but it isn't a guarantee by itself.


This supposes you can support your fortifications. Siege will bring them down eventually. With command of the countryside while you're shut inside, you're communications will be limited. Plus who's bringing in the harvest? More often in warfare the side that retreats to supposedly secure fortifications finds themselves trapped, outmanouvered and cut off.What I'm talking about is a countryside with enough fortifications that it is not practical to besiege all the strongpoints at the same time. Also, if the horse archers try to beseige the strongpoints, they lose their mobility advantage and become more vulnerable to counterattack by any mobile armies coming into the fortified zone.

If you have a big walled city surrounded by countryside, you will get cut off inside the city and the horse archers will dominate the countryside. Then you're out of luck. But if you have little castles or hill forts all over the place, you present a serious problem for the horse archer army. If they stop to besiege every one of your castles they'll be there forever and be sitting ducks if a counterattack comes in from outside the immediate era. If they don't besiege all your castles, then the uncovered castles act as bases and strongpoints for your own forces, while limiting their movement options.

Since horse archers in general are not well equipped for siege warfare or for an extended positional conflict over who controls which fortresses, this becomes a viable tactic for resisting the onslaught of a horse archer civilization.


I doubt the Great Wall made much difference to any signifcant raid. Plus the Mongols did take China.The question is not whether the Great Wall made China immune to invasion. The question is how much economic damage the Great Wall prevented by stopping casual raiders in platoon or company strength from wandering into China at will. And how many raider armies got trapped trying to carry loot back across the Wall, or had to cut back on their looting so they wouldn't become trapped in this way.

A defensive system can be worthwhile and effective even if it doesn't protect you all the time and in all situations.

[Norsesmithy]

were there any effective anti-pike techniques developed that did not use pikes? I'm primarily interested in the mid 1600's including the Thirty years war and the english civil war.

Storm Bringer is essentially right, you should either try to out maneuver a pike Tercio, or shoot it to bits. What you shoot it to bits with doesn't really matter, gunpowder weapons are nice, but earlier field artillery and bows/crossbows would work too.

The other option is some sort of shock troop, like the Spanish Sword and Bucklermen, or the Landesknecht Doppelsöldners, armored to resist a pike blow, paid enough to encourage recklessness, and competent enough to foul a whole block of men in short order (once you start to get pikemen starting to tangle their hafts, it gets bad fast).

[Subotei]

What I'm talking about is a countryside with enough fortifications that it is not practical to besiege all the strongpoints at the same time. Also, if the horse archers try to beseige the strongpoints, they lose their mobility advantage and become more vulnerable to counterattack by any mobile armies coming into the fortified zone.


You dont need to besiege all the strong points at the same time - one will do, provided its loss is important to the enemy. This forces the defender to come out from behind his other defences to try to relieve it, and in doing so to become vulnerable to the more mobile troops. You cant assume that a besieging force losses all mobility - all that is needed is enough men to watch the fort and harry any breakout attempt. The rest can interdict any enemy movement throughout the surrounding area.


If you have a big walled city surrounded by countryside, you will get cut off inside the city and the horse archers will dominate the countryside. Then you're out of luck. But if you have little castles or hill forts all over the place, you present a serious problem for the horse archer army. If they stop to besiege every one of your castles they'll be there forever and be sitting ducks if a counterattack comes in from outside the immediate era. If they don't besiege all your castles, then the uncovered castles act as bases and strongpoints for your own forces, while limiting their movement options.


I think you overestimate the importance of small forts - to be a problem to an invader they have to be large enough to hold a significant garrison (with cavalry) as a counter attack threat, with supplies etc, or you will be by-passed and become an irrelevance and waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. So to be a threat, forts must be a significant size, and so must therefore be limited in number due to the expense of maintaining them. I can envisage situations where well placed defences could be an issue - key passes, river crossings etc, but these areas would best be guarded by significant defences anyway, rather than small forts. Chains of (or areas of) small forts would be akin to the Great Wall, which we both agree wouldn't hold back a significant attack.

The British did try a similar tactic in the Boer War, using small blockhouses and wire to prevent movement of the mobile Boer guerillas - however the British had the advantage of modern weapons, the advent of which made the cavalry horse more or less obsolete.

Now if you wanted to hold down the local peasant population, like the Normans did in England, then small castles work, as the peasants are basically tied to their land.

[Avilan the Grey]

I've always disliked the verb "to flay" in all its incarnations. I like "fwippa-tank" better.

Thing is, if magic can do what technology can then people will use magic to do what technology does in real life. If magic is common, expect magic microwave ovens and magic light fixtures. People need those things.

If magic is rare and hard for mundanes (even rich, powerful mundanes) to get, then the picture is different, of course.

Matchlocks on both counts. Matchlocks are easy to make, assuming you can make a gun barrel that will reliably fail to explode in the first place.
_____________________

He's still limited by what he can see. And unlike a Krupp cannon, his brains can be blown out by a lone rifleman. Unless he has a magic bullet-shield, in which case your rules apply. Or a method of detecting riflemen from beyond the effective range of blackpowder rifles (which is fairly long, farther than you can see a guy hiding in bushes).

In my opinion, the invention of rifles would make battlefield magic that relies on the physical presence of the caster obsolete. Stored magic that can be used as ammunition would stay around. Magic weapons would stay around. But casters mucking about in line of sight of the enemy's position would be targets for snipers.

See Arithmetic on the Frontier (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arithmetic_on_the_Frontier) for reference.


_____________

I agree that this depends on a number of issues, but I have always thought a low-medium magical setting more interesting (and plausible) if people are to use weapons as we know them at all; or at least that the very powerful magic is hemmed in by a lot of rules that are either absolute, or very bad to break...

Examples here would be in a setting like this:

A gun that still relies on gun powder, but has a firing mechanism that is magically creating a spark. Possibly (as an example) a new use for a cantrip (light candle).

Magical metals (Mithril, or whatever you want to call it) that allows for lighter guns / better armor, maybe even plausible armored wehicles pulled by men or creatures.

Heavy artilery / catapults with greek fire / gas clouds / acid / you name it that can be both magical and non magical or both. The ammo that is, not the guns or catapults.

Just a few ideas

...as for mages on the battle field being more powerful than semi-modern artillery: Yes and no. Again, as stated above... a sniper with a good gun would take out that pyama-wearing nutjob quickly. On the other hand he would be very accurate within line of sight.

[Matthew]

Sometimes I wonder whether these threads need to be subdivided by subject... :smallbiggrin:



It helped that the Mongols moved somewhere between two to five times faster than just about any other army in the world of that era. And that communications were poor.

Quick point to raise here. I read an article a few years ago that made the point that Mongol armies did not move significantly faster than western armies (I wish I could remember which one it was, I'll have to go looking for it). They did potentially move significantly faster than, for instance, Richard the Lionheart marching between Acre and and Jaffa, but that was a harassed march. In short, there are significant caveats that have to be addressed when discussing the rapidity of movement the Mongols were capable of.



For example, when French Christians heard about how the Mongols were pounding on the Turks and Persians, they thought it was the legendary Christian monarch Prester John coming to save Europe from a rising tide of Muslims. Prester John was a completely mythical figure who supposedly ruled a rich kingdom in Asia, full of fantastic treasures and strange beasts. Supposedly, his kingdom had been converted to Christianity by Thomas, one of the twelve apostles who had followed Jesus (the famous "doubting Thomas.")

So they thought Ghengis Khan was Prester John, a man who did not exist, from a kingdom that did not exist, following a religious faith that Ghengis neither knew nor cared about. They fully expected that any moment now Prester John would send rich envoys to the Pope in Rome offering to unite with the Catholic Christians of Europe in a great crusade against the infidel.

Yup. Aaany minute now...

This was probably the most extreme and stupid misconception anyone had about the Mongols, but it serves to show just how underinformed people in that era really were. Eurasia was divided up into many mutually hostile nations. There was no way for a message to travel unless someone physically carried it. And because so many people were illiterate or marginally literate, a message might not be transmitted accurately from one place to another even if it did manage to get there. It was very difficult for trade or information to flow from one place to another. Ironically, the Mongols themselves were a big part of the reason why this changed.

Ha, ha. Actually, the Prestor John thing wasn't just a product of the imagination. It was a hoax. There was actually a letter doing the rounds of the Christian courts that was supposedly from Prestor John. However, whilst the common folk would have been badly informed, the royal courts were not seriously labouring under this sort of misinformation. In 1250, Louis IX sent out several "missions" to the east to bring back reliable information on the Mongols. If you have ever read the first hand account of William of Rubruck you may get a sense of the forms of intelligence gathering that were used. An excellent read on its own merits, as well.



By creating a vast empire in which everyone was oppressed more or less equally (or not, depending on circumstances), and in which laws were ferociously enforced against subject peoples, the Mongols allowed trade to open up between the eastern and western ends of Eurasia for the first time since the classical era.

I don't know that this is true. As far as I am aware, there was plenty of trade between far east and west before the Mongols, it was just controlled differently. Controlling the Levantine and Egyptian ports was hugely important.




Therefore, the question "how do I beat horse archers?" is not quite the same question as "how do I beat the superbly disciplined and organized Mongol hordes?" If the horse archers don't have vastly superior drill and planning when compared to your army, they lose a lot of the advantages that made the Mongols so devastating. So if we assume "all else being equal" in terms of drill and planning, the edge most people ascribe to the horse archer is reduced.

Indeed.



Other tactics include letting them into your territory, chasing them around half-heartedly until they manage to plunder something major, and then pouncing when their forces are heavily burdened with loot. This worked fairly well for the Byzantines and Chinese. As a practical matter, it was one of the main reasons the Great Wall of China was worth keeping up. The Chinese couldn't possibly garrison every kilometer of wall with enough men to stop enemies from crossing it, but the task of getting your forces across the wall would delay you- especially on the return trip when you were carrying loot. It also made getting horses into China difficult, which was a major problem for nomadic horse archers. Thus, the wall served to deter casual raids and act as a major waste of time for larger raiding forces.

*snip*

The question is not whether the Great Wall made China immune to invasion. The question is how much economic damage the Great Wall prevented by stopping casual raiders in platoon or company strength from wandering into China at will. And how many raider armies got trapped trying to carry loot back across the Wall, or had to cut back on their looting so they wouldn't become trapped in this way.

Quite so. Of course, the more profitable function of the Great Wall (and Hadrian's Wall as well) was control over trade. Tax, tax, tax!



What I'm talking about is a countryside with enough fortifications that it is not practical to besiege all the strongpoints at the same time. Also, if the horse archers try to beseige the strongpoints, they lose their mobility advantage and become more vulnerable to counterattack by any mobile armies coming into the fortified zone.

Yes. Castles aren't built to resist determined besiegers (they won't). They are built as storehouses for arms, supplies and soldiers (as well as treasure and some lucky family members). Indeed, fortifications are simply part of the "combined arms" approach to warfare.

Whilst I am glad that the Mongols never got as far as Germany, there is something academically attractive about a prospective conflict between the Great Khan and the Holy Roman Emperor. :smallbiggrin:

[Dervag]

I think you overestimate the importance of small forts - to be a problem to an invader they have to be large enough to hold a significant garrison (with cavalry) as a counter attack threat, with supplies etc, or you will be by-passed and become an irrelevance and waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. So to be a threat, forts must be a significant size, and so must therefore be limited in number due to the expense of maintaining them. I can envisage situations where well placed defences could be an issue - key passes, river crossings etc, but these areas would best be guarded by significant defences anyway, rather than small forts. Chains of (or areas of) small forts would be akin to the Great Wall, which we both agree wouldn't hold back a significant attack.You're right that there's a minimum size for this to work. What I'm getting at is that fortifications help, especially if you aren't fighting this war on an area that can be described as "God's own tabletop." Such as the steppes of Central Asia.

By themselves, they won't win the war for you; you still need an effective field army capable of opposing "serious" attacks by the enemy horse archers. But the forts will make it harder for the horse archers to avoid getting entangled with your forces and provide you with supply bases closer to the area you're fighting them in.

The kinds of forts I had in mind were not tiny, but were not massive on the scale of a walled city or the largest fortresses of the pregunpowder era.


The British did try a similar tactic in the Boer War, using small blockhouses and wire to prevent movement of the mobile Boer guerillas - however the British had the advantage of modern weapons, the advent of which made the cavalry horse more or less obsolete.To a degree. Even in pitched battles, the Boers profited considerably from being more mobile than their British opponents. Sure, they couldn't mount a cavalry charge, but they were fighting as dragoons anyway. For the Boers, the horse was a way to get to the battlefield fast and outmaneuver the enemy- transportation, not a fighting platform.
__________


Quick point to raise here. I read an article a few years ago that made the point that Mongol armies did not move significantly faster than western armies (I wish I could remember which one it was, I'll have to go looking for it)... In short, there are significant caveats that have to be addressed when discussing the rapidity of movement the Mongols were capable of.I could be mistaken.

How did the Mongols stack up against the movements of the eastern armies they were fighting? They definitely had either a strategic mobility advantage or a really big advantage in operational planning, because their best campaigns made their enemies look like they were standing still.


Ha, ha. Actually, the Prestor John thing wasn't just a product of the imagination. It was a hoax. There was actually a letter doing the rounds of the Christian courts that was supposedly from Prestor John. However, whilst the common folk would have been badly informed, the royal courts were not seriously labouring under this sort of misinformation...Is the "ha, ha" aimed at me, or at medieval Europe?

Anyway, what I'm getting at is not that the French court was convinced they were about to be saved by Prester John. What I'm getting at is that they didn't know what the heck they were up against until they put some fairly serious effort into figuring it out. And until the Mongols were already attacking the kingdoms on the edge of their immediate sphere of interest.

The Mongols started conquering back around 1210 and the knowledge of their advance didn't arrive in Europe until 30 or 40 years later. That kind of time delay is a big part of why the states that were on the Mongols' next hit list didn't realize just how powerful they really were. By the time they got a clear picture of what was going on, Subotai was already banging on their door and demanding their surrender.


I don't know that this is true. As far as I am aware, there was plenty of trade between far east and west before the Mongols, it was just controlled differently. Controlling the Levantine and Egyptian ports was hugely important.The method of the control meant that the trade was rather indirect, as I understand it. Sure, you could get silk from China in Europe, but you got it from a Venetian who got it from an Egyptian who got it from a Persian who got it from a Turk who got it from a [got it from a got it from a] Chinese guy.

Somewhere along the line, most of the information about conditions at the other end of the trading chain got lost.

[Fhaolan]

What period is this from? It must have been fairly short-lived because in images of Henry VIII's army in the 16th century the longbowmen have longbow and sword only, and I know Henry V's longbowmen did not use this technique (though melee weapons were in no way excluded for archers).

It also sounds kind of silly because of the differences in the formations of pikemen and archers.

I mean, don't get me wrong, guys carrying multiple weapons is all well and good, but longbow and pike?? (and sword) Seems a bit unwieldy to me.

17th century, believe it or not. English Civil War; Ollie vs Charley.

A lot of the 'armies' involved in the English Civil War were Trained Band men conscripted from local parishes. Every able-bodied man in England was legally required to be trained in the pike at that point, and belong to equivalent to the American 'National Guard', which were organized into Trained Bands. Much like earlier edicts about the longbow, in fact. These men would suppliment that pike with whatever hunting weapons they could lay their hands on. Longbow, sword, axe, matchlock musket, etc. If the Bands got together in sufficient numbers to sort out musketeers, archers, and pikemen into separate units, sure they'd do that. But in the meantime they would cope and do whatever was necessary to survive, including coming up with strange little tricks and techniques for truely mixed-weapon units.

Dual-armed men weren't that common but they were given special status, and special pay (when they actually got paid). Which means there was incentive to come up with these tricks and make them work.

[Matthew]

I could be mistaken.

How did the Mongols stack up against the movements of the eastern armies they were fighting? They definitely had either a strategic mobility advantage or a really big advantage in operational planning, because their best campaigns made their enemies look like they were standing still.

I'll have to check into it for the specific examples. As I recall, the article was debunking a lot of myths about the Mongols, and basically what it came down to on the movement issue was:

Historian X says, "Mongols marched Y miles per day. Amazing!"
Historian Y says, "Actually that's not amazing."

Discipline, organisation and decisiveness, I think, are key to the perceived rapidity of Mongol marches. In many cases, their opponents literally were standing still waiting for them or arguing amongst themselves.



Is the "ha, ha" aimed at me, or at medieval Europe?

Prestor John. I love that story. It's pervasive in medieval europe, even after the Mongol empire has collapsed. It's also supposedly linked to Alexander the Great somewhere along the line.



Anyway, what I'm getting at is not that the French court was convinced they were about to be saved by Prester John. What I'm getting at is that they didn't know what the heck they were up against until they put some fairly serious effort into figuring it out. And until the Mongols were already attacking the kingdoms on the edge of their immediate sphere of interest.

The Mongols started conquering back around 1210 and the knowledge of their advance didn't arrive in Europe until 30 or 40 years later. That kind of time delay is a big part of why the states that were on the Mongols' next hit list didn't realize just how powerful they really were. By the time they got a clear picture of what was going on, Subotai was already banging on their door and demanding their surrender.

Oh, Ghengis Khan and his heirs were banging on everbody's door from the get go. Their letters to the west are amazing. Basically they amount to. "I am the ruler of the world, and you are rebels who must surrender or be destroyed." Awesome.

Yes, you are quite right that the western states were ill informed as to what the Mongols were all about, but that was true in reverse as well [i.e. the Mongols didn't know much about the states they were threatening]. However, everybody was keenly interested in everybody else, but it was all based on hearsay and letters (and captives). Until the enemy was at the door, there wasn't a lot that could be known for certain (or done about it).

A pan european crusade was always talked about and proposed so many times against the Mongols (see John of Carpini), but it was about as likely as one against the Muslims (not very). According to Joinville, the Mongols apparently wrote to Louis IX to say that although they knew the Holy Roman Emperor was nominally the most powerful western monarch, they regarded him as the real power to be negotiated with.

Interestingly, a legend common in the west that people in the far east had no actual heads [i.e. were in their torsos] was also common in the east about people in the west! The manuscript illustrations of such people were highly amusing, and very similar.

Anyway, I'm wandering off on a tangent, I just like this subject (Prestor John, Pan European Crusades, perceptions of the East), so I am babbling a bit...



The method of the control meant that the trade was rather indirect, as I understand it. Sure, you could get silk from China in Europe, but you got it from a Venetian who got it from an Egyptian who got it from a Persian who got it from a Turk who got it from a [got it from a got it from a] Chinese guy.

Somewhere along the line, most of the information about conditions at the other end of the trading chain got lost.

I think that was still true after and during the Mongol conquest. The main difference was that only one empire was taxing it from China to the Levant. Again, though, I will have to check into it, this is only information half remembered from a few seminars.

[Dervag]

Prestor John. I love that story. It's pervasive in medieval europe, even after the Mongol empire has collapsed. It's also supposedly linked to Alexander the Great somewhere along the line.In fairness, the existence of Prester John was no more improbable than some of the stuff that really was out there. At least, not given the evidence directly available to medieval Christians. They knew there were at least some Christians outside the Muslim cordon around Europe; they knew Christianity had successfully converted at least one major empire. Why not two?

But yeah, it's really funny in hindsight.


Yes, you are quite right that the western states were ill informed as to what the Mongols were all about, but that was true in reverse as well [i.e. the Mongols didn't know much about the states they were threatening]. However, everybody was keenly interested in everybody else, but it was all based on hearsay and letters (and captives). Until the enemy was at the door, there wasn't a lot that could be known for certain (or done about it).Which is exactly what I was trying to say. Everybody was interested, but nobody really knew anything because trying to get accurate information on events three thousand miles' ride away is a nightmare.

The Mongols didn't need to know much to conquer their enemies, except for the immediate tactical information they could gather once they'd moved in next door to the target. Whereas to understand just how dangerous the Mongols were, you needed to know not only when they were coming, but just how many major kingdoms they'd had to knock over to get to you.


I think that was still true after and during the Mongol conquest. The main difference was that only one empire was taxing it from China to the Levant. Again, though, I will have to check into it, this is only information half remembered from a few seminars.Nah, you have a point. It's just that the flow of information east-west at least began to open up credibly after the Mongol conquests- Marco Polo and so forth.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'll have to check into it for the specific examples. As I recall, the article was debunking a lot of myths about the Mongols, and basically what it came down to on the movement issue was:

Historian X says, "Mongols marched Y miles per day. Amazing!"
Historian Y says, "Actually that's not amazing."

Discipline, organisation and decisiveness, I think, are key to the perceived rapidity of Mongol marches. In many cases, their opponents literally were standing still waiting for them or arguing amongst themselves.

Prestor John. I love that story. It's pervasive in medieval europe, even after the Mongol empire has collapsed. It's also supposedly linked to Alexander the Great somewhere along the line.


Oh, Ghengis Khan and his heirs were banging on everbody's door from the get go. Their letters to the west are amazing. Basically they amount to. "I am the ruler of the world, and you are rebels who must surrender or be destroyed." Awesome.

I do not know that much about the Mongols specifically, but one thing to remember is that with a few exceptions one era's historians has always talked bad about earlier eras.
It is amazing how much we now find out about everything from the European bronze age and forth, and how much more skill, ingenuity, and intelligence the various people had.

A well drilled, disciplined horse-born army with good supply lines could move very far in a day. Even when not rushing.

Trade networks were far more evolved than people tend to believe (and 19-20th century historians used to claim). Even in the bronze age there were intense trade along the coast all the way from southern Scandinavia to the coasts of northern Africa (not in one go, but between trading stations and coastal towns). Not everything collapsed after the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire, although a lot of people has assumed it so (The dark and dreary Dark Ages, where everyone was muddy and ate well... turnips and mud, that actually wasn't that bad, if you don't count the Plagues. But those has always passed through Europa, after all).

Prestor John... I have actually never heard those legends. I know that some people still thought that Alexander was alive somewhere far to the east, and depending on how you percived him (conqueror or hero) he was viewed as some sort of angel or hellspawn. The Arabs and Persians never liked him, for some reason...

[Matthew]

I do not know that much about the Mongols specifically, but one thing to remember is that with a few exceptions one era's historians has always talked bad about earlier eras.

Actually, that is more of an eighteenth century onwards thing. Prior to the enlightenment and the popularity of the theory of evolution and unstoppable advancement, it was much more common for historians to talk about previous civilisations in terms of a "golden age" that has given way to an "iron age".

That said, you won't find me particularly disagreeing with you that modern historians have had a tendency to disparage the achievements and capabilities of past civilisations, but much of that is no longer the case. It still remains a modern conceit in the popular imagination, however. Many people actually seem to be under the impression that modern people are more intelligent than their ancestors, which is hilarious.

I think you may have wandered off on a bit of a tangent, though. The point was not "Mongols couldn't move very fast", but that "they didn't move much faster than their contemporaries" (if at all). That is not condemnation of the Mongols, but praise for the capabilities of their contemporaries.

[Dervag]

I do not know that much about the Mongols specifically, but one thing to remember is that with a few exceptions one era's historians has always talked bad about earlier eras.
It is amazing how much we now find out about everything from the European bronze age and forth, and how much more skill, ingenuity, and intelligence the various people had.I've long been confident that ancient people were just as smart, skilled, and ingenious as moderns. It's just important to understand that the tools at their disposal limited what they could do, and made some things much more difficult than they are today. Learning what was happening at the other end of the continent was one of those things.


Not everything collapsed after the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire, although a lot of people has assumed it so (The dark and dreary Dark Ages, where everyone was muddy and ate well... turnips and mud, that actually wasn't that bad, if you don't count the Plagues. But those has always passed through Europa, after all).Well, the early Dark Ages were pretty bad. I mean, there were a lot of invasions and raiders running around, networks of warlords took over what had once been a fairly organized government, the populations of the cities dropped off heavily, it was a mess. Things really were worse in 700 than they had been in 400, and were worse in 400 than they were in 100.

But by about 1000 AD, things had more or less turned around, and you're right that the Dark Ages at their worst weren't quite as bad as the historians of, say, fifty years ago would claim.

[Subotei]

Whilst I am glad that the Mongols never got as far as Germany, there is something academically attractive about a prospective conflict between the Great Khan and the Holy Roman Emperor. :smallbiggrin:

I'm firmly of the opinion the Mongols took one look at Europe and thought "Too wet, too forested and too poor" :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

yes, better to just keep extorting some Danegeld. Did they actually do this?

[Dervag]

I'm firmly of the opinion the Mongols took one look at Europe and thought "Too wet, too forested and too poor" :smallwink:It wasn't, really; Constantinople or the Baltic circa 1250 weren't dramatically poorer than the Kievan Rus.

By the time the Mongols reached Europe, they had reached the limits of their effective range. The effort of spreading out and establishing their rule over the millions of square miles of land they had conquered consumed enormous amounts of energy. Ghengis Khan himself was dead, and his heirs were beginning to fight among themselves.

It just wasn't worth the effort to push the frontier of Mongol dominated land farther. The wealth of Europe was largely irrelevant (though if Europe was exceptionally rich it would have attracted a lot more raids).

[Matthew]

It wasn't, really; Constantinople or the Baltic circa 1250 weren't dramatically poorer than the Kievan Rus.

By the time the Mongols reached Europe, they had reached the limits of their effective range. The effort of spreading out and establishing their rule over the millions of square miles of land they had conquered consumed enormous amounts of energy. Ghengis Khan himself was dead, and his heirs were beginning to fight among themselves.

It just wasn't worth the effort to push the frontier of Mongol dominated land farther. The wealth of Europe was largely irrelevant (though if Europe was exceptionally rich it would have attracted a lot more raids).

Subotei can correct me if I am wrong, but I think his tongue was firmly in his cheek there. :smallbiggrin:

[Dervag]

Oh, jeez.

Sorry.

Sometimes using sarcasm on me is like dynamiting fish in a barrel- too easy and with messy aftereffects.

[Avilan the Grey]

Actually, that is more of an eighteenth century onwards thing. Prior to the enlightenment and the popularity of the theory of evolution and unstoppable advancement, it was much more common for historians to talk about previous civilisations in terms of a "golden age" that has given way to an "iron age".

That said, you won't find me particularly disagreeing with you that modern historians have had a tendency to disparage the achievements and capabilities of past civilisations, but much of that is no longer the case. It still remains a modern conceit in the popular imagination, however. Many people actually seem to be under the impression that modern people are more intelligent than their ancestors, which is hilarious.

I think you may have wandered off on a bit of a tangent, though. The point was not "Mongols couldn't move very fast", but that "they didn't move much faster than their contemporaries" (if at all). That is not condemnation of the Mongols, but praise for the capabilities of their contemporaries.

Yes, the 19th century historians was bad at this. Unfortunately they followed an on-again-off-again tradition: Paint other people bad to boast your own nation. The Roman historians painted other nations as barbarians so that it would be easier to invade and conquer them (after all, we are only helping them realize their potential Romanhood). Etc.

History writings seems to have been a mixture of the two. We can with one hand write about the golden history of the wonderful Greeks, and at the same time write about the hairy backwards Gauls. Of course the fact that the Gauls had something the Romans did not, which was an accurate calendar, and more advanced mathemathic skills, yes it's true (It's just that they used them for other things than building cities and aqueducts) has not surfaced until about 10 years ago when they found some of those calendars (made of wood and gold). It didn't help that the Gauls sat on 2/3rds of the known gold mines (at least 2/3rds of the gold mines the Romans knew of). It was easier to invade them than to try to sell stuff to them to get the gold.

And as for going off on a tangent, my point was just that we have had a tendency to always underestimate what "they" (any older civilization) could actually do. I, for one, am not surprised that they managed to haul the rocks for the Stonehenge 200 miles. I am getting rightfully impressed by the Pyramids in Giza, but it would never cross my mind to think "unbelievable".

Etc.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Inspired by the current thread on halfplate, I have a question brought up by some pictures I saw on the internet recently. I know the internet is far from the world's most reliable source on historical information, particularly when dealing with what we know about ancient arms and armor, but this picture of 1st Century B.C. Parthian cataphracts gave me pause.

http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=parthiancataphractsak7.jpg

I've never seen anything like the armor on the arms and legs (and, I assume, under the tunic) of the cataphract on the right. It looks like it would be very fully protective, but hard to bend your arms and legs in. Does anyone know what this style of armor is called, and how it stood up in terms of flexibility/protectiveness? I kind of want to give a future character some cool Persian armor like that, but I'm not sure what would best represent it in D&D.

[Swordguy]

Inspired by the current thread on halfplate, I have a question brought up by some pictures I saw on the internet recently. I know the internet is far from the world's most reliable source on historical information, particularly when dealing with what we know about ancient arms and armor, but this picture of 1st Century B.C. Parthian cataphracts gave me pause.

http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=parthiancataphractsak7.jpg

I've never seen anything like the armor on the arms and legs (and, I assume, under the tunic) of the cataphract on the right. It looks like it would be very fully protective, but hard to bend your arms and legs in. Does anyone know what this style of armor is called, and how it stood up in terms of flexibility/protectiveness? I kind of want to give a future character some cool Persian armor like that, but I'm not sure what would best represent it in D&D.

Is that pic from an Osprey book? It has "the look", and if it is, I'm generally inclined to believe them, even though I personally don't recognize the armor style. They're pretty good about accuracy.

Still, I'm intrigued. I'll go look at my Stone's Arms and Armor for more info...

Offhand, from looking at it, it has the same general layout in the joints as Henry VIII's foot combat armor (http://flickr.com/photos/tigtog/258055568/) for the Field of the Cloth of Gold. If you look carefully (can't find a good image on the net, but if you own Edge&Paddock's Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight, on page 169, there's an EXCELLENT view of the back) you'll see that all of the articulations fully encircle the joints. Look at the front of the hips, specifically - there are no tassets. There's NO gaps at all. NASA actually studied the armor for how to make early spacesuits. Allowing for some artistic license in your pic, I think they'd work in generally the same fashion, with the caveat that they use floating lames on the long bones AND the joints in your pic, instead of single large plates on long bones and floating lames in the joints for Henry's armor.

EDIT: Good side view of Henry's armor here (http://www.whitbyhs.cheshire.sch.uk/archived/curric/history/alevel/henry8/fieldofgold/armour.htm). Again, look at the hips. No gaps. Like your cataphracts.

[Swordguy]

Okay, I have some further references.

Take a look at these period sources:
Parthian Graffito showing a cataphract (http://parthia.com/images/heavyhorse.gif)
Pottery showing a cataphract fighting a lion (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Parthian/Artefacts/ParthianCataphract_BM.jpg)


Additionally, Ammianus Marcellinus, a historian, (c. 350 AD), wrote: “Laminarum circuli tenues apti corporis flexibus ambiebant per omnia membra diducti.” (Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs).


I'm having a hard time arguing against the theory that, impossible as it seems, the idea of many lames of circular armor around the joints is a historically accurate one. I can't figure out another way to interpret these images. Unfortunately, I also can't figure out how the armor would move and fight. I imagine that it's similar to Henry's armor...but that's a level of sophistication in metalworking that's not shown anywhere else during that period. Annoyingly, I can't find any extant armor from these troops that isn't the standard "fish-scale" style scale armor. There's this (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=8744), from Roman Cataphractii, which may be related, but clearly doesn't "completely covered their limbs".

EDIT: The last image link doesn't work. Image in spoiler:
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/laminatedtighdefences.jpg

My other alternative is it's not metal at all, but actually thick quilted cloth. Armor of this type is actually quite protective, and neatly solves the articulation problems. There's the issue of Ammianus Marcellinus's account - but if the majority of the Cataphracts were in "traditional" scale, then others could be in the quilted without seriously compromising the account (reporting bias - remember!). The vast, VAST majority of sources and extant armors I've seen are of the traditional scale, in any case. Granted, that may be a coincidence (in that those are all that have happened to survive), but it should be considered.

I'm also pretty sure that these images are what prompted the idea of "banded armor" found in early D&D.

Finally, if it makes you feel better about not getting a solid answer, the MyArmory.com forums went over this topic about 2 or 3 years ago, and stalled out as well. And they're one of the two forums I can think of offhand with a better command of historic weapons and armor than this one (the other being the Arador Armor Library Forums).

[Matthew]

Yes, the 19th century historians was bad at this. Unfortunately they followed an on-again-off-again tradition: Paint other people bad to boast your own nation. The Roman historians painted other nations as barbarians so that it would be easier to invade and conquer them (after all, we are only helping them realize their potential Romanhood). Etc.

Now you're talking about other nations, rather than former civilisations, I think. A quite different subject.



History writings seems to have been a mixture of the two. We can with one hand write about the golden history of the wonderful Greeks, and at the same time write about the hairy backwards Gauls. Of course the fact that the Gauls had something the Romans did not, which was an accurate calendar, and more advanced mathemathic skills, yes it's true (It's just that they used them for other things than building cities and aqueducts) has not surfaced until about 10 years ago when they found some of those calendars (made of wood and gold). It didn't help that the Gauls sat on 2/3rds of the known gold mines (at least 2/3rds of the gold mines the Romans knew of). It was easier to invade them than to try to sell stuff to them to get the gold.

I don't think that is true, but I would love to know your source. Again, though, you appear to be conflating Greek culture as an appropriated history for Rome and the Gauls as a contemporary neighbouring nation. The "noble savage" was also a much admired idea in Roman culture. Of course, both Gaulish and Greek identity were constructed by the Romans to better inflate their own, and in both cases the Romans implied that they were inferior civilisations by the time they were conquered.



And as for going off on a tangent, my point was just that we have had a tendency to always underestimate what "they" (any older civilization) could actually do. I, for one, am not surprised that they managed to haul the rocks for the Stonehenge 200 miles. I am getting rightfully impressed by the Pyramids in Giza, but it would never cross my mind to think "unbelievable".

Sure, but nobody was saying anything was unbelievable, which is why I suggest you are wandering off on a tangent, perhaps even misunderstanding what has been said here. That is to say, nobody is saying "the rate of movement of the Mongols is unbelievable", what was said was "the rate of movement of the Mongols was not exceptional."

[Avilan the Grey]

Now you're talking about other nations, rather than former civilisations, I think. A quite different subject.

The point is that "historian" was a much more fleeting profession back then. It basically just meant anyone that made investigations about foreign places.



I don't think that is true, but I would love to know your source. Again, though, you appear to be conflating Greek culture as an appropriated history for Rome and the Gauls as a contemporary neighbouring nation. The "noble savage" was also a much admired idea in Roman culture. Of course, both Gaulish and Greek identity were constructed by the Romans to better inflate their own, and in both cases the Romans implied that they were inferior civilisations by the time they were conquered.

Despite my point above you are right; I would probably be better of comparing the way the Romans saw the Greeks and the Carthaginians (after having defeated them, of course).
As for the calendar etc: I am at work and didn't have time to look around much. Try this one for a starter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_calendar). Note that it is not really compatible with a modern calendar since it is much more flexible, and yet very accurate. The Celtic cultures really had no need of a fixed 12 month calendar.



Sure, but nobody was saying anything was unbelievable, which is why I suggest you are wandering off on a tangent, perhaps even misunderstanding what has been said here. That is to say, nobody is saying "the rate of movement of the Mongols is unbelievable", what was said was "the rate of movement of the Mongols was not exceptional."

Trust me, I know what was meant. And I know I was off on a tangent.
My first post on the matter simply points out that any well drilled mobile army with good support lines could move as fast. Which is more or less agreeing with the statement above.

[Matthew]

Inspired by the current thread on halfplate, I have a question brought up by some pictures I saw on the internet recently. I know the internet is far from the world's most reliable source on historical information, particularly when dealing with what we know about ancient arms and armor, but this picture of 1st Century B.C. Parthian cataphracts gave me pause.

http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=parthiancataphractsak7.jpg

I've never seen anything like the armor on the arms and legs (and, I assume, under the tunic) of the cataphract on the right. It looks like it would be very fully protective, but hard to bend your arms and legs in. Does anyone know what this style of armor is called, and how it stood up in terms of flexibility/protectiveness? I kind of want to give a future character some cool Persian armor like that, but I'm not sure what would best represent it in D&D.

SwordGuy has the right of this subject. One thing I will add is that the limb armour may have been open on one side much like the Roman gladiator armour that was adopted for use by the regular legions.

As to type of armour for D20/3e, I would probably describe it as "Heavy Scale" and treat it like Mail Armour.

[Dervag]

History writings seems to have been a mixture of the two. We can with one hand write about the golden history of the wonderful Greeks, and at the same time write about the hairy backwards Gauls. Of course the fact that the Gauls had something the Romans did not, which was an accurate calendar, and more advanced mathemathic skills, yes it's true (It's just that they used them for other things than building cities and aqueducts)What did the Gauls use their mathematics for, and in what areas were they superior to the Greeks?


And as for going off on a tangent, my point was just that we have had a tendency to always underestimate what "they" (any older civilization) could actually do. I, for one, am not surprised that they managed to haul the rocks for the Stonehenge 200 miles. I am getting rightfully impressed by the Pyramids in Giza, but it would never cross my mind to think "unbelievable".My approach is like this. For any given accomplishment attributed to the ancients, I ask myself "is this actually harder to do than building the Great Pyramid?" Because I know an ancient culture did that, and I consider it axiomatic that people in one place are about as smart and good at planning as people anywhere else. Some nations just won't work as efficiently as others, but that's because they're badly organized and not because the people in them are stupid. Which is why building Gothic cathedrals took much longer than building pyramids.


I don't think that is true, but I would love to know your source. Again, though, you appear to be conflating Greek culture as an appropriated history for Rome and the Gauls as a contemporary neighbouring nation. The "noble savage" was also a much admired idea in Roman culture. Of course, both Gaulish and Greek identity were constructed by the Romans to better inflate their own, and in both cases the Romans implied that they were inferior civilisations by the time they were conquered.As in:
"Look at those Greeks! See how smart they are, how refined their philosophy is, how great their libraries and schools are? And how they managed to conquer so much of the known world under Alexander the Great?

Yeah. We totally stomped all over those guys."

"Look at those Gauls! See how tough they are, how they live at one with the natural world and aren't all cityfied like us?

Yeah. We stomped them too. Aren't we awesome?"

Does that capture the basic idea?

[Matthew]

As in:
"Look at those Greeks! See how smart they are, how refined their philosophy is, how great their libraries and schools are? And how they managed to conquer so much of the known world under Alexander the Great?

Yeah. We totally stomped all over those guys."

"Look at those Gauls! See how tough they are, how they live at one with the natural world and aren't all cityfied like us?

Yeah. We stomped them too. Aren't we awesome?"

Does that capture the basic idea?

More or less, but there is a second strand running through things as well, which is that "contemporary Greeks are effeminate compared to the ancient Greeks [i.e. a decline in warlike spirit and morals] and we are their true successors". Caesar says much the same thing about some of the Gauls he encounters, remarking that they used to have an excellent infantry, but now they overly rely on cavalry and consequently get beaten by the Romans. The idea is that old cultures are in decline, whilst the Roman star is rising. You get the same exact thing in medieval Christian society with regard to the Byzantines (and vice versa), but at the same time there is a parallel strand of thought coming through that "our ancestors were better". That usually is an attempt to explain successes like the first crusade in comparison to the subsequent failures.

So you basically get two competing strands, which can complement one another:

1) Our ancestors were better than we are

2) We're still better than you

[EvilElitest]

here is a question

would this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/TS-CRUSADER_540.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.trueswords.com/japanese-crusader-double-blade-destroyer-p-2700.html&h=500&w=500&sz=22&hl=en&start=10&um=1&usg=__MbbACSwBfdKU90eLV6kEAha-SMA=&tbnid=ZNASVyEEfTgruM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddouble%2Bbladed%2Bsword%26um%3D1%26hl %3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN) ever work?
from
EE

[Om]

Well, the early Dark Ages were pretty bad. I mean, there were a lot of invasions and raiders running around, networks of warlords took over what had once been a fairly organized government, the populations of the cities dropped off heavily, it was a messDoesn't really sound all that different from 17th C Germany :smallwink:

[Swordguy]

here is a question

would this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/TS-CRUSADER_540.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.trueswords.com/japanese-crusader-double-blade-destroyer-p-2700.html&h=500&w=500&sz=22&hl=en&start=10&um=1&usg=__MbbACSwBfdKU90eLV6kEAha-SMA=&tbnid=ZNASVyEEfTgruM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddouble%2Bbladed%2Bsword%26um%3D1%26hl %3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN) ever work?
from
EE

Short answer:

Against an unarmored target, maybe. The issue with double swords is that they require you to use "short form quarterstaff" as a fighting style. However, it's significantly harder to get good leverage out of the prime cutting area, as opposed to using a single sword in a traditional grip.

Basically, you can give people real nasty slices or draw cuts, but severing limbs like a good sword can easily do will be much, much harder - the biomechanics just aren't working in your favor.

Looks cool, though.

[Raum]

here is a question

would this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.trueswords.com/images/prod/c/TS-CRUSADER_540.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.trueswords.com/japanese-crusader-double-blade-destroyer-p-2700.html&h=500&w=500&sz=22&hl=en&start=10&um=1&usg=__MbbACSwBfdKU90eLV6kEAha-SMA=&tbnid=ZNASVyEEfTgruM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddouble%2Bbladed%2Bsword%26um%3D1%26hl %3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN) ever work?
from
EENot as well as a simple club. As Swordguy mentions you'd have to wield it as a shortened staff while limiting it's mobility in order to avoid hurting yourself. Just imagine trying to stab straight forward with it...

[EvilElitest]

True, through couldn't you hold that while on horse back and charge forward blindly............nevermind
from
EE

[KnightDisciple]

Short answer:

Against an unarmored target, maybe. The issue with double swords is that they require you to use "short form quarterstaff" as a fighting style. However, it's significantly harder to get good leverage out of the prime cutting area, as opposed to using a single sword in a traditional grip.

Basically, you can give people real nasty slices or draw cuts, but severing limbs like a good sword can easily do will be much, much harder - the biomechanics just aren't working in your favor.

Looks cool, though.

Hm. What if you shortened up the blades, made them straight/double-edged, and lengthened the handle space to keep the same size? Say, 1/2-2/3 the original blade length? Is that more workable at all?

[Raum]

The blades would need to be significantly shorter than the wielder's forearm for the weapon to be near as useful as a staff. You could at least threaten forward and move it across your torso at that point. Even then I'd think the loss of leverage and risk of cutting yourself would make it less effective than a staff of similar overall length.

[Swordguy]

The blades would need to be significantly shorter than the wielder's forearm for the weapon to be near as useful as a staff. You could at least threaten forward and move it across your torso at that point. Even then I'd think the loss of leverage and risk of cutting yourself would make it less effective than a staff of similar overall length.

Exactly. As a side note, moving one end of the weapon from one side of your body to another in short form usually involves the quarterstaff making contact with your body. It's OK with a staff, not smart with this weapon, and, incidentally, is why Darth Maul's lightsaber was ludicrous. There's just nothing that this weapon brings to the table that is particularly advantageous or effective than a regular sword.

Again, except looking cool.

[Dervag]

Doesn't really sound all that different from 17th C Germany :smallwink:No, it doesn't. But in 17th century Germany, the chaos was largely confined to the German-speaking regions of central Europe. There were still fairly healthy, functioning empires surrounding Germany; that was part of the problem because those empires kept squabbling over German territory.

Whereas in the Western Roman Empire, the structure of government and civilization* broke down almost entirely. Nobody came in and started rebuilding things a few decades later; it took centuries to recover and build new social institutions that were anything like as effective as the old ones.

*in the literal sense, where it is derived from the word for 'townsman'
________

If conditions in Germany had not improved after the Thirty Years' War, and if things had stayed that bad for another fifty or a hundred years, then it would be quite accurate to say that Germany was going through a Dark Age.


Exactly. As a side note, moving one end of the weapon from one side of your body to another in short form usually involves the quarterstaff making contact with your body. It's OK with a staff, not smart with this weapon, and, incidentally, is why Darth Maul's lightsaber was ludicrous. There's just nothing that this weapon brings to the table that is particularly advantageous or effective than a regular sword.

Again, except looking cool.On the other hand, with a lightsaber there's no question of needing leverage to chop through stuff- any weapon that can give a slice or a draw cut will cut enemies to ribbons in lightsaber form.

Not that this is decisive, I will freely and cheerfully admit.

[Spiryt]

The question is if there is "official version" of lightsaber theory - maybe they in fact still need some leverage, momentum and all? Judging how pretty often fighters are smashing really hard with it, and that not all cuts were amputating...

[Swordguy]

On the other hand, with a lightsaber there's no question of needing leverage to chop through stuff- any weapon that can give a slice or a draw cut will cut enemies to ribbons in lightsaber form.

Not that this is decisive, I will freely and cheerfully admit.

Oh, yeah, that's true. My main point was the danger of bringing the opposite end across your body and striking yourself with it when using a double-saber in short form. It solves one problem (not as strong a blow) by adding a new one (slicing yourself).




The question is if there is "official version" of lightsaber theory - maybe they in fact still need some leverage, momentum and all? Judging how pretty often fighters are smashing really hard with it, and that not all cuts were amputating...

There is an "official" version of lightsbare combat (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lightsaber_combat). It's also a load of crap, that makes up a bunch of words and techniques that are anywhere from not useful to actively harmful to the wielder. They've been made up after the fact to fill people's questions about the styles for the video and RPG games. They have, for example, Qui-Gonn and Yoda using the same fighting style. Which, even a cursory glance at the movies shows, is pure BS.

I far prefer Bob Brown' (http://web.archive.org/web/20010602074642/www.synicon.com.au/sw/ls/sabres.htm)s look at it, though the man has long since left the fandom. His view makes sense, from a technical perspective.

[KnightDisciple]

Now that you bring it up, yeah, they do seem fairly different in style.
I will throw out a couple of possible "explanations", some of which I've gathered, and some inferred.
First, they have radically different sizes, which will affect specifics of a general style. Yoda has to do crazy jump stuff to reach the same targets Jin can just kind of lazily swipe at.
Second, I figure there's some degree of personalization in style anyways.
Third, it has been stated Jin's style/movement were restricted by the walkways and such.
Who knows. If you want to talk more, mayhaps we should have a distinct thread for it?

[Dervag]

I think the size issue is important. Yoda fights in a world of fifteen-foot giants (as measured by his feet, not yours), with a lightsaber blade that's as tall as he is. Any human style of swordsmanship would leave him at a major disadvantage, so he adopts an inhuman style. It's probably driven by Force-assisted jumps and tactical precognition; even if it were physically possible to do that in real life it would be suicidal idiocy without Jedi powers.

I'm imagining some Jedi combat trainer several centuries ago who's been teaching one apprentice after another, recommending the fighting style best suited to their strengths. Then he meets Yoda and thinks "Oh God; this is going to be tough."

The result is that Yoda has a crazy kitbash fighting style, but since "Yodaesque" isn't a good name for a lightsaber form, they lump him into whichever form looks most like what he actually does.

[Swordguy]

The result is that Yoda has a crazy kitbash fighting style, but since "Yodaesque" isn't a good name for a lightsaber form, they lump him into whichever form looks most like what he actually does.

The issue is that Qui-Gon's fighting style is, for a lightsabre style, rooted in conservation of motion. His is the style that, of ALL the fights I've seen thus far (ANH excepted) that I can see as being legitimately possible in a real, non-scripted fight.

It rings true to my fighter's instinct, if that makes any sense.

Yoda is the precise opposite of "conservation of motion". He's an excess of motion, constantly bouncing around to keep an opponent offguard and unable to exploit his greater strength and reach over the Muppet of Awesome. Don't get me wrong - Yoda's style is well-suited for his particular circumstances...but it's most certainly NOT the style of Qui-Gon.

I dunno - maybe there's some EU crap that has him fighting like QG (which, is completely wrong for his physical circumstances, but a book author doesn't have to worry about things like that the way a film choreographer does), but, as far as I'm concerned, the EU is limited to the Timothy Zahn novels and the first Dark Empire graphic novel. Those, plus the movies, novelizations, and radio plays, are all that "count" to me.

[KnightDisciple]

I am intriuged by these perspectives, and wish to dedicate a specific thread to its discussion. What's the best place for that?

[Avilan the Grey]

What did the Gauls use their mathematics for, and in what areas were they superior to the Greeks?

Romans, not Greeks.
They used their math to conclude the finer things, meaning religious stuff. Astrology, astronomy, that sort of thing. And figuring out an accurate calendar, which apparently was way above the skills of the Romans (by the time of the Napoleon wars their calendar (although it obviously not used by the Romans for logical reasons :smalltongue:) was off with what? A month and a half? Two months?).



My approach is like this. For any given accomplishment attributed to the ancients, I ask myself "is this actually harder to do than building the Great Pyramid?" Because I know an ancient culture did that, and I consider it axiomatic that people in one place are about as smart and good at planning as people anywhere else. Some nations just won't work as efficiently as others, but that's because they're badly organized and not because the people in them are stupid. Which is why building Gothic cathedrals took much longer than building pyramids.

That, and the fact that on a skill level rather than a mass-of-people level building Gothic architecture IS harder. You need far more knowledge of material strength, angles, shifting energy etc etc. We have to remember that the Egyptians was extremely smart, but they never figured out how to build the basic arch in stone. Which is an extreme disadvantage when you try large-scale architecture (the great halls in Egyptian temples are so full of several-foot width pillars that they are more like mazes than halls. I don't know the actual air-to pillar ratio but it feels like almost 50-50(!) and that is needed to keep the flat stone roof from crushing you.

But yes, that is the basic question you should ask yourself. And please don't come up with the answer "It is obvious that it all was done by aliens!"


As in:
"Look at those Greeks! See how smart they are, how refined their philosophy is, how great their libraries and schools are? And how they managed to conquer so much of the known world under Alexander the Great?

Yeah. We totally stomped all over those guys."

"Look at those Gauls! See how tough they are, how they live at one with the natural world and aren't all cityfied like us?

Yeah. We stomped them too. Aren't we awesome?"

Does that capture the basic idea?

More or less. Plus the fact that "While we're at it, we'll pillage as much knowledge and philosophy as we can from these sheet-wearing guys. Including their fashion sense, their gods(!), their basic architecture and well anything else we can get out hands on. Not because they were intellectually superior to us but because... um... this interview is over!"

[Swordguy]

I am intriuged by these perspectives, and wish to dedicate a specific thread to its discussion. What's the best place for that?

Media Discussions, probably. I'm fine with keeping it here, though, because this thread won't attract rampant fanboyism the way a Star Wars thread in media Discussions will.

[Gorbash]

How do you carry a flail (except in your hands) without it constantly bumping into you?

[KnightDisciple]

Media Discussions, probably. I'm fine with keeping it here, though, because this thread won't attract rampant fanboyism the way a Star Wars thread in media Discussions will.

Point. And my general line of questioning does relate to interaction with real-life fighting.

Now, here's my first question:
Which of the 7 major stated styles would, in general, work in a world without the Force, but with lightsabers?

Attached to that, which of them do you believe work in a world with the Force and with lightsabers?

Let's assume any character is human, though Yoda can be taken into account, due to being seen fighting in 2 movies.

[Swordguy]

Point. And my general line of questioning does relate to interaction with real-life fighting.

Now, here's my first question:
Which of the 7 major stated styles would, in general, work in a world without the Force, but with lightsabers?

Attached to that, which of them do you believe work in a world with the Force and with lightsabers?

Let's assume any character is human, though Yoda can be taken into account, due to being seen fighting in 2 movies.

:smalleek:

...

Do you have any idea how epic a project that is? A complete combat analysis of seven fighting styles, most of which we see for only a few seconds in the background of a movie (or, in the case of Form VII - isn't even a style, but a "state of mind")?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. But maybe you should nominate 1 style at a time (with relevant info posted) and we'll analyze it to death, before moving to the next one.

[KnightDisciple]

:smalleek:

...

Do you have any idea how epic a project that is? A complete combat analysis of seven fighting styles, most of which we see for only a few seconds in the background of a movie (or, in the case of Form VII - isn't even a style, but a "state of mind")?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. But maybe you should nominate 1 style at a time (with relevant info posted) and we'll analyze it to death, before moving to the next one.

You're right, sorry. I've been up all night at work, so I may not be thinking clearly. I'll nominate a style in a bit.

[KnightDisciple]

:smalleek:

...

Do you have any idea how epic a project that is? A complete combat analysis of seven fighting styles, most of which we see for only a few seconds in the background of a movie (or, in the case of Form VII - isn't even a style, but a "state of mind")?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. But maybe you should nominate 1 style at a time (with relevant info posted) and we'll analyze it to death, before moving to the next one.

Here we go, the one we've already discussed some: Form IV: Ataru, the Way of the Hawk-Bat (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Form_IV:_Ataru), claimed to be the style used by both Qui-Gon Jinn, and Yoda.
It sounds like a style that tries to maximize the advantages granted by the Force, as well as going off the old adage of "location, location, location".

[Dervag]

:smalleek:

...

Do you have any idea how epic a project that is? A complete combat analysis of seven fighting styles, most of which we see for only a few seconds in the background of a movie (or, in the case of Form VII - isn't even a style, but a "state of mind")?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. But maybe you should nominate 1 style at a time (with relevant info posted) and we'll analyze it to death, before moving to the next one.I nominate Form III, the 'defensive' one that Obi-Wan uses in Episodes II and III. It is based on maintaining a very strong defense and on parry-riposte tactics.

For a guy who can use the Force to see attacks coming, it works. In real life you couldn't use it to block blaster attacks or to cope with a guy like General Grievous who can throw a dozen strikes a second at you. But it would still, unless I am mistaken, be a good strategy for real life sword fights- stay calm, focus on maintaining a good defense, conserve your strength, and wait for an opening.

[The Rose Dragon]

Is there a place where I can learn the theoretical basics of knife-fighting online? Google didn't help because I'm not good at using limiters.

[Gorbash]

@Star Wars Guys

Can you please open a discussion about this elsewhere? This thread's name is Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question... Your discussion is drowning my question. :smalleek:

[Mando Knight]

Is there a place where I can learn the theoretical basics of knife-fighting online? Google didn't help because I'm not good at using limiters.

Knife Fighting Basics: Rule One: Don't get into a knife fight.

[Tsotha-lanti]

How do you carry a flail (except in your hands) without it constantly bumping into you?

I'd imagine you tie it with a strap and/or wrap the chain around the haft.


Is there a place where I can learn the theoretical basics of knife-fighting online? Google didn't help because I'm not good at using limiters.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html

Good start - dispelling all the illusions people tend to have and knife "defense" instructors tend to teach.

Not sure if that's the same great site I read a year or two ago - the look is different, but the material is similar.


Knife Fighting Basics: Rule One: Don't get into a knife fight.

This isn't even a joke. Obviously the first rule of any self-defense is "don't get into a fight", but with knives, it's even more critical. Odds are pretty great you'll both die or be seriously injured (since stab-wounds don't tend to drop a person very quickly at all; you tend to die of bleeding). If you win, you go to jail. Not a good deal.

[The Rose Dragon]

Strangely, my first idea on the basics was: "If you're getting into a fight with a knife, you're doing something wrong". So good thing I'm not completely wrong.

EDIT: However, this is not for self-defense against muggers, this is for a military setting, where knife-fighting is only a last resort but is the first thing to be taught during boot camp.

[Norsesmithy]

If the first rule of a Knife Fight is don't get into a knife fight, the second rule is bring a gun.

Even a skilled martial artist will get cut by an amateur in a knife fight, and every cut and stab has the potential to maim you permanently. Assuming you are within a few minutes of basic first aid, and a day or two of proper sterile medical care, most participants in any given knife fight will not die, but not dieing won't regenerate the tendons and nerves that may be severed by a simple little strike to the hand or forearm.

Another thing to remember is while a deep stab is far more likely to kill your opponent than a shallow cut, a bloody, painful, and visually very large otherwise shallow cut is much more likely to convince your opponent that maybe this isn't very fun or even convince him that he has been killed (and as Jeff Cooper once wrote, "It isn't enough to know you killed your opponent, you must convince him of the fact as well."). Even if your foe lives, if you make him think he is dieing, that is usually just as good.

Nevertheless, I think that for your needs, the book on knife fighting written by Col. Fairbairn is probably your best bet. It can be found here (http://www.tsroadmap.com/early/tough.pdf) (Warning, Opens a PDF File).

Fairbairn taught a knife fighting and Close Quarters Combat class to the British Commandos during WWII, and both the American Marine Corps and the American Airborne Infantry incorporated many of his ideas into their close quarters fighting doctrine.

Fairbairn also designed several very effective knifes.

Edit, I notice that the version I linked omits the very helpful illustrations of his actual manual, and a fair number of other pages. Disappointing. I have a complete copy on my computer, but that was part of a torrent that took me the better part of a week and a half to download, so I guess I am of limited help here.
Edit, Fixed.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Strangely, my first idea on the basics was: "If you're getting into a fight with a knife, you're doing something wrong". So good thing I'm not completely wrong.

EDIT: However, this is not for self-defense against muggers, this is for a military setting, where knife-fighting is only a last resort but is the first thing to be taught during boot camp.

There's resources all over the place.

http://www.hockscqc.com/knife/index.htm

Nice pictures that illustrate why you never want to fight with knives.

I also recall an excellent Something Awful thread (titled something like "Ask/Tell - What's it like to kill a man?") by a US marine who served in Afghanistan and killed at least one man with a knife, but unless you're a paid member and can search old threads or archives, you're probably out of luck there. The thread did kinda show that if you are already in a life/death situation (like, say, combat), a knife can be a terrifyingly efficient weapon and you can get away without a scratch, but it also takes a frightful level of ruthlessness to use it (you have to disarm/block your opponent's knife arm, press close, and literally stab up into their chest several dozen times, not stopping until they actually go limp). It's basically a standing takedown with a lot of stabbing.

Anecdotal, though, so it's not worth a whole lot as sources go.

Incidentally, note that the infamous "prison rush" stabbing is an almost identical tactic - you press into the target, preferrably pinning them against something or toppling them over, and stick a knife into their belly or up into their chest dozens of times. (Of course, in this case, your opponent probably isn't armed.)

It's pretty terrifying stuff all over.


You need a huge advantage in skill and training to get away unscathed in a knife fight - the marine mentioned had been practicing with knives since his teens or something. In a bare-hands fight, you have more "chances" - a single mistake will get you hurt, bruised, maybe bloodied, but not cut or stabbed - cuts can disable you immediately (a cut across the arm can easily sever muscles and nerves), and stabs can kill you now or later (anything from seconds to days). In a knife-fight, you can't make any mistakes. Imagine how much better you need to be at boxing and wrestling to beat someone without being hit even once.

Edit:
This is a picture of a winner of a knife fight (WARNING: incredibly gruesome injury):
http://www.hockscqc.com/knife/knifeslashnew.gif

[Dervag]

Ouch.

What happened? I'm having trouble figuring out precisely what that injury is. Lung?

[Mike_G]

Ouch.

What happened? I'm having trouble figuring out precisely what that injury is. Lung?

That looks like intestines inside the mesentary, the membrane that holds them together. A human being has a lot of mass of guts, and holding them in is part of the job of your abs. I imaging he got cut deep enough to open the abdominal muscles, and let the bag o' guts spill out.

It's like slashing open the hard plastic of a trash barrel full of raw sausage filling, but not the plastic bag inside the barrel.

"Dude, I can totally see your colon!"

Yeah" *cough* "but you should see the other guy!" *gasp*

I've seen a few eviscerations, but this is a pretty nasty looking one.

[The Rose Dragon]

Besides, I don't think lungs can go that down.

Now, if you said liver...

[Mike_G]

Besides, I don't think lungs can go that down.

Now, if you said liver...

Wrong side for liver.

Unless that's a really deep cut.

[The Rose Dragon]

Well, it looks like the intestines anyway.

I once had my intestines hanging out like that. Not pretty.

[Mike_G]

Well, it looks like the intestines anyway.

I once had my intestines hanging out like that. Not pretty.

Ouch.

Glad to see you got better.

[Dervag]

Thanks for the analysis.

I wouldn't have figured it on my own. I guess I overestimated how far up the cut was.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Ouch.

What happened? I'm having trouble figuring out precisely what that injury is. Lung?

Stomach cut open, intestines coming out. The site has the story - the intestines (or the intestinal sac or whatever) kept pushing out more and more during and after the fight, until he looked like that in the hospital.

[Matthew]

There was a question about flails earlier. Answering it, I think, depended on the type of flail in question, and what constitutes "bumping".

Okay, here's an additional fun discussion point: Using a single handed sword with two hands. Most single handed medieval swords are designed for use in combination with a shield, but there is literary and visual evidence for occasional two handed use.

Hurstwic, which hosts an interesting article on reconstructing viking age sword and shield combat (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_technique.htm) mentions in passing in their sword article (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword.htm) that the sagas describe heroes sometimes grasping their swords with two hands, but comments that it is "not clear how a sword with a grip this short could be effectively wielded with two hands."

There are certainly medieval manuscript illustrations that depict the same thing:

http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ebind/docs/cpg848/cpg848638.jpg

http://racer.kb.nl/pregvn/MIMI/MIMI_KA20/MIMI_KA20_213V_MIN_A-C.JPG

...and others that show the benefit of having a "free hand" in melee combat.

This question has recently come up at Dragonsfoot: Broad Swords (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=32581&start=15) and a while ago at Troll Lord Games: Romans, Normans, and Saxons (http://www.freeyabb.com/trolllordgames/viewtopic.php?t=5503&start=15&mforum=trolllordgames).

So, the principal question can be phrased: "Is there any benefit in having a "free hand" whilst using a single handed sword without a shield, or is a combatant better off using only the one hand?"

My feeling is that it is a matter of flexibility, but I thought I would solicit more opinions!

[Norsesmithy]

I have played a bit with a Viking style sword with a lobed pommel, and I found it no hinder in gripping the sword with both hands. You hold the pommel itself, instead of the grip proper, and I suppose a man with narrower hands may be able to get both hands on the grip. Even without gloves, it wasn't painful or awkward, even when test cutting, or striking a pol.

It is all about options. I think that against a single opponent, the power and speed advantages I seem to get by using both hands is an advantage I would not weigh lightly, and when you are tired from extended swordplay, switching to both hands can keep you competent longer than not. However, I would not want to preclude myself from carrying a shield as well, as it is an absolute life saver in multiple combat and against missiles.

[Fhaolan]

I'll discuss two questions in this, so bear with me.

Carrying a flail around town without the head bumping into you:

Unfortunately the real answer is that flails fall under the same category as poleweapons, spears, two-handed axes, etc. You carry these weapons in your hand, and in many cases over your shoulder. If they are not in your hand, they're wrapped up in cloth, in a box, or on a cart. There are many modern attempts at making holsters for things like this, but they're all fantasy piffle. :)

Single Handed Swords with no secondary (shield or other):

Like many melee combat questions, it really depends a lot on the opponent. When I was doing single-sword, the free hand came into play quite often. Two-handing for strength, switching hands freely (some opponents get confused by left-handed fighters, so being able to switch back and forth can give an advantage), and being able to grab things.

I think I need to explain that last one a bit more. Inexperienced fighters will focus on the weapons. In the classes I took this was called 'Fighting the Weapon, not the Opponent.' You can actually draw the opponents attention away from you by moving your sword away, because their eyes follow the sword. After all, that's the dangerous bit, right? No, actually. Weapons are not really that dangerous. A sword lying on the ground is quite safe, comparitively. It only becomes dangerous when someone picks it up. Because the person is dangerous, not the weapon. As I said, inexperienced fighters fall into this trap fairly easily. Once their attention is on my sword, a foot or two to the right (or left), my other hand is free to go inside of their reach and do stuff. I've been able to punch opponents, actually grab their own weapon away from them, or at least make them struggle to retain control over it, shove them around, etc. Then their attention switches back to my free hand, and my weapon can come around and....

All because they were watching my hands/weapons, not me.

[Dervag]

Like many melee combat questions, it really depends a lot on the opponent. When I was doing single-sword, the free hand came into play quite often. Two-handing for strength, switching hands freely (some opponents get confused by left-handed fighters, so being able to switch back and forth can give an advantage),"...then why are you smiling?"

[Thiel]

I was going to include the V2, but development started before the war, so I excluded it as a pre-existing concept. As for cruise missiles, the British Navy was developing them in the 1920's I believe, but never pursued the concept beyond the experimental stage.

There`s also the Ruhrstahl X-4 wire-guided air-to-air missile and the x-èRotkäppchen (Little Red Ridinghood) wire-guided anti-tank missile.

[Matthew]

Thanks for your thoughts on the "one handed sword used two handed", folks; pretty much what I had surmised, but always nice to have things reaffirmed.

Have we got some pictures of "flails"? I think the length of the chain and "mace" style would probably be of significance.

http://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_aa_gfla.jpghttp://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_aa_sfla.jpghttp://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_mrl_flail.jpg

[Crow]

I have played a bit with a Viking style sword with a lobed pommel, and I found it no hinder in gripping the sword with both hands. You hold the pommel itself, instead of the grip proper, and I suppose a man with narrower hands may be able to get both hands on the grip. Even without gloves, it wasn't painful or awkward, even when test cutting, or striking a pol.

It is all about options. I think that against a single opponent, the power and speed advantages I seem to get by using both hands is an advantage I would not weigh lightly, and when you are tired from extended swordplay, switching to both hands can keep you competent longer than not. However, I would not want to preclude myself from carrying a shield as well, as it is an absolute life saver in multiple combat and against missiles.

Actually, you can wrap one hand around the other, similar to how you grip a dumbell in both hands for a dumbell swing.

[Beleriphon]

Vehicle question time!

Okay, so we got into an discussion about small arms fire and spaceships for Star Wars, and somebody thought to compare smalls arms fire and similarly sized sea vehicles in WW2 (the closest example anybody could think of, and a fair one I feel), but I'll be damned if I could find anything about the armour plating on small combat vessels during the WW2. The best I could come up with is that a boat like the Motor Torpedo Boat (PT-109, many Americans should know what this one is, and any other WW2 history buffs) had an armoured deck that was enough to stop rifle rounds and shrapnel/splinters (presumably from other exploding small combat boats) and a 2-inch wooden hull.

So for those in the know, what type of armour would a combat boat from WW2 be mounting, and how resistent would it be to small arms fire? Say up to 30.06 size rifle rounds (which as I understand are quite large and powerful) or larger if they were.

Same questions for aircraft as well if you happen to know.

[Dervag]

Aircraft were generally not armored. However, the all-metal construction of a typical WWII aircraft made them tough to kill with rifle-caliber weapons. Putting a rifle-sized bullet such as a .30-06 rifle round through an aluminum aircraft skin will work sometimes, but a lot of your bullets will ricochet (especially if you aren't getting the bullets to hit perpendicular to the surface of the plane).

Some WWII aircraft were much more vulnerable to battle damage than others, depending on how lightly built they were and how much damage control they had. Self-sealing fuel tanks helped a LOT, because many planes were destroyed by explosions or damaged by fires in their fuel system.

Larger, more powerful bullets such as those fired by the American .50 caliber machine gun would penetrate aircraft bodies very reliably. Even then, you couldn't destroy the plane unless you either
-Smashed something critical like the engines (there are a lot of places on a plane a bullet can pass through without hurting anything).
-Shot so many holes in one part of the plane that the metal body literally tore to pieces because it lost its structural strength.

That could take a lot of bullets. So the preferred weapon was a 20mm or 30mm autocannon firing small exploding shells.

Here's an eyewitness account of the toughness of the American F4F Wildcat fighter (inferior to the Japanese Zero in flight characteristics, but much harder to destroy), by the great Japanese fighter ace Saburo Sakai:

"I had full confidence in my ability to destroy the Grumman and decided to finish off the enemy fighter with only my 7.7 mm machine guns. I turned the 20 mm cannon switch to the 'off' position, and closed in. For some strange reason, even after I had poured about five or six hundred rounds of ammunition directly into the Grumman, the airplane did not fall, but kept on flying. I thought this very odd - it had never happened before – and closed the distance between the two airplanes until I could almost reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the Grumman's rudder and tail were torn to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag. With his plane in such condition, no wonder the pilot was unable to continue fighting! A Zero which had taken that many bullets would have been a ball of fire by now."
_______________

It happened.

[Philistine]

As far as I know - which admittedly isn't all that far - PT boats weren't armored at all. The decks had to be strong enough to support the weight of (usually) 4 torpedos and a handful of .50 MGs; and the hulls had to be strong enough to stand up to open ocean weather. Beyond that? They were wood, not steel, and nobody ever expected them to "take a lickin' and keep on tickin'." So while small arms fire would eventually wreck a PT boat, one long burst from a heavy machine gun might literally rip the same boat in half; or a couple of rounds of 20mm could ruin the crew's whole day.

BTW, I don't think the analogy quite holds up in a setting with recharging energy shields, such as Star Wars. In that setting, you're simply going to have to employ firepower on at least the same scale as the shielding you're trying to punch through. Otherwise all you're doing is running up the FX budget.

[Beleriphon]

As far as I know - which admittedly isn't all that far - PT boats weren't armored at all. The decks had to be strong enough to support the weight of (usually) 4 torpedos and a handful of .50 MGs; and the hulls had to be strong enough to stand up to open ocean weather. Beyond that? They were wood, not steel, and nobody ever expected them to "take a lickin' and keep on tickin'." So while small arms fire would eventually wreck a PT boat, one long burst from a heavy machine gun might literally rip the same boat in half; or a couple of rounds of 20mm could ruin the crew's whole day.

So sufficient amounts of smalls arms fire could damage a small PT style boat? We were discussing and already damage ship and the viablity of firing smalls at it.

It think the big advantage that you have with an airplane is they don't usually sit still very long. I'm sure with a heavy machine gun I could wreck a plane beyond usability in under a minute. Provided it were just sitting the on the tarmac.

Lets change topics a bit, to helicopters. I think those might be a little close to what we're talking about since they tend to fly low and loiter, or even land to disembark troops, or rather pick them up.

[Philistine]

So sufficient amounts of smalls arms fire could damage a small PT style boat? We were discussing and already damage ship and the viablity of firing smalls at it.

"Damage" would happen immediately, although it almost certainly wouldn't be significant at first. (Barring Golden BBs, of course.) "Damage sufficient to impair the boat's ability to perform its mission" would happen, too... eventually. That's a key word, there. It's made of wood, so if you keep hitting it with fast-moving metal objects, it will eventually break. On the other hand, it's still a large, heavy object (in US service, PT boats ran anywhere from 70 to 80 feet long, and 40+ tons), so unless you get a lucky hit on an armed torpedo or something, you're probably going to be there a while working at it. Keep in mind, too, that a .50 caliber HMG is quite a lot more powerful than a .30 caliber LMG, much less personal weapons. And I'm still not sure how well all this translates to the SW setting, with energy weapons and shields.


It think the big advantage that you have with an airplane is they don't usually sit still very long. I'm sure with a heavy machine gun I could wreck a plane beyond usability in under a minute. Provided it were just sitting the on the tarmac.

On the first: yes, that's exactly correct, and in fact it's one of the big factors in the ever-increasing weight of fighter armament during WW2. Since targets were typically only going to be in your sights for a split-second, it was found useful to hit as hard as possible in a very short time.

And, under a minute? Well, yeah. I'm pretty sure most aircraft could be rendered unflyable by one second's worth of HMG fire, assuming the gunner can freely position himself and the gun for maximum effect. How many .50 rounds does it take to ruin a jet engine? This doesn't mean the target aircraft couldn't be made flyable again later, but you could certainly force them to use up some spare parts.


Lets change topics a bit, to helicopters. I think those might be a little close to what we're talking about since they tend to fly low and loiter, or even land to disembark troops, or rather pick them up.

Well, it's true that you often hear that this helicopter or that one is "protected against fire" from X or Y caliber weapons. As I understand it, this doesn't mean that weapons of X or Y size or smaller cannot harm the helicopter, but it does typically mean that the helicopter can absorb a few rounds, even a few short bursts, to the protected area before becoming unable to perform its mission. Of course, it's going to take a lot of small arms fire to punch through armor that's rated against 20mm cannon.

The big problem with helicopters is that the rotor (and the transmission linkage to the tail rotor, when applicable) represents a target area where minor damage can be catastrophic, but which cannot be armored or protected much at all. And once again, I'm not sure that anything in the SW setting compares directly to this.


Side note: I halfway thought/hoped/feared Dervag's post there was going to light off the classic F4F vs A6M discussion. Probably just as well if that doesn't happen.

[Norsesmithy]

Side note: I halfway thought/hoped/feared Dervag's post there was going to light off the classic F4F vs A6M discussion. Probably just as well if that doesn't happen.
I don't see why it shouldn't.

The F4F was the superior fighter, because its better roll rate allowed it to transition from one maneuver to the next fast enough to limit the usefulness of the Zero's superior turning radius, it was also much faster in a dive, could sustain speeds that would tear off a Zero's wings, the 6 12.7mm machine guns were more effective than the Zero's two 7.7mm and two 20mm guns (against most targets lighter than ships, but even then, light merchant men, and unarmored combatants were still taken by the American Browning Machine Guns), had much superior crew protection, and better service ceiling.

The claim of superiority is supported by the fact that from the onset of the war, F4F units achieved kill parity or better, despite the fact that they were heavily outnumbered green fighters facing combat veterans.

Sure the Zero was better at parallel parking, but its fearsome reputation is mostly hyperbole, caused by the American fetish for claiming that our boys triumphed despite the fact the other guy had better stuff, because we are intrinsically smarter and more capable than the Germans or Japanese or what have you.

I know that given a choice, I would take the F4F seat over the Zero's any day.

Next we should do P-40 vs ME-109.

[Dervag]

Of course, you'd be taking a Wildcat over a Zero knowing what to expect from the Zero. This is an advantage not to be despised, and one that exists independently of pilot experience.


"Damage" would happen immediately, although it almost certainly wouldn't be significant at first. (Barring Golden BBs, of course.) "Damage sufficient to impair the boat's ability to perform its mission" would happen, too... eventually. That's a key word, there. It's made of wood, so if you keep hitting it with fast-moving metal objects, it will eventually break. On the other hand, it's still a large, heavy object (in US service, PT boats ran anywhere from 70 to 80 feet long, and 40+ tons), so unless you get a lucky hit on an armed torpedo or something, you're probably going to be there a while working at it. Keep in mind, too, that a .50 caliber HMG is quite a lot more powerful than a .30 caliber LMG, much less personal weapons. And I'm still not sure how well all this translates to the SW setting, with energy weapons and shields.Well... We know that during the battle of Hoth, when the stormtroopers break into the Rebel base, the Millenium Falcon is taking off. As Darth Vader comes into the hangar, you see a team of stormtroopers setting up some kind of tripod-mounted heavy blaster. Based on its size, it's probably logistically equivalent to a high-caliber heavy machine gun. And they clearly expected this weapon to be able to cause significant damage to the Falcon, probably enough to keep it from flying away.
________


The big problem with helicopters is that the rotor (and the transmission linkage to the tail rotor, when applicable) represents a target area where minor damage can be catastrophic, but which cannot be armored or protected much at all. And once again, I'm not sure that anything in the SW setting compares directly to this.Yeah. Helicopters have serious problems against dispersed AA defenses, because it's practically impossible to build a flying vehicle tough enough not to get holed by .50 caliber-level fire. If the enemy scatters enough weapons capable of engaging the chopper through the area it's flying over, it's likely to get chewed up. The US Army had some problems with that when it tried to stage large-scale helicopter attacks in Iraq, as I recall. I just wish I could remember any names and places.

[Norsesmithy]

Of course, you'd be taking a Wildcat over a Zero knowing what to expect from the Zero. This is an advantage not to be despised, and one that exists independently of pilot experience.

To be fair, it also means you are NOT picking the Zero, knowing what to expect from the Wildcat.

The Zero set some truly important benchmarks, as far as fighters go, but, despite the fact that (in 1942, at least) the Japanese Navy and Japanese Army had the most intensive training regimen AND the most practical combat experience of any fighter force in the theater, they still did not achieve parity with either the P-40 or the F4F, both of which are unfairly maligned, while the A6M is lauded as a masterwork.

The A6M is a superior bird when compared to the Brewster Buffalo and Polikarpov I-16, but it failed to produce results against the F4F, despite numerical superiority and the experience and excellence of Japan's pilots.

[Philistine]

A lot of stuff I mostly agree with.

To be fair, the A6M had a few more advantages than that: acceleration, climb, and level speed; the Wildcat's advantage in roll rate came at higher speeds, where the Zero's stick forces went through the roof; and the Wildcat's advantage in dive speed doesn't help it if the fight starts out at low altitude. The A6M also had really exceptional range for a single-engined aircraft and is generally described as very pleasant to fly. I really think the Zero was a better airplane than the F4F. I agree that as a weapon, though, the A6M was distinctly inferior to the F4F, which was close enough to the Zero in performance to give its own advantages a chance to come into play.

Still, there are people who claim that the A6M was the best fighter of WW2. Full stop. At least one is a professor of History.

As for the pilots... I think too much is sometimes made of Japanese experience in China. It was a remarkably benign threat environment, and as a result many of the "lessons learned" there turned out to be simply wrong when Japan went up against more capable opposition. IMO, the one actual benefit gained was the real but difficult-to-quantify one of "blooding" Japanese aircrews. Pre-war USN fighter pilots, for their part, were as well-prepared as those of any pre-war air service. They'd paid attention to RAF reports of the air battles over France and Britain, and took to heart the lessons of that confict; they also read Chennault's report of a new Japanese super-fighter over China, and worked at devising new tactics to deal with a superior opponent.

I also think the F2A was better, at least a little bit, than its reputation in the West would suggest. Its service in the Pacific was disastrous, but I think a lot of that comes down to less-skilled pilots and (especially) less-favorable circumstances. On paper, it should have been roughly equal to the F4F; and the Finns certainly got excellent results from the few dozen examples they received.

As for P-40 vs Bf109 - in which theater?

EDIT: Heh, this discussion isn't always as civil as it has been here. Other times and other places, it's been a real can of worms.


Well... We know that during the battle of Hoth, when the stormtroopers break into the Rebel base, the Millenium Falcon is taking off. As Darth Vader comes into the hangar, you see a team of stormtroopers setting up some kind of tripod-mounted heavy blaster. Based on its size, it's probably logistically equivalent to a high-caliber heavy machine gun. And they clearly expected this weapon to be able to cause significant damage to the Falcon, probably enough to keep it from flying away.

Back to the original question! I didnt think about Hoth, but that's an excellent example. Yes, the stormtroopers seem to have waited for a crew-served weapon to be brought forward, rather than trying to crack the Falcon with small-arms fire.

[Dervag]

Still, there are people who claim that the A6M was the best fighter of WW2. Full stop. At least one is a professor of History.Clearly the Japanese disagreed with those people, as demonstrated by the existence of the A7M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A7M).


Back to the original question! I didnt think about Hoth, but that's an excellent example. Yes, the stormtroopers seem to have waited for a crew-served weapon to be brought forward, rather than trying to crack the Falcon with small-arms fire.Keeping in mind that at least some Star Wars blasters are very powerful, capable of gouging large craters in masonry walls (Han Solo's misses do this when he's trading fire with stormtroopers in Mos Eisley spaceport).

Come to think of it, though, it would not be out of character for Han Solo to carry the blaster equivalent of a pistol chambered in .50 BMG, if such a thing existed. After all, the most probable kind of gunfight for him is a high-intensity, short-duration one fought at close range. In that situation, the stopping power of a heavy blaster is needed, but so is the concealability of a handgun. Something that can blast holes in brick walls will speak with enough authority to put down an assassin droid or an armored trooper.

[MeklorIlavator]

The EU/Star Wars roleplaying game bears you out on this, as Han's pistol belongs to the group known as heavy blaster pistols. They use up alot of charges per shot but do a ton of damage.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Does anybody know what the Field of the Cloth of Gold was?


If yea, then do you have any accounts (in a format that could be shown to me for reading) of the wrestling match between Kings Henry VIII and Francis I? I've heard that...

Francis wins

But I really want to see a blow-by-blow of this. It doesn't have to be true, even.

[Matthew]

As far as I am aware the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_the_Cloth_of_Gold) is fairly accurate. There is apparently a french account of the wrestling match, but I am not familiar with it.

[Deadmeat.GW]

The Zero was not really that much better due to the relative fragility of the design.

It had effective heavier weaponry but...was in comparison a lot more fragile so the American designs with 6 medium machineguns effectively were far more effective.

2 light machineguns and 2 light cannons on a similar target did more damage then 6 medium machineguns.

However the Zero was a lot more fragile then the American designs.
They were trying to correct the issue by getting some German designs.

[Mando Knight]

The big problem with helicopters is that the rotor (and the transmission linkage to the tail rotor, when applicable) represents a target area where minor damage can be catastrophic, but which cannot be armored or protected much at all. And once again, I'm not sure that anything in the SW setting compares directly to this.

I'm not sure if there's an analog vulnerability to the rotor... but the Republic LAAT/i (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Low_Altitude_Assault_Transport/infantry) serves pretty much the same role as an assault helicopter...

[Philistine]

The Zero was not really that much better due to the relative fragility of the design.

I think the prevailing view so far has been that the A6M was not a better fighter than the F4F. Largely because of the Zero's vulnerability to fire, but there are other considerations as well. One thing we haven't even mentioned yet is that F4Fs flew with radios, an item Zeros often went into combat without. This limited their communication to hand signals, which drastically restricted their tactical flexibility.


It had effective heavier weaponry but...was in comparison a lot more fragile so the American designs with 6 medium machineguns effectively were far more effective.

2 light machineguns and 2 light cannons on a similar target did more damage then 6 medium machineguns.

It's a little more complicated than that. The A6M, especially the early-war A6M2, carried very little ammunition for the 20mm cannon - only 60 rounds per gun for the A6M2. This limited the Zero's endurance in combat, as the two 7.7mm popguns in the nose just weren't enough to reliably bring down enemy aircraft once the cannon shells ran out. This limitation proved significant at Midway, for example, where the need to keep cycling the CAP - for ammunition, not for fuel - tied up Japanese flight decks during a critical period; and may also have contributed to Torpedo 6 from Enterprise not having been destroyed quite as thoroughly as Torpedo 8 from Hornet, who attacked immediately before them (and therefore soaked up the bulk of the CAP fighters' 20mm loads).

This issue was aggravated by the low muzzle velocity of the Japanese 20mm cannon. The idea seems to have been that A6M pilots would use the 7.7mm MGs as an aiming device for the cannon, cutting in the cannon only when it counted. Unfortunately, the very different ballistic properties of the 7.7mm MG and the 20mm cannon made this impractical. All things considered, the effective firepower of the A6M was a bit less than one might otherwise suppose. The Browning .50 M2, on the other hand, could keep up a reasonably good rate of fire while shooting a reasonably heavy projectile at a reasonably high muzzle velocity, all with reasonably good reliability and very good accuracy. I don't think the F4F gives anything away to the A6M in this category.


However the Zero was a lot more fragile then the American designs.
They were trying to correct the issue by getting some German designs.

The Japanese were trying a lot of things, yes, including looking at German designs. Their interest was more in German engines than airframes, though, because powerplant technology was where the Japanese were really behind. The Zero was as fragile as it was because there was no other way to get the performance the Navy required with the power available. Unfortunately for Japan, the more powerful engine designs they produced later all had severe reliability issues (more a matter of their industries not having the tooling to achieve the required tolerances than through any fault of the designers). The Army's Hien (TONY) is perhaps the best example - the aircraft was designed around a license-built German DB601, an engine already proven successful over Europe. But Japanese factories had difficulty building it - production was slow, and the finished products unreliable - and so the woefully inadequate Hayabusa (OSCAR) was forced to soldier on long after it should have been relegated to training roles, because the projected replacement types simply couldn't be obtained.

[Norsesmithy]

The Zero was not really that much better due to the relative fragility of the design.

It had effective heavier weaponry but...was in comparison a lot more fragile so the American designs with 6 medium machineguns effectively were far more effective.

2 light machineguns and 2 light cannons on a similar target did more damage then 6 medium machineguns.

However the Zero was a lot more fragile then the American designs.
They were trying to correct the issue by getting some German designs.

In addition to the low number of cannon rounds stored, as mentioned by Philistine, the simple truth is that one 20mm or 30mm cannon is not the equivalent in firepower to two .50 caliber Browning Machine guns. The solid shot from a browning will do more damage against structural members and armor plate than the explosive shell of a 20 mm, the .50 is flatter shooting, and the rate of fire is much superior.


As for P-40 vs Bf109 - in which theater?I am in a whimsical mood, lets say Mesopotamian theater, July 1941.

I am led to understand that there were a few pitched air battles, and that the Warhawks (all early models) cleaned shop in the Air Superiority roll, against 109s and 110s.